Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ganyana on Rifle Power

I read this in Fair Chase magazine this evening.

"When someone boasts of killing from afar, I'm tempted to console him: "Cheer up; you'll get closer next time." '
-Wayne van Zwoll

Now that's a signature line...

I don't know him either. Maybe he could be both a hunter and a rifleman?

Been wondering who this Don Heath fella is for awhile now...

Link to a different article by Heath:

Rifle Lessons Learned from the Zimbabwe Professional Hunter Proficiency Exam

Not if he can not reliably make a 400yd shot in good conditions.

Just the way it is.

As much as I get annoyed by the attacks on long range stuff around here this is just as ignorant.

There are different sorts of hunting, rifles, and bullets one needs to be an expert in different places.

Similarly there are different styles/methods of hunting one can engage in... Some near opposites, even in identical areas for identical species, and all may be called "authorities".

That is to say, you're just as ridiculous sounding calling this guy's credentials into question because he doesn't agree with you on this as others here are for doing the same thing to you.



Thanks Jordan that is exactly what I was getting at.

Trying as I did illustrated the difficulty of wring three points that are truly universal like that. So many qualifiers...

I'd say that from what I've seen of the average hunter he did a good job.

Where did he say that? The piece wasn't written for him; he wrote it for others. If you think his generalizations untrue generally then you haven't been around average hunters much.

"Not if he can not reliably make a 400yd shot in good conditions.

Just the way it is. shocked"

This may come as a shock, but some folks have no interest in making 400yd shots(even if they can), as they prefer having excellent hunting/stalking skills, as opposed to simply being a good shot. This however, does not mean they aren't also a good shot. They've just made a choice to, and enjoy, getting in close, before shooting.

Just the way it is.

Jeff

This has gotten way out of hand- but at least we aren't calling him names yet.

Wait a bit...

A little defensiveness showing, John?

While I haven't exactly adhered to the good advice in the brief quotation in every respect, I surely understand the whys and wherefores and can appreciate them. It seems #2 is the biggest stumbling block for those who take issue with the fellow's opinions. I suspect most people who have taken shots at longer distances on game animals know quite well, even if they don't like to admit it publicly, that there have been instances where things have, or could have, gone badly very easily. Second shot challenges are not simplified as distances are extended. As advice goes, it's really pretty hard to fault I think.

The Heath article linked to above, was blunt and brutal. While the rigors of American hunting are not as "tough" as Africa, one wonders if there is anything out there that is suitable for the dark continent. Everything he wrote referenced back to older models or newer ones tuned properly by talented gunsmiths.
Very interesting read.

As with most generalizations, this one has lots of room for error.

So there were no riflemen before long range became all the rage?

I thought Denis' post was great and well thought out. I'm in agreement with both of you guys. Of course, I grew up not too far away (northern Nevada) from you and learned/practiced shooting longrange from an early age. Every ethical hunter should know where to draw the line as far as range limitations are concerned. To say it's "unethical" to shoot past 350 yards, is plain and simple BS...

I have read Ross's articles since the 80's and I never saw a contradiction, rather I saw a change as bullets changed over the course of time. I believe he stated "I have to rethink my position"

:::SIGH:::

JB, How's this?



I concur

I am a huge 270 fan and have never ever thought the 270 was lacking for plains game. I guess I read too many JOC stories and have seen too much game properly put in the freezer with it.

I (personally) am not a fan of long range hunting. I challenge myself to get close. That is what I prefer, some prefer to challenge themselves with their equipment and stretch the limits. I also think that there is a unspoken downside of LR hunting that results in unrecovered and wounded animals.

I learned early on circa 1982, that magnumitis is not good. When a gentleman carrying a 7mm Rem Mag scoffed at our 270's and proceeded to wound deer, while our tags slowly got punched.
Was it the cartridges fault? not per say, but the perception of instant death and recoil quite possibly could have been factors in not becoming proficient with his rifle.

It was right there in the OP. The part where he said "I contend no one" would be construed by any sane person familiar with the English language to include himself.



To call that unequivocal statement a "generalization" is a misstatement on your part to try and bolster a failing argument. If you "feel" that the average guy should not shoot past 350yds I won't argue with you, as you are entitled to your feelings.

On the other hand if somebody wants to throw out ridiculous unequivocal statements I have been known to offer up my opinion, which might be in the form of an unequivocal statement.



Reach has always been "all the rage".

All the major developments in rifles have come as an effort to extend the reach of the rifleman. I suspect there were a few who felt rifling was a fad and the 75 yd reach of their smoothbore was plenty.

To be, unequivocally, stymied by a 400yd shot is the mark of a duffer.

That would be my opinion in the form of an unequivocal statement some might find ridicules or possibly somewhat inflammatory.

While I am picking on the quotes could someone explain which "modern" bullets transformed the .270 Win and what happens when we shoot "less modern" bullets in the .270 Win.

By less modern I am referring to the kinds of bullets Jack O'Connor used on plains game in Africa or when my Dad was killing elk back in the 70s with the .270 Win.

I as sort of unaware that the .270 Win was previously unable to humanly kill plains game sized critters before "modern bullets".

I think I was a tad generous with the 60%.