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

That is a pretty harsh assessment of a man who made his living with a rifle.

My view of a good rifleman is a person that remains calm while shooting a buffalo or an elephant at 25 feet and can do it quickly and efficiently. Don is one of those guys.

IMO that takes more practice and nerve than shooting an animal at 800 yards.

I have shot more than most at 600, 800, 900, and 1000 yards so I do have a good understanding what is required.

If you want to hunt long range have at it, it is none of my business, but do insult a man you do not know, much less understand what is required to be a good rifleman in his part of the world.

Please quote accurately my "assessment" of Don Heath.

ps. I make my living with a rifle.

Completely different mindsets on completely different continents. Problem is that this article was in a US publication (I am assuming here) and maybe it was geared towards American hunter traveling to Africa but many of us, based on the posted quote, are feeling that it is directed to any hunter, anywhere. If that is what he intended then for all the good things he is, he is shortsighted. If it was not intended as that well then we are getting worked up over nothing.

Long rangers sure are a sensitive lot!

John, your line I quoted above confuses the ability to make a shot with the judgment and ethics of making it. The writer was clearly referring to the latter.

IME here on the 'fire, that shifting of the topic from ethics to ability is a standard talking point for long rangers: to accuse anyone who questions them with inability to make such a shot.

Shoot all you want as far as you want. You are a terrific long range shot. You don't need our public approval to feel good about such shooting.

Added later: Like many area of real life, hard and fast rules about shooting game need some judgment in the field. I generally agree with the writer, but don't want any law forbidding us to take long shots. As personal application of that, I killed a wounded bull elk at about 700 yards, yet prefer shots under 200 yards from a rest, and under 20 yards with a rest is even better.

John,

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

Maybe more of a snide comment than an assessment.

I do not have access to the article; however from the quote he said ethics, not his ability to do it.

Hitting at long range is no big deal if one is up to it and CHOOSES to do so. I personally CHOOSE not to. With guys like Don Heath, he probably doesn't care what you can do at 400 with a ruminant, but he will care what you can do at ten yards... BTW, my uncle went on several safaris in the late 60s/early 70s to Angola and Mozambique. He took two rifles, both Model 70s in 270 and 458. He took his lion with his 270 and old-style Silvertips. So what's the argument here, that one isn't a "hunter" if you can't score at 400? Do it at ten yards with an elephant of buffalo and get back to me..

I notice in these threads that many folks seem to feel that long range shooting of game is something new.

I remember my Dad bragging about how far away he had killed deer and elk nearly sixty years ago. In the early 60's he traded in a model 141 in 30 Rem for a 760 in 30-06 so he could reach further.

I remember asking Dad how he could possibly kill a deer at 600 yds or further with an open sighted 30-06, because I knew for a fact that the front bead subtended an area far larger than a deer at that range.

He answered, "I did not aim at the deer, I aimed at the rock on the side of the mountain twenty feet above the deer." Then he took another bite of the venison in question.

In the late sixties he equipped that 760 with a scope which cost far more than the rifle, so he could reach further.

Every hunter I knew as a kid, and young adult strived to be capable of killing meat at distances many consider extreme.

Pride in marksmanship at extreme range did not begin at Adobe Walls. Outside of sniping at humans, there has never been a better way to prove that marksmanship than killing game.

I think some of you feel that any disagreement is tantamount to a knock down drag out fight. Discussion forums are for discussions. I be discussin.

Somebody posted an unequivocal statement that I disagree with and I posted my opinions. I get to have an opinion and you can agree or disagree.

The irony of the situation was the inflammatory nature of the original quote. It is actually the "short rangers" who are sensitive and want to label others as unethical because they "feel" a certain way and want to impose their "feelings".

I might have to start a thread along the lines of " Do you suck as a shooter if you can't hit a deer at 600yds??" The butthurt would be EPIC.





Wow we went from "harsh assessment" to "snide comment" pretty fast.



Yet the quote says I am unethical to take any shot beyond 350yds. Your feeling of what the author intends does not match the actual statement.

The fact that so many are trying to reinterpret the original quote pretty much proves how it was a silly statement.



Which dovetails with my question concerning "modern bullets" in the .270 Win. My interpretation was that the author considered the .270 Win not adequate for plains game until "modern bullets" came along. I am more than a little amused at the concept that "modern bullets" have been a gamechanger for the .270 Win. It always worked fine. (Provided you did stretch to far)



To save some time I will just quote what I said in previous posts. Feel free to read them this time.






Gas please meet Fire.

John,

You have too much time on your hands.

I pretty much have quit arguing the ethics issue to a great degree. If it is legal and it does not make us (hunters) look too bad, it is not my business.

Our biggest issue in the very near future is losing our right to hunt (and fish). Piece by piece it is being taken away or at least whittled away from all different angles. Lead bullets, access to Federal land, elephant import ban, basically shutting down the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery, etc,etc.

Most hunters do not care about the issues that do not affect them. At the end of the day any closure or ban will impact all of us. We prefer to bicker amongst ourselves about what is ethical than to contact our elected officials. There is a desperate need for an NRA like organization to protect hunters with 5 million members, I hope SCI will take that roll but I have my doubts.

It is important enough to me that I flew to Washington DC and met face to face with my Congressman and one of my Senators. I actually received good feedback and they both acted on what I asked. Hopefully they will be part of making a difference.

Off the soapbox now......

I wonder if John Burns has read the article yet?

Gee thanks, but I'll take Don Heath, and as far as the modern bullet v older, conventionals go, if you don't think they've stretched and improved the capabilities of ALL calibers, then you are the one that maybe needs some more experience. Even with modern bullets, a 270 on a one ton eland is questionable at fifty yards and downright stupid at 400. And regarding the taking of a lion with one, that too, is rather foolhardy.

Seems to me you're confusing two things. In the context of his original statement he was speaking of the ethics of such shots on live targets, not his ability to hit something at said range.

He thinks it's unethical. I don't, and neither do you, but that doesn't mean he isn't a great PH, rifleman, etc.

Do you not see the irony of your comments? You say to anti-LR guys here you're no less Hunter for utilizing your rifle skills, then say this guy is less of a rifleman for utilizing his hunting skills.

Jorge,

Have you seen any eland and lion shot with a .270? Or met anyone who has?

Ross Seyfried in an article on the .270 Winchester,mentions that the most successful safari he guided was with a elderly man and his grandson. They used a .270 Win and 150 gr Nosler Partitions from lion on down.

i guess if you can kill grizzly with a bow go for it but chances are many will die.

No doubt it'd be sure to straighten them right out!

I don't remember eland John, but as to the lion, my uncle shot his with his 270, along with sable, kudu, wildebeest and a bunch of other stuff. Personally, I think a 270 is not optimum for eland.

A decent size elk weighs around 650 pounds???
A nice lion is 500 pounds.

No problem killing an elk with a 270 Win.
Should work fine on a lion.

Should work fine; however no less than a 375 H&H for me on lion.

I have crossed lion on foot in Zim and saw them from the cruiser in Mozambique and Tanzania. I am not ashamed to say they scare the crap out of me.

If I was to hunt lion,it would be with a .375 H&H and either 300 gr Nosler Partitions or Swift A-Frames.

Actually a friend of mine took a very large eland with a 270 and 130 grain Barnes TSX. He is a very good shot and the bullet went all the way thru, expanded and ended up just inside the skin on the off shoulder. He also took animals ranging from springbok all the way to eland and including Kudu, Blue Wildebeest, and Gemsbok with the 270. It is the only rifle he took and he has complete confidence in it.

As my friend in South Africa says often, "It is where you hit them, not what you hit them with."