Big 5 hunting with revolvers...a thought?

M

mac2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
287
Reaction score
89
Location
United Kingdom
Just "discovered" American Handgunner digital edition on the net. In it, John Taffin tests Reeder Custom .44 Ruger Redhawks, super hot loaded and described as "heavy duty hunting handguns made for taking really dangerous big game". This reminded me: I used to read Ross Seyfried articles in Guns & Ammo 20 odd years ago where he hunted elephants with 475 Linebaugh revolvers which were, we were told more than adequate for the big 5, despite their inferior bullet weights, velocities and corresponding muzzle energies, to say, the .458 Winchester. The latter on occasion, Ross would criticise as inadequate for it's intended task despite being ballistally superior in every way - and easier to shoot!

Which made me wonder: how could sub 2000 ftlb revolvers be better than 5000 ftlb rifles for large dangerous game and if they are why not put the revolver round in a carbine or something?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting topic, I will be willing to bet that when any of these gun writers where chasing the big 5 in the brush they had a stopping rifle to back them up. I define stopping rifles anything larger than .475 producing some 7500 - 8000 ft. lbs. of energy.

Can this be done? Certainly it can, Roy Weatherby went around the world chasing dangerous game with a .257 Weatherby, but you know that there was someone not far behind with a 470 Nitro or larger rifle that was proven to stop a charge.

It has been proven many times in the field that penetration is a prime directive in building a firearm to use hunting game that will likely hunt you back. I just don't see any handgun, including the S&W 500 with it's 2900 ft lbs of energy, as having the power to reach vitals on large pachyderm, much less stop a charge. I just don't see it as offering enough energy to reach vitals on something other than the perfect shot angle.

Cheers,
Sam
 
Shoty4T is correct they are NOT capable of the penetration needed on angling or rear end shots . With the right bullet penetrating the brain or shooting thru a buffalo side to side is not that difficult. A 400 grain plus solid bullets are best for elephant,buffalo, rhino. A heavily constructed expanding bullet for lion which are heavily muscled, and a regular premium expanding bullet for leopard.

The large calibers 400 grain thru 458 grain require about 2150 to 2400 fps when you get into really heavy bullets say 700 grains the momentum takes over and you will get adequate penetration at somewhat lower velocity.

I spoke with Seyfried years ago at a shot show and at the time he told of taking buffalo with a head shot. This is not the shot 99% of hunters take on an animal with the exception of an elephant. Also if something goes wrong you are in a very compromised position holding an inadequate caliber.

The bottom line is if YOU want to be capable of being in control of the situation you need an adequate caliber in a repeater to deal with an animal when its dead on its feet, or wounded before it moves off into very thick bush. IF NOT YOU WILL HAVE A PH NEXT TO YOU FINISHING YOUR TROPHY AND THE FIGHT YOU STARTED!
 
Last edited:
What do you think the natives used to sill them before guns?????? Having only a spear or a bow with no back up separates the men from the boys pretty quick :D That's where all that sticky stuff between the elephant's toes comes from.
 
mac2 said:
This reminded me: I used to read Ross Seyfried articles in Guns & Ammo 20 odd years ago where he hunted elephants with 475 Linebaugh revolvers...

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Mr. Seyfried was in the business of selling magazines, or at least, his writings to magazines.

I believe he said at the time that it was essentially a stunt to satisfy his own ego (my words) and did not recommend others try it.
 
Some of the native Africans were pretty gutsy the Masai used to square off with lion using spears, or today's trackers walking in front following spoor of a wounded animal they are almost always unarmed and keep their eyes on the ground relying on the PH to watch for the animal.

I have had clients take both elephant and buffalo with bows it really is a stunt and at best most often ends with a PH making the killing shot at worst the animal is allowed to bleed to death sometimes overnight. That is what I don't like about inadequate weapons.

To be honest I would probably go after a buffalo or elephant with a handgun but I would limit my self to a side brain shot on jumbo and a behind the head or boss shot on the buffalo. I believe in killing as cleanly and quickly as possible.
 
Leonard said:
Some of the native Africans were pretty gutsy the Masai used to square off with lion using spears, or today's trackers walking in front following spoor of a wounded animal they are almost always unarmed and keep their eyes on the ground relying on the PH to watch for the animal.

I have had clients take both elephant and buffalo with bows it really is a stunt and at best most often ends with a PH making the killing shot at worst the animal is allowed to bleed to death sometimes overnight. That is what I don't like about inadequate weapons.

To be honest I would probably go after a buffalo or elephant with a handgun but I would limit my self to a side brain shot on jumbo and a behind the head or boss shot on the buffalo. I believe in killing as cleanly and quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

I like your observations and believe in your last sentence.
 
To me, those big animals are why we have big rifles. I see no point in shooting them with less, just so it can be said that it was done.
 
I think the term "STUNT" is very applicable when describing some handgun hunts as well as the folks who shoot big game animals with varmint calibers, or those who insist on sniping big game animals at ludicrous ranges.

When I hunted South Africa several years back my PH had recently guided a fellow from AK who tried to take all his game with a 7 1/2" .454 Cassull. When I asked how THAT had worked out he sated; "I got a bit of rifle practice, and the boys got a LOT of tracking practice".

I'm not saying that a handgun isn't capable of taking big game cleanly...simply saying that much of the time the hunter is not up to the task. I've thought that using a handgun, or any inappropriate weapon gives that hunter some braggin rights, or notoriety. A STUNT pure and simple.

I'm making some huge geralizations...I know. There are many, many very competant and ethical hunters.

FN in MT
 
Certainly it can (and has) been done, but is the risk worth the reward? There are handguns that will work if the shots are expertly placed, and or if there is time to let the poor creature "bleed out." But these are genuinely "stunts" and should not be advocated or practiced. Show enough respect for your prey to use sufficient firepower.
 
CAJUNLAWYER said:
What do you think the natives used to sill them before guns?????? Having only a spear or a bow with no back up separates the men from the boys pretty quick :D That's where all that sticky stuff between the elephant's toes comes from.
Click to expand...

The smart natives always hunted with others that couldn't run as fast as them! :D
 
35Rem said:
The smart natives always hunted with others that couldn't run as fast as them! :D
Click to expand...


And they often killed elephant with big spear traps in trees, the spears weighted with stones. Or, used poison, as the Bushmen do. The poisoned animal can take a long time to die. I dislike that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top