Why does firearm choice for hunting often stir so much controversy?

[Andrew Leigh]

A hunting buddy's hunting buddy and I were chatting about 3 years ago about a boar I lost. I was shooting 5.56 and the shot was too far back. He started into this business about how I needed to "bring enough gun" which I later learned is a proverbial (maybe historic) catch phrase of a famous African hunter. "Bring enough gun" is apparently the answer to all your problems. He, of course, didn't waste his time with pathetic calibers such as mine. He shot things like .308, 7mm mag, and 12 ga slugs. Had I been using "enough gun" then I would not have lost that hog. He knew that and he wasn't even there!

I would see this guy 2-3 times a year when he would come down to Texas to hunt and he would get on me about bringing enough gun. Then he came back skunked from a hunt with my buddy. Maybe skunked isn't the right answer. Using a 12 ga slug gun, he bagged the leg of a feeder, missing what was reportedly a nice buck. I asked him how much is enough gun for a miss and about how he was going to cook the feeder. He hasn't bothered me since, LOL.

I find it amusing how folks are apt to blame bullet, caliber, firearm, etc. for problems with the hunter. "Enough gun" and the "right gun" is going to come down to a lot of things, particularly how well you use it.

That was Robert Ruark the American PH who operated in Africa. He was noted for his exploits and ability to tell a story. The term was "Use Enough Gun" and was the title to a book he authored and was basically a "best of Robert Ruark" collection published posthumously.

Read it as young boy, was great then, wonder if it would still be?

 

[crazysccrmd]

I doubted the .223/5.56 for hunting until I shot a hog with it recently. The hog took two rounds to the chest cavity while at a run and piled up dead cold about 50m later. Certainly did the job even without great shot placement.

 

[Jason_W]

Folks who have chosen a .223 don't want to admit that it might be too small for whatever they're hunting

Limiting the discussion to whitetail deer, is it really too small assuming proper bullet selection and reasonable range?

I don't think anyone would advocate taking a 300 yard shot at a deer with a .223, but if ranges are likely to be 100 yards or less, with a good bullet, it will still destroy more vital tissue than an arrow or ball from a traditional muzzle loader.

The point I'm trying to make isn't .223 specific. The guy who wants to hunt deer with his .357 mag levergun, his 12 gauge loaded up with buckshot, or other firearm that is not a .24 cal or larger centerfire, is likely to encounter the exact same chorus of naysayers as the .223 deer hunter.

 

[frankenstein406]

Limiting the discussion to whitetail deer, is it really too small assuming proper bullet selection and reasonable range?

I don't think anyone would advocate taking a 300 yard shot at a deer with a .223, but if ranges are likely to be 100 yards or less, with a good bullet, it will still destroy more vital tissue than an arrow or ball from a traditional muzzle loader.

The point I'm trying to make isn't .223 specific. The guy who wants to hunt deer with his .357 mag levergun, his 12 gauge loaded up with buckshot, or other firearm that is not a .24 cal or larger centerfire, is likely to encounter the exact same chorus of naysayers as the .223 deer hunter.

From personal experience I would never use 223 on a deer again.

 

[el indio]

tomrkba,I use a scope for 75 yd shots. the reason being is that I have progressive lenses in my prescription glasses. In case you don't know, progressive lenses are three prescriptions in one lens. Try to find a sight picture when your vision can change when you move your head. That's why I use a scope in my big handguns also.

 

[buck460XVR]

That was Robert Ruark the American PH who operated in Africa. He was noted for his exploits and ability to tell a story. The term was "Use Enough Gun" and was the title to a book he authored and was basically a "best of Robert Ruark" collection published posthumously.

Read it as young boy, was great then, wonder if it would still be?

I read it as a boy too and it influenced my choice of firearms for many years. Looking back at it now, Ruark was like many of the "African Big Game" hunters of the time. They were shooters more than hunters and looked at African game much like loggers looked at the forests of North America in the 1800s......as an inexhaustible resource. History has proved them both wrong. Folks back then not only exploited the natural resources, but exploited the Native Aboriginals and looked at them as more like the animals they hunted than as humans.

 

[MCgunner]

I vehemently disagree with the text I put in bold. Just because an animal is vermin in need of elimination doesn't mean it should suffer needlessly.

Never trapped fur with spring traps, I guess.

Rest assured I use adequate calibers for a clean kill on game. .308 winchester and lately, 50 caliber front stuffer, are my usual rifles for deer/hogs. I'm not real keen on archery because my eyesight really isn't good enough to make 100 percent good hits past 25 yards and then you get back there in the woods in the shade and sometimes I can't see the pins on the background. In such situations, I don't feel well with taking a shot. Thinkin' about getting a scoped crossbow for this reason. BUT, that's another subject.

 

[alsaqr]

i usually stay out of firearm caliber choice debates: But will sound off when someone says what works for me can't possibly work.

A 55 grain .223 Remington bullet in the lungs trumps a 180 grain .300 Win Mag bullet in the guts.

 

[Art Eatman]

"...looked at them as more like the animals they hunted than as humans..."

Don't know about others, but Ruark absolutely does not fit that category. His writing absolutely reeks of empathy toward the African people. (Not so much for those who succumbed to Leftist teachings.)

Fast forward to today, and Ruark's comments about "enough gun" are paralleled by H&Hhunter's comments.

 

[BigBore44]

When I first joined here I was, and still am, amazed at the "is this_____(pick a cartridge) adequate for deer, or hogs, or elk?" threads. Sometimes I think they are started just to see how heated a debate will get. When an OP asks "is any cartridge from .223 to a 45-70 adequate for deer?" and anyone says no, for any reason other than distance or bullet selection, I automatically discount that person's knowledge and or reasoning abilities.

If a .243 can drop elk, why is it inadequate deer or hogs? If a .223 can kill humans, why is it inadequate for deer? If a 30-06 can kill moose, why is it inadequate for black bear? If Jack O'conner killed almost everything in NA and Africa with a 270, why would it not be adequate now? And heaven forbid someone ask if a 45-70 is adequate for cottontail rabbits. It will be a "1000 yard bison" thread within 10 posts.

 

[R.W.Dale]

It's because by in large I'd say 90% of hunters have absolutely no self discipline to pass on a less than optimum shot. You show me someone who says 223 isn't enough gun and I'll show you someone who will not pass on a "Texas heart shot" if that's the only shot that presents itself. For these people if they see fur they HAVE to shoot at it.


These people will spout off all sorts of drivel about respecting the animal and usually add in the phrase " slow and painful death" somewhere. But that's only because in their twisted logic there's NO SUCH THING as a bad shot with a 30-06.

As to the incipient assertion that a cartridge is bad because obviously folks are too dumb to buy the right ammo for the use. Well this applies to every shotgun, or rifle on all sorts of different game.

 

[rbernie]

When I was a young man, back in the days of simple cup-n-core bullets, the Conventional Wisdom held that North American thin skinned game needed 800ft lbs of energy to be humanely dispatched. I note that, on this board and others, the accepted minimum has now risen to 1000ft lbs of energy notwithstanding the advances of bullet technology.

Given that minimum energy level, I struggle to understand how our forefathers managed to stay alive in the pre-30-06 era. Maybe the game animals were just a lot smaller and more feeble back then.

Dunno.

 

[d2wing]

I think part of us is hard wired to hunt and also wired to argue for best hunting tools. It is what we do. Also some folks,have irrational attachments to certain weapons and cartridges. Much like Ford-Chevy arguments. I am guilty as well although I do like to make darn sure science and experience backs me up. Since many Black powder and most modern cartridges have killed most animals on Earth some of the arguments and claims are silly. But it is what we do.

 

[H&Hhunter]

That was Robert Ruark the American PH who operated in Africa.

Andrew you are mixing up your Americans here. Ruark was not a PH when he wrote use Enough Gun and he never became one, he was a writer who had been a new paper man before writing novels. You sir are confusing Robert Ruark with peter Capstick who was a PH and a writer.

He was noted for his exploits and ability to tell a story. The term was "Use Enough Gun" and was the title to a book he authored and was basically a "best of Robert Ruark" collection published posthumously.

Once again you are mistaken Robert Rurak was alive and well when he wrote Use Enough Gun. It was a book about his first safari with PH Harry Selby not a "best of book" in the slightest but very much in the spirit of Hemingway's Green Hills of Africa in fact almost identical in lay out.

 

[H&Hhunter]

They were shooters more than hunters and looked at African game much like loggers looked at the forests of North America in the 1800s......as an inexhaustible resource. History has proved them both wrong. Folks back then not only exploited the natural resources, but exploited the Native Aboriginals and looked at them as more like the animals they hunted than as humans.

buck,

Surely you are not talking about the same Robert Rurark who hunted kenya in the 1950's. By the 1950's Kenya had developed very strict license and game quota regulations that were upheld to the highest standards by it's Professional Hunters and Game Wardens. They had liberal yet extremely well managed bag limits with a limited number of hunters taking that game. Of course when you have a limited number of hunters and huge population of game your bag limits are going to be larger but not really any larger than are allowed to this day in many parts of Africa if the hunter is willing and able to pay the fees.

The great decline in Kenyan wildlife as I'm sure you already know occurred AFTER regulated big game hunting was banned by pressure from international animal rights organizations with the political support of crooked government officials whom had a vested interest in seeing the big game hunters go away as they the legal hunters were the only ones supporting and enforcing anti poaching. As soon as they were out of the picture poachers moved in and decimated the wildlife almost to extinction. As has happened everywhere in Africa that legalized and regulated sport hunting has been banned. Botswana is the next country to start seeing a massive decline in wildlife as they closed most big game hunting last year. Botswana's president also folded the pressure and bribes of international anti hunting groups which have proven to be the greatest bane and detriment to African wildlife in modern history.

 

[buck460XVR]

buck,

Surely you are not talking about the same Robert Rurark who hunted kenya in the 1950's.

Andrew, Once again you are mistaken Robert Rurak was alive and well when he wrote Use Enough Gun.

I am not criticizing Bob Ruark. Again, I was a big fan of his books and magazine articles growing up as a kid. Not a secret that the scurge of modern big game hunting in Africa is due to poaching and the greed from horn and hide. Same as anywhere in the world. Sadly, like the forests of North America, the African Plains will never see the numbers and the wealth of resources there once was. Testimony that you can't go back.

I too was under the impression that "Use Enough Gun" was a collection of previously published excerpts from Ruark's earlier works that was re-released in the book following his death.

 

[1911 guy]

I think R.W. Dale is very close to the mark. A lot of guns are "enough" when used within the limits of bullet weight, construction and velocity. We often choose bigger and faster to expand the envelope.

I've got a friend who has taken a lot of deer with an M1 carbine. He gets close and pops 'em. Never heard him tell stories about shooting one at more than 50 or 60 yards. Would be a very different story if he was trying to shoot deer with a .30 carbine at 200 yards.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Sadly, like the forests of North America, the African Plains will never see the numbers and the wealth of resources there once was. Testimony that you can't go back.

buck,

I think we need to define "back' in this statement. Depending on the species we are speaking of there are greater numbers today than have been historically recorded at any time in the past. Elk and whitetail deer are the prime examples. While there is no possibility that we will see millions of buffalo roaming the mostly uninhabited great plains ever again . Modern conservation through proper game management has proven a successful. Thank you Teddy Roosevelt!

Not a secret that the scurge of modern big game hunting in Africa is due to poaching

Agreed to secondary point of importance however. Poaching is the scourge of African wildlife for which the ONLY proven and sustainable defense is regulated sport hunting. It's been proven time and time again in every country that allows, promotes and uses the funds form hunting to manage the animal populations.

I too was under the impression that "Use Enough Gun" was a collection of previously published excerpts from Ruark's earlier works that was re-released in the book following his death.

My apologies to you and Andrew. Use enough Gun was published after Ruark's death. I was thinking of Horn of the Hunter which mimics to some extent Hemingway's "Green Hills"..

I'll make a new thread on my opinion of what "enough" gun means for my purposes.

 

[buck460XVR]

Poaching is the scourge of African wildlife for which the ONLY proven and sustainable defense is regulated sport hunting.

It's been proven time and time again in every country that allows, promotes and uses the funds form hunting to manage the animal populations.

I quite agree. I also agree that hunters/sportsmen and their commitment to conservation, not only with their money, but with their involvement is why we have the hunting, as we know it, here in the U.S.

That does not mean it had not been exploited in the past. The example you give of the Bison is one. Not only were they exploited because of their vast numbers, that once were thought to be inexhaustible, but they were taken to the point of extinction to exploit the venerability of those that relied on them for their way of life.

This tho is off topic and thus I apologize to the OP.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

It's because by in large I'd say 90% of hunters have absolutely no self discipline to pass on a less than optimum shot.

The thing is, if you use enough gun and the proper bullet, you don't have to pass on a less than optimum shot.

Now don't take that statement the wrong way. I'm not saying it is ever okay to shoot an animal facing you or facing away.

But if an animal is quartering away and I've got a .30-06 with a good cup and core controlled expansion bullet I can shoot it a little farther back and be confident that the bullet is going to drive through the ribcage and tissue, and have plenty of steam left when it reaches the vitals. Same on a quartering towards you shot. I shot a big 6 point with a 17.5" spread at 170 yds with a .30-06 and a 165 grain Remington Core Lokt bullet. It was quartering towards me. The bullet landed on the shoulder exactly where the crosshairs were and angled through the shoulder, through the lungs and lodged against the skin just forward of the off ham.

That would not have been possible with a .223. The deer would have limped off with it's leg dangling and would have likely been eaten by yotes. (That is if I would have been foolish enough to take that shot with a .223, which I would not have been).

 

[Glocktogo]

It's primarily an issue for so many, due to slob hunters with no ethics. If you are a humane hunter taking ethical shots, there are many "methods of taking" game that are perfectly acceptable. The problem is drawing that invisible line, which can't be done at all on the internet. From there, disagreements ensue.

I no longer hunt. When I did, I passed up a great number of what I'd call marginal shots, at least for my skill levels at the time. I knew plenty of hunters who wouldn't hesitate to take those shots, many of whom have wounded a lot of animals. I've only ever failed to recover one deer. It was a longish but makeable shot on a broadside buck with a compound bow. I hit it just a little too far back and believe I hit the liver instead of the lungs. I was sick for days about it and it still bothers me all these years later.

Some hunters just don't have that level of care and concern. If that's not you, then don't let what other say on the internet get to you. Hunt ethically and enjoy your time afield.

 

[H&Hhunter]

The thing is, if you use enough gun and the proper bullet, you don't have to pass on a less than optimum shot.

This is my philosophy 100%.

 

[buck460XVR]

The thing is, if you use enough gun and the proper bullet, you don't have to pass on a less than optimum shot.

With enough gun/weapon and proper bullets/ammo, one can take a optimum shot that would not even be practical with a different firearm or different ammo. Such was my reference in another thread when talking about shoulder shots on deer. With a bow or low powered handgun, a shoulder shot is not optimal and to many is a poor choice. But with a high powered rifle and proper bullets, for many, it becomes the preferred shot.

 

[anothernewb]

the post about hunters a bit back had it best. to some people -anything different is wrong. Those are usually the same people who have to always tell you why their choice is right.

but hey - it's a good thing there are different calibers. otherwise we'd all sit around the campfire complaining about wood vs synthetic....

 

[Andrew Leigh]

Andrew you are mixing up your Americans here. Ruark was not a PH when he wrote use Enough Gun and he never became one, he was a writer who had been a new paper man before writing novels. You sir are confusing Robert Ruark with peter Capstick who was a PH and a writer.

Nope, was thinking of Ruark but was 10 when I read the book so my memory is obviously very poor. I thought I remembered he was a PH and I stand corrected thank you.

Once again you are mistaken Robert Rurak was alive and well when he wrote Use Enough Gun. It was a book about his first safari with PH Harry Selby not a "best of book" in the slightest but very much in the spirit of Hemingway's Green Hills of Africa in fact almost identical in lay out.

Horn of the Hunter was written about his first safari with Harry Selby.

"His last novel, The Honey Badger, exemplified the condition of the author at this time in his life. The book was published posthumously, as was Use Enough Gun, which is essentially a collection of excerpts from his earlier works." Wikipedia and many other sources.

H&HHunter 1 : Andrew Leigh 1 so I call it a draw