Why are Weatherby guns in 375+ calibers not liked on a Safari?

[Rule 303]

I suspect I have heard and studied a lot more about the decision to move to the 5.56 than most. It had everything to do with basic load, the actual range in which firefights took place, and the realization that a wounded enemy was more often than not of greater utility than a dead one. And basic load not only meant the rifleman's own ammunition, but the extra mortar round or two and MG ammunition he could now carry. We estimated that switching to the 5.56 increased the combined firepower of an infantry platoon as much 300%. It is why every other major power in the world to include the Russians have done exactly the same thing. Pretty smart fellows those DOD guys weren't they? And yes, it is easier to train a new recruit on a lighter recoiling rifle - it doesn't introduce all that flinching nonsense that seems to effect all too many using too much gun.

We could discuss this till the cows came home. Yes I am in disagreeance with a fair bit of the logic they used. I had a lengthy discussion with the Director of Infantry when I was a Corporal -Aust. Army reserve, back in the 80's- when he was telling the battalion why we would be going to 5.56. Re wounded enemy. That theory is great when fighting Western Countries but but most we would fight don't worry about their wounded to much and the wounded kept fighting. If they wanted to save some person then we most likely wanted him dead. Also it takes 3 to 5 rounds of 5.56to do what 1 to 2 rounds of 7.62 do. Result way more ammo has to be carried and more natural resources used. Not to mention needing way more ammo to penetrate a mud brick wall or 12" thick tree.

All these points have been proven over time.

 

[Dwight Beagle]

It’s been my unscientific experience that a person’s size and/or weight has zero relationship with recoil tolerance. In fact from what I’ve seen, people with a more slender build seem to be affected less than stockier people by recoil.

Football and recoil? Played from the third grade through three years of college before a recurring injury ended it for me. A pretty inane analogy IMO. But since we are talking football my unscientific experience is that smaller less muscle bound players are not injured as often from hard hits as larger heavier players are.

Whenever someone speaks to their own ability to handle hard recoil well, and people who don’t just need to toughen up-I immediately tune them out.

 

[rookhawk]

It’s been my unscientific experience that a person’s size and/or weight has zero relationship with recoil tolerance. In fact from what I’ve seen, people with a more slender build seem to be affected less than stockier people by recoil.

Football and recoil? Played from the third grade through three years of college before a recurring injury ended it for me. A pretty inane analogy IMO. But since we are talking football my unscientific experience is that smaller less muscle bound players are not injured as often from hard hits as larger heavier players are.

Whenever someone speaks to their own ability to handle hard recoil well, and people who don’t just need to toughen up-I immediately tune them out.

That's true. I'm a giant of a man and I hate recoil. When I shot my 470 the PHs commented they couldn't believe that it had no muzzle jump whatsoever. For me, almost all the energy is going into my nearly 7' and 300lb frame. Even worse when I'm at a bench as I become a brick wall to absorb energy. Compare that to a waif-ish 6' guy that weighs 170lb and is limber...they shoot a big bore and you watch their body sway like a tree in a breeze.

 

[Forrest Halley]

Compare that to a waif-ish 6' guy that weighs 170lb and is limber...they shoot a big bore and you watch their body sway like a tree in a breeze.

Hey now, I resemble that remark. I find that the biggest thing I have to do is condition myself to the noise, blast and the recoil. It's not that the recoil is harsh, but that it's fast. It's not that the gun bucks back, but it's loud and has a tremendous blast at the muzzle. These things need to be a conditioned circumstance for the shooter. I found that shooting my newly compensated AR was annoying and difficult until I became accustomed to the blast hitting my face. From then on it was no big thing.

 

[Paul Homsy]

That's true. I'm a giant of a man and I hate recoil. When I shot my 470 the PHs commented they couldn't believe that it had no muzzle jump whatsoever. For me, almost all the energy is going into my nearly 7' and 300lb frame. Even worse when I'm at a bench as I become a brick wall to absorb energy. Compare that to a waif-ish 6' guy that weighs 170lb and is limber...they shoot a big bore and you watch their body sway like a tree in a breeze.

You had no muzzle jump because of the way you hold the gun. That is entirely dependent on your shooting form.
You recoil less because you're heavy. That is because weight forms an obstacle and you don't allow your body to recoil back. You more than likely hold much too tight in order not to allow for muzzle jump. You punish yourself.
Muzzle jump helps mitigate recoil.

 

[tn4lee]

You'd think they'd make flying boots really comfortable to walk in because if something goes wrong, you're going to have to walk a long way.

In SEAsia, we were issued "jungle boots"....the idea was that they would be cooler on our feet. They were, however, the same boots issued to service people and they had steel shanks in the soles (to prevent against poisoned spikes, bamboo, etc.) As a result, they were very hard to break in....usually took the entire tour.

 

[tn4lee]

It’s been my unscientific experience that a person’s size and/or weight has zero relationship with recoil tolerance. In fact from what I’ve seen, people with a more slender build seem to be affected less than stockier people by recoil.

Football and recoil? Played from the third grade through three years of college before a recurring injury ended it for me. A pretty inane analogy IMO. But since we are talking football my unscientific experience is that smaller less muscle bound players are not injured as often from hard hits as larger heavier players are.

Whenever someone speaks to their own ability to handle hard recoil well, and people who don’t just need to toughen up-I immediately tune them out.

I used football as an example because I assumed that the experience thereof is a common experience among Americans, and not necessarily anatomically identical to shooting. I don't know many people of my generation who didn't play football....as I recall, we didn't whine about big "hits", we revelled in them.

 

[rookhawk]

You had no muzzle jump because of the way you hold the gun. That is entirely dependent on your shooting form.
You recoil less because you're heavy. That is because weight forms an obstacle and you don't allow your body to recoil back. You more than likely hold much too tight in order not to allow for muzzle jump. You punish yourself.
Muzzle jump helps mitigate recoil.

Years of proper wingshooting form causes me to instinctively hold a double rifle in the same manner. On the balls of my feet, back heel off the ground. Right elbow slightly raised. Net result, I'm taking recoil although it makes me a better wingshooter and better instinctive double rifle shooter. Bad news, it doesn't ease much of the recoil free standing. Off a bench, its just is what it is when you're 6'9" and 325lbs. The energy is hitting me and I'm not moving or yielding. About all I could do is shoot off an office chair with wheels and roll a bit.

 

[Red Leg]

Years of proper wingshooting form causes me to instinctively hold a double rifle in the same manner. On the balls of my feet, back heel off the ground. Right elbow slightly raised. Net result, I'm taking recoil although it makes me a better wingshooter and better instinctive double rifle shooter. Bad news, it doesn't ease much of the recoil free standing. Off a bench, its just is what it is when you're 6'9" and 325lbs. The energy is hitting me and I'm not moving or yielding. About all I could do is shoot off an office chair with wheels and roll a bit.

Yep - Shoot one exactly the same way. Darned accurately as well. And my .470 lets me know when I'm doing it. Not a thing I can do about it. Though I don't think I'll take the .470 to Cordoba!

 

[rookhawk]

Yep - Shoot one exactly the same way. Darned accurately as well. And my .470 lets me know when I'm doing it. Not a thing I can do about it. Though I don't think I'll take the .470 to Cordoba!

@Red Leg interestingly enough, my Cogswell & Harrison 375HH (Mauser) has a 26" long mid-weight barrel. I shoot that one more upright than a double and it does have muzzle rise upon firing. I find it a joy to shoot off sticks even with its no-yield-given silvers pad. It just seems to me that magnum double rifles cause me to instinctively shoot them weight forward in "wingshooter stance" and therefore the recoil is coming straight back, not hinging up at all.

Bottom line, if you don't NEED a magnum double for the game you're hunting, for crying out loud get a magazine rifle built to shoot from an erect stance off sticks!

 

[SnowLeopard]

Rookhawk - Maybe a little research by spending a few minutes on the Weatherby website would help you to understand that many of your ideas are just plain nonsense. Spouting off without an inkling of knowledge is just embarrassing. As for the Weatherby stock design, it was engineered that way because the forward angled Montecarlo shape mitigates felt recoil. If you have a conventionally stocked .375 H&H and a Weatherby stocked .375 H&H of the same weight, firing the exact same ammunition, you will feel that the Weatherby stocked rifle has less recoil and definitely less bite on the cheek. Don't take my word for it. Try it and you will know for yourself. But do try to educate yourself before slamming a whole very successful product line.

 

[Dwight Beagle]

I tend to hold a rifle in the same manner as I do a shotgun when dove hunting also.

 

[rookhawk]

Rookhawk - Maybe a little research by spending a few minutes on the Weatherby website would help you to understand that many of your ideas are just plain nonsense. Spouting off without an inkling of knowledge is just embarrassing. As for the Weatherby stock design, it was engineered that way because the forward angled Montecarlo shape mitigates felt recoil. If you have a conventionally stocked .375 H&H and a Weatherby stocked .375 H&H of the same weight, firing the exact same ammunition, you will feel that the Weatherby stocked rifle has less recoil and definitely less bite on the cheek. Don't take my word for it. Try it and you will know for yourself. But do try to educate yourself before slamming a whole very successful product line.

First of all, I would not take my opinion of a stock geometry from the website of a pedestrian mass produced rifle company that is perpetuating one American’s opinion of stock design. I’d Base my opinion on four centuries of stock design, or abridging that, you can pick up a copy of Michael Yardley’s book on gunfitting to understand the design characteristics for which the sporting rifle was designed.

The purpose of a game rifle stock is to have an increasing and elevated comb. It is designed with this purpose so that as inclination of a weapon occurs and the muscles of the shoulder and bicep contract, that the face is sliding forward on the stock while still providing proper stock alignment. That is the essence of gunfitting to provide that consistent sight picture, rapidly, at any angle. Numbers are custom, but classic standards such as 14-5/8” LOP with 1-1/2” DAC and 2-1/8” DAH have been determined by gunfitters as a baseline or starting point for more than a century but Roy Weatherby was either unaware of these principles or was ignoring them to overcomb comfort issues when applied to his design philosophy. (Speed kills, perhaps on both ends of the gun)

As alternative to that, Roy Weatherby‘s heirs needed to mass-produce rifles which precluded these considerations in the hopes of achieving three goals: 1.) Mass production where the sight alignment for long range shooting is generally usable for as many customers as possible, 2.) To deal with horrific recoil when shooting with the gun pointed at a 90 degree angle, thus the declining or “inverse drop” at comb versus heel. As the gun is fired, the face comes off the high-gloss polyurethane comb losing sight picture under recoil yet allowing the skin of the face to not friction burn as it inclines a normal comb. 3.) To design a system that might mitigate the chances of getting punched in the eye with a scope coming back at the face during muzzle rise from excessive recoil.

Or put simply: Roy’s goofy backwards comb was an essential design feature to deal with absurd recoil, thus undoing 150 years of design knowledge of stock geometry to whip up something that would deal with 378-460 weatherby recoil.

The hubris of an American wildcatter thinking he knew more than the combined knowledge of Joseph Lang, Boss, Woodward, Atkin, Grant, Lancaster, Churchill, Watson, Webley, Lee, Henry, Martin, Mortimer, Gibbs, Holland, and even their American Cousin’s such as Townsend Whelen, Seymour Griffin, Tom Shelhammer, Niedner, Sedgley, et. al.

 

[Rule 303]

First of all, I would not take my opinion of a stock geometry from the website of a pedestrian mass produced rifle company that is perpetuating one American’s opinion of stock design. I’d Base my opinion on four centuries of stock design, or abridging that, you can pick up a copy of Michael Yardley’s book on gunfitting to understand the design characteristics for which the sporting rifle was designed.

The purpose of a game rifle stock is to have an increasing and elevated comb. It is designed with this purpose so that as inclination of a weapon occurs and the muscles of the shoulder and bicep contract, that the face is sliding forward on the stock while still providing proper stock alignment. That is the essence of gunfitting to provide that consistent sight picture, rapidly, at any angle. Numbers are custom, but classic standards such as 14-5/8” LOP with 1-1/2” DAC and 2-1/8” DAH have been determined by gunfitters as a baseline or starting point for more than a century but Roy Weatherby was either unaware of these principles or was ignoring them to overcomb comfort issues when applied to his design philosophy. (Speed kills, perhaps on both ends of the gun)

As alternative to that, Roy Weatherby‘s heirs needed to mass-produce rifles which precluded these considerations in the hopes of achieving three goals: 1.) Mass production where the sight alignment for long range shooting is generally usable for as many customers as possible, 2.) To deal with horrific recoil when shooting with the gun pointed at a 90 degree angle, thus the declining or “inverse drop” at comb versus heel. As the gun is fired, the face comes off the high-gloss polyurethane comb losing sight picture under recoil yet allowing the skin of the face to not friction burn as it inclines a normal comb. 3.) To design a system that might mitigate the chances of getting punched in the eye with a scope coming back at the face during muzzle rise from excessive recoil.

Or put simply: Roy’s goofy backwards comb was an essential design feature to deal with absurd recoil, thus undoing 150 years of design knowledge of stock geometry to whip up something that would deal with 378-460 weatherby recoil.

The hubris of an American wildcatter thinking he knew more than the combined knowledge of Joseph Lang, Boss, Woodward, Atkin, Grant, Lancaster, Churchill, Watson, Webley, Lee, Henry, Martin, Mortimer, Gibbs, Holland, and even their American Cousin’s such as Townsend Whelen, Seymour Griffin, Tom Shelhammer, Niedner, Sedgley, et. al.

All fine and knowledgeable people, so where those who said the sun revolved around the earth. Point being the Weatherby stocks do the job they were designed to do. Reduce felt recoil and do it well. This is from personal experience. Nothing said about having the eye where it needs to be for follow up shots. However with the vicious kick they can deliver the average person probably has the scope re aligned quicker with the Roy stock as the rifle is more controllable with his stocks (Note: this is not in all cases). They are still butt ugly.

 

[bruce moulds]

as far as drop at comb is concerned, a good ammount is just enough to get a thin handled cleaing rod in without rubbing the top of the bore.
then drop at heel 1/16" to 1/8" more.
a reasonably thick comb negates the need for any cheekpiece.
it looks right, and the rifle does not teat out of your forward hand and climb on recoil.
in days of yore military rifles were way ahead of civilian rifles in this area.
the early rifled muskets were a lot straighter than say kentucky or hawken rifles.
experience has shown that an enfield musketoon, lighter than a hawken in the same calibre, can be shot with massive charged (around 200 gns, a lot more easily and for more shots.
simply a straighter stock thing.
the english seem to have applied shotgun logic to rifles for some unknown reason, with great drop at comb and heel.
strangely their long range black powder match rifles were much straighter.
the modern classic american stock, typified by the win m70 or dakota, is certainly an improvement all round in handling recoil, faster repeat shots due to less climb, and better for scope use.
while some wax lyrical about iron sights, they are slower, less useable in poor light, and less accurate than a scope set on 1x.
they are also susceptable to damage more than a scope, and can get drops of water on them etc.
the weatherby stock has been pleasant to shoot on rifles of have shot but not owned.
but they just look so not to the taste of some.
bruce.

 

[SnowLeopard]

I agree with you 100%, 303. I suspect RookHawk has no experience shooting a Weatherby, or he wouldn't make the silly claims that he is making.

In the late 80's my uncle had a Winchester Model 70 in .375 H&H with a conventional Winchester stock. He found the identical gun at a gun show in Salt Lake City, but the stock was cracked. He picked it up dirt cheap. He had a stock maker create a new stock using the Weatherby design. We all went to the range to try out his new toy with the funny looking stock. We each fired a few rounds through each gun. And guess what? For all of us - THE FELT RECOIL was less with the Weatherby stock. The "actual recoil" of course was nearly identical because the same ammo was used throughout, the rifles were both identical Winchester Model 70's with 24" barrels and the weight differed only a few ounces due to the stock design. (I remember the Weatherby stocked rifle was a couple ounces lighter, but don't remember by how much.)

So again, "actual felt recoil" was less with the Weatherby stock design. And isn't that is what really matters?

The moral of the story is, of course, you should actually speak to what you have experienced - not what you theorize. History, while interesting, is only a starting point to create a better widget today. Roy Weatherby did just that.

As for the supposed "horrendous recoil" of a Weatherby caliber vs a conventional caliber, all I can say is - it ain't so. There is an increase, yes. But only about 150-200 fps is typical. Look at reloading manuals for .338 WinMag vs .340 Weatherby, for instance; or for .375 H&H vs .378 Weatherby. 150-200 fps does NOT make a a huge horrendous difference. Are Lazarroni or Lapua calibers criticized because they are even faster than the Weatherby's?

And the last criticism is the supposedly horrible high gloss stock of Weatherby rifles. Really??? Many companies offer high gloss stocks and deep blueing, so where is the criticism of the other companies??? The old timers used oil to finish the stock and repel moisture. In the mid-20th century it was figured out that a sealed high gloss finish actually provided better moisture repellent properties than an oil finish. Hence, it became a popular finish on stocks - and not just on Weatherby stocks. In fact, every major gun maker of the day offered high gloss stocks, and many still do. If anyone is criticizing Weatherby for this in 2020, they obviously have not visited the Weatherby website and are speaking from complete ignorance. Weatherby has many models of the Mark V and Vanguard rifles. Only a few have the high gloss and deep blueing so popular 50-60 years ago.

Now please don't anyone go and claim that I am just a Weatherby schill. I am a retired wildlife manager that has hunted yearly since I graduated high school in 1973. (Wow - seems like only yesterday doesn't it?) My dad and uncle gave me a Winchester Model 70 in .338 Winmag for my graduation present and it has accounted for all the big game that I have shot since that time except for one Nevada antelope that I took with a .243 Winchester in 2017. I still don't own a Weatherby. Just never got around to it. My .338 Winmag has allowed me to take everything in North America except for polar bear and musk ox which I have never hunted. Some guys have multiple safes full of different guns. I have only my Model 70. (Sold the Remington BDL in .243 Win right after the antelope hunt; it was just too light a caliber, though it didn't punish my shoulder like my .338 does.) Only reason I am commenting on this thread at all is because of all the silly uninformed comments that were being bandied about - and because of my experience shooting the identical Model 70's with different stock designs.

Remember guys, this is our hobby. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is "right". Guns are merely tools and everyone can choose whatever tool he likes to get the job done - which is to hunt ethically and kill quickly and humanely. And in every case, I would rather be over-gunned than under-gunned.

 

[IvW]

I agree with you 100%, 303. I suspect RookHawk has no experience shooting a Weatherby, or he wouldn't make the silly claims that he is making.

In the late 80's my uncle had a Winchester Model 70 in .375 H&H with a conventional Winchester stock. He found the identical gun at a gun show in Salt Lake City, but the stock was cracked. He picked it up dirt cheap. He had a stock maker create a new stock using the Weatherby design. We all went to the range to try out his new toy with the funny looking stock. We each fired a few rounds through each gun. And guess what? For all of us - THE FELT RECOIL was less with the Weatherby stock. The "actual recoil" of course was nearly identical because the same ammo was used throughout, the rifles were both identical Winchester Model 70's with 24" barrels and the weight differed only a few ounces due to the stock design. (I remember the Weatherby stocked rifle was a couple ounces lighter, but don't remember by how much.)

So again, "actual felt recoil" was less with the Weatherby stock design. And isn't that is what really matters?

The moral of the story is, of course, you should actually speak to what you have experienced - not what you theorize. History, while interesting, is only a starting point to create a better widget today. Roy Weatherby did just that.

As for the supposed "horrendous recoil" of a Weatherby caliber vs a conventional caliber, all I can say is - it ain't so. There is an increase, yes. But only about 150-200 fps is typical. Look at reloading manuals for .338 WinMag vs .340 Weatherby, for instance; or for .375 H&H vs .378 Weatherby. 150-200 fps does NOT make a a huge horrendous difference. Are Lazarroni or Lapua calibers criticized because they are even faster than the Weatherby's?

And the last criticism is the supposedly horrible high gloss stock of Weatherby rifles. Really??? Many companies offer high gloss stocks and deep blueing, so where is the criticism of the other companies??? The old timers used oil to finish the stock and repel moisture. In the mid-20th century it was figured out that a sealed high gloss finish actually provided better moisture repellent properties than an oil finish. Hence, it became a popular finish on stocks - and not just on Weatherby stocks. In fact, every major gun maker of the day offered high gloss stocks, and many still do. If anyone is criticizing Weatherby for this in 2020, they obviously have not visited the Weatherby website and are speaking from complete ignorance. Weatherby has many models of the Mark V and Vanguard rifles. Only a few have the high gloss and deep blueing so popular 50-60 years ago.

Now please don't anyone go and claim that I am just a Weatherby schill. I am a retired wildlife manager that has hunted yearly since I graduated high school in 1973. (Wow - seems like only yesterday doesn't it?) My dad and uncle gave me a Winchester Model 70 in .338 Winmag for my graduation present and it has accounted for all the big game that I have shot since that time except for one Nevada antelope that I took with a .243 Winchester in 2017. I still don't own a Weatherby. Just never got around to it. My .338 Winmag has allowed me to take everything in North America except for polar bear and musk ox which I have never hunted. Some guys have multiple safes full of different guns. I have only my Model 70. (Sold the Remington BDL in .243 Win right after the antelope hunt; it was just too light a caliber, though it didn't punish my shoulder like my .338 does.) Only reason I am commenting on this thread at all is because of all the silly uninformed comments that were being bandied about - and because of my experience shooting the identical Model 70's with different stock designs.

Remember guys, this is our hobby. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is "right". Guns are merely tools and everyone can choose whatever tool he likes to get the job done - which is to hunt ethically and kill quickly and humanely. And in every case, I would rather be over-gunned than under-gunned.

I think you yourself should check the balistics....150-200fps differance between a 375 H&H and a 378 Weatherby....eish 2530fps vs 2925fps...double what you state.....
Have you shot a 378 Weatherby with full power loads without a brake?
Horendous recoil to say the least....
It is not only the velocity but the design of the case that increases recoil.
And yes I own a 338 Lapua, incidently built on a Weatherby mark v action that was originally a 460 Weatherby out of their custom shop. Frightfully acurate but sporting a 30 1/2 inch barrel and a big can on the front it has zero recoil but is totally impractical as a hunting rifle...merely a toy to punch paper varmin or steel plates at whatever range you can hold tje cross hairs steady....

This thread is about Weatherby calibers larger than 375 H&H, the 375 Weatherby is actually not a bad idea, however very very few hunters can handle and accuratly shoot a 378, 416 or 460 Weatherby without a brake fitted(in most cases even fitted)...simple as that. Not one PH I know will recommend a client to bting any of these three. And yes they shine like mirrors.....totally impractical.

 

[Rule 303]

Snow Leopard, when I say the Weatherby stocks are butt ugly I am referring to their shape. Throw in the garish timber on more than a few and other adornments on some and they become just plain horrendous to look at. now that is just to my eye others obviously see beauty.

The gloss sealant on the stock, what you say is true but I still removed it from any stock I had that had the lacquered finish. Found furniture wax was very good at sealing and not letting moisture into the wood work.

As IvW said the larger cals do recoil sharp and hard.

 

[John458Lott]

What any PH hates is a client that can't shoot! Takes too long to shoot or will not walk. My SA PH just bought a 460 Weatherby! It does not make sense to single out Weatherby.

If you can shoot and your rifle/scope has been functionally tested it matters little whether you shoot a Weatherby cartridge or a non Weatherby cartridge, CRF or Non-CRF.

 

[EfRed]

Rarely are buffalo "stopped" or dropped on the first shot. 99% of the time they run away after the first shot. Shots in the rear end will only stop them if the spine or a hip joint is hit with a premium grade expanding bullet or rarely with a solid. Sufficient energy does not slow buffalo down only well placed shots with premium grade expanding bullets do. Once they are wounded and get going they can take a lot of lead. First shot placement, first shot placement, first shot placement........

Most importantly the first shot placement with a decent expanding bullet is the key to success, not energy or excessive muzzle velocity.

I do not really get they point of this post....should we all convert to higher velocity high recoiling rifles in case we make a bad first shot and we get a chance of another shot at much longer distance??

If the hunter could not make the first shot at close range on a un disturbed buffalo how is he going to make the shot at a much longer range with the same rifle??

I suggest you read this thread for some very valuable information regarding hunting in Africa and caliber choice from a very experienced and respected PH...

Is Bigger Always Better?

I thought this group may enjoy this article I wrote in the latest African Gazette. A link to that particular issue (of which Divan Labuschagne, one of our great PHs, also took the cover picture): Let me know your thoughts....

www.africahunting.com

Rarely are buffalo "stopped" or dropped on the first shot. 99% of the time they run away after the first shot. Shots in the rear end will only stop them if the spine or a hip joint is hit with a premium grade expanding bullet or rarely with a solid. Sufficient energy does not slow buffalo down only well placed shots with premium grade expanding bullets do. Once they are wounded and get going they can take a lot of lead. First shot placement, first shot placement, first shot placement........

Most importantly the first shot placement with a decent expanding bullet is the key to success, not energy or excessive muzzle velocity.

I do not really get they point of this post....should we all convert to higher velocity high recoiling rifles in case we make a bad first shot and we get a chance of another shot at much longer distance??

If the hunter could not make the first shot at close range on a un disturbed buffalo how is he going to make the shot at a much longer range with the same rifle??

I suggest you read this thread for some very valuable information regarding hunting in Africa and caliber choice from a very experienced and respected PH...

Is Bigger Always Better?

I thought this group may enjoy this article I wrote in the latest African Gazette. A link to that particular issue (of which Divan Labuschagne, one of our great PHs, also took the cover picture): Let me know your thoughts....

www.africahunting.com

"I do not really get they point of this post....should we all convert to higher velocity high recoiling rifles in case we make a bad first shot and we get a chance of another shot at much longer distance??"

I'd never ask you convert - you should be happy with what you want ! I might even use a non-Weatherby cartridge in a non Weatherby rifle. I might use a mauser-style action. But I may use my Weatherby, and I hope I always recognize its obvious value. I hope my PH, if I ever have one, will be open minded enough to recognize that value also. Surely there's a far greater range of shooting ability than of rifle/cartridge performance in the ranks of amateur big game hunters. I think the PH will worry more about the hunter hitting his aiming point than about whether his bullet is going 100 or 200 fps too fast. The difference in recoil between Weatherby and like caliber non-Weatherby cartridges is in most cases too little for an African hunter to notice - if you can handle a 500 Nitro, you aren't going to complain about the difference between a .375 Weatherby and a .375 H&H.