PDA

View Full Version : Not Everyone Has The Same Beliefs On Effectiveness


200RNL
05-10-10, 13:15
W.D.M. Bell and His Elephants

By James Passmore

Walter D.M. Bell has become a legend among elephant hunters due to his great success in the ivory trade during the golden age of hunting in East Africa. He is known as “Karamojo” Bell because of his safaris through this remote wilderness area in North Eastern Uganda. He is famous for perfecting the brain shot on elephants, dissecting their skulls and making a careful study of the anatomy of the skull so he could predict paths of bullet travel from a shot at any angle in order to reach the brain. Using mostly 6.5mm and 7mm caliber rifles, he was an advocate of shot placement over big bore power for killing efficiently.

Modern writers on the internet and in magazine articles have tended to refer to him and his tally of elephants in this vein, “He shot most of his 1000 elephants with a 7x57mm rifle” or words to that effect. In fact, Walter Bell killed 1011 elephants with a 7x57 in the course of his career. Since most people refer to him for his small caliber prowess and his elephant tally I thought I would try and break it down, because there are a great number of people quoting what “Karamojo Bell” did or didn’t do and I have noted a common tendency in the last few years to play down what he did with small caliber rifles. Perhaps this is in direct relation to the resurgence in popularity of magnums and the larger safari rifles. Craig Boddington is quite apt to mention the "few hundred elephants" that Bell took. (Mr. Boddington, I believe, is an erstwhile heavy rifle enthusiast.)

Bell recorded all of his kills and shots fired. It was a business to him, not pleasure, and he needed to record expenditures.

He shot exactly 1,011 elephants with a series of six Rigby-made 7x57mm (.275 Rigby) rifles with 173 grain military ammo.

He shot 300 elephants with a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5x54mm carbine using the long 159 grain FMJ bullets.

He shot 200 odd with the .303 and the 215 grain army bullet.

He went to a .318 Westley Richards for a while, which is a cartridge firing a 250 grain bullet at about 2400 fps, but found the ammunition unreliable and returned to the 7mm.

He also recorded that one of the reasons why he favored the 7x57 was that the ammunition was more reliable and he could not recall ever having a fault with it. Whereas British sporting ammunition, apart from the .303 military ammo, gave him endless trouble with splitting cases.

The balance of his elephants were shot with this .318 and his .450/400 Jeffrey double rifle.

He wrote about being able to drop an elephant with a light caliber rifle if he shot it in the same place that he would have shot it with a heavy rifle.

It was unmentioned, but understood, that 7x57 ammunition cost a tenth the price of large caliber .450/400 Jeffrey cartridges and money is always a factor in business.

Just out of interest, I will mention that to judge ammunition expenditure and his own shooting, he calculated an average. He discovered that with the .275 (7x57mm) he fired an average of 1.5 shots per kill. This means that half the time he only needed one shot. That is a fair performance for such a large number of elephants killed and considering that it is common today to fire an insurance shot, anyway.

It is also interesting to note that, although Bell is the most famous proponent of using small caliber "nitro" rifles for large game, he did not discover the technique, nor was he its earliest advocate. Well known hunter Arthur Neumann, for example, had been shooting elephants with a .303 Lee Metford rifle for years before Walter Bell got into the business.

WDM Bell is forever associated with the John Rigby & Sons Mauser rifle and the .275 Rigby cartridge. ".275 Rigby" was the British designation for the German 7x57mm Mauser cartridge. This cartridge propelled a .284 caliber, 173 grain bullet at around 2300 fps and the bullets he used for elephant brain shots were full metal jacketed solids. He declared once that a soft point bullet had never sullied the bore of his rifle. It is interesting to compare these ballistics with what is commonly regarded as essential performance today.

The Rigby Mauser was just that, a Mauser action rifle in sporting configuration, half stocked and finely finished. The actions were made by the Mauser Company in Germany and Rigby had the rights to sell them in England. The Mauser action was the darling of the sporting world at the time and Bell was obviously a man who appreciated fine rifles; he bought the best. For most of his life, he was an advocate of the bead front blade and express rear sights. However, in later years he used an aperture sight as well as early telescopic sights. His last .275 Rigby rifle was sold by his widow (after his death in 1951) to the writer Robert Ruark, who later presented it to Mark Selby, son of the famous white hunter Harry Selby. A constellation of famous African names converged around the ownership of this rifle. Interestingly, it is a half stock, take down rifle with early telescopic sights and a trap made out of the grip cap to store cleaning gear.

Shot placement for the tricky brain shot on elephants required good marksmanship. Bell constantly practiced by dry-firing his rifle. He always carried his own rifle, eschewing gun bearers (another plus for the lightweight Mauser), and picked pretend targets of opportunity as he traveled, dry firing at a distant rock or bird. He believed that this was the single practice most beneficial to a hunter.

He was a great proponent of the bead foresight and it was his drawings, with which he illustrated his first book Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter, that explained to me how to use a bead front sight properly. You should hold the bead low in the notch so that your elevation is constant and open both eyes so that you can see through your hand and rifle with your non-shooting eye.

As a further example of marksmanship (if brain shooting a great many elephants isn’t enough), Bell used up the remainder of his unwanted .318 ammunition by shooting flying birds over an African lake. Spectators believed that he was using a shotgun and were amazed to find that he was actually using a rifle.

I will make the point that unlike many African writers (Peter Capstick jumps to mind), “Karamojo” Bell doesn’t seem to have been particularly threatened by an elephant, rogue or otherwise. Nor did he have to “turn a charge” or anything like that. The prose in his books has none of the trumpeting about the manly virtues of facing grisly death upon which Capstick built his writing career and that has been popular ever since Hemingway went on a couple of hunting trips. (Hemingway was disappointed when he shot a lion and it just died, and that’s all.)

A great many people have tried to explain away Bell’s elephant hunting success by asserting that he didn’t need to hunt in thick cover and could shoot elephants from long range, the implication being that somehow the behavior of African elephants must have been different back then. This is untrue, as any reader of his books will find. Mr. Bell hunted hard, walked thousands of miles, ran down elephants and was a very cool marksman at close range.

One does not walk down an elephant in uncharted African wilderness with a tool one regards as marginal and Bell had complete confidence in his ability to harvest elephants with the Rigby Mauser. It was his business and also his hide at stake, especially considering that the amount of money to be made was considerable. To put his efforts into perspective, he wrote of one day when he tracked and shot nine elephants. He estimated that he had earned 877 pounds sterling from the ivory harvested from those nine kills. After one expedition he returned with ivory worth over 23,000 pounds sterling. That was a vast sum of money and converted to today’s currency equivalent it would make your eyes water. One does not risk that kind of money and effort on a questionable caliber.

Walter Bell left Scotland a young adventurer obsessed with hunting, traveling to the North American Yukon territory to try to cash in on the gold rush and make his fortune. It did not pan out and he joined the Canadian forces sent to fight alongside the British in the Boer War in South Africa at the turn of the 20th Century. Taken prisoner at one point by the Boers, he later escaped. When the war was settled, he stayed on and bought his way into elephant hunting, outfitting his first safari on foot into East Africa. He later confessed that he had only joined the army in order to get to Africa.

Bell made himself into a successful elephant hunter not just because of his skill with a rifle, but also due to carefully maintained good relations with the local people in the territories through which he traveled. He was always ready with gifts for chiefs and kings; he bought hunting permission from them. One of his best ideas was to post a reward for any African who gave him information on the whereabouts of good elephants. He soon had a flood of elephant sightings coming in and he was as good as his word, readily paying for the information.

When the Great War (World War I) broke out, he became a pilot flying in Tanganyika (Tanzania). He was known for not flying with an observer, because the observer obstructed his view when he tried to shoot enemy planes down with his .450 elephant gun! He later served in Greece and Italy and was twice decorated.

After the War, Bell returned to ivory hunting, traveling by canoe into then uncharted African wilds after legendary herds of large elephants. He made his last expedition in the early 1920’s.

He retired to Scotland a wealthy man; there is no unhappy or overly dramatic ending to his story. He lived unscathed through all of his adventures to enjoy the wealth he had made with his rifle.

Except that, Mr. Bell was not your normal retired chap. He steps once more into history during World War II, sailing his yacht Trenchmare to the shores of Dunkirk in 1940 to help evacuate the besieged Allied forces from the beaches at the age of sixty.

Walter Bell spent his later years writing, practicing art and bird hunting on his Scottish estate. (One imagines with a fine "London best" double gun.) He created water color paintings and ink drawings of red stags in the Highland tussock as well as paintings of splendidly depicted elephants on the savannah, made with an eye for anatomical detail and an appreciation of the body language of the African elephant. He used them to illustrate his books.

He made it clear in his books what he would use if he returned to Africa. With a lifetime of elephant hunting behind him, he felt he could put his finger on the perfect caliber for the purpose. Strange as it may seem, it wasn’t his trusty 7mm Mauser. He seems to have matured and gone for a heavier rig. Any .30 caliber capable of sending a 250 grain bullet at about 2500 feet per second would do nicely as an elephant gun, thank you, old boy.


http://www.chuckhawks.com/bell_elephants.htm

Entropy
05-10-10, 13:39
I think that it's a good read and very applicable to hunting large, slow moving game. I don't think it is very relevant to the self defense side of shooting whether that be dangerous charging game or the two legged kind. It's very difficult to have that level of ideal shot precision when your target is moving rapidly and/or you may be taking gun fire yourself.

A more practical hunting example would be Alaskan guides that use Brenneke slugs for grizzly protection. As I recall, the favored caliber of large predator(lions) hunters in Africa has usually been large bore, heavy rifle calibers at moderate velocities as center of mass shots are the best way to deal with a charging lion.

WS6
05-10-10, 17:00
I think a lot of what we see in society is due to people always "wanting more".

Our personal debt.
Our further dwindling hours of sleep.
Food serving size.
Amount of medication prescribed.
The fact that the .30-30 is now somehow "marginal" for deer...

The list could go on and on and on, but the point remains that society is driven by greed, and if a little is good, a lot is better.

BuckskinJoe
05-10-10, 18:21
If the Exxon Valdez is any indication, the oil spill in the Gulf should be very effective incapacitating many waterfowl. Automobiles almost always instantaneously incapacitate animals they hit (including humans), even at low speed--88 feet per second is plenty.

Tornados and raging floods are effective man stoppers, too.

:confused:

This thread belongs in another forum...on a different web site!

Zhurdan
05-10-10, 18:40
Automobiles almost always instantaneously incapacitate animals they hit (including humans), even at low speed--88 feet per second is plenty.



88 ft/sec with a 21,000,000 grain bullet is very effective.

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

WS6
05-10-10, 22:03
88 ft/sec with a 21,000,000 grain bullet is very effective.

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

So are you arguing in favor of kinetic energy, or momentum? Either way, I would argue that a Traumatic Brain Injury is a very possible reality here, lol.

200RNL
05-11-10, 02:05
"What in the world does this have to do with defensive ammunition/terminal ballistics?"

Fair enough question.

It is interesting that a 7mm round nose FMJ bullet, that would not reliably stop a charging groundhog with a chest shot, would be successfully used, by one man, to stop over 1000 elephants with brain shots.

In contrast, a 7mm round nose FMJ bullet, that would not reliably stop an elephant with a chest shot, would most likely stop a charging groundhog with a brain shot.


Perhaps caliber is not as important as having a well constructed bullet of sufficient sectional density and velocity, to reliably penetrate to a vital structure.

BuckskinJoe
05-11-10, 05:34
Again, wrong forum and wrong website.
Unless and until Dr. Roberts, SSA Buford Boone at the FBI, and other reputable testing agencies start using elephants for test medium, this has nothing to do with self defense ammunition and terminal ballistics.

Perhaps Marshall and Sanow can write a book on one-shot stops on charging groundhogs! :(

200RNL
05-11-10, 20:47
Again, wrong forum and wrong website.

How silly of me. I thought I saw the title 'Terminal Ballistic Information' at the top of this forum.

Sorry I wasted your time.

MK108
05-18-10, 04:32
Dear 200 RNL,

about ten years ago I read the book "African rifles and cartridges" written by Mr. John Taylor...another really succesfull elephant hunter...

...in the book he wrote about the hunting records by Mr. Bell...if my memory is right he wrote that the latter's choice about the caliber to use against elephants was right when you take into consideration his type of hunting and for a man with his incredible skill...

...but not for the average hunter in every hunting enviroment...

...after that he wrote too that in his opinion the short term effects on such large animals by two 600 NE slugs or a single 6.5mm bullet with soft tissues only penetration were similar(..poor..)....not so for a bullet in the skull frame of an elephant in bad mood from a frontal shot...

All the best
Andrea

P.S.: I am sorry for my elephant-oriented post...another one...but the posts by 200 RNL are very interesting to me...and I am very interested about the lives of such great african hunters too...

JSantoro
05-18-10, 15:13
How silly of me. I thought I saw the title 'Terminal Ballistic Information' at the top of this forum.

Sorry I wasted your time.

Aww, pobrecito. I'm with the others who have raised the same objection: you're posting this because you want to say something, not because you have anything relevant to say in regard to the intent of the forum.

You could have put it on any of a metric assload of hunting sites where other Great White Hunter delusionals would fall all over themselves in a masturbatory posting orgy of approval. You chose to put it here, and are reaping what you sowed.

You chose poorly, and are getting told about it. Too bad, so sad.

We're not idiots for not falling in on your odd interest in tartan-wearing IVORY HUNTERS. It's YOU that's silly for not finding a comprehensive way to tie that halfwit colonialist's antics to something relevant to the modern American self-defense practitioner.

You can whine, or you can find a way to tie it in to something relevant. G'head, "Wow" me....

200RNL
05-19-10, 22:21
in his opinion the short term effects on such large animals by two 600 NE slugs or a single 6.5mm bullet with soft tissues only penetration were similar(..poor..)....not so for a bullet in the skull frame of an elephant in bad mood from a frontal shot...

I have read that the larger rifle calibers would have a greater effect on an elephant with a frontal skull shot. I am not sure if there was that much of a difference in effectiveness between the larger and smaller calibers. WDM Bell achieved very good results with his small bores. He may have been very skillfull but I doubt that he could make over 1000 perfect shots. If his rifle was inadequate, odds are that an elephant would have ended his career well before he reached 1000 kills.

The observation that the large and small caliber bullets produced no observable differences in effectiveness, when fired into the soft tissue of such a large animal, is interesting.

I have a feeling that large and medium caliber FMJ service caliber handgun bullets, striking the soft tissue of human adversaries, also produce no observable differences in effectiveness. I wish there was some scientific evidence to prove that one way or the other.

One difference between the elephant and the human example is that an expanding large or small caliber rifle bullet could have insufficient soft tissue penetration on such large animals. In contrast, an expanding service caliber handgun bullet of good design, will have adequate soft tissue penetration in the much smaller human adversary.

If the diameter of the expanded handgun bullet has little effect on the level of effectiveness, perhaps handgun bullets should be designed to limit their fully expanded diameter in order to gain penetration. A slightly expanded nose that results in a full wadcutter shape would be a good balance. This approach would especially benefit the less powerful calibers.

In defensive situations involving human adversaries, we know that if a .380 ACP bullet achieves too much expansion, penetration is not adequate from some angles.

A .380 bullet, that could not expand to more than .40 caliber, and which formed a wadcutter shaped frontal area, may be able to achieve adequate penetration. Perhaps that approach could provide an effective load for this caliber.

Also, Thankyou for your kind words Andrea.