Those Quills Just go Everywhere

I have amazing news. It looks like I was right about something.

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a hunting show where a gun expert used a Winchester-type lever action rifle in a weird caliber to kill an oryx. Someone in the comments claimed it was actually a .30-30. I said I doubted it, because it was a Benelli-sponsored show, and Uberti is part of Benelli, and they make lever action rifles, and Uberti doesn't make a .30-30. They make a .45-60. And their .45-60 has an octagonal barrel, like the gun in the show. Then the commenter claimed he had a magazine containing an article about the hunt, and that the gun was a .30-30 after all. I gave more specifics and asked if he was sure, and he hasn't responded.

Here is the latest comment in the saga, from commenter Max Jenkins:

You were right. The hunter was Phil Spangenberger, a well-known gunwriter and expert on lever actions. In my Winter 2008 edition of "Guns of the Old West" there is a story about the rifle and the hunt. On page 64, he describes the hunt at the "777 Ranch" in Texas. He shot an Oryx, at a range of about 35 yards. He was using an Uberti 1876, chambered in .45-60.

I thought they said 100 yards on the show, but I guess I was wrong. Or they exaggerated the distance to make the shot look better. No, gun writers and hunting show hosts never lie. In any case, I wondered if it was ethical to shoot a huge animal like an oryx (up to 200 kg) with a lame-ass Old West caliber like the .45-60. These things go something like 1400 feet per second, so it's not like a modern round such as the .30-06, which goes roughly twice that fast. The oryx on the show ran a long way before it died, and either the guide or the shooter pointed out that it was because the .45-60 lacked the "shocking power" of a modern caliber. When you hear something like that, you have to wonder why they used it.

Oh, right. To sell guns.

I thought the shot was longer, which made the ethics question more reasonable. At a hundred yards, with open sights, you would probably be shooting into a vague area the size of a basketball. I don't see how you could count on placing the shot well enough to expect a clean kill. At 35 yards, it would be hard to screw it up. Well, I guess I'm wrong, because this oryx got up and ran off, and the shooter was supposedly a crack shot.

I don't know much about hunting, I admit. He hit this thing in the upper left shoulder, more or less where you would expect the joint to be. Is that a good place to shoot a hoofed animal? I would have thought the general region of the heart would be a better target. Or you could just nail it in the head, but I suppose this guy wanted a trophy. Is it considered ethical to let an animal suffer in order to get a trophy? I couldn't do it. I'd shoot for the heart or blow its brains out if I could.

I'm sitting here thinking about it, and at 35 yards, I'd feel pretty comfortable shooting an animal that size with a pistol. I mean, that's pretty close. Like shooting someone on the far side of a typical front yard. It would have to be a serious pistol; .44 magnum or better. But making the shot would be very easy, if you supported the gun. In fact, I have to wonder why this guy used a support for the rifle. I've shot rabbits at longer distances. With the Desert Eagle propped up, I could pretty much hollow out an oryx at 35 yards. Oryx paste. Or I could do a Tred Barta, run up to it naked, and kill it with a Cub Scout knife.

Someone on a forum pointed out that Barta's deal where he had dogs and a guide hold down a terrified pig while he stabbed it to death probably did not do a hell of a lot for the image of hunting. I have to agree. I couldn't participate in a hunt where you torment the animal and have dogs maul it before you kill it.

In Kentucky, my dad used to coon hunt. And you do that by releasing a bunch of angry dogs, and they chase the coon until it runs up a tree because it's scared to death. Then you stand under the tree and make fun of the coon for a while, and then you shoot it. I wouldn't have a lot of enthusiasm for that. If for some reason I really needed a dead coon, it would be a different thing. But I've gotten along okay without one so far. No, if I had to kill a coon, I'd want it to be happy and gay one second and on its way to meet the Lord the next.

I suppose I sympathize with the people who are against fox hunting. Those foxes have a pretty crappy time. Imagine having a pack of dogs that outweigh you chase you for a whole afternoon. And it's not like foxes taste good. You can't justify it by talking about your need for fox meat.

I hunted foxes once. I sat around with a .22 and waited for a fox or family of foxes to come out of a hole. I was going to pop them in the head at that point. Very humane. In fact, it turned out to be even more humane than it sounds, because the foxes never showed up.

They really do live in foxholes. It's not just an expression. Unless my grandfather was pulling my leg.

Maybe I'd make a horrible and annoying hunter, putting all these conditions on the enterprise. But it seems to me that with equipment as good as it is today, it's hard to come up with an excuse for letting an animal suffer.

Now I have to go turn on the DVR. I recorded a show where Tred Barta dashes out of a blind in his underwear and kills a giant African porcupine with a leg scissors.