Shot placement question

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

It's worked for 50 years so far.

I guess you can't teach an old frog new tricks.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I guess you can't teach an old frog new tricks.

Very funny! ROFL I hope you don't mind RedFrog. It is a very clever play on words don't you think?

I do think RedFrogs comment exemplifies the nature of the situation.
If it works for you.

I have stated what my preferences are and why. But all the anatomy and ballistics aside, the bottom line is, it works for me.

Sometimes I think it's more about what one has experienced, or about the particular ammunition and or rifle one carries. Let's be honest here, a shoulder shot with a 6.5 Swedish Mauser may not be the best idea.

But it seems to me that what matters most is what works for that person.
I don't know, maybe what I call a heart shot is in fact on the high side and is more a shoulder shot. Or it could be that those who advocate a shoulder shot are actually hitting lower then they think and hitting within the Heart/Lung zone.

And with that, I am ready to move on. If others wish to debate more, have fun, and keep it civil. Remember, we are in this together whether we want to be or not.

[equanuck]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Perhaps if you did some real hunting you would learn that dangerous game is dangerous no matter the range, and they remain dangerous until dead.
That is what gives rise to the designation dangerous game.

I'll tell you what. you crawl on hands and knees into a brush pile to finish off a Bear your neighbour made a bad shot on at (according to his account, at 200 yards) and then you come tell me how a 200 or 350 or any other distance shot is never a dangerous game shot.

This is getting tiresome. This is about the tenth time you have tried to pick a fight with me.

What is your problem. You want to debate, lets debate, quit trying to bait me into a fight.

What are your thought on bullet placement.

Well... Firstly I've done a **** load of hunting / shooting and I have done the bush crawl. It was the ladies first time shooting at anything big and the brush in the BC interior is not exactly crawler friendly.

I have absolutely no problems with you, only with what you write. You're all over the board and then use poor examples to try and make your point.

Distance dictates whether an animal of any species is dangerous or not. I am talking about hunting and not the unexpected arrival of an animal as that will change as each situation will be different. We have also been discussing preferred shot.

If I was going for Alaskan brown, I would very likely be looking at a close up shot and would be going for mid shoulder of at least one side preferably both. I would be taking my 338-378 Wby.

350 yards? I would be shooting minimum of one shoulder with the heart / lung area coming into the picture as well. I don't take "snap shots" at bears at 350yds for the reason that I do not consider them dangerous at that distance. That said, "IF" I am going to shoot a bear at 350yds, I will be dropping the bipod, settling in behind the scope and waiting for the bear to present the best shot. If he doesn't give the opportunity, he doesn't get shot at.

FYI I pack according to what I intend to hunt or what the shooting conditions are expected to be. I also have a large selection of rifles and optics and I shoot my bigger guns to the 600yd mark so I know where the bullet is expected to go.

Lastly. I once again state that any bear at 350yds is not "dangerous". I, on the other hand, AM.

Goodnight from Iraq!

[gitrdun]

A high shoulder shot on a NA ungulate is simply nothing more than a shot that was meant for the boiler room and the shooter "flinched" is all. No shame, one can easily be recoil sensitive when using an eraser for a recoil pad.

[1shotwade]

arty 0052:: party0052::an

[Walleyes]

Its all very simple boys and can be summed up quickly no need for 8 pages..

An animal can quite easily live with a hole in its shoulder I have seen it happen more than once,, but they can not live with a hole through their lungs... Its really not that hard to figure out.. Why anyone would want to take the chance is beyond me,, just to prove themselves correct "MOST" of the time ??? each to their own I guess..

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by equanuck

Well... Firstly I've done a **** load of hunting / shooting and I have done the bush crawl. It was the ladies first time shooting at anything big and the brush in the BC interior is not exactly crawler friendly.

I have absolutely no problems with you, only with what you write. You're all over the board and then use poor examples to try and make your point.

Distance dictates whether an animal of any species is dangerous or not. I am talking about hunting and not the unexpected arrival of an animal as that will change as each situation will be different. We have also been discussing preferred shot.

If I was going for Alaskan brown, I would very likely be looking at a close up shot and would be going for mid shoulder of at least one side preferably both. I would be taking my 338-378 Wby.

350 yards? I would be shooting minimum of one shoulder with the heart / lung area coming into the picture as well. I don't take "snap shots" at bears at 350yds for the reason that I do not consider them dangerous at that distance. That said, "IF" I am going to shoot a bear at 350yds, I will be dropping the bipod, settling in behind the scope and waiting for the bear to present the best shot. If he doesn't give the opportunity, he doesn't get shot at.

Good for you. To each his own.

[gitrdun]

equanuck, the only problem with your rebuttal to keg's is that your story is full of "if's" and " I would's" .... count how many times you've said "if" . Now go back and truly examine how many times you can truly recount real life experiences in comparison to the ones in dreams.....you know, before the alarm clock goes off.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

Its all very simple boys and can be summed up quickly no need for 8 pages..

An animal can quite easily live with a hole in its shoulder I have seen it happen more than once,, but they can not live with a hole through their lungs... Its really not that hard to figure out.. Why anyone would want to take the chance is beyond me,, just to prove themselves correct "MOST" of the time ??? each to their own I guess..

Walleye, I tried a similar post early on in the previous '' shot placement'' thread. You won't win with it....
This one is catching up to the crossbow thread

[HunterDave]

Maybe the problem lies with people not really knowing what to do after a boiler room shot and the animal takes off aways?

[big-river]

Interesting to read where some write that it is acceptable to be SOL on the high shoulder shot where the shot goes a couple of inches high and the animal escapes, wounded. The animal lives, the author writes. Just like that. The animal lives.
How do you know? Because you didn't find it? Are you aware that most wounded animal mortality occurs late in the winter where the wounded animal goes into winter in a weakened condition and dies later? Some survive, but most wounded animals die in the winter months.

The problem with the high shoulder is that it can sever the spine and results in a spectacular death. However a couple of inches too high, the bullet can hit a fin off the vertabrae, or slide between two of the fins and make the animal drop as if hit by a bolt of lightening. And it might even lay there a couple of minutes, Then it gets up and leaves. With a very thin blood trail. I've seen it.

I just think the kill zone is too small on the high shoulder shot, it is hard enough to get a good enough shot exactly where you want it, especially under a lot of hunting conditions, lots of variables to worry about.

You can shoot em anywheres you want, I just bet one day you will change your mind.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by big-river

Interesting to read where some write that it is acceptable to be SOL on the high shoulder shot where the shot goes a couple of inches high and the animal escapes, wounded. The animal lives, the author writes. Just like that. The animal lives.
How do you know? Because you didn't find it? Are you aware that most wounded animal mortality occurs late in the winter where the wounded animal goes into winter in a weakened condition and dies later? Some survive, but most wounded animals die in the winter months.

The problem with the high shoulder is that it can sever the spine and results in a spectacular death. However a couple of inches too high, the bullet can hit a fin off the vertabrae, or slide between two of the fins and make the animal drop as if hit by a bolt of lightening. And it might even lay there a couple of minutes, Then it gets up and leaves. With a very thin blood trail. I've seen it.

I just think the kill zone is too small on the high shoulder shot, it is hard enough to get a good enough shot exactly where you want it, especially under a lot of hunting conditions, lots of variables to worry about.

You can shoot em anywheres you want, I just bet one day you will change your mind.

You must consider that the ''bang flop'' is now the preferred ''shot'' for TV viewing.
I've already pointed out numerous times that the ethics of a meat wasting shot on an ungulate is VERY questionable.
This seems to get skirted around very tactfully by the shoulder crowd.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Maybe the problem lies with people not really knowing what to do after a boiler room shot and the animal takes off aways?

Well said, after a boiler room shot, the majority of the animals have dropped in their tracks. Those that I've had to track have always left a significant tell tale blood trail that had to be followed by only a few yards. The thing is, after I've made my shot, I do know where it impacted, so I can lay in waiting, even if it walks off out of my sight, I still know that I made deadly contact. So, I'll sit still, wait for the impact to do it's job and then make my retrieve. And that's the difference between one that truly knows where his bullet will impact and one that "hopes" to do so. This only comes with range practise on paper, year 'round.

[209x50]

Oh my goodness, this has carried on a long ways! LOL
Just to check, is anyone going to change how they've shot their animals the last 20, 30 , 40, 50 or more years? No? Me either.
So back to the regularly scheduled broadcast.

[elkhunter11]

Just to check, is anyone going to change how they've shot their animals the last 20, 30 , 40, 50 or more years? No? Me either.

And that is quite likely true for almost everyone.They will continue to take the shots that they always have taken,and if they should lose an animal, they will simply blame the bullet for failing, or blame the scope for the shot not striking where they intended it to strike.

[equanuck]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

equanuck, the only problem with your rebuttal to keg's is that your story is full of "if's" and " I would's" .... count how many times you've said "if" . Now go back and truly examine how many times you can truly recount real life experiences in comparison to the ones in dreams.....you know, before the alarm clock goes off.

Serious??? The OP asked "preference" so that means "IF". If the animal is broadside... If the animal is 20 yards or 350 yards... If the animal is a deer or a grizzly... If I have a 30-30 or a 338 Magnum...

If you read all of what I wrote you would see that I wrote that I have many different rifles and that I pack according to what I intend to hunt. With the exception of going for Alaskan Brown I have taken the shots that I stated and that includes point blank range to 400+ yards on deer.

Wake up and smell the popcorn!

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by equanuck

Serious??? The OP asked "preference" so that means "IF". If the animal is broadside... If the animal is 20 yards or 350 yards... If the animal is a deer or a grizzly... If I have a 30-30 or a 338 Magnum...

If you read all of what I wrote you would see that I wrote that I have many different rifles and that I pack according to what I intend to hunt. With the exception of going for Alaskan Brown I have taken the shots that I stated and that includes point blank range to 400+ yards on deer.

Wake up and smell the popcorn!

Seriously, The Op ask for preferences. That means to me, what I have done when faced with that situation/animal/angle/rifle in hand. Not what if.

If I have to resort to if, it's because I have no experience to draw from.

Like so, I prefer to shoot Moose in the heart. If I were to hunt Alaskan Brown Bear I would - - -

See how that works.

If you have no experience to draw from, a if answer is entirely appropriate I would think. If you have the experience, why not use it?

Kind of a give away you know.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And that is quite likely true for almost everyone.They will continue to take the shots that they always have taken,and if they should lose an animal, they will simply blame the bullet for failing, or blame the scope for the shot not striking where they intended it to strike.

I guess you would have had to lost an animal for such worries to ride on your mind elk.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Oh my goodness, this has carried on a long ways! LOL
Just to check, is anyone going to change how they've shot their animals the last 20, 30 , 40, 50 or more years? No? Me either.
So back to the regularly scheduled broadcast.

Yes 209 it has gone all over the place !! Not unusual for these kinda threads.
A question to you.
Have you always been a shoulder guy ? My guess is no.
I've recently noticed that the TV scene has gone almost exclusively to the bang flop. i understand that getting the drop/kill is more appealing ( to some ) viewers than a shot animal running off with its tail in the air to lay down and die in the bush.
I revert back to my comments about how we as hunters are publicly percieved.
To me a non-hunter or anti ''viewing'' a bang flop on tv is bad publicity, verses an animal running off with his tail wagging to die out of sight.
Personally, I get no thrill out of killing an animal, so I can only imagine how the non-hunting crowd react to this. I shoot out the heart and lungs so I don't have to walk up to suffering animal that has no front legs to walk on.
I won't even get into the meat wasting aspect......
Sorry to get off track.....maybe we should start a new thread

Now.....back to the broadcast

[elkhunter11]

I guess you would have had to lost an animal for such worries to ride on your mind elk.
__________________

More like I am tired of hearing complaints from people that have lost animals.They almost always blame the scope, or the bullet, and rarely accept the blame for making a bad shot.I have also helped track a few animals that the shooter was positive was hit perfectly, and upon finding the carcass, the bullet placement left a lot to be desired.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Yes 209 it has gone all over the place !! Not unusual for these kinda threads.
A question to you.
Have you always been a shoulder guy ? My guess is no.
I've recently noticed that the TV scene has gone almost exclusively to the bang flop. i understand that getting the drop/kill is more appealing ( to some ) viewers than a shot animal running off with its tail in the air to lay down and die in the bush.
I revert back to my comments about how we as hunters are publicly percieved.
To me a non-hunter or anti ''viewing'' a bang flop on tv is bad publicity, verses an animal running off with his tail wagging to die out of sight.
Personally, I get no thrill out of killing an animal, so I can only imagine how the non-hunting crowd react to this. I shoot out the heart and lungs so I don't have to walk up to suffering animal that has no front legs to walk on.
I won't even get into the meat wasting aspect......
Sorry to get off track.....maybe we should start a new thread

Now.....back to the broadcast

LOL! I've been a sure thing shooter for my entire career (46 years now). I've never lost an animal and I've never taken a shot a running animal. The shoulder shot has always been my preferred shot but not always the one I've used.
Your comments on what antis think and meat waste etc is the kind of stuff I've put up with from my peers over the 46 years and never once from an anti. Not once including 11 years of broadcasting bang flops. That say anything to you?

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

LOL! I've been a sure thing shooter for my entire career (46 years now). I've never lost an animal and I've never taken a shot a running animal. The shoulder shot has always been my preferred shot but not always the one I've used.
Your comments on what antis think and meat waste etc is the kind of stuff I've put up with from my peers over the 46 years and never once from an anti. Not once including 11 years of broadcasting bang flops. That say anything to you?

Fair enough....just asking the question. I don't claim to know everything but do a have a fair bit of experience dating back a few years nontheless.
I ask the question because when I grew my flight feathers back in the early 80's I don't ever recall guys shooting for anything other than heart/lung. Well...actually there was the ''neck'' crowd back then, but they were fewer.
Not saying there wasn't the shoulder crowd, as your saying, I just don't recall.
I'm sure there was....my observations are my observations...so don't get you *** in a knot.
Am I wrong when I suggest that the TV scene has changed substantially to the bang flop ?
And, please comment on my difficulty in accepting wasted meat on an ungulate??
Big bears shoot all the shoulder knuckles you want....I'm sorry but I don't like the thought of intentionally wasting meat on an ungulate because that's the ''preferred'' shot.
My sound petty to you..... but not to me.

Holy crap.....now taking a shot that instantly puts an animal on the ground rather than letting it run off to die somewhere else is unethical and feeding the antis. As long as some of you are around to criticize and maligne your fellow hunters, I think antis are the least of our worries. Wow! I think I will go visit the knitting forum. Just when you think you've heard it all.................


If you really are so worried about the antis MG...stop hunting because that's the only thing that will ever make them happy but I'm sure they delight in this rapid erosion of our heritage at the hands of our own.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Fair enough....just asking the question. I don't claim to know everything but do a have a fair bit of experience dating back a few years nontheless.
I ask the question because when I grew my flight feathers back in the early 80's I don't ever recall guys shooting for anything other than heart/lung. Well...actually there was the ''neck'' crowd back then, but they were fewer.
Not saying there wasn't the shoulder crowd, as your saying, I just don't recall.
Easy enough to understand, we all learn from those around us.

I'm sure there was....my observations are my observations...so don't get you *** in a knot.
Gotta love the internet, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean my knickers are in a knot. I'm a laid back guy enjoying a great Sunday morning.

Am I wrong when I suggest that the TV scene has changed substantially to the bang flop ?
I don't know, I can only speak for me.

And, please comment on my difficulty in accepting wasted meat on an ungulate??
This is the first step down the road to hell, to quote an old saying. The next step? Well I decide that lead bullets waste to much meat, then you come back with fast bullets do to much damage... You see where we end up in a hurry? I don't think where and how I shoot my critters is any of your business. how about this? You shoot your critters where you want and I'll shoot mine where I want.

.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Holy crap.....now taking a shot that instantly puts an animal on the ground rather than letting it run off to die somewhere else is unethical and feeding the antis. As long as some of you are around to criticize and maligne your fellow hunters, I think antis are the least of our worries. Wow! I think I will go visit the knitting forum. Just when you think you've heard it all.................


If you really are so worried about the antis MG...stop hunting because that's the only thing that will ever make them happy but I'm sure they delight in this rapid erosion of our heritage at the hands of our own.

Easy big fella....
Sounds like I hit a nerve with this one...that usually only means one thing

Maybe using the ''anti's'' is the wrong terminology. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that fellow hunters question why you intentionally waste meat when other shots are better.
Thats all I'm saying.
I'm not really worried about the anti's......and I don't think I'll quit hunting cuz you say so.

Like 209, I'm pretty easy going and don't get to uptight around here, but will talk,debate and won't knee jerk comments like yours above.

Talk about blowing this outta proportion....

wow..

[Rackmastr]

Which begs the question...

Which ruins more meat? Shooting an animal in the shoulder and anchoring it, or hitting an animal too far back and having it run off to the bush full-tilt before a follow up shot can be made and losing the entire animal?

Just playin devils advocate....

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Easy big fella....
Sounds like I hit a nerve with this one...that usually only means one thing

.

You're right, that usually does only mean one thing.

My nerves are very sensitive to people that malign other hunters and question their ethics over matters such as this. Especially those that are so aggresive about it. There's been a lot of talk lately about anti hunters infiltrating these outdoor messageboards and launching smear campaigns against what appears to be their fellow hunters. A wolf in sheep's clothing if you will.

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

Which begs the question...

Which ruins more meat? Shooting an animal in the shoulder and anchoring it, or hitting an animal too far back and having it run off to the bush full-tilt before a follow up shot can be made and losing the entire animal?

Just playin devils advocate....

I do find it funny too Rack that some are going on about how a shoulder shot could just poke a hole and the animal could run off unscathed.....doesn't sound like much meat damage to me...lol I've shot and seen animals shot dozens of different ways as I'm sure you have too and I'm sure you can attest that meat damage varies wildly depending on countless variables. I purposefully use bullets that don't fragment and I can honestly say that shoulder shot game really doesn't, on average, have any more meat damage than are caused by many other shots. For those so worried about meat damage, there is an option......the slaughter house. Always good to have a Devil's advocate Rack....

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

Which begs the question...

Which ruins more meat? Shooting an animal in the shoulder and anchoring it, or hitting an animal too far back and having it run off to the bush full-tilt before a follow up shot can be made and losing the entire animal?

Just playin devils advocate....

Personally, I think it's our duty to retain as much meat as possible...heck, I think it's even mentioned in the reg's.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who chooses to part the ribs for meat retention.

Oh...I never once mentioned that you shouldn't shoot an animal in the shoulder. I'm just stating that I don't agree with it and I gave my reasons why. Nothing more,nothing less.
That seems to get some guys ruffled up...and then semantics further compound the issue....ie: using the word ''anti''. OOPs.

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Oh...I never once mentioned that you shouldn't shoot an animal in the shoulder. I'm just stating that I don't agree with it and I gave my reasons why. Nothing more,nothing less.
That seems to get some guys ruffled up...and then semantics further compound the issue....ie: using the word ''anti''. OOPs.

So questioning a hunter's ethics is nothing more or less than you disagreeing....come on MG......you are on your pulpit preaching about the heathens. If you simply did things differently I'd embrace your opinion but your self righteous attitude is far more than you having a different opinion. Sorry, but you question another man's ethics you need to expect to ruffle a few feathers....