Shot placement question

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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....

No doubt TJ!

I'm of the opinion that I shoot an animal until it drops. End of story. I also shoot a quality bullet and have pretty much butchered animals right up to the bullet hole at times. I havent really seen much more meat damage with ANY shot other than a horribly placed shot. If its anywhere in the front end where its supposed to be, meat damage is minimal.

So, is it 'unethical' for me to shoot a critter more than once to ensure it drops? Call me unethical then!!

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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....

Again, semantics plays in. Maybe ethic's is too strong a word and I shouldn't use it.
And as far as the gist of this discussion, around wasting meat, I really don't think that anti's are smart enough to read into this.
As hunters, I think we can discuss this and talk about it.IS there anything wrong with my questioning, and us discussing this?
Maybe I come across strong, but I don't have as much an issue as you percieve me to have.
And,why does it always have to revert to...'' You do it your way and I'll do it mine''
Why can't it be..''yes, you have a point, maybe I should consider it..but''
Probably because ego's play into it...mine included.

Go ahead..... the last word is yours if you so wish....

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Again, semantics plays in. Maybe ethic's is too strong a word and I shouldn't use it.
And as far as the gist of this discussion, around wasting meat, I really don't think that anti's are smart enough to read into this.
As hunters, I think we can discuss this and talk about it.IS there anything wrong with my questioning, and us discussing this?
Maybe I come across strong, but I don't have as much an issue as you percieve me to have.
And,why does it always have to revert to...'' You do it your way and I'll do it mine''
Why can't it be..''yes, you have a point, maybe I should consider it..but''
Probably because ego's play into it...mine included.

Go ahead..... the last word is yours if you so wish....

Nothing to do with ego MG...just really hate seeing someone bash and malign other hunters. Open discussion is always welcome and productive but you start pointing fingers and calling ethics into question and ya, things are bound to get heated. Thanks for the last word.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

No doubt TJ!

I'm of the opinion that I shoot an animal until it drops. End of story. I also shoot a quality bullet and have pretty much butchered animals right up to the bullet hole at times. I havent really seen much more meat damage with ANY shot other than a horribly placed shot. If its anywhere in the front end where its supposed to be, meat damage is minimal.

So, is it 'unethical' for me to shoot a critter more than once to ensure it drops? Call me unethical then!!

2x... These people that are worried about a little meat spoiled should start shopping at Safeways instead of hunting. I would sooner put the animal down whether it be one shot or three shots, at least if it hits the ground you will get some meat!!!

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

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

It's good to see a sense of humor on these threads.

Funny stuff Dave.

[elkhunter11]

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....

Which ruins more meat, an animal shot too far back, running off wounded, or a shoulder shot a little too high that knocked the animal down, but the animal got to it's feet and ran off wounded? Or perhaps the shoulder shot only broke one shoulder, and the animal ran off wounded. Either animal might be recovered, or either animal might be lost.

If you are going to consider the possibility of a botched lung shot, you must also include the possibility of a botched shoulder shot.

[Redfrog]

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've never hit an animal too far back. Meat animals inside 400 yds get shot in the head. Beyond that range it gets iffy so I crawl up to 400 yds, or even closer if it's real windy.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you are going to consider the possibility of a botched lung shot, you must also include the possibility of a botched shoulder shot.

No doubt, and my bad for not bringing that up as well....my point is that killing an animal is the key ingredient. The quicker we do it, the better, regardless of where you shoot. A bad shot is a bad shot and can happen aiming at anything. Either way as hunters it really doesnt matter WHERE we shoot an animal, but to bring 'ethics' about wasting meat when we shoot something is kinda funny.

[sheepguide]

Im not big on this thread but have to go with TJ, Rack and the boys on this one. Ive seen just as much meat wastage from shots behind the shoulder as ones through the shoulder. Ive seen animals hit in the exact same spots but with different bullets out of the same gun that caused extreme damage to meat. Had nothing to do with where it was hit. Alot of variables dictate what happens to the flesh when bullets hit.

When I shoot im more worried about loosing an "animal" than wasting a couple "steaks".
No matter where anyone of the experts on this thread shoots their animal they should be shooting for a clean kill out of the respect for the animal not shooting to save a steak out of respect for their stomach!
If that clean kill happens to wreck a couple extra steaks then oh well, at least the animal didnt suffer or run off and die somewhere and not be recovered.

The other funny thing is all the experts that have hunted for years and shot tons of animals but never had an animal run off or pulled a bad shot! Anyone that hunts very much for very many years and shoots many animals will have that one bad shot or that one animal that they couldnt recover. Its gunna happen, and if you say no then you either havent hunted much or you are full of ****!!!!!!!
SG

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

And as far as the gist of this discussion, around wasting meat,

Last fall I shoulder shot my bull elk and heart shot my buck. Same gun, same bullet, same load, dang near same distance. The front end of that buck was a bloody snot rag, with jellied bloodshot covering both sides of the rib cage and extending up into the neck. The elk I lost 4 or 5 pounds off.
Why? Well I guess there is a lot more that goes into meat damage and loss other than cartridge and bullet placement.

[elkhunter11]

No doubt, and my bad for not bringing that up as well....my point is that killing an animal is the key ingredient. The quicker we do it, the better, regardless of where you shoot. A bad shot is a bad shot and can happen aiming at anything. Either way as hunters it really doesnt matter WHERE we shoot an animal, but to bring 'ethics' about wasting meat when we shoot something is kinda funny.

Let's not forget that an extra follow up shot can sometimes save a lot of work as well. A friend phoned me to get me to help him haul out a moose that he had just killed, a few minutes out of town. I gathered some gear, loaded my quad, and headed out to give him a hand, only to discover that the moose was in the thickest willow patch that I could have imagined. The willows were so thick, that I almost had to crawl to get through to the moose. On top of that, the water was a foot deep at the moose. We spent five hours cleaning the bull and clearing a path, then getting the moose 75 yards to a clearing, and then another 200 yards to the truck. Part way through the work, my friend commented, that maybe he should have shot the moose a second time, as it stood in the clearing about 75 yards away from where it had finally died. I asked him why he didn't shoot again, and he replied that he didn't want to waste any meat. He shot the moose in the neck, just ahead of the shoulders, and it apparently stood there for another ten seconds or so before slowly walking off into the willows and laying down to die. I informed him, that if he ever let a moose walk off again, when he could have shot it again, he would be recovering it himself.

[HunterDave]

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....

If your shot is in the boiler room you don't need a second shot. The animal is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet. If you are worried about not hitting an <8" boiler room target on an animal then there's no way that you should ever be choosing a 3" shoulder shot over it IMO.

Your scenario is an assumption that the shoulder shooter will make a well placed shot and the boiler room shooter won't. Given that scenerio, a lost animal will definitely ruin more meat. However, if both shots are well placed then the shoulder shot will undoubtedly ruin more meat. Unless of course you are into eating bloodshot, bone fragment infested meat.

Originally Posted by HunterDave

If your shot is in the boiler room you don't need a second shot. The animal is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet. If you are worried about not hitting an <8" boiler room target on an animal then there's no way that you should ever be choosing a 3" shoulder shot over it IMO.

.

And when did the shoulder become a 3" shot. The margin for a good solid hit is easily as big as the boiler room. I personally feel it's bigger but don't tell me it's 1/3 the size. Come on Dave, I appreciate that you like the boiler room but at least get your facts right. Have you ever seen a shoulder blade? There's also a lot of room around it for catastrophic damage. Gross exaggeration is really no way to make your point. There's a lot to be learned from the facts here.....

You'll find that the vast majority of long range shooters advocate the high shoulder shot because of its large margin for error.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

If your shot is in the boiler room you don't need a second shot. The animal is already dead, it just doesn't know it yet. If you are worried about not hitting an <8" boiler room target on an animal then there's no way that you should ever be choosing a 3" shoulder shot over it IMO.

It may not need a second shot and may not know its dead yet, but I remind it very quickly by shooting it again if given the chance and knocking it off its feet.

No matter where I shoot an animal, I continue shooting until its on the ground. It would be a rare occurance to do otherwise for me.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

No matter where I shoot an animal, I continue shooting until its on the ground. It would be a rare occurance to do otherwise for me.

Yeah, but that's a whole different thread in itself. If it works for you who's to say that it's wrong? I just like taking the one well placed shot into the vitals and if I know that it's a good shot, why bother taking a second rushed shot and risk hitting it in the hind quarter or whatever. I'm a meat hunter though so that would make the difference in my case. If it were a once in a lifetime animal where the antlers were a priority over the meat I'd probably aim a little forward to the front of the vitals towards the leg though. I could also see myself shooting at the animal until it was out of sight. It hasn't happened yet so I don't know for sure.

[Walleyes]

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.

The issue I have with this whole conversation is the types of claims that a couple of you are making.. The one highlighted is an example. T.J. please keep in mind that not all the readers of this forum are as experienced as some of us are. To be putting a statement up like this is just wrong and you are wrong on this. I am not saying that a shoulder shot always results in a lost animal not at all for the most part it results in a dead one but sorry I personally have witnessed lost animals from shoulder shots.

Quite some years ago when I was just a few years into the big game scene I made a bad shot on a heck of a big bull moose. I miss judged the distance on a walking bull that my father called out. I judged it at around 350 as it turned out after we stepped out the shot it was closer to 200. My cousin was right beside me watching through a spotting scope and saw with out a doubt the bullet drill the bull high in the shoulder just above the shoulder blade area. The bull was shot with my old .270. Bullet can't remember exactly never used to pay attention that much. That bull spun on an access and was gone,, not a drop of blood not a twig broken,, just gone. Search as we may we could find no sign of him and make no mistake my father was a blood hound when it came to finding game.. This is just one of my experiences I have one other of a bull being shot a little far ahead and high in the shoulder with a .300 ultra. The bull was downed. As our partner walked up on it the bull got up and was gone. The blood trail soon ended and after a half day of searching we could not locate the bull.. We know it died someplace but we spent a few more days in the area and never were able to get on the birds or any part of that bull..

Over the years I can recall twice skinning out and cleaning an animal and finding an old bullet wound from a .30 cal bullet lodged up against a high leg bone. The mess and smell in there was not pleasant. Now we don't know the full story behind these shots but what I do know is that the animal was hit in the shoulder and lived..

An animal with a hole in the lungs can not live its very simple its just impossible..

Again we have some young readers on here that may look up to you and your opinion don't give them false info..

To the young readers on here and the more in experinced hunters,, please do not take what this man says on this matter as the whole truth if you do you will have many heart breaks over the years from lost game. Not everyone can afford the high powered guns, the best scopes, the time to test for the best bullets most are just regular smoes that use average stuff. Be smart,, put a bullet through the animals lungs and it will die,, it has no choice.. If after that you get a second shot by all means drill it through the shoulder but at least you will have the confidence that the animal will die from the first shot.

P.S. If I would of ever intentionally shot a bull through the shoulder when hunting with my father I would of got a gun butt to the head,, no question about it..

And when did the shoulder become a 3" shot. The margin for a good solid hit is easily as big as the boiler room. I personally feel it's bigger but don't tell me it's 1/3 the size. Come on Dave, I appreciate that you like the boiler room but at least get your facts right. Have you ever seen a shoulder blade? There's also a lot of room around it for catastrophic damage. Gross exaggeration is really no way to make your point. There's a lot to be learned from the facts here.....

Please listen your own advice..

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

And when did the shoulder become a 3" shot. The margin for a good solid hit is easily as big as the boiler room. I personally feel it's bigger but don't tell me it's 1/3 the size. Come on Dave, I appreciate that you like the boiler room but at least get your facts right. Have you ever seen a shoulder blade? There's also a lot of room around it for catastrophic damage. Gross exaggeration is really no way to make your point. There's a lot to be learned from the facts here.....

You'll find that the vast majority of long range shooters advocate the high shoulder shot because of its large margin for error.

I won't split hairs over the the actual broadside size of the target of the shoulders but I can tell you with the utmost certainty that it is not as big as or bigger than the boiler room. Your kidding right?

[Pathfinder76]

Heck, I've shot game in the hips to anchor them for one reason or another.

[elkhunter11]

I just like taking the one well placed shot into the vitals and if I know that it's a good shot, why bother taking a second rushed shot and risk hitting it in the hind quarter or whatever.

Did you read post #251? I shoot until the animal is on the ground, or until there is no shot available, to avoid such situations.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Yeah, but that's a whole different thread in itself. If it works for you who's to say that it's wrong? I just like taking the one well placed shot into the vitals and if I know that it's a good shot, why bother taking a second rushed shot and risk hitting it in the hind quarter or whatever. I'm a meat hunter though so that would make the difference in my case. If it were a once in a lifetime animal where the antlers were a priority over the meat I'd probably aim a little forward to the front of the vitals towards the leg though. I could also see myself shooting at the animal until it was out of sight. It hasn't happened yet so I don't know for sure.

Let me ask you this, do you know where every bullet you shoot hits exactly every time? I really doubt it.

The shooting of an animal shouldnt be dictated by horns or meat! Either way the shot should be for a fast clean kill. Unless that animal goes down you do not know how far it will be going. No one on here can guarentee 100% that their bullet is gunna hit exactly where they aim and that that animal will only go a short distance.
To me if an animal runs off its still alive and with a bullet in it, then to me its suffering. I try and shoot till that animal is down and not moving if possible. I will never let an animal run off if I can do something to avoid it.
Again if people are worried more about how many steaks they wreck instead of killing the animal as quick as possible then they are worried about the wrong things when hunting!
SG

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I Your kidding right?

Absolutely not. I'm far from the only one that shares this thought

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Did you read post #251? I shoot until the animal is on the ground, or until there is no shot available, to avoid such situations.

Oh yeah, in that instance I would have definitely (and have in the past done so) put another round into the vitals of the moose if it's just standing there looking at me. I was talking about hitting an animal in the vitals and when if it takes off running emptying my clip towards it to knock it down. When I'm on last watch at night and I hear a "bang" followed by two, three or four quick "bangs" I just chuckle to myself....lol.

[209x50]

Reminds me of a discussion with one fellow who was talking about how clean his particular style was . Claimed he could "eat right up to the hole, everytime." I said what if it was a Texas heart shot and I didn't want to eat right up to the hole? LOL!

Originally Posted by Walleyes

The issue I have with this whole conversation is the types of claims that a couple of you are making.. The one highlighted is an example. T.J. please keep in mind that not all the readers of this forum are as experienced as some of us are. To be putting a statement up like this is just wrong and you are wrong on this. I am not saying that a shoulder shot always results in a lost animal not at all for the most part it results in a dead one but sorry I personally have witnessed lost animals from shoulder shots.





Again we have some young readers on here that may look up to you and your opinion don't give them false info..

To the young readers on here and the more in experinced hunters,, please do not take what this man says on this matter as the whole truth if you do you will have many heart breaks over the years from lost game. Not everyone can afford the high powered guns, the best scopes, the time to test for the best bullets most are just regular smoes that use average stuff. Be smart,, put a bullet through the animals lungs and it will die,, it has no choice.. If after that you get a second shot by all means drill it through the shoulder but at least you will have the confidence that the animal will die from the first shot.

P.S. If I would of ever intentionally shot a bull through the shoulder when hunting with my father I would of got a gun butt to the head,, no question about it..

Walleyes, the shoulder shot can be done with a 100 year old gun with iron sights........you know, average joe stuff. I wouldn't hesitate to do it with a 30-06 or whatever cartridge. There is nothing magic or high tech here...it's just another great place to shoot a critter, today or hundreds of years ago when they were doing it too. There was just no internet to get criticized on back then.

A bad shot is a bad shot walleyes. I have no doubt you've witnessed animals get away from poorly placed shoulder shots. I've witnessed them get away from poorly placed heart, lung, head and neck shots. One thing I can guarantee is that you've never witnessed an animal get away from a properly placed shoulder shot when a decent quality bullet was used just as I've never witnessed a lung shot animal get away under the same circumstances. It's just another shot placement. I like it for my reasons just as you like yours for your reasons. They both result in dead critters. Seems pretty simple to me. I'm hardly reinventing the wheel here.

I'm glad my father was a bit more open minded than yours but it does explain your aversion to the shot placement

[LongDraw]

Pretty clear that there are 2 camps of thought on this, both will result in a dead critter when you hit where you are supposed to.

On the anatomy chart posted of the elk if you place an 8" diameter circle around the 3 marked reference points which has the largest margin for error based on putting a bullet through vital organs?

Some may personally prefer one shot over the other, but the facts remain the facts when you talk of the shot that offers the largest margin of error.

Heck, some prefer head shots, the absolute worst choice, IMO.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

Let me ask you this, do you know where every bullet you shoot hits exactly every time? I really doubt it.

The shooting of an animal shouldnt be dictated by horns or meat! Either way the shot should be for a fast clean kill. Unless that animal goes down you do not know how far it will be going. No one on here can guarentee 100% that their bullet is gunna hit exactly where they aim and that that animal will only go a short distance.
To me if an animal runs off its still alive and with a bullet in it, then to me its suffering. I try and shoot till that animal is down and not moving if possible. I will never let an animal run off if I can do something to avoid it.
Again if people are worried more about how many steaks they wreck instead of killing the animal as quick as possible then they are worried about the wrong things when hunting!
SG

No, I don't know the exact spot that I hit a deer and once I wasn't even sure that I had hit a moose with my 3006 because there was very little to determine it by. The moose barely budged. With deer however, I'm relatively sure of where I hit by the feel of my shot, watching my shot, the impact of the bullet and the deer's reaction to the impact of the bullet.

If everything is right I know that the animal will not go very far if anywhere at all. How can it if it's shot through the vitals? If I botch the shot then it's a whole different scenerio and I have to do more than just walk up to it and tag it.

I agree with you that everyone should respect the animals that they hunt and minimize the amount of suffering as much as possible. For me that means shooting them through the vitals. I don't understand how shooting an animal through the shoulders to drop it is a better choice over that?

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Pretty clear that there are 2 camps of thought on this, both will result in a dead critter when you hit where you are supposed to.

On the anatomy chart posted of the elk if you place an 8" diameter circle around the 3 marked reference points which has the largest margin for error based on putting a bullet through vital organs?

Some may personally prefer one shot over the other, but the facts remain the facts when you talk of the shot that offers the largest margin of error.

Heck, some prefer head shots, the absolute worst choice, IMO.

Throw a 16" circle around the three points and now tell me which one has the largest margin of error. I'd rather totally miss than wound with a low percentage of recovery but a high chance of the animal dying. At 16" lots of that circle is off the animal in position #3 but very little of it falls in an area that won't kill it quickly. Not sure you can say the same about the other two aim points. It clearly all depends on your definition of margin of error what the facts are. Just because you see it one way and others see it another...doesn't make your way clearly a fact.

[Rockymtnx]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Heck, some prefer head shots, the absolute worst choice, IMO.

That one I will agree too. I have see some bad outcomes because of head shots. One being a ducks*** who went for the easy head shot on a cow moose and blew the bottom jaw off her. After a day of tracking the shooter, never did recover her.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Last fall I shoulder shot my bull elk and heart shot my buck. Same gun, same bullet, same load, dang near same distance. The front end of that buck was a bloody snot rag, with jellied bloodshot covering both sides of the rib cage and extending up into the neck. The elk I lost 4 or 5 pounds off.
Why? Well I guess there is a lot more that goes into meat damage and loss other than cartridge and bullet placement.

Agree..
A jacketed bullet will cause more spoilage insofar as blood clotting. If it hits a rib, and at the right velocities there will be bullet fragments going into meat probably causing waste.
Solid coppers or bonded's will less likely cause extensive tissue damage when parting the ribs.

[elkhunter11]

Throw a 16" circle around the three points and now tell me which one has the largest margin of error.

I don't see the point of a 16" circle.If I am not almost certain of hitting an 8" circle,I won't take the shot. A hit anywhere in an 8" circle centered on point #2 will almost certainly result in a clean kill. I can't say the same for an 8" circle centered on either of the other points.