I have been reading a lot of threads lately that rationalize the merits of one cartridge over the other. Some argue "what is needed" others argue "what is better". I see in these arguments a common theme, that is not talked about much. That is, is the cartridge/bullet in question enough to produce A "Clean Kill; or To Anchor".
I think some need to see the Anchor to feel that they used enough gun.
I on the other hand as a bow hunter have no problem watching an animal hit, that did not react (much) to the hit run out of sight. When you are bow hunting they do that quite often. For some this is just unexceptable performance, when it comes to a rifle.
I shot an nice buck this past fall with a .270win, using 140gr light mag loads. The bullet was in excess of 3000 fps at the muzzle. The shot at 80 yards. The buck went down to the shot, then jumped back up and ran like the wind out of sight. He made it about 75 yards. I could have asked nothing more in the dept. of bullet performance. The shot was quarting to, the bullet took out ribs on the way in, then double lung, grazed the liver, and broke ribs on the way out. Lots of internal damage. He died quick, but out of my sight.
I realize that bigger game such as Elk can cover A LOT of ground quickly, and terrein can be a factor at times.
But I still wonder how many of these discussions are miss-interpreted by the participants, based on our own interpretations of a Clean Kill.
So wich is it to you? "To Clean Kill; or To Anchor"

I have seen quite a few bucks get up like that. Cartridges like the 7mm RM and 140 gr bullets are no better than standard rounds. Most of the time it does not matter but I suppose one could be hunting on the border of some property where you don't want the animal to move.



For shots like that I have found that shooting them at the base of the neck where it meets the shoulder to drop them. That's so far! Who knows what will happen the next time.



With 180 and 200 gr bullets out of the .358 Win I have never had one get up. But they will run up to 40 yds or so some of the time.



Some may suggest high neck shots or head shots but many animals like deer move their heads too fast for that shot to be as easy as it seems.



There is a mantra that gets told over and over that it's all shot placement. To me it's not "all" shot placement. It's also the size and condition of the wound. I firmly believe that a larger wound will produce a quicker death and that goes for no matter where it hits the animal.



To do this just the right bullet for the gun should be selected. The whole thing is that conditions vary a lot in some hunts and a compromise is forced upon us.



It seems that it's these choices of calibers, bullets and rifles that makes it so interesting.

IMHO, anybody who maintains that HIS caliber/bullet combination always produces instant, "lights out" kills on big game animals, either has not hunted very much, only takes neck (spine or head) shots, or has a tendency to be liberal with the truth. You can try as much as you want, nobody and no combination of caliber/bullet will ALWAYS produce instant stop results for heart/lung shots.

Given that, the best you can strive for is a "clean kill", and hopefully an "anchor" from time to time (because it sure is nice when it happens).

- mike

Mike, I hear you on that! I would also assert that the "story's" we here of game "hit good" with standard calibers, that ran for miles and miles (the .270 is a favorite of some to pick on in this regard); I would say this is something more of fantasy than fact in most cases.
Bad results are usually the result of bad hits or poor bullet construction. IMHO
Don't get me wrong, I have seen animals that just would not die / stay down!!! But most of the time, there are other factors.
I had a guy tell me on another forum today that Jack O'Conner knew more about writting than hunting! I didn't even respond to such nonsense. But these are exactly the types I was refering to in my post.

I like my animals to go down as quickly as possible for the following reasons: avoids unnecessary suffering on the animal's part; avoids the risk of not being able to find it or recover it if it gets into an inaccessible spot; avoids the risk of another hunter claiming it; avoids the loss of time involved in tracking it (I'm thinking of situations like guided African hunts where time is limited and several animals are sought during that time); minimizes the amount of time before field dressing and cooling can begin; avoids disturbing other hunters in the area as much as possible.

That's why I tend to favor larger calibers, heavy-for-caliber bullets of good construction (my standard "go-to" bullet is the Nosler Partition) to assure penetration to the vitals, moderate velocities to prevent bullet failure, and shots to the top of the heart or just above it into the major arteries.

For my money, to anchor. My hunting grounds usually have so dense brush that you lose a wounded animal in 15 yards. Thus the heaviest calibers are the better medicine.

Both Clean Kill and Anchor are myths sold by arms and ammo makers, and self-styled �experts�. It takes time for an animal to die. Bow hunters know this better than anyone. That�s the way it is, and that�s the way it will always be.

I base my conclusions of 16 years of a law enforcement career investigating how humans kill, maim and mutilate each other, 44 years of big game hunting, and when I was a kid, killing from six to eight pigs every spring and fall on my Dad�s farm to feed the family. Pigs were shot in the head with a 22, followed by a stab to the throat up and back to sever the aorta. Instant collapse from the shot, but not instant death. Front and rear legs started pumping in a running fashion, the stab wound pumping blood in time to the still beating heart. Not one head shot stopped the heart of any pig, and I witnesses and participated in hundreds of kills.

Bigger, faster bullets aren�t the answer, because there is no answer, there are only circumstances that result in well placed, or poorly placed shots. A well hit animal will go down, or it won�t. A poorly hit animal might go down, or it might not. We as a group, dedicated to hunting, ought to understand that, but we don�t. We want that �magic� bullet that will drop the animal every time even if we place the shot poorly. We�ve been sold the ideologically correct concept of �harvest�, instead of killing. Harvest is politically correct, killing is not, so we try to cover what we do, which is as natural as breathing to the most dedicated among us, and that leads to the quest for the biggest, baddest rifle bullet combination, to the point of masochism.

Hunting the United States, a man that shoots a 308 well, has the advantage over the guy carrying the Newest, Baddest magnum shooting at the speed of light.

And the hunter, has the advantage over the shooter, not matter what the caliber. He won�t go afield substituting equipment for skill. That�s what too many of us do.

The only "anchoring" shots are those that (1) take out much of the premium meat (backstrap) by going through the spine, or (2) take out the spinal cord in the neck (a small and tricky target), or (3) injure the brain (another small target). Contrary to the assumptions of many, a shoulder shot (while fatal if the heart or lungs are sufficiently damaged) will do nothing to anchor a four-legged animal. They can run faster and further on three legs than you can on two.

Considering the drawbacks to "anchoring" shots, the best course normally is to shoot to do the most damage to the vitals for the quickest death. A fast, quickly expanding bullet will MORE often result in an immediate downing of an animal, but many prefer the slower-acting, deeper penetrating bullet due to other considerations.

If the target is a bear or other animal from which you may not desire to recover the meat, a spinal shot isn't a bad strategy.

RogerK, excellent post.

i see no reason for an "anchoring shot," except perhaps on dangerous game.

We're in agreement, Whiteagle. Numerous times I've seen writers offer the "sage" advice to shoot a charging dangerous game animal in the "shoulder" to "break him down" and end the charge. This, of course, is fantasy as a charging animal by definition can't be hit in both shoulders with the same shot, and hitting a single shoulder does little, if anything, to retard the beast. I'll also agree that if you are able to disable two of four legs (both fronts, both rears, or both on one side) that your quarry will be rendered transportationally "challenged" to the point that it won't be able to go much of anywhere. One the other hand, disabling two appendages on the "corners" (a front on one side and a rear on the other -- almost certainly an errant multi-shot proposition) won't necessarily take the animal off of its feet, although its locomotion will be hindered.

I think it depends a bit on the game & the circumstances. If ti's very thick, bordering private unaccesible land, etc. then an anchoring shot in the shoulder/spine area might be the best shot. Heavy for caliber, stout bullets would be my choice then.

I don't care what caliber or bullet one uses, you cannot expect or get anchor kills, they only occur on ocassion other than spine, brain shots...There is a lot of difference in breaking both shoulder on a deer and breaking both shoulder on say an elephant or Buffalo...but if you do none will normally make very many tracks..

I prefer two holes and a good blood trail and I will not lose an animal in any terrian with that...

I have never seen a double lung shot animal that went down get back up and this was brought to my attention by Jack O'Connor himself many years ago..I have seen double lung shot animals run a long ways but once down they don't get back up...I have made a point to observe this for many years since Jack told me that...and I agree with him..It is almost impossible to double lung shoot an animal at an angle.

Ray agreed on most of what you said, but contrary to you and Jacks conversation, I have seen that a buck shot at a "slightly" quarting to angle, shot through the rib cage, catching both lungs (it appeared), that droped (or just knocked down) at the shot. Then made it to it's feet for a short run.

Granted I have only seen this once, But it can and did happen.

I guess it is possible that the bullet only went directly through one lung, but I can say that there was severe trama to both upon opening him up.

At any rate through the rib cage is my perfered meathod, they either drop, or don't make it to terriably far. You always get to holes, wich leaves a blood trail that Stevie Wonder could follow. Not that much "tracking" is ever involved, when using a rifle. I have had to track a few bow shot deer, always less then 100 yards though.

I understand the "breaking down the skeletal stucture" concept. I have just never been in a position were I felt, that it was nessesary to do that.
But then again I don't hunt around 1,000 ft deep ravines either.

This is almost unanswerable. To me , a shoulder shot IS an anchoring AND a clean kill shot at the same time. In contrast, a double lung shot is a kill, but the animal always runs before expiring. Now if you refer to an anchoring shot where you say "hip" an animal in order to stop his escape, then deliver a killing shot that is also perfectly acceptable. To be frank, I;m not mcu on giving animal human characteristics like "respect" and "honor." jorge

jorge, let me try to re-ask the question.
It's not that shoulder shot is not a Clean Kill Shot. My question was ment to be more about.
What do you look for when looking through your cross-hairs?
Do you go to the shoulder trying to knock him down, Anchor him.
Or do you put it in the rib-cage (heart/lung), and let nature do the rest.

Shoulder: Because it's a quicker KILL than the heart-lung shot. It anchors AND gets the heart lung area at the same time. Regardless, how long it takes for the animal to expire ( within reason of course, to indicate otherwise would mean you hit him with a non-lethal shot and the shoulder is most certainly NOT that) is of no consequence. jorge

I've never been a big fan of shoulder shots on non-dangerous game under most circumstances. It may be a mind set of mine from over 30 years of hunting with a bow as well as a firearm. It may be my bias from reading Jack O'Conner as a kid. It's probably also my bias that I don't like to ruin any more meat than I have to. In any case I prefer the double lung shot if I can get it. There is the most room for error and you always have a dead animal and a good blood trail if you need it. I'm not knocking what works for others and I will take other shots on occasion depending on the circumstances but that is what seems to work for me.

Jeff

I think it is essential for all hunters to get some knowledge of shot placement before they ever enter the field with a rifle.



There are so many variables and the critical decision that sometimes must be made instantaneously is going to vary with each set of circumstances and the animal being hunted. Certianly shot placement can be taylored to suit the weapon, ammo and game.



The point that animals are regularly taken with arrows rises in this debate, but a few things are left out of that equation. First and foremost, distance. If Im 250 yds away from a deer I would much rather have it drop on the spot, but Ive never heard of anyone taking an animal at that range with a bow. One way to achieve that is with a well designed bullet that will expand and wreak holy havoc on the internal organs, Ive never heard of expanding arrow heads either. If bowhunting is your thing then you'd better be prepared to do some tracking, and tracking from 25 yds away is certianly less difficult than from 250. There IS a difference.



One reason that shoulder shots are so effective are because of vital areas that are near to the shoulders. A shot that shatters bones in the lower shoulder riegon has a good chance of damaging the heart, and an upper shoulder shot that damages the spine can certianly be a crippling or anchoring shot. Also an animal that has a lung punctured can still go a long ways, but that same degree of lung damage coupled with a destroyed ball joint can be enough to put it down. One fact that not many hunters like to mention is that each and every time we squeeze the trigger, we are playing the odds. There are no garantees of a clean kill and anyone who has hunted much has most likley had the misfortune of experiencing the oppisite. I am for the use of any means to achieve a quick and clean kill. But another thing O'Connor said is that a good shot with a 270 is better armed than someone with a 600 Nitro who cant hit the broad side of a barn.



The more tenacious an animal, the more usefull a shoulder shot is. For deer size game I prefer lung shots simply because I would much rather keep the meat surrounding the shoulder than in the ribs.

Well said Westernhntr, my only caveat is that even on deer, I always go for the shoulder and don't mind some ruined shoulder meat that is after all, a"cheaper cut." Although I do eat venison, give me a beefsteak from Ruth Chris' Steak House every time. Unless of course if you're talking eland, but then again, I shoot them in the shoulder too! jorge

Before 1989 I was a heart/lung kind of guy. After 1989 when I switched to handguns I also switched to shoulder shots for two reasons. First and formost was/is because I can not follow up on a dead animal that runs, I don't have the mobility anymore, second was/is because that shot placement is a very quick killer of game. So to answer your question I shoot to put the animal down in place which in turn kills it real dead real quick.

Shooting moose I think the double lung shot is best. Since I'm a chef I hate to ruin more meat than necessary. The best anchor shot I ever made was on a moose at 12 yards...right through the nose from a frontal position, He dropped like a rock. Deer are usually a farther shot and smaller animal so I still prefer the double lung thingy but I'll take a quartering away shot too.

Jorge,

I guess great minds think alike. I am and always have been a firm believer of busting the front shoulder with a premium bullet that will take the heart and lungs and plant the animal. With a bow this is not an option. And yes I hunt with a bow myself at times. But anyone who swears against a shoulder crunching shot has never had to pack a bull elk up 400yds of 60 degree hillside because the hunter likes a lung shot. I have a few times and it is a killer especially since the always seem to find an area that is nothing but deadfaals you have to crawl over to get them out. With most whitetail and a lot of mulies this isnt a problem. If you have to pack your own out like that because you dont care for a shoulder shot you will become a convert very quickly.

I always aim for the ball and socket joint of the shoulder. This normally puts the animal down, and even if technically, you shouldn't hit the heart/lungs, with the shoulder joint being so far forward, you usally hit either the artery that runs along the bottom of the spine, or if the animal is slightly quartering, you will go through to the lungs. Additionally, if you are close to the spine when you hit that shoulder, it seems to stun animals, to put them down for a short time, long enough to then bleed out.

If it is quartering away, I like to aim to break the off side shoulder.



In almost every case, the animal bleeds out before you get up to it.



I HATE lung shots. I get all irritable when I hear that it gives you a greater margin for error.



It gives you a greater margin for error if you like to gut shoot. Also where I live and hunt on a daily basis, you can't afford to allow animals to run far, the brush is so thick that without a good blood dog you don't find them.



A few people from this forum who have hunted here have been able to substantiate this.



If I'm overseas hunting, even if someone is goin to take the meat, I don't really think that a shot up shoulder is going to make anybody go hungry. I want that animal on the ground



Shoulder shot every time for me thanks.

Everybody has there own thoughts on this. But a dead animal is a dead animal. Personally like to anchor em. But that shot does not always show itself, and even if it does it doesnt always come out as planned. It's one thing if your taking a fat doe for meat or cull buck for meat. Its another if I've droped big money on an Alaska or Africa hunt. If I have a bull Kudu or Caribou in my sights, I'm going to try to hammer him in shoulder if I can. I'll leave the boiler room shots that end up being gut shoots for the guys that like to track. In this country most are deer hunters and whitetail deer carry heart and lungs further back than most animals. That behind the shoulder shot can end up being gut shot on many animals outside this country. I perfer to see an animal drop dead as opposed to run dead.