We read the statement "Shot placement is everything" as of late. This infers that an bullet that makes a minimal wound to a vital area is all that needs to be done. The invalid conclusion is that no matter how fast or large the bullet is that the game will escape unless it hits the traditional "vital" areas.

This is wrong in practice and also common sense. I have seen big game hit in the upper legs, guts and hips that bled out or had the body part so damaged that the animal could not go far.

The common sense of it is that if a lot of damage is done to an animals hams that an artery may be cut or torn and a smaller bullet might not quite do as much damage. In any case the larger wound will result in a quicker blood pressure drop and a more certain recovery.

What do you think?

They call them vital areas because they contain vital organs , without which they can't survive.There is a far better chance of humanely getting the animal when those organs are hit.I've seen deer with shattered legs, broken jaws etc so I'll take the shot that gives me the highest chance of taking the deer , a shot into the vital organs.

OK, so let's all use explosive bullets and aim for the rear hams, no better yet, how about RPGs. I think we have the first entry for "the most ridiculous topic" of the year award. BTW, the liver IS a vital organ. jeez. jorge

jorge,

Thanks for the resonse. I have edited out the liver as indeed it's a vital organ.

I do invite you to discuss the topic. Are you saying that a very large wound then would not matter?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
The common sense of it is that if a lot of damage is done to an animals hams that an artery may be cut or torn and a smaller bullet might not quite do as much damage.

---

The key here is "may" be hit.

A shot through the heart & lungs WILL cause all of the blood loss you'll ever need to quickly & humanely kill something.

So, yeah. I'll take a smaller bullet through the lungs than a larger bullet through the hams ANY time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
I have seen big game hit in the upper legs, guts and hips that bled out or had the body part so damaged that the animal could not go far.

---

More flawed thinking.

You may SOMETIMES see an animal hit poorly like this bleed out, but will it be recoverable by the time it does?

I've seen lots of three legged deer getting by just fine, but never a lungless deer that was able to do much...

As for gut shots, a big buck was found near my place this year, a few days after it had been shot. (They actually found the blood trail crossing my property earlier, but couldn't find the deer.) It had been gut shot. It was a beautiful buck, that went to waste, because it was gut shot.

No animal deserves that, regardless of caliber or how "big" your gun is.

My thinking is not flawed at all Cold Bore but yours may be if your not using enough gun.

Answer the question of why not use a powerful gun to take difficult shots? If one can master the take backs to a powerful gun then it gives one more ability! The same would go for a marginal shot to the edges of a lung or a shot near the spine. A weak but "legal" bullet near the spine may just wound however the powerful bullet could stun the animal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
My thinking is not flawed at all Cold Bore but yours may be if your not using enough gun.

Answer the question of why not use a powerful gun to take difficult shots? If one can master the take backs to a powerful gun then it gives one more ability!

---

I have to go with Cold Bore on this one.

I think it's a bad premise to think that a more powerful gun gives you license to take difficult shots........or that it gives you more ability.

The same discipline to take higher percentage shots should apply regardless of the caliber.

The single caveat would be dangerous game......where shots may not be ideal, or taken under duress.

GV

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrandView:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
My thinking is not flawed at all Cold Bore but yours may be if your not using enough gun.

Answer the question of why not use a powerful gun to take difficult shots? If one can master the take backs to a powerful gun then it gives one more ability!

---

I have to go with Cold Bore on this one.

I think it's a bad premise to think that a more powerful gun gives you license to take difficult shots........or that it gives you more ability.

The same discipline to take higher percentage shots should apply regardless of the caliber.

The single caveat would be dangerous game......where shots may not be ideal, or taken under duress.

GV

---

In other words if the game is dangerous, meaning it may hurt you, then use more power. But if it's not dangerous and the shot goes bad, and they do, don't be bothered to use more power after all it can't hurt you.

growing up most of the small whitetail deer we shot were usually no farther than 100yards. As a young kid I hunted with a 250/3000(Savage) built on a Mauser-98 (w/90or100grn.pills). I got very good at the neck shot. After a few years I hunted with a 300Savage (150grn.pill) built on a Mauser-98 and for some dumb reason decided that I needed to hit the boiler room shot so I started focusing on the low shot directly behind the shoulder trying to nail the heart.
When I got serious about bowhunting I learned that a double lung shot was actually better than a heart shot. The ultimate shot for a bowhunter would be to cut across the top of the heart and go through both lungs as well.
Since all deer have a tendency to "string jump" an arrow we intentionally aim a little low hoping to catch the deer at the bottom of the croutch when they load up their leg muscles to jump. If you aim at the middle of the body at the center of the lungs &or the liver you run the chance that the deer will duck the arrow or catch it across the top of the back/spine.
So if I'm shooting a little, 100grn or smaller, fast, bullet at 100yrds I'm definitely going for that snap the spine, pin em to the ground neck shot (definitely the best for meat harvest). The rest I'm going to try to hit the top of the heart/bottom of both lungs, low just behind the shoulder.
my .02¢ worth...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
In other words if the game is dangerous, meaning it may hurt you, then use more power.

---

What I meant was......an animal that is intent upon reducing you to scrap may not offer an ideal shot. It probably is therefore wise to make connection somewhere with the biggest you have available. And preferably most frequently. It's also a distinct possibility said animal may be in your immediate frame of reference allowing (or requiring) you to do so......rather than fleeing the area.

quote:

---

But if it's not dangerous and the shot goes bad, and they do, don't be bothered to use more power after all it can't hurt you.

---

You're missing the point. And you're making a questionable one yourself.

Use whatever you think is at least adequate for the task at hand. However, a "big gun" won't give you more ability, and it shouldn't be a license to take "dificult" shots. A bad miss is a bad miss. Rarely will more powder and lead make up for it.

GV

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrandView:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
In other words if the game is dangerous, meaning it may hurt you, then use more power.

---

What I meant was......an animal that is intent upon reducing you to scrap may not offer an ideal shot.......
However, a "big gun" won't give you more ability

GV

---

Then your saying not to bother to use a big gun on dangerous game?

I have you in a trap here Grandview. It's checkmate!

quote:

---

Then your saying not to bother to use a big gun on dangerous game?

I have you in a trap here Grandview. It's checkmate!

---

A rather unstable trap.......requiring you to dismiss a sentence in a previous post of mine.

Allow me to repeat it for your edification.....

"The single caveat would be dangerous game......where shots may not be ideal, or taken under duress."

GV

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrandView:

quote:

---

Then your saying not to bother to use a big gun on dangerous game?

I have you in a trap here Grandview. It's checkmate!

---

A rather unstable trap.......requiring you to dismiss a sentence in a previous post of mine.

Allow me to repeat it for your edification.....

__"The single caveat would be dangerous game......where shots may not be ideal, or taken under duress."__

GV

---

Why? You mean your saying that a large wound to an dangerous animal that's not perfectly placed may slow or stop it?

On the other hand that's what I said! I was not talking about just dangerous game but all game. Why not make a large wound to non dangerous game so that it does not run off?

Or are you saying that dangerous game can be stopped or turned with a powerful gun but not non dangerous game in that they are not affected in the same way?

Not so my friend the "Dangerous Game" analogy makes my point.

Thanks

Wow I think I will jump in here. Are we comparing small to large caliber on equal shots. My only thought is that many of the large caliber Magnum bullets may be to tough to do there best work right in the middle of things. I have seen a deer shot with a 6mm Rem. that dropped at 4 steps although nearly 1/4 of the doe was bloodshot. I have seen a few shot with a 30/06 with no bloodshot so does one equal this to lethality. I dont know enough about bullet impacts to say that a magnum hit 2 inches farther from an artery is more lethal, I do think that when it comes down to bone smashing bigger is better. I am going to bow out before I make this any worse and just say ,Shoot the largest thing you can shoot well and hunt ethically.
I hunt with a 45/70, 338 RUM as well as a 25/06.
good hunting

I think the bottom line here is that it will always be better to place the shot in the vitals rather than to recklessly blast away with a shoulder cannon.

You can dance around that issue, but it will always come back to that.

That being said, I DO believe in using "enough gun" for a given quarry, which is a highly subjective topic in itself.

quote:

---

I have you in a trap here Grandview. It's checkmate!

---

OK, you want to play stupid little kid games?

How about arguing back at my logic?

If you had a choice, would you rather take a well-placed heart/lung shot with a 243 and appropriate bullets, or a ham shot with a 375 H&H (certainly "enough gun" to satisfy your little ego)?

What would you say to the hunter that shot the big buck near my place? He was using a 30-06 with 180 grain bullets. He hit the buck square through the guts. It made it just over a mile, before succumbing to the wound from a rifle that should be large enough for any whitetail walking. Did that buck deserve that? Or should the guy have just used "something bigger" to compensate for his sloppy shooting?

I'm very interested in your answers to each of these questions. And try not to creatively edit parts out, or dance around the questions...

Savage, when you come up with conclusions like this, I have to wonder about the actual hunting experience you really have under your belt. At least in my two bits worth of experience, I surely have never seen the need for a "large humane wound" in order for any sort of big game animal to go down quickly and for keeps.

Bullet placement is the number one factor in quick and humane kills on big game animals, make no mistake about it, and that point cannot be emphasized enough. A good controlled-expansion bullet such as the Nosler Partition is the second major factor, and there are so many really good bullets available today that obtaining and using a quality projectile is not an elusive task. The exact cartridge is not nearly as important as these first two considerations.

You might not be aware of this, but there are many professional hunters in Africa who use nothing but solids for hunting all classes of big game, from impala to elephant. These guys probably shoot more game in a given year than most hunters in this country will in a lifetime. They see the number one factor as bullet placement, combined with a bullet that penetrates at all costs. In their view, a bullet that penetrates beats a bullet that blows up but maybe doesn't penetrate any day of the week...........

AD

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen day:
I surely have never seen the need for a "large humane wound" in order for any sort of big game animal to go down quickly and for keeps.

Bullet placement is the number one factor in quick and humane kills on big game animals, make no mistake about it, and that point cannot be emphasized enough.

---

To back up Allen's thinking, one of the deer I shot this past fall was shot with a 7mm-08 and 140 grain bullets. While the wound wasn't "big", it was certainly adequate and lethal. See, it separated the heart from the vessels on top of it. That deer was dead in it's tracks, although the wound "size" wasn't all that impressive.

The other one was hit square through the lungs with a "measly" 32 Win Special. It never took another step.

Cold Bore et all,

Of course when an animal is hit in a vital area it takes a certain size wound for it to succumb within a reasonable time. Logic follows that if the wound, where ever it is, is very small the animal may go on and even recover. If the wound is massive, where ever it is, then that part of the animal will be blown away. At some point as the wound becomes larger and larger more blood vessels, bones, muscle and other tissue will be destroyed and of course the likelyhood of an artery being ruptured.

Some of you can keep coming back to the statement that bullet placement is most important and it is. Most of us would agree with that. However thats not what happens some of the time. Hunters miss many shots. They get buck fever and hit animals in not so good places and even a good shot may hit an animal in the "wrong" spot if it moves as he aims.

For instance with a typical high velocity load a animal will move almost two feet at only 5mph if it's two hundred yards away. It may be standing as you aim and then just start to move. Five miles per hour is not fast for some animals.

The bottom line is that at some point a weak bullet will not do anything to anything and a very large, very fast bullet will destroy most of an animal. My argument is that we have powerful cartridges that will do a lot and if one hits it will destroy more tissue.

The oft repeated question in other posts of what one would choose for bullet placement is irrelevant to the discussion as nobody can deny that animals are hit in marginal places.

"What I meant was......an animal that is intent upon reducing you to scrap may not offer an ideal shot. It probably is therefore wise to make connection somewhere with the biggest you have available. And preferably most frequently. It's also a distinct possibility said animal may be in your immediate frame of reference allowing (or requiring) you to do so......rather than fleeing the area."

The above is a direct copy of Grandviews post. Does anyone disagree with it? I don't.

Grandview states that a less than pefect shot may have to be taken and the more powerful round would have the better chance of good results. This is all common sense.

Does everyone agree that animals are hit in marginal areas? Of course they are. Then it follows that a much larger wound will have a better chance of a humane result.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
... then that part of the animal will be blown away.


...a very large, very fast bullet will destroy most of an animal.

---

Nice attitude.

Why not use a hand grenade and get ALL of the animal, rather than just most of it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cold Bore:
If you had a choice, would you rather take a well-placed heart/lung shot with a 243 and appropriate bullets, or a ham shot with a 375 H&H (certainly "enough gun" to satisfy your little ego)?

What would you say to the hunter that shot the big buck near my place? He was using a 30-06 with 180 grain bullets. He hit the buck square through the guts. ... Or should the guy have just used "something bigger" to compensate for his sloppy shooting?

---

Still waiting....

I figured you'd just step around this.

I see you like to "selectively" answer other posts, but here are two direct questions.

What would you do???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cold Bore:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cold Bore:
If you had a choice, would you rather take a well-placed heart/lung shot with a 243 and appropriate bullets, or a ham shot with a 375 H&H (certainly "enough gun" to satisfy your little ego)?

What would you say to the hunter that shot the big buck near my place? He was using a 30-06 with 180 grain bullets. He hit the buck square through the guts. ... Or should the guy have just used "something bigger" to compensate for his sloppy shooting?

---

Still waiting....

I figured you'd just step around this.

I see you like to "selectively" answer other posts, but here are two direct questions.

What would you do???

---

Cold Bore,

I did not step around your questions. I just did not think that they were all that well thought out and in particular they are not that relevant.

To ask if someone wanted good shot placement or poor shot placement as absolutes then of course the logical selection is good placement. But that's not the discussion.

Then your difficult statement about the unfortunate big buck that was hit in the guts with a 30-06 180 gr bullet. You as what would I say to the hunter? I don't understand your question! I am sympathetic for both the deer and hunter however. Stuff like this happens all of the time unfortunatly.

A friend shot a small buck last year at close range in the guts. He used a 30-06 in fact but with a hot loaded 150 gr Nosler Partition. The impact caused the buck to fall and it also blew the animals stomach and some of it's guts out. By the time the buck got to it's feet he hit it again and that did it in. That's my point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cold Bore:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
... then that part of the animal will be blown away.


...a very large, very fast bullet will destroy most of an animal.

---

Nice attitude.

Why not use a hand grenade and get ALL of the animal, rather than just most of it?

---

I can tell I have made a good point when the answers get silly.

savage -

two clues for you:

a) when it feels like you are the only one who is right, and it is the rest of the world with a problem, it usually turns out that in fact you are wrong, and it is you with the problem.

b) when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

oh yeah, has anyone here mentioned the fact that it's pretty yough to eat a deer with it's hams and spine shot up?

I DON'T THINK anyone here is advocating,"Let's shoot it in the back legs to see how soon it dies."

What I think the discussion started as was the position that larger lets you take shots you couldn't with smaller bullets because they do things smaller bullets won't do or let you do. allow for more "fudge factor".

example, I was walking out just getting dark and jumped a nice little 4 point getting up and as it launched over a blowdown, I was swinging on it to make a shot behind the ribs and as it turned out I was just a half a heartbeat too slow and the round entered through the right rear leg/thigh as it was going away. I was using my .358win with 250gr Speer loads. The bullet exited out the front of the deer after taking out everything in between the entry and exit, including part of the heart and a piece of lung, blew out a rib and exited, for all I know the round is still going.. The deer was down in about 30-40 yards. I could take that shot because I knew the big bullet has gone through everything I have ever pointed it at. I didn't intend to make it a close Texas heart shot, it just happened that way. It allowed for "fudge factor". One of the reasons I seldom shoot moving game at any distance over 50 yds. This one was at about 40.

If I had been shooting a .243 or .270, or even 3006 with the wrong bullet, I would have badly mangled the deer but maybe not killed it, or at least right away. I have seen the result of when hunters try the same shot with their smaller calibers and they wonder why the animal doesn't go down. It's because bigger bullets DO work better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
Cold Bore,

I did not step around your questions. I just did not think that they were all that well thought out and in particular they are not that relevant.

---

You certainly did step around the questions.

Let me rephrase it for you, boiling it down to an easy A or B type question.

Which is more desirable or preferable in your eyes?

A) well placed 243 shot

or

B) sloppy shot with a "big" gun

Ignore the "well, anybody can make a bad shot" rationale.

If you had the option of one of these scenarios happening when you pulled the trigger, which would it be?

And question #3 Cold Bore is which gun is the average hunter more likely to shoot well?

Jeff

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skibum:
And question #3 Cold Bore is which gun is the average hunter more likely to shoot well?

Jeff

---

Let's let Savage99 answer that one...

I think the main point is not that poor shots should be taken but they sometimes are.
I'm a bit different from most members on the forum I guess because sometimes I screw up! I have managed to turn good shots into poor shots through pure temporary ineptitude a few times. I have also taken shots I would have liked to have called back. In these cases I've been thankful I was using cartridges which still did enough to stop the animal. Shots which have worked out OK with my old 30/40 using heavy bullets or my 35 Whelen would have been a disaster with a 6mm.
I agree with Allen (who has undoubtedly shot a lot more game than I have) that penetration - especially when combined with reliable expansion - is the important thing. This is why I am a fan of relatively heavy bullets at medium velocities (2300 to 2700fps) for most of my hunting.
Shooting a lot so as to be more aware of the capabilities of your rifle and yourself is probably of more value than anything else. Regards, Bill.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LAWCOP:
I DON'T THINK anyone here is advocating,"Let's shoot it in the back legs to see how soon it dies."

What I think the discussion started as was the position that larger lets you take shots you couldn't with smaller bullets because they do things smaller bullets won't do or let you do.

---

Congratulations LAWCOP, on being the first responder to have grasped the intent of the initial post.

99% of the time, here @ "AR", the presumptive response to this sort of post, is that bullet placement will always be better with the smaller caliber, and that of the larger caliber, somehow errant. The "auto-response" being: "I'd rather have a .243 in the heart than a .375 in the ham"... and which would be your preference in just the ham, I ask you? The whole point is that larger, heavier bullet enhance the likelihood of slowing, breaking down or abbreviating a followup when the shots are NOT perfect. A rather desirable set of pluses, I'd say. They also afford the visiting hunter a wider array of viable shot presentations. To be considered, also and for once, is the probability that the majority of those toting a larger bore have put in their practice, establishing both a suitable degree of competency and comfort with it, prior to arrival. As "Shikari" once put it: "I've never seen a small bullet that killed as well as a big one".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nickudu:
Congratulations LAWCOP, on being the first responder to have grasped the intent of the initial post.

---

Man, I have read the initial post a half dozen times and I am still not sure what the intent of it was.

If it is comparing a small hole in the vitals to a big hole in the ham...there really is no comparison. The small hole in the vitals wins hands down. Shot placement is King...provided there is meaningful comparision.

All else being equal, however, a big hole is more effective than a little hole. I agree wholeheartedly with Bill Leeper, LAWCOP and Nickudu.

But, I don't like to get into "what's better" discussions. If you understand the limitations of the equipment you choose, and make sound decisions based on those limitations, you should feel good about hunting with pretty much whatever you like.

Cheers,
Canuck

Lawcop: If you take time to read 99s' post, a large wound to a non vital area is EXACTLY what he meant. I'm a big proponent of using "enough gun," in that a PROPERLY placed shot by a bigger caliber will, in all likelyhood kill faster than a similarly placed shot of lesser caliber, i.e., a 180gr Nosler Partition 300 Weatherby to the shoulder of a deer will kill more readily than a 95gr Partition out of a 243 that hits in the same spot

What savage portends is that same Weatherby bullet to the rear ham is not nessesarily less lethal than a properly placed 243 to the vitals. THAT is one HELL of a FLAWED opinion...and I'm being nice, being the new year and all. jorge

we may not get a perfect shot every time, but a bigger, faster rifle will never make up for poor shot placement.

i was always taught that if you are unsure of the shot, don't take it. the .243 guy who spends a weekend ant the rifle range now and then is a lot better off than the .416 RemMag guy who only shoots 3 shots a year.

Well, I"ll say this, the statement "Shot placement is EVERYTHING" is about the same as "Practice makes perfect."

Not true as a whole. Perfect practice makes perfect. IF you've done something WRONG the whole time, you're probably pretty darn good at it.

Shot placement is of the upmost importance, to me, is a more appropriate way to put it. But look at it like this, think of all the less than perfect bullets that have been perfectly placed but failed. Hence, shot placement is no longer "everything."

I don't know of any hunter that is taught to aim anywhere other than the lung heart region. I believe it is the best choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jorge:
Lawcop: If you take time to read 99s' post, a large wound to a non vital area is EXACTLY what he meant. I'm a big proponent of using "enough gun," in that a PROPERLY placed shot by a bigger caliber will, in all likelyhood kill faster than a similarly placed shot of lesser caliber, i.e., a 180gr Nosler Partition 300 Weatherby to the shoulder of a deer will kill more readily than a 95gr Partition out of a 243 that hits in the same spot

What savage portends is that same Weatherby bullet to the rear ham is not nessesarily less lethal than a properly placed 243 to the vitals. THAT is one HELL of a FLAWED opinion...and I'm being nice, being the new year and all. jorge

---

I REREAD it a couple of times before I answered and went back and reread it again, after reading your post. maybe it is just my "eternal optimisim" attitude of folks that they would NOT take a leg shot figuring that a big enough bullet would kill the animal, but I still see it as the bigger bullet makes the "oh shit!" shot more likely turn out for the good vs the smaller bullet.

I'm such an optimist.

This notion that a big gun will compensate for a poor shot sure has sold lots of magnums. Probably crippled lots of game on the idea of hit em anywhere with this HUGE thing and they go down. Gosh the 30-06 shoots through them,but with my .300 mag It'll shoot through even further so I can hit em anywhere. All this speculation of an animal shot with so and so rifle did this but had it been shot with so and so would have done this is purely theory. You don't know till you pull the trigger. If a BIG gun is going to take care of my poor shots,would a HUGE gun take care of my misses? Maybe knock em down just from the blast?

Well let me weigh in here on the side of bigger is better. While one can be under-gunned, one can hardly be over-gunned. I really don't see why one would use a .243 if not a woman or small boy if other choices were available. The velocity/bullet weight/bc combination is not overly good. A larger caliber at a reasonable velocity is always prefered over small calibers in general and large calibers at ridiculous velocities. My guess is a .416 Rigby would cause less damage than a 300RUM if the later was loaded to velocities higher than 2800fps, and be more versatile in all areas accept range.

We all want good placement, if we all got it we'd all be hunting with .223's for deer sized game. Fact is we don't so we use other calibers to make up for placement errors, or allow for bone contact placement. In any case, it is hard to make a case for someone who goes into the woods under gunned and depends only on one shot placement area and one perfect shot to get the job done. It just is not a reasonable expectation for the majority of hunters (the overwhelming majority of whom don't even know their rifle's ballistics period).

Specific hunting locations and game require different strategies, and that is why a caliber like 300RUM is popular as it can be loaded up or down for these with velocity or bullet selection. I personally side with the old writers who suggested the heaviest bullet possible for that caliber/situation. YMMV.

Being new to the forums and reading the posts on this subject, I think to Savage 99's question he is refering to a good intended shot gone bad.

I can relate as I shot a nice buck on the 2nd day of our gun season. Deer ran tail tucked down acted like he was going down a couple of times and ran out of site. I found hair at spot he was at when shot, no blood, no bone, no meat.
I was shocked as I knew where I was holding as I shot, even though the deer was on a fast walk following a doe and I could not get him to stop, I prefer standing still but have killed several on the move.

It started raining soon after and I looked for five hours for that deer and couldn't find him. I looked for the next two days and couldn't find him, final conclusion didn't know what happened, but hoped deer was alive not wounded.

Two weeks later I found out, as one of my game cameras showed me the buck. On the left side at perfect height my bullet had grazed the buck about an eight inch long streak and the buck is doing well, just stayed noturnal the rest of the year.

My conclusion, at the split second I shot, the deer turned right and technically I missed.

Sometimes things like this happen and the deer may move or you hit an obstruction you didn't see etc. and cause a bad hit, and maybe a larger caliber might help in this situation.

JohnTn

So your going to tell me that a bigger gun with a bigger bullet would have killed the deer with the same exact scenario that you dewscribed?

I sure hope not.

I ain't sayin things like that don't happen but to assume that just because you didn't have a bigger gun and bullet it MAY have killed it or at least put it down.

Why post such a thread and not somethin that helps bring the light on our Right as humans to hunt and fish with somethin positive instead of fallin into all this hype. I would much rather have people read about putting the time and effort into your weapon instead of

"Hey go out and buy a BIG gun and use a BIG bullet and it don't matter if the deer has his ass to ya. Just shoot it through the ass. Only have to go to the range once to shoot minute of ass"