In reply to Matt:

No that wasn't what I was saying. Maybe if I was shooting a tank shell it might have helped.

I just gave a situation for a bullet not going where you intended it to in my last paragraph.

I didn't have a bad hit just a graze, thank goodness, hopefully next year I'll get another chance, that's why I've named the 9 pointer Lucky.

It's an interesting question.

I find that conventional shots on game require only that calibre/weight/construction bullet which is generaly accepted as adequate. I have made mistakes - lots of them because I shoot a lot of deer but in my heart of hearts I cannot say that the fallow buck I shot through the hams because truthfull it was too dark and too far was recovered because it was a 232gr 9.3x62bullet. How can I know whether a 100gr ballistic tip might not have expanded better and killed it with a catastrophicaly ruptured femoral artery not just a damaged one?

Likewise how can I say that the roe buck that I gut shot because it took a step after my brain said fire but before my finger did was alive (but weak and lain up) because I shot him with a 90gr 6mm rem bullet that did not exit. A 7mm 140gr would have exited but perhaps the 6mm BT expanded so well that it caused more bleeding?

It is all too easy to attribute text book thinking to specific incidents and come away with false conclusions.

I love to shoot deer and I absolutely hate to lose them. I find that shot discipline is far and away the greatest factor in recovering deer.

I don't think there's any question that a good big gun kills better than a good little gun, but you have to be able to shoot it, and you STILL have to place your bullets with care, or else all bets are off, especially on game bigger than deer.

Lots of guys talk a good game, but 25 years of working sight-in days at our local gun club have demonstrated time and again that real riflemen are few and far between, and the percentage of guys who can really shoot -- unflinchingly -- with confidence and precision calibers bigger than those based on the .30-06 case is smaller still. The reason is that the average hunter simply doesn't practice all that much, and I've seen teenagers with 6mm Remingtons, .308s, 7mm-08s, and .25-06s who did fine work with those rifles that would put to shame some of the self-deluded 40-something men I've seen with Ultra-Gags they were absolutely terrified of and couldn't shoot for sour apples. The ability to buy a big rifle just isn't enough; it's not even a sound beginning.

I've also seen guys with 12-lb. precision pseudo "tactical" rifles, complete with overly-complicated, vulnerable scopes designed for the "paper & pilgrim" market and these guys really did practice at the range, and they could really lay-in those shots on paper targets out to 600 yds. Yet I've seen a couple of guys of this stripe practically soil their knickers in the presence of game and blow simple shots with those same "tactical" rifle packages that were so wonderful on paper back home. Being a good paper shooter isn't enough, either.

On the other hand, I know veteran hunters with regular .30-06 hunting rifles with simple 4X scopes on top who I would bet on 10 to 1 to hit whatever big game target they elect to shoot at out to 400 yds. These guys are cool, experienced, practiced, collected, and own good, simple, basic rifles that they aren't afraid of.

Bullet placement and bullet construction rule, but the guy behind the rifle counts for more than any other single factor in the whole ballgame.

AD

allen - excellent post, hopefully bringing it all into perspective.

quote:

---

I know veteran hunters with regular .30-06 hunting rifles with simple 4X scopes on top who I would bet on 10 to 1 to hit whatever big game target they elect to shoot at out to 400 yds. These guys are cool, experienced, practiced, collected, and own good, simple, basic rifles that they aren't afraid of.

---

you must have met my father. described him to a "t," right down to the .30/06 and 4x scope! a TASCO!

Ethics in hunting is indeed more involved than accurate bullet placement, it is a mindset, an attitude if you will. Which is the more ethical disposition, to have every intention of placing a bullet well, or to take an attitude that "even if I dont hit it well Ive got enough gun to compensate"??

People are creatures of habit, on the question of hunting ethics please try to develop good habits.

Nuff said..

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen day:
Bullet placement and bullet construction rule, but the guy behind the rifle counts for more than any other single factor in the whole ballgame.

---

I think I heard the sound of a hammer striking a nail square on the head. Most of these "what's better" or "what if" arguements are redundant in the real world, in that they ignore the most influential variable in the equation...the loose nut behind the wheel (how's that for a mixed metaphor!). They can still be fun and educational though.

Cheers,
Canuck

Is it ethical to shoot at an animal with a minimum cartridge? Or is it more ethical to use enough gun for any possiblility?

In summary I feel that I have brought to light a common sense point that most know is fundamental common sense.

There are a few here however that are trying to cover the topic's point by dancing around it. So be it. Let it be danced around.

I think the topic is now in our minds and it will come up again in another form.

This is perhaps ironically funny, but every time I've asked you about your actual hunting experienced, you've "danced around" the question, ignored it, tried to divert to another point. I wonder why?

I guess it all depend on who's dancing around what, huh?

Personally, I think you're as full of crap as a Thanksgiving turkey.........

AD

Allen Day,

Thanksgiving turkeys are filled with stuffing and not crap. At least mine are Allen.

Another thing Allen is that once again you have resorted to insults as you cannot make a point on my last post. Insults are the last refuge of those who have no argument and you present no argument.

Over and over again Allen you have mentioned as to what my hunting experiance is when it has not been at all relevant to the subject. In this particular thread it is relevant however so I will answer you. I have killed well over a hundred head of big game and thousands of other animals.

At the steady pace your going on insulting others Allen you are not going to win an argument but your just making yourself look bad.

tas,

Are you calling BS on me or Allen Day? In any case your not adding anything of value. Try to keep silent until you do.

Thank you

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:
There are a few here however that are trying to cover the topic's point by dancing around it. So be it. Let it be danced around.

---

And I see you *still* have avoided my questions...

Cold Bore,

This is where I aswered your questions!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Savage99:

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.

---

Of course one wants good shot placement with an adequate round. This is not the disscusion however.

My cold must be clogging my brain more than I thought. Ive read this thread a couple of times and have not really made a lot of headway in figuring out just what the question is.

It seems to be based on some misconceptions, near as I can figure.

quote:

---

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?

---

An animal isn't likely to die in the near-term unless some vital point is hit and broken. Nobody ever claimed that only the "traditional" viatal areas are susceptible to being broken. Given the size of the alternates, though, anybody who shoots an animal in the hams apurpose is trying to torture the animal, not kill it.

I've seen game hit and die from all sorts of weird shots, but it's nothing I'd count on, and I'd just as soon never see another gut-shot deer, either. Come to think on it a moment, not just gut-shot. I'm still nigh sickened by the memory of a mule deer flopping its way up an Idaho hillside. The right hind leg was broken about halfway 'twixt the hip and knee and with every bound that deer made uphill, the leg would flop up on the deer's back and it made the most unnerving moan when the leg would flop back down. If it hadn't've been for a long shot with an '06, that .243-shot deer would have been a lot longer in the dying than it was. As far as the amount of damage done by any caliber, large or small, that depends on way too many oddball things to generalize, especially if you're going to talk about shots around the periphery of the critter.

Shoot them center with a bullet that will get to the innards and the animal will die.

I guess 99's post above about the deer's stomach qualifies as a {sic} "large humane wound." Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I refer to my original post, we might have a winner and it's only the 5th of January. jorge

Savage99--You have reduced it down to is it more ethical to use enough gun or not? That wasnt your original post. As recently as today you edited your original post. Dancing around? Keep trying edit it somemore and it might finally fit. A bad hit with a big gun is a bad hit and going even bigger is not going to correct it's point of impact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carpetman:
Savage99--You have reduced it down to is it more ethical to use enough gun or not? That wasnt your original post. As recently as today you edited your original post. Dancing around? Keep trying edit it somemore and it might finally fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jorge:
I guess 99's post above about the deer's stomach qualifies as a {sic} "large humane wound." Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I refer to my original post, we might have a winner and it's only the 5th of January. jorge

---

Yes in fact Jorge it was a large and humane wound! Number one is that he got another shot in as the deer went down and when it got up it could not move fast. Therefore your wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carpetman: A bad hit with a big gun is a bad hit and going even bigger is not going to correct it's point of impact.

---

Oh yes it is! It's going to increase the diameter, depth and volume of the wound. Also pieces of lead and bone will fly farther.

If you make a 1/2" wound with a small weak bullet and a 2" wound with a larger faster bullet then the chances of hitting an artery are greater also that the animal may fall and take longer to rise allowing a follow up shot.

Boy this discussion has been heated between some and the S/slinging is why I have left other forums.

Now don't take me wrong I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, but sometimes it's just better to have your say and go on and quit rubbing salt.

In all I know I'm glad we live in a free country and have the opportunity to hunt and enjoy the outdoors and have the freedom of speech.

Hunt Hard - Shoot Straight - Enjoy The Meal

"Yes it was a large humane wound"--Was able to shoot it again on the way down(do doubt another humane shot with a big gun--location not of importance)and when it got up it didnt move fast. Now I understand your case for using a big gun. Maybe next post will be use of full automatics? Hit em enough times with a big enough gun and where is not of importance.

I don't have any personal experience that I can recall of seeing a gut shot animal succumb momentarily, enabling a quick and better aimed follow up shot, so I won't speak to the reality of that. I have heard that claim before from some old salts. I do know from personal experience (including some 3 weeks ago) that it is mere speculation as to which wound went with which shot against a running animal in many situations. There may be a sound argument for some sequence (e.g., heart shots often result in a running animal, broken shoulders drop running game), but its beyond knowing.

Here is the opinion of the champion of using more gun to take the most advantage of narrow brain misses: "Both barrels from a .600 in the belly will have little more apparent effect on [an elephant] than a single shot from a .275 in the same place." (African Rifles and Cartridges, pg. 59) That's an elephant. Does size matter? If it matters for the gun, it certainly matters for the game, I would think.

If you pose the question a little differently (and since this is my post I will do just that) then you might ask whether we should apply enough gun to allow for some measure of margin. In other words, if a .223 Rem will kill a deer under perfect broadside conditions with no wind or deflection by a twig, etc, is that good enough for a minimum caliber/load? This too is contentious by those who have great confidence in their tools.

What I hear (read) a lot of people saying is that no matter what caliber/load you choose for the task at hand, that margin is very narrow and I tend to agree. While larger calibers and some bullets will deliver more damage than others, the region of effect is never far from the shotline. Most of us have also seen animals run like mad for long distances with simply appalling wounds, missing most of the heart or lungs.

What I would like to also see is an admission by more hunters that their skills are not as reliable as some have claimed; that some shots are simply too chancy, some things lie outside the shooter's control (like game movement or disposition) and that in the end, as one poster put it, shot discipline is the greatest hunting skill of all - certainly for the ethical hunter.

Those who have contended (as an acquaintance of mine did over the holidays) that all the game they shot fell over dead immediately or moved a few steps at most are very unfortunately deluded. Statistically speaking about half of all wounded game (mortally wounded in the thorax, I hasten to clarify) will run an average of 50 or more yards. Quite a few will make more than 100 yards before expiring. This happens in a matter of a few seconds of course. Additionally, a large fraction fo those that run will leave no blood trail or other spoor for a considerable distance. So, if you think that all the deer that ran off were simply missed, it is nearly certain that you've killed and failed to recover about as many deer as you have killed and recovered.

And none of this has anything to do with bad shots, but it amplifies the question since a game animal that is mortally wounded with a single well-placed shot, but lost (for whatever reason), is very nearly as unfortunate as a gut shot animal (except that the latter will suffer). All of that is to say that we need to give ourselves reasonable margins for error: more than the absolute minimum caliber/load, plenty of light to make the shot (and to track), a possibility of a fast follow-up shot, a range at which there is no uncertainty about the impact point at all, and so forth.

Mistakes are inevitable, but failing to prepare for and prevent obvious, controllable potentialities for problems is not an accident, that's negligence. Everyone gains experience from mistakes, but the wise hunter learns the lesson the first time and the fortunate hunter learns from someone else's mistakes. Those of us who have learned from our mistakes need to pass along that knowledge to others. I wish that I had that kind of insight as a young hunter rather than the impractical variety of rubbish that I did hear.

ulf - very nice post!

welcome to AR.....

S-99,

If one feels that a larger bore might produce a wider variety of quick kill situations then by all means endulge. The only thing I would point out is to not make the mistake or get into the habit of thinking that that is all you need and that it in someway rules out the need for accurate placement, because it doesnt.

Asking the question "is it more ethical to use a minimal round" is also a bit off the track of the subject and a highly subjective topic as well.

I dont see how you can rule shot placement out of the disgussion when in fact it is a part of the disgussion.

Yes things do sometimes go awray in the field and shots dont always land where they are intended to, and I suppose that there might be an advantage if more damage is done in such circumstances. (which can be achived in many ways, like bullet selection and velocity).

But when it is time to take my boy big game hunting, he will get the bullet placement lesson long before I bother him with the "bigger is better" concept. Thats because the placement lesson is far more valuable IMO.

I just read the whole thread and it appears to me that Savage99 has accomplished exactly what he intended to do... Get everyone pissed off.

If someone get's him cornered he just slightly changes his story so he can further agitate.

Trying to figure out what he's really saying is kinda like trying to nail jello to a tree...

Give up and ignore him and he'll go back to dragging sticks along the neighbor's fence to make their dog bark...

... Never argue with a fool... A passerby might not be able to tell who the fool is....

$bob$

Well put Bob! I too just read the whole thread myself!, I took two asprin, hope the headache goes away!

quote:

---

Originally posted by LDHunter:
If someone get's him cornered he just slightly changes his story so he can further agitate.

---

True, but half of the fun with watching this "architect" dodge is seeing how many corners he can find in the room!

Must be an interesting house!

I think Savage has a point where smaller animals are concerned and big calibres with soft bullets are used.

An Australian, PC, who posts here is using Woodleigh 650 grain 585 black powder express bullets in his 585 Nyati on pigs and roos and that is way out of the league of the 243, 270, 308 group. But we are only talking about 150 pound animals on average.

400 grain Speer flat noes from the 458 and 220 grain Hornady flat noses in 375 H&H are similar.

Mike

Great, the microcephalics are piling up on us. The 300 Winchester is a "varmint rifle" and the 375 H&H and 416s are not that much more powerful. So tell us Scott S, what is your hunting experience, what animals have you taken and with what calibers? Pictures would be a nice touch. jorge

PS: 99, it's "you are wrong" or "you're wrong."

Ulfhere, thanks for an articulate and thoughtful post. Welcome to AR!

Cheers,
Canuck

Let's presume the desire for a well placed shot and that you are the shooter.

Your wounded elephant, elk or whitetail is off an running in one of a myriad of possible combinations of direction/angle.

Would you rather smaller/lighter bullets for your follow-up shots or larger/heavier bullet and why?

Your decision?

Apply your rationale to caliber selection for the unwounded animal.

I believe there are distinct "possibilities of advantage" to be had, prior to the hunt and that their merit increases, with distance from home.

Ulfhere, that was indeed a very fine post, and I'm glad you joined us.

Nick, I believe that more is better than less up to the point where "more" becomes unshootable. Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades, and I'd rather see a guy hunt elk, let's say, with a .30-06 he can handle rather than a .338 RUM that he can't handle.

You have to be honest with yourself as to what recoil threshold you can work within, and that which you can't. I usually hunt with a .300 Win. Mag., .338 Win. Mag., .375 H&H, or .416 Remington. The .300 and .338 get used the most, and they probably always will. I can shoot those cartridges with absolute sureness and precision, and I am not afraid of them at all. I've spent a lot of years learning to shoot them well, and I've used them extensively in the field. They offer me no surprises, and that's the way I like it.

When you get to the next level of powder capacity and recoil -- cartridges of the same bore diameter like the .340 Wby., .300 Wby., .378 Wby., .416 Wby., the RUMs, etc., I can't do the same quality of work, and I have no intention of trying to convince myself or force myself into that particular program. In my experience, the "middle-magnums" I do the bulk of my hunting with are more than plenty for any task, and I've yet to run into a job they can't handle well.

Call me middle-of-the-road if you will, but that's where is falls for me.

That comment that was made before about the .30-30 killing stuff just as dead as a .300 is just true enough to be misleading. Sure a .30-30 can kill elk stone-dead, no question about it. My great grandfather hunted elk for forty years with a Model 92 Winchester in .44-40. But yesterday's success records don't necesarily mesh with today's hunting realities, and I'd no more hunt elk today with a .30-30 than I would a .460 Weatherby, and at that, I'd take the .460. After all, if a .30-30 is just as good as a .300 Weatherby, for example, then surely a .30 MI carbine should be "just as effective" as a .30-30. We all know that a .30 carbine is no .30-30 WCF, and no, a .30-30 is not the equal of a .300 Wby., either.

Delivered energy at the target DOES count, as does precise shot placement. Effectively combine the two and you have a winning formula for just about any big game hunting.

AD

Nikudu,

In the situation you describe I am going to want a properly constructed bullet in an "adequate" caliber for the game I'm hunting. A caliber that I as an individual can shoot well and with confidence and chambered in a rifle with handling charachteristics that match the situation. Savage99's premise IMO falls short in that he makes what I consider an amateur oversimplification predicated purely on rifle size. The notion of shot placement being key is not an argument for trick shooting with light calibers. It is the realization that if a bullet is not placed through the vitals of an animal that for the most part caliber is irrelevent.

Nickudu

Tough question, I have taken over a hundred whitetail deer in the last thirty three years. I'm no expert but I have learned some things the hard way. Most of my deer have been taken with a 30-06 and also I have harvested deer with a .270 and .50 caliber muzzleloader, 12 Ga. with slugs and archery.

I cannot say enough about the first shot, because where I hunt in the mountains in Tennessee the second follow up shot is usually not going to happen, so the first shot is the most critical, for me and I think for any hunter as well.

If you wound an animal it can be a wound that will eventually have the animal die or a wound that will allow the animal to survive so I think you have to define one from the other, and then add what I say is the kill shot to the vital organs.

My rathers is to make a good first shot, but in the real world of hunting and if you hunt long enough you will end up with a wounded animal. It just happens, it has happened to me as well.

Have I lost a deer, yes I have two to date, one another hunter found, I tracked to the gut pile and the other it went off the side of the mountain and I looked on and off for a week. I hated it but I did give it my best effort, I don't just look for ten minutes and quit.

For me I have had to learn to track and not give up until I find that deer and like one other post said those deer can haul butt even with a mortal shot and go a long ways with little or no blood trail, so get help with tracking if you need it, no ones ego is that big.

I don't think there is one magic caliber or bullet weight that will guarantee you a kill no matter where you hit the animal even in an ideal situation, standing still, running, etc. shoot a gun that you can hit with consistently at the yardage and conditions you will be hunting in and that you are comfortable with.

Confidence is everything. Hunting skills are achieved by the amount of time and effort you put in no matter if it's shooting, tracking scouting etc. Those that aren't willing to give it 110% for all of it will never understand what it's all about and will never be a true hunter in my book.

As far as the ethinics of things some hunters have it and some never will.

So in conclusion above all, I think its the hunters skills, ethics, and knowing his or her limitations that make the difference in a successful or unsucessful hunt for any caliber gun they have in their hands.

Harald - Happy to have you back!

Mr. Van Zwoll - I'm a fan!

Allen, Ski, John TN. - Granted, of course.

Within a given instance, there's really no way to prove that both shoulders were broken, rather than one, due to the utiliztion of larger bullets... no way to credit for sure, the breaking of the offside shoulder, the shattered pelvis .. but, over time, I believe such advantages will manifest themselves to the willing observer. No one goes afield looking for marginal or poor placement but when it happens, larger, heavier bullets can pay dividends.

Savage99: You better keep editing on your ludicrous posting!
I can honestly say this latest posting of yours is the stupidest (there is no other way to describe it!) posting I have EVER seen!
If you do not have the intention, ability or where with all to place you Hunting type bullet in the heart/lungs area of Deer/Elk/Mt. Goat/Antelope/Black Bear size game then stay out of the game fields! Period!
Shame on you for even posting such an absurd (and cruel AND UNSPORTSMANLIKE) batch of blather!
You state a game animal "won't go far" when ham hit! Well you are wrong, misguided and evil! Said shot game animals will go far and die a slow and painful death!
Shame on you for professing such an absurd and mean spirited premise/suggestion!
I always aim for the heart/lungs area on the game I harvest and I am ALWAYS rewarded with animals that succumb in 6 to 10 seconds and are often unconscious in 5 seconds! Close to painless a death as can be reliably afforded a worthy Game Animal! Another part of my reward for being patient and ethical in my waiting for this shot is vastly improved game meat over that, that is killed in the manner you espouse!
Blather like you profess gives REAL sportsmen and Hunters a bad name!
Please delete your posting completely!
Shame on you!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

heh... heh... heh...

Hey VarmintGuy. For once you and I agree...

We've gotta watch that... It could get to be a habit... What would the rest of the crew here do if you and I didn't fight...

Sic 'em!!! I gotcher back...

$bob$

Varmint Guy,

My sympathies to you in that you did not understand my postings. My intent was to have a more humane result and that is the title of the post!

By the way VG. When I read a diatribe like yours I know that I have won the point as the poster has lost his temper and cannot respond with a rational thought. I chuckle at the post. I don't laugh however but as I said I am sympathetic.

I think you have to be a little realistic here. Just because you shoot a animal with a canon does not mean it is going to die instantly everything dies different and if you hit a Deer with a 50 cal and he wants to run a little before he dies he is going to. I think you have to match the rifle for the game. A 458 Lott is not going to kill a 100lbs deer any better then a 30/06. I thought this year that no deer could even move after being hit with my 375 H&H and 300 grain bullets and boy was I wrong. I shot a Doe right through the lungs and she went almost 100 yards before she went down with no sign of being hit. I will explain it another way take a empty pop can and shoot it at 100 yards with a 22-250 or what ever if you hit the middle of the can it will not even move. Why? you ask because there is not enough to the can to make the bullet realize it even hit something. Now take that same Pop can and shoot it with a 22 Rimfire you will know you hit the can. The same goes for animals if there is not enough animal there to make the bullet transfer energy. The bigger tougher bullet is not going to kill it any better then a smaller one. As for the comment about a 300 win for Elk I had to laugh about that. Your big bore might work well out to 300 yards but after that the 300 win will hand you your ass. My 300 has more energy at 500 yards then my 375 H&H with less wind drift and less drop.