1894 originally posted a link to this site and I thought it was very interesting so I'm putting it up for review again.

South Carolina DNR Game Study

In the mid-1990s, Charles Ruth of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources conducted a study of whitetail deer killed on a 4500 acre intensively managed hunting area owned by the Cedar Knoll Club on the South Carolina coastal plain. The terrain varied, but included swampland and very thick brush. All deer were killed with centerfire rifles using telescopic sights by hunters sitting in elevated stands. The sample size is such that definite trends are apparent.

A total of 493 deer were killed in 602 shots, for a one-shot success rate of 81.9 %. Of these 305 were antlered, requiring 375 shots (81.3 %) to kill, and 188 were antlerless, requiring 227 shots (82.8 %), indicating that there was no significant difference between the kill rates for these two populations.

Roughly half of the deer shot (253 of 493, or 51.3 %) traveled less than 3 yards after being hit or simply dropped in their tracks. Of the instant incapacitation kills, 87.7 % (222/253) were definitely attributable to spinal or shoulder shots. Hit location is not known for the remaining 31 kills. Among the known hit locations, the mean distance traveled for clear spinal hits (52/222, or 23.4 %) was less than 1 yard. For shots that struck the shoulder (170/222, or 76.6 %), the mean distance traveled was 3 yards. Since the scapula lies directly over the neck / back junction it would be all but impossible to hit the shoulder without causing a paralyzing trauma to the spine (despite not directly damaging it) and the probability of causing serious trauma directly to the spine would be very high.

Roughly half the deer shot (240 of 493, or 48.7 %) ran a significant distance after being hit. Nearly all of these deer (221/240 or 92.1 %) were found dead; however 19 were discovered to be still alive, suffering from inadequate wounds (shot in the abdomen, legs, neck, etc.) and dispatched (a trained tracking dog was required to locate all of these deer). The distance traveled for those found dead was recorded, but no record was attempted for those which remained living since they pursued evasive paths in their escape. The mean distance traveled by deer that ran when hit (neglecting the 19) was 59 yards. No shot placement is known for 16 of the 240 kills that ran when hit. Those hit in the heart (14/224, or 6.3 %) traveled an average of 39 yards, those hit in the lungs (152/224, or 67.9 %) ran an average of 50 yards, and those struck in the abdomen (presumably hitting an artery or the liver, as opposed to only stomach and intestines) (58/224, or 25.9 %) ran an average of 69 yards.

Although no cross-correlation is available between trailing sign and hit location, most of the deer (155/240, or 64.6 %) left a good blood trail and traveled a mean distance of 46 yards, permitting easy recovery. A further quarter of those that ran (61/240, or 25.4 %) left relatively poor sign, little or no blood at the point where the deer was hit by the bullet, and only a weak blood trail that in many instances had to be found by the dog. These deer traveled an average of 83 yards. Five of those that ran (2.1 %) gave no indication that they had been hit by the bullet, left no sign whatsoever, and traveled an average distance of 152 yards; yet each was discovered dead.

Some information is known regarding the weapon used in 444 of the 493 kills. The weapons used are grouped by caliber against the mean distance traveled for all kills (including instantaneous kills). In general, trends by caliber are weak, as might be expected. However, there are differences that must be considered significant, statistically speaking (if in no other sense). The smallest bore, .243 (6 mm) caliber, accounted for 10.8 % (48/444) of the documented kills, with an average distance traveled of 40 yards. This compares with 31 yards for .277 caliber (84/444, or 18.9 %), 26 yards for .284 (7 mm) caliber (160/444, or 36.0 %), and 33 yards for .308 caliber (116/444, or 26.1 %). Clearly, there is a slight increase in the mean travel distance for the .243 bore. Surprisingly, there is also a significant (statistically) difference between the .284 caliber and the .277 and .308 calibers, which are essentially the same. I am at a loss to explain this, particularly given the sample size. Even more striking is the case of the kills involving the .257 caliber, which make up only 8.1 % (36/444) and which have a mean travel distance of a mere 14 yards! Now to a certain extent this can be attributed to the small sample size. But it also clearly reflects some bias of behavior by the shooters or the weapons used in this caliber. Unfortunately, no further information is available on specific cartridges used or cross-correlations between calibers and hit locations.

The bullets used were loosely grouped into "soft" (e.g., Ballistic-Tip, Bronze Point, or light for caliber bullets) and "hard" (Partition, Grand Slam, X-Bullet, or heavy for caliber bullets) categories. There is a bit of a problem here because testing has demonstrated that the Nosler Partition is certainly not a hard bullet and produces very expansive wounds. Nevertheless, some trends are evident. Soft bullets, as defined, were used in 81.1 % of kills (360/444) and resulted in instantaneous kills 58 % of the time, with a mean travel distance (including instantaneous kills) of 27 yards. Hard bullets were used in 18.9 % of kills (84/444) and dropped the deer in its tracks only 40 % of the time, for a mean travel distance for all kills of 43 yards. Extracting the instantaneous kills from the total, the mean distances traveled by deer which ran when shot are 61 yards in the case of soft bullets and 70 yards for hard bullets. In other words, the soft bullets produced expansive wounds with a 50 % greater probability of dropping the game instantly, but if it ran the bigger wounds reduced the distance only by 13 %. Southern whitetails are not the appropriate game for the use of controlled expansion bullets. I have gotten complete penetration with Ballistic Tips on shots through the shoulder and spine at close range. Nothing more robust is called for.
Conclusions
Sex does not affect the toughness of deer
Bullet shot placement has a far more profound influence on terminal effect than does bullet caliber or style
Trauma to the spine anchors deer instantly; all other wounds allow some reaction
Deer shot well in the throracic cavity will drop within 50 yards or less, on average
Fully 1-in-4 deer will give little or no sign of being shot and will travel roughly twice as far as well hit deer
"Soft", expansive bullets are more likely to drop a deer instantly given a hit proximal to the spine, but only slightly reduce distances for deer that run

This web page was designed by HTL Ulfhere@MindSpring.com

Copyright 2000 -- All Rights Reserved

[ 05-05-2003, 03:22: Message edited by: Nebraska ]

interesting post. Liked it alot

Even more striking is the case of the kills involving the .257 caliber, which make up only 8.1 % (36/444) and which have a mean travel distance of a mere 14 yards!

I find that the most interesting part of the article. Why is that? Is it just fluke that it worked out like that?

Maybe 1/4" shooters are a bit older, like 250's and 257's and have a lot of shooting ability/confidence.

No certain conclusions can be drawn concerning the relationship between caliber and distance travelled, not because the sample size was too small for some calibers, but because there was no attempt to control the other variables in the study. The bullet construction would have to be identical for all calibers, there would have to be statistical allowance made for both bullet placement and bullet velocity, and the people conducting the study would need some way to verify hunters' reports. This study is typical of studies based on data collected at hunter stations - it's pretty loose stuff that leaves a lot of room for faulty conclusions and leaps of faith. I would think that Ruth's work would not be favorably received if presented at a conference of wildlife researchers.

Au contrare!

The study shows what most of us already knew: That with smallish whitetails at relatively close range, there is essentially no difference between a .243 and a .300 Weatherby except for where the shot hits. Hits of major components of the central nervous system make for instantaneous collapse of the animal. Hits elsewhere bring the animal down in direct proportion to the amount of trauma to vital organs.

Certainly it is impossible to control for the inaccuracies of hunter-reported results, but with more than 400 reports, those inaccuracies begin to compensate for one another and leave you with data that is reasonably useful for the purposes of the study.

As ever it is the rifleman, and not necessarily the rifle that matters.

yeah it sounds to me like the .257 & .284 Bore dia shooters were probably 2 or 3 minority hunters that knew their weapons, and thus had greater success.
Where the masses were shooting .243, .277, & .308, and screwed all the percentages up, because they shoot there rifle once a year wether it needs it or not.

[ 05-05-2003, 23:19: Message edited by: Mark G ]

I thought this was a very interesting study (especially if you read it ) and about as controlled as you're going to find.

If anyone else has access to similar info, please post the links!!

Nebraska - You have PM

After some 50 years in the hunting busines I am more convienced than ever that there is little difference in the great majority of our cartridges when it comes to killing power and that bullet placement and bullet performance is the real deal.....

I do believe that I prefer 30 cal and larger because they leave better blood trails more often. Still lesser guns when used effectively don't have to leave these good blood trails.

It is all argueable at any rate./...

Excellant article- I guess the super dupper mags are not needed with there supper expensive bullets!! I bet most of the 7 mm mag guy's were using the "hard bullets" so they wouldn't blow -up on target? Regular old speer bullets/Rem Core-loks areb the ticket.

[ 05-14-2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Gunnut45/454 ]

As a general rule I usually agree with the famous remark by Mike Ditka that "statistics are for idiots"..

However this sort of in the field study may hold more relevancy than a thousand "been there done that" campfire debates.

I hope the guys who insist on using super penetrators on thin skinned game are paying attention.

That "study" is misleading if you came to the conclusion that small calibers perform about the same as large. Logic tells you that bigger bullets going about as fast as small bullets make bigger and deeper holes.

Just as there is no record of the smallest boat to almost sail accross the Atlantic there is no record in SC of the deer that got away from marginal hits.

Another fallacy that some hunters fall for is that a poor hit with a small bullet is the same as one with a large one. A miss yes but not a hit!

Another thing is that the shooting was from tree stands.

www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html

The study is not the sum of this article. The article stands as the best piece on bullet/wounding performance we are likely to see.

The author is a great guy who has taken the time to answer some tyro questions from me. I never miss a chance to rib him of the fact that despite his theorising he uses a 340Wby on caribou!

Savage99,
It seems you confuse logic with your opinion.

Jeff

Nebraska: great study and I clearly support most of the facts based on *my* observations. In particular, the efficacy of the 257. My total deer tally probably numbers in the 80s ranging from a 250 Savage to a 375 H&H (I was practicing for Africa! . Without question, I achieved the most dramatic kills with the 257 Weatherby and 100gr factory ammo with Hornady bullets.

When it comes to deer-sized animals and smaller, I am a firm believer in Roy Weatherby's theory of speed and velocity being killers. On bigger game I am of the "breast" theory, as in the "bigger the better!" Jorge

not knowing the type of hunter the club has for memebers, i say that this is a very good showing to wildlife resaerchers what can be expected from any similar hunting are in the south. A wide swath of calibers, various hits locations, and measurements from the point of impact....an excellent cross section of the "public"...you cant twist the results with experienced hunters or marksmen...because the public would not be represented that way...guys who come to sites like this and strive for good equipment, and hone their skills in fairness to the game they seek would not be a good representative for a study of the "public"....the only thing that worries me from these numbers is the fact the shots were taken from tree stands....which means the ground hunter must be wounding a lot of game...for several reasons, some of which would be , alerted game, running game, or foilage in the shooting lane......bob

As far as what bullet is enough depends upon many factors. I posted Haralds site again for a studied guide.

Another point that I made is that those deer that were lost due to insufficant blood loss were not reported. It follows that a bigger bullet, with other things being equal, will cause more tissue damage and therefore the conclusion that small bullets are as effective as large is wrong. Therefore more deer were lost to the small bullets. This was not reported. (Never is).

As to tree stands the angle of the shot may be different and the animal is less likely to be alarmed.

There is all kinds of "deer hunting". If you hunt the hills of the Northern states for big bucks you will not find anyone dragging one out who carries a .257 Weatherby. That rifle is way too long and heavy and it may fail on a going away shot. Nobody uses them.

If your sitting in a hut and seeing 50 deer a day like we watch on TV I am not interested in what you do or get.

Statistics are like prostitutes. Once you get them down, you can do anything you want with them. I set up a D-Base program to study the same variables, with distance traveled after the shot, all else ie placement being equal to find the most effective bullet/caliber combo. Impossible! We had over 300 observations and found that difference between lung shots with 243 85gr HPBT (2 rifles)and 30-06 with various 150-180 gr bullets was only 8 yds. One shooter dropped 22 deer in their tracks. He was a competitive rifleman shooting a model 70 in 220 swift, scoped with a big Leupold. Took head shots only. Our conclusion was that the shooter is the most important variable. The rest is bs. Stoney

In that case, I guess we can use studies like this to find out what caliblers the best shooters prefer.

[ 05-19-2003, 05:43: Message edited by: Nebraska ]

I wonder how the 30 "calibers" would have fared if they removed the 30-30's from the sample?

There aren't really any weak sisters in the 257 common cartridges but the diminutive 30-30 will skew results if included with 308's and 30-06's.

$bob$