Moose to Elk sized game, would you prefer a narrow wound channel with a small exit hole or a larger wound channel with the slug lodged into the vitals? Given those as the only choices which would you opt for?

I'd go with the latter.....you'll probably need a blood trail with the former.

If that "narrow channel" is in the heart/lungs, I'll choose the first option.

Everybody has read accounts of animals with heart completely destroyed, yet running 100 yards. In that situation, your best friend is a good blood trail.

IMO, two holes are better than one.

Rick.

This is a bit simplistic but I'd opt for the longer wound channel on game of this size and weight. I like to break a shoulder on heavy game so, if I don't have the angle to break the onside shoulder, perhaps the longer narrower wound will offer a better chance to break the offside shoulder. Also, there are some bullets that can do a lot of internal damage while giving relatively small exit holes. Barnes "X", for one.

I like exit wounds so i'll take the first option.

Exit holes for me too.

Definitely exit hole...

-- Mats

I prefer to save as much meat as possible. Make that a exit hole for me also.

Intresting majority landslide but Im afraid that I dont agree. With a larger wound channel AND a slug lodged "in the vitals" there could easily be and probably is, more tissue damage and isnt that what terminal ballistics is all about? What is so special about an exit wound if the damage inside is greater without one? Also a slug lodged inside should cause profuse bleeding especialy if the animal is moving while a narrow channel is more likley to cease bleeding.

As for meat damage Im not buying that one at all. Exit wounds are sometimes holy terror on steaks. On the other hand the good thing about an exit wound IMO is knowing that you used enough gun for the job, but given the two choices I listed I would prefer the 1st for a sure kill.

Well, since I hunt moose in bear country I like bullets that offer the greatest penetration possible. For the past eight years I have been using 230-grain FS bullets, and have killed several moose with one shot. The closest shot has been 100 yards, and the farthest (one shot kill) at 250 yards with a 250-grain Nosler Partition. Of all the moose I have killed with the FS, only one has been recovered. Even the Partition I used last year passed right through the moose's lungs.

I am on the "pass through" group.

I'll take the deep and narrow. It has been found a larger wound channel causes nerve cell damage that can actually retard bleeding. Optimum wound channel was between 1 1/4 - 1 1/2". If you have a copy of Veral Smiths' "Jacketed Performance with Cast Bullets", he went into it pretty well.

I prefer a rather large wound channel that extends though heavy muscle,bone, and continues through the off-side hide. Medium-bore X bullets (.375) of moderate weight (270 grains)at moderate velocities (2900+ fps)have always worked well for me.
And, believe it or not, it works pretty darn good on small big game (pronghorns,deer, ect.)-memtb

Two holes. Dutch.

I prefer that the animals I shoot actually die, so I'll take the bullet which traumatises the vitals and leaves the opposite-side hide (not a particularly vital organ) in tact.

Other people seem to regard tracking game which will die at some indeterminate time a great sport, so they naturally prefer the penetrating bullet. To each his own.

As a proponent of deeper wounding, I will say I have never had either a deer or elk go far with an inch and a half hole through it's heart and/ or lungs. I shot a deerr last week with a 160 gr. 6.5 through the lungs, and it dropped immediately. Elk have tended to do the same thing in the past, and as I was hunting elk also at the time, I definitely feel I am not handicapped with the deep penetration. I've seen lighter bullets fail to penetrate the body cavity, blowing up on the shoulder and chest.
My theory on most calibers for big game, use the heaviest, or next heaviest bullet for the caliber.

In and out, I like a blood trail.

WH: You seem to favor killing the game quickly. You don't realize how much sport you're missing by following that "good blood trail" for a half-mile or so.

Besides, don't you know that blood loss only kills an animal if it spills onto the ground and it doesn't count if it only spills inside the body cavity?

Why don't you ask an ER surgeon which type of wound he'd rather attend to? Of course, the large-channel wound never makes it to the ER, so it's a truly hypothetical question.

[ 11-19-2002, 20:09: Message edited by: Stonecreek ]

I don't want the exit wound. I want the bullet to detonate in its vitals.

If I'm counting on a blood trail to save my ass, I've made a pretty bad choice when I pulled the trigger.

2 holes. One to let the air in, the other to let the blood out.
Seriously, as long as a bullet can reach the vitals and destroy them it makes little difference if it passes completely through or not. The tricky thing is finding a bullet capable of getting to the vitals from all angles.

A narrow (.257" or greater) hole through both lungs that exits will do quite nicely. The second hole will result in the collapse of the lungs, resulting in a quick death.

Of course, if I am on public land where some other hunter might put a shot into the beast's spine before I get to it, I would want a larger caliber.

George

I prefer to use a load that I feel confident will penetrate to the vitals from any angle, if possible. I don't mind a little wasted meat if I can assure myself of getting the animal I want. They don't always stand broadside.

I can appreciate the desire/need to have enough penetration to assure that the job gets done under whatever circumstances, but that is the only objectivity the 2nd hole advocates have given IMHO. Otherwise I fail to see why a 2nd hole is more important than greater internal damage. Within the context of the two scenarios given there is no penetration problem. Shouldnt our goal as hunters be to achieve the optimum ballance between the two scenarios? Someone please enlighten this backwards bumpkin because I still dont get it.. I keep coming back to the similarity bwetween the exit hole scenario given and the performance of a FMJ which is known to fail from a terminal ballistics standpoint.

my experience (pretty much limited to whitetail deer) is that a shot through the heart/lungs area (that does not hit a shoulder bone) does not often drop the animal in place. therefore, my preference is to have an exit hole because that causes more blood to be on the ground, greatly aiding tracking.

fact is, the only deer i've shot or seen shot that dropped in place were spine shots and "thru both shoulder shots". . . i expect with a double lung shot to do <B>some</B> tracking (especially in the woods, where visibility is limited and i'm not so likely to see where he falls).

Exit wound. A through hole through the lung can make a sucking wound.

Hcliff