Folks: The topic at hand dovetails with my post from yesterday regarding Ross Seyfried's reputation as a gun writer.

Below are excerpts from an article he wrote in "Rifle" magazine ( May 02) called "Meat damage" while he asserts the fact that "meat" is the central part of hunting, he goes on to say:

"Essentially, I mean to shoot at one or both shoulders on virtually every shot. In fact, the only shot where a shoulder would be excluded would be when the animal is facing directly, or almost directly at the hunter." Again he reiterates the importance of minimizing meat damage but goes on to say:
"First, this shoulder aimpoint is the way to put the bullet where it will secure the animal, quickly, reliably and humanely as the most important vitals like between them ( the shoulders). IF you aim behind the shoulder you are always flirting with disaster as the slightest error to the rear results in a very bad hit, one that will often lose the animal".
He goes on to say that meat damage is minimal (unless of course you are using the wrong bullet) and he feels good about that. His bottom line: "My philosophy is very simple when it comes to bullet placement; Far better to sacrifice a few pounds of shoulder meat than to lose and waste the whole animal. Let's see what you think. I was going to say "long live shoulder shots" but that would be too obvious jorge

Hear, Hear! Long live shoulder shots!

If an animal is broadside, a double shoulder shot is as deadly as it gets. However, if the animal is slightly at an angle, I have always been told to shoot for the opposite shoulder. I have used this technique since I started hunting and it has always worked for me. The Buff I took in Tanzania in 2005 was at a slight quartering angle with the right leg forward. He was about 80 meters away, and I placed my shot just behind the right shoulder, angling towards the left shoulder. He went about 50 yards and piled up dead. BTW the rifle was a CZ 375, 300gr SAF bullet.

I'd have to agree with him; I almost always try to break one or both shoulders on game animals (the exception being head or neck shots on animals taken purely for meat).

George

I agree with 1115, shoot for the exit hole.

Can we define the aimpoint on a broadside presentation for a "shoulder shot" before this discussion goes any further? I hear quite varied definitions. Skeletally speaking, the shoulder joint is between the scapula and the upper leg bone, forming the forward point of the "vital triangle." Is the shoulder joint itself the target we are talking about?

I read other descriptions that seem to indicate that a "shoulder shot" is into the middle of the scapula blade.

Personally, I shoot for the top of the heart, and on a broadside shot, the visible reference point I use is the elbow joint, which is the lowest and rearmost point of the vital triangle. I place the shot a little above and forward of the elbow joint, and so far I've been quite consistent in taking out the top of the heart.

I agree with both Seyfried and Slingster. I happened to be with some biltong hunters on day who thought they were better shots than they were, going for headshots on Topi with a Remington 700 chambered in 7 MM STW. After one "hunter" shot through the jaw of a topi, leaving it to run off and suffer, I tracked it and shoulder shot it with a .375 H&H. When skinning and quartering the animal I received the comment, "look at all the meat you wasted." Since I was standing without the possibility of a solid rest I hadn't hesitated to take the one shot I knew I could make which would anchor the animal. Tough luck on the amount of biltong.

i believe that my absolute favorite shot is when the animal is quartering toward me and I can break the leading shoulder and drive all the mess into the chest. not only does a good shoulder shot break the animal down, it also gives a great shock to the spine and CNS, which ends in a quick death.

Call me crazy but I have never had a problem with shooting behind the shoulder. At times these shots usually end up taking the opposite shoulder out due to shot angle. The heart and lungs represent a large target on most game. That is what I aim for. On large game like buffalo, eland and moose I will try to take out a shoulder. I have found that large animals take a while to bleed out due to increased blood capacity...a broken shoulder helps keep them from running into the next county. To sum up my opinion, I think both targets are good ones and think someone is spliting hair attempting to say one is better than the other.

Personally, I aim to get the bullet to pass smack between the shoulders, regardless of the animals position.

This seems to work for me so far.

1115 & other: You are correct in aiming for the opposite shoulder when the animal is quartering away. I didn't feel to paraprase the whole article, but that is essentailly what Ross says also on quartering away shots. On quartering toward shots, he says:" attack the close shoulder".
As far as defining the aimpoint on the shoulder, Ross says:"with an animal broadside, center both shoulders, one third to one fourth from the bottom of the chest." jorge

Eric is correct here: there are multiple variations on what constitutes a shoulder shot. I agree with him to that what might be better called the high shoulder shot is through the scapula. It usually gets the spine too.

The school shot at Gunsite puts the aimpoint one-third the way up the body, with the vertical crosswire bisecting the front legs (automatically corrects for target angle). This usually gets the lungs and blood vessels above the heart too.

jim

If you're wanting minimum meat loss, for deer, take a lung shot. In my experience they run 50 yds. BTW the last deer I shot in the shoulder the 45-70 Win Partition smashed the shoulder joint ,went on to take out the lungs --it still ran 50 yds !!!

I personally prefer the neck shot but I am a damn good shot. Second choice is the shoulder. I like them DRT.

Most of the meat on say... a Whitetail isn't in the shoulder anyway.

and though I've so far recovered (though I once found someone else already tagging my animal) every animal
that I've ever taken a shot at, that doesn't mean that I even slightly enjoy tracking a wounded animal.

I even found the deer my brother hit with his shiny new car on the way to go hunting and that deer made it nearly half a mile into heavy brush.
Finding that damned doe took (literally half a mile of)crawling on hands and knees in patchy snow holding a mini-Maglite in my teeth.

I ALWAYS find them. and though there is satisfaction in doing something someone else can't, it still ain't fun....

My point of aim is the offside shoulder, unless the animal is
"half quartering" either towards or away where I think I can thread the bullet between the shoulders.

I hold on the upper point of the shoulder, basically aiming for a spine hit above the shoulder and if I misjudge the range the bullet will find itself 4-6inches below that point.

The point of aiming for the offside shoulder is that the shoulder can be broken as easily from within as without and if the bullet has passed through any significant ammount of deer it'll be moving more slowly and will mess up less meat than if you hit the close side shoulder.

And in any case there is more ruined meat on an animal you can't find (but the coyotes can) than on one that drops within sight.

Hey, is it just me or does everyone mentally insert
crosshairs to the image whenever they see a picture of a game animal?

AllanD

Depends on the angle. Saeed nailed it.

I like the shoulder shots, I will worry about meat after I have the animal on the ground, and not until. Good shooting.

It seems that there is some confusion on what the term "Shoulder shot" really means. Is it the shoulder muscle or the shoulder bones? Are the ulna and radius included or just the scapula and humerus? If you place your shot on a broad side animal in line with the front leg and 1/3 of the way up from the brisket will you hit the shoulder? I think not. If anything you may graze the shoulder muscle especially if the leg is in the rearward position. Check any anatomical drawings to see if this is correct.

465H&H

when i first started shooting i was taught animal anatomy, on various animals, and the one recurring theme was to shoot INTO the animal and not AT it, ie picture an orange suspended between the shoulders and depending on the angle shoot for the orange, but i must make it clear that i will leave any shot that i am not happy with, because their is always tommorrow!!
This has never let me down.

B

Jorge, you should know by now where I stand on this. Meat loss is the absolute least of my concern. I aim for shoulders, typically high front shots when broadside.

The only animal I've ever lost was a shoulder shot buffalo with a 375. Broadside we saw dust fly of the shoulder and away he went. Two days later he was still going strong and into Hwange Park. My PH said on occasion they lose a shoulder shot buffalo when the bullet deflects forward into the brisket area. I think the shoulder shot is preferred because it usually slows the animal down making follow up less risky. Take a look at the cats in the book on vitals of African game and I don't see how anyone can recommend a shoulder shot for cats. Their vitals are considerably lower and farther back than some of the plains game. I think this can be said for the big bears as well. I shoot for behind the point of the shoulder and have had no complaints.

Ditto Doc...

I like...DRT..

Doc: I knew you'd say that and I agree. For those of you who asked where the sholder was, I paraphrased another excerpt from Ross' article (my second post) and I'm comfortable with that description. As far as buff are concerned, the spine on a buff is really low, so high shoulder shots (upper third) can be problematic.

As for cats, yes the heart lies further back, but you are not aiming at the heart in this instance but rather the confluence of the shoulder, lungs, spinal chord and a host of other essentila plumbimg. When you add the fact that cats are very succeptible to shock, when that bullet hits the shoulder, it's pretty devastating. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:
Hey, is it just me or does everyone mentally insert
crosshairs to the image whenever they see a picture of a game animal?

AllanD

No Alan, it's not just you. My brother and I used to enjoy watching those nature shows and try to estimate how much each of the bigger critters would dress out to.

Between the shoulders, the "boiler room". I think that anyone so concerned about "wasting meat" that he would be taking a marginal (read "unethical") shot on a game animal shouldn't be hunting. None of the meat in the supermarket is "wasted". Now, I know that there are a few that ARE good enough shots to take head and spine shots at reasonably close range, but judging by what I see every fall during "sight-in days", most are pieplate challenged off the bench at 100yds, never mind offhand. I shoot hundreds of rounds to get ready for deer season every year, and I can roll a soda can at 250yds with my peep sighted deer rifle, but I wouldn't even consider any shot but a shoulder shot unless the deer were within 50yds, and even then it probably wouldn't occur to me that I could have tried a different shot until I was pacing off the distance to where it fell.

Just saw the following on another forum, gleaned froma South Carolina deer kill study apparently:

"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."

Bieng that lung shot deer invariably die but run as far as 200 yards, which is more humane? rhetorical question but some here disagree and call shoulder shots "unethical." Of course, one must consider the source.... jorge

I disagree with shooting a moose or elk in the shoulder, it is a complete waste of meat. The area behind the shoulder is large enough to make a clean kill (with some room for error). A lung shot moose will generally hardly move at all before dying. There isn't much left of a quarter after a shoulder shot from my experience. If I'm not worried about the meat then absoluteley throught the shoulder

I agree with this and prefer to shoot an Elk right behind the shoulder, in the angle formed by the front leg or in the front chest; this seems to get the lungs and heart or aortic arteries. I have yet to see a Moose or an Elk lost with this shot and a .30-06 with 180 controlled expansion bullets or even a .270/.280 with the same will kill quickly and humanely with this placement.

A bull Elk can go for miles on three legs and will, but, he cannot function with ruptured lungs. The trick is to get that bullet into the pleural cavity TIGHT behind the shoulder and many guys aim a bit too far back; this puts the bullet into the guts just behind the diaphragm, gawd, I hate that!

Break the shoulder. Break the shoulder. Break the shoulder.

The word of the LORD.

friar

Based on the skeletons of most game, if you are aiming to "break a shoulder" means you are probably shooting a little high or a little far forward. The center of mass in the shoulder is pretty much all muscle.

I aim for a "high heart shot" in almost all cases. Depending on the angle that may mean passing through the shoulders, a shoulder, or between them. It may just go through muscle, or break some bones. I don't aim specifically to hit bone, just the heart.

Cheers,
Canuck

I have never hunted anything more "dangerous" than large Indian boars and, considering a number of issues, probably never will, but yes, this is sound advice that has worked for those who taught me to hunt and for me as well. As a boy I was taught by my "guru," Pius Rodrigo, a well reputed hunter in South India, that breaking the shoulder meant that an animal would not be able to run far, an important thing especially in the thick jungles of the Shevaroy and Palani Hills in that part of the world. If the first shot did not kill it, a second one would do the job.

Cheers!

Gourgeous Gorge: I have to call BULL SHIT again on your lack of real game shooting experience and field observations of same!
I have shot far in excess of 200 head of Big Game (virtually all through the heart/lungs!) and not one of them has EVER covered 200 yards! 100 yards yes, but rarely even that far! And guess what Gorge! Those animals all bled out virtually completely and died a humane death in just a few seconds!
And guess what else Gorge! There was more of that wonderful meat for me and my family to enjoy once those animals were properly harvested!
Your first reference there kind of "skips over" some major points in his brief statement "Meat is the central part of Hunting" and then he apparently meanders away into Gorge oblivion! LOL!
Not only does the lung/heart shot produce more edible game meat for the ethical Hunter it produces BETTER meat for the ethical Hunter!
IT seems all your "references" and "other sites" also skip the fact that many shoulder shot game animals do in fact become wounded and lost!
While properly shot (through the heart/lungs) edible game animals virtually NEVER escape to die a lingering death!
Dig up some references to deny that GORGE!
You dance around and skip over things pretty well Gorge but when it comes to proper bullet placement on edible game animals you have a lot to learn! Both about shot placement AND ethical game harvesting!
None of your cited experts dare say that a heart/lung shot edible game animal will get away and die a lingering death - or do they Gorge?
Why on earth would you try to persuade anyone to shoot an animal in its shoulders and waste a lot of its edible flesh?
Why would you want to shoot an animal in a spot that will not kill it as quickly as with a heart/lung shot?
Are you even aware that while said edible game animal is thrashing around on the ground once shoulder shot it is pumping sour adrenaline into every bit of its flesh - diminishing the quality of that flesh?
Why do you think cattle and hogs are killed instantly and bled immediately! Its to avoid the souring effects of adrenaline!
No you are not aware of these things and thats a shame! You being obviously to inexperienced and unaware of these things should not try to pass off your drivel onto others!
So take it from someone with significantly more intelligence than you, with obviously more intention of being an ethical Hunter than you and with more real experience than you have - you are doing something wrong Gorge! You are doing something that is easily done a better way and once done that better way, better results will come of it!
But alas, I fear your ignorance knows no bounds and your "ego" for some reason just won't let you do the right thing - even though its easier to do it right to begin with!
For your next lesson Gorge I want you to think about the size and location of a heart/lung shot on your average head of edible Big Game like Deer, Elk, Antelope, Moose, Caribou etc. If you can think for yourself that is!
Then think about the shoulder of an edible head of Big Game! Now visualize an angling shot or a glancing shot or a slightly astray shot going towards these two seperate areas of the animal!
These slightly errant type shoulder shots are MUCH more likely to wound and cause the loss of said game as compared to a similarly somewhat errant shot going into the heart/lung area!
Think about that - for yourself - if you can and then come up with somemore "references of note" that will try to "skip over" some pretty important aspects of this topic! Avoiding reality AGAIN and AGAIN is not really sporting if you get my drift? I don't think you can find someone who will state that heart/lung shot game is LESS likely to die than a shoulder shot animal?
Try shooting an edible head of Big Game in the heart/lung sometime - I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the results! And the most impressive result you will notice is the improved taste of the game meat and the increased amount of it!
Let me add just a few of my latest observations regarding shoulder shot edible game animals! Late on the second day of the Antelope season here in Montana last fall I had occassion to see one of your "shoulder shot" Antelope hobbling across the wet prairie! I was watching him through my spotting scope and the bloody wound appeared to be high on his shoulder!!! That Antelope hobbled for 3 miles that I saw until it went out of sight! I wonder about how long that creature suffered until it succumbed?
A heart/lung shot Antelope might have gone 60 yards!
Do you see any differences there Gorge?
Just one more for now Gorge, I was on a Duck/Goose Hunt this past fall about a week after the Big Game had season closed. We were trekking to our Hunting spot along a willowy creek when we jumped a wounded Whitetail Buck! The poor creature could barely hobble let alone jump or bound away.
You guessed it Gorge the poor creature was flopping its front leg as it humped along! It was obviously a recipient of your beloved (and misguided!) shoulder shot! If I would have had a slug for my shotgun I would have pursued that poor creature and put it out of its misery!
To many things can go wrong with shoulder shots Gorge and if you have not learned that by this stage in your life theres not much hope for you.
Shameful that!
Go with the heart/lung shot on any edible game - you will be rewarded and the game will die a quicker and more reliable death. Thats the least you can do for the animals YOU pursue Gorge.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I think I'll stick with Ross on this one, aim for the shoulder, lose a bit of meat, but dispatch the animal quicker. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
..."Essentially, I mean to shoot at one or both shoulders on virtually every shot. In fact, the only shot where a shoulder would be excluded would be when the animal is facing directly, or almost directly at the hunter." Again he reiterates the importance of minimizing meat damage but goes on to say:
"First, this shoulder aimpoint is the way to put the bullet where it will secure the animal, quickly, reliably and humanely as the most important vitals like between them ( the shoulders). IF you aim behind the shoulder you are always flirting with disaster as the slightest error to the rear results in a very bad hit, one that will often lose the animal".
He goes on to say that meat damage is minimal (unless of course you are using the wrong bullet) ...

I tend to use the good old, never fail, shoulder shots myself. About the only way you can goof up with them is to:
1. Use the Wrong Bullet - weight and/or construction.
2. Use too small of a Cartridge.
3. Not really understand the anatomy.
4. Flinch.

I never read much of Seyfried's stuff because he typically wrote about Cartridges and Game I've no interest in. That said, he seems to know how well the shoulder shots work.

I think people aim for what they believe will be the best target if they are well practiced and calm, it makes little difference.

It's the over-excited, novice who takes advice on where to shoot an animal that messes up the most shots.

I aim for the top of the heart, regardless of angle or stances if you will. Nate

The GREAT Finn Aagaard, who shot more game and saw more shot than anyone of us, or Ross, for that matter, used to recommend placing the verticle crosshair/sight post between the animal's forelegs and holding about one-third up the body; this will put the bullet just above the heart and rupture both the descending and ascending aortas. Nothing, except a direct brain shot kills faster than this placement and it gives one the most accessible aim point from any stance the animal takes.

I don't care for shoulder shots because it is too easy to pull ahead slightly and make a "brisket shot" while putting a high velocity bullet into a front quarter ruins quite a lot of meat, not just a couple of pounds. The Aagaard shot placement avoids this to a great extent while putting the bullet in the best spot....about what you would expect from a gunwriter who was equalled only by Bob Hagel and Phil Shoemaker, IMHO.

I take it that your assertion that Aagard shot more game that Seyfried, also a PH in Africa is factual and not conjecture. Seyfried's (and most here) preference for the shoulder is precisely the oppposite of what you profess, that is pulling the shot. We'll have to agree to disagree, but look at it this way, you have at least one aupporter here. That alone should give you pause. jorge

So, as Slingster forwarned, there seem to be at least three ideas of what constitutes a "shoulder shot":
1) shoot for the vitals at the bottom of the vital triangle, or 1/3 up from the bottom, or in a spherical kill zone resting between the forelegs at the bottom of the chest.
2) deliberately smack one or both scapulas and take spine damage as a bonus
3) aim for the joint between the scapula and the humerus
Perhaps we need a survey to clarify who means what...

Jorge, Ross was a PH in Africa for a very short time while Finn was born there and hunted in the "glory days" when game populations and bag limits far exceeded those of recent years. I said that Finn ...shot and saw shot more...and I think that is a realistic accessment of the situation, it was not intended as a slight on anyone, simply an informed opinion. If, I am in error, I apologize, but, I do not think I am.

As to pulling the shot, if you hold as Aagaard recommends, even a slightly pulled shot will strike a vital area, as I understand it, this was the "raison d'etre" for his suggestion. Anyway, here in B.C., probably the finest game country on Earth, after Africa, most experienced game shooters avoid specific shouilder shots and prefer lung/heart placements, seems to work for us. As an aside, I have seen Grizzlies with one shoulder shattered quickly cover over a half-mile....the conclusions are obvious.

Jack O'Connor used the write about "smashing both shoulders" on game but it was in reference to Coues deer and desert sheep. Since then generations of gun writers have been regurgitating exactly the same thing but applying the rule to just about every kind of game that walks.

I don't quite know what he meant but assume when he used the word "smashing" that he must have meant the shoulder blade because you can't smash meat. Likely it works on coues deer and sheep. I have never shot either.

But I have shot or seen shot about 500 adult male African buffalo bulls and it is a huge mistake to shoot at the shoulder if you mean the shoulder blade. The only hit on the shoulder blade that is really effective is one that connects with the spine where it runs between the blades and the spinal cord is only about an inch thick - not a good target. Sometimes you hit an extension of the spine, twist it and he is knocked down but he will get up again and go. Mostly when you hit the shoulder blade you just punch a hole in it. You never smash it.

The best shot is the traditional shot where you line up with the front leg when the buffalo is broadside to you and then shoot from one third to one half way up the body - never higher. You don't want to smash bone. You want to avoid hitting heavy bone and with that shot you just hit ribs, heart and both lungs. Dense bone does all kinds of strange things to bullets. Last year I saw a Trophy Bonded sledge hammer solid from a 375 H&H bent in half hitting buffalo bone near the shoulder. Must have been a hard leg bone near where it connects to the shoulder blade. Not sure. The skinner brought me the bullet. The shoulder blade gets softer and eventually spongy at the top.

If the buffalo steps forward as you shoot, with the traditional shot, you still hit both lungs. They don't go more than 150 yards.

But they die even quicker, and suprisingly so, if you aim just behind a line drawn up the back leg of the buffalo and shoot in the middle. You don't get the heart here. You get ribs and both lungs. What you always want to do with a buffalo is always get both lungs. They can go a long way on one lung. Forget about breaking bones and don't worry about the heart at least from the side.

With this latter shot you just get both lungs but they seldom go more that 35 yards. Its suprising how quickly they go down. But I don't recommend this shot because if they step forward as you shoot you will hit him too far back.

Most buffalo are lost by being hit too high on the shoulder. A buffalo hit in the lungs is going to quickly pull out of the herd. One hit high on the shoulder will likely stay with the herd. You can catch up with them and then watch for a buffalo that has developed a twitch,
has a concentration of oxpeckers on the wound, or has a visible stream of blood. Then shoot him again. I have done it so often its like going to the office.

I used to read that the buffalo is dead when you hear the death bellow. Well it is but not right then. On two occasions, when I started hunting buffalo, I walked up too quickly on buffalo giving a death bellow thinking they were finished and they got up and charged.

What I like to see when I find blood leading into the long grass is three blood trails. One from the near lung, one from the off lung and one from the nose. I have never found a buffalo alive when I have seen that sign and you only get it when you shoot large calibre solids such as monolithics in a 450 Ackley that go right through.

The rule of thumb on buffalo is not "smash the shoulders" its "get both lungs."

With cats its hit them in the middle behind the shoulders because their shoulders are way ahead of their vitals. I just tell clients to wait until the lion is broadside and feeding on the bait and then draw a line down just behind the back of the leg and hit them in the middle of the body. You don't have to exactly hit the heart. Two lungs will do. They won't go far and won't charge.

A buffalo is very quick to locate the person who shot him and I have seen two charge immediately after being hit but it is rare. In my case 1 in 250 buffalo. But male lions always have other male lions on their minds because they kill each other fighting over the girls and usually when a male lion is shot he assumes he has been bitten by another male lion and for a while he concentrates on his own leg and bites it. A female with him however may pick out your location very quickly and must be watched.


VBR,



Ted Gorsline

VBR,



Ted Gorsline

As stated previously, we'll agree to disagree> I never said your shot placement was not in order but rather some folks prefer a different aimpoint supported by scientific data as the SC studies reflects and not anectdotal as in what you describe. Regardless, EITHER place works and has nothing to do with ethics. jorge