First, let me emphasize that I am not claiming to be an expert. I simply have been wondering about an aspect of hunting recently and wanted to throw it out on this board for discussion.

I've watched a ton of hunting DVD's and TV shows over the years. It is my opinion that the majority of animals (from predators to big game) shot on camera do not "drop in their tracks". While I realize that some of this may be the result of a less than well placed shot or too small a caliber for the chore; nevertheless, it seems to happen often.

My father raised me to neck shoot all the game I've ever hunted. When I center-punch an animal in the neck it goes straight down like I'd turned the switch off. My dad has killed six big bull elk in his life time and shot all of them in the neck. On every occasion, the elk fell dead door nails in its' tracks. They were all shot with a 30x338 and a 165 grain bullet. Based on my experience, the neck shot appears to send a tremendous shock wave to the brain and generally breaks the animals neck. The resulting brain and neck damage is typically so severe as to cause instantaneous death. Unlike a heart/lung shot, no amount a adrenaline will overcome a fatal neck shot. How many times have we hunters marveled at an animal with a serious hole in its heart and lungs go running up hill for a hundred yards after getting "tagged" in the "boiler"? We rub our collective chins and say "what an animal". Maybe we should wonder how we could have done a better job dropping it in its tracks.

I don't want to sound like some kind of bleeding heart, but I wonder why the focus on shooting game animals through the heart/lungs? Rarely have I seen a heart/lung shot drop an animal in its tracks. 9 times out of ten it makes some sort of "run" before it drops. Frankly, it doesn't seem to be much more effective than a heart/lung archery shot.

I've often wondered if we are doing the sport of hunting a diservice by producing DVD's and TV shows that don't show more "drop-dead" kills? It certainly does not help our cause to have PITA or our non-hunting wives/friends see these animals shot and not go down quickly. When I see a fellow on the Outdoor Channel talk about a "one shot" kill, it typically means he shot the animal once in the heart/lung area and then followed a blood trail to where the deer/elk/moose/etc has expired. My idea of a "one shot" kill means one shot and the animal went straight down dead.

I'm not critcizing anyone and to each hunter his own; however, I've often wondered why we don't employee more neck or even head shots in our hunting? Do we need more practice to have greater confidence in a neck/head shot, or have we simply been conditioned by years of magazine articles and TV shows to always aim for the heart/lungs? Are we afraid of ruining the trophy mount?

I'm sure in many of the TV shows I've seen, the professional guide is "stuck" with a hunter/sport that has not properly prepared themselves at the range prior to their hunt. The "sport" has paid big dollars for his/her guided elk hunt and the PH does not want to lose a trophy because his/her client is not "up to the task". Accordingly, I see plenty of shots that were intended for the heart/lung area that hit well back into the stomach region. I marvel at the fact that many of these tremendous big game animals, shot with state-of-the-art large caliber weapons, don't die any swifter than other big game animals shot via archery.

I will be very interested to see how others feel about this.

10 years ago, 5 maybe, or even two years ago I'd say this would be a viable topic you could probably get away with a discussion of this type without being flamed. Maybe you still can. Just be sure not to post any pictures that might have tissue damage or blood. The sensitivity police will be on you like white on rice for being crass and offending the anti's. Don't believe me, check out a thread I initiated a week or so ago, with the idea of lampooning a fellow here that decries any type of head shot. It was entitled Head shots.......
Might be best to discuss this topic in a PM.
Best
GWB
PS: the use of the word "killing" in your post sure sounds harsh, and has such a connotation of finality, Perhaps you should use the word harvesting. It sounds so much more metrosexual, even most Vegans won't object to that. Lord knows we don't want to offend.

quote:

Originally posted by Geedubya:
10 years ago, 5 maybe, or even two years ago I'd say this would be a viable topic you could probably get away with a discussion of this type without being flamed. Maybe you still can. Just be sure not to post any pictures that might have tissue damage or blood. The sensitivity police will be on you like white on rice for being crass and offending the anti's. Don't believe me, check out a thread I initiated a week or so ago, with the idea of lampooning a fellow here that decries any type of head shot. It was entitled Head shots.......
Might be best to discuss this topic in a PM.
Best
GWB
PS: the use of the word "killing" in your post sure sounds harsh, and has such a connotation of finality, Perhaps you should use the word harvesting. It sounds so much more metrosexual, even most Vegans won't object to that. Lord knows we don't want to offend.

Hey Geedubya:

You crack me up - thanks for the smiles. This is a blood sport plain and simple. Game animals die in a variety of ways. Our DNA and God programs us to pursue this sport. I simply like to KILL the game animals as quickly as possible. Thus I wonder strange things like I've mentioned in this thread.

I'm 55 years old and I'm not metrosexual. Without modern chemistry, I wouldn't be much of any sexual. If the word harvesting is more palitble than killing, I will try to be more sensitive the next time I KILL a big game animal as part of my harvest program. Heck, it almost makes me feel like a farmer.

Thanks;

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Welker:
...I've often wondered why we don't employee more ...head shots in our hunting? ...

Because it is a small, constantly moving target, which has a high probability of wounding-maiming, resulting in needless long-term suffering.

Without getting into the aesthetics of your post ( I believe a little respect doesn't hurt when dealing with the animals you kill), I'd say one of the reasons for folks shooting to the big middle instead of a more precise shot is a lack of marksmanship, a lack of practice and the confidence it brings. Whether this is because of lack of opportunity, circumstances, or just bone lazy, I don't know but too often Joe Box a Year hunter gets old trusty rusty out of the closet, hunts up that partial box of ammo that he bought last year, and goes hunting.
I don't advocate head shots --the margin of error is too small-- but a neck shot is a sure winner.
Of all the arguments I've read about pro and con head shots, I've yet to read the first poster that explained (or knew) that, once you're ready to shoot, if you will blow on a coyote howler or even whistle loud, the deer will go into a "locked position". He will freeze whilst trying to locate the source of the noise. He will hold that position for several moments. Once frozen, before he moves his head, he will start swishing his tail back and forth.
If you whistle and the deer takes off like a scalded dog, it means that Joe Boxayear has tried that and then missed because he's a lousy shot.

Jeff, I shoot alot and marksmanship has nothing to do w/ it for me. I know this sounds bad or course, but it all has to do w/ percentages/probabilities. When I shoot an elk or non jessee whitetail, I want to be sure of a 100% fatal shot w/ little if any chance of that animal suffering.. Heart/lungs gives me this.
If it's a jessee whitetail or hog, sometimes I'll take a shot for amusement or to gather info on bullets or to kill more than one w/ the same shot. Or, just to get a jessee breeder out of the herd.
One is done out of respect, the other out of need, amusement maybe even a little spite on occasion.

I don't see anything ethically wrong about shooting a deer in the heart/lungs and collecting it after it dies in less than 8-10 seconds. That is the norm, and it is to be expected.

I do agree that similarly places shots be it archery or bullet into the traditional kill zone, kill in about the same time frame. The animal has to bleed out for the shot to be effective, and both are very effective in my opinion.

I've spined deer in front of the shoulders, high in the neck, and head shot them. I've also had lung shot deer just collapse gun and bow.

There is no telling how a lung shot deer will react, but you do know that the deer is on very short term borrowed time, every time.

To say that death in less than 10 seconds is unethical, is not something I'm willing to agree to.

The sheer mechanics of blood pressure and hydraulics means that there will be a few seconds of consciousness whether the deer drops or not. Even when the blood flow to the brain has been stopped, the remaining oxygen in the brain cells has to be used up before all brain activity has stopped.

By that logic, brain/head shots are the only "ethical" shots to take, but damn if you are going to develop appreciation for hunting to anti's or those on the fence by showing pics of that ugly mess, no matter how "ethical".

If we get too picky about ethics, it leaves a no win for those actually hunting, even though the game animals end up just as dead with either shot.

It has more to do with the size of the lethal target area than anything else. A neck shot is only instantly lethal if you strike the vertebrae with your bullet. The kill area is much larger on a heart/lung shot. If you miss the vertebrae in the neck, the only chance you have is if you clip the jugular and wait for the animal to bleed out. I have seen elk standing in a herd with a bullet hole in their neck and a line of dried blood running down out of the hole. I have seen this more than once. Not pretty, and must be a truly long and painful way to die.

Aim small, miss small, I know, but if you're off by an inch or two on a neck shot, you have a non-lethal hit on a game animal that must suffer and die badly, infection, blood poisoning, starvation, etc. If you're off by an inch or two on a heart shot, you probably still hit the heart anyway, wrecked at least a lung, took out a couple major arteries, and it's still a dead animal.

I have had a few deer and 1 elk run at the shot. None of them ran very far, probably not 50 yards. The elk I shot again, and yes I did shoot it in the neck the second time. That was the one and only elk I shot with a 30-06.

I normally shoot a larger caliber for game species than most, from the posts I read in various hunting forums. I think that has something to do with it also.

Most of the game I shoot never takes a step. For deer, the smallest caliber I choose is a 257 Roberts AI for whitetail, or my 257 wby (our whitetail here are VERY small-less than 100 lbs normally), and if it's mule deer, then it's either 308, or 30-06 (whichever mood strikes me).

Since I switched to a 338 win or a 375 H&H for elk, I have always aimed for the heart/lung shot. I try to line up at least one front shoulder in the shot, if it's possible. But each time, the elk reacts like the very ground has been ripped out from under it's feet. I don't see that same reaction from my hunting buddies and their 270, 308, 30-06 rifles (hunting elk that is). They also aim for the heart/lung area.

Maybe if the range was very short, and I was on a very solid rest, I would aim for a neck shot, depending on the specific circumstances, but it would not be my first choice in almost any situation.

I do not believe in "stunt shooting" with small caliber rifles, to try to prove some point on a forum somewhere. I believe you should use enough gun, and take a front shoulder whenever possible to boot.

Just my opinion only, though I'm sure this will denigrate into a pissing match...

Good comments all - thank you.

Please know that I am not trying to impose any form of hunting ethics upon anyone with this thread. Maybe I should have titled the thread differently or worded my initial post better?

I think Wasbeeman focuses on the primary issue for me. Forgetting a head shot for the moment, do most hunters lack the confidence or skills needed to make a clean neck shot? Today's modern rifles are certainly capable of this type of accuracy; however, it requires the hunter to do some work on the range to develop/find the best combination (cartridge/gun) and get accustomed to shooting his/her rig accurately.

Certainly, the odds are in favor of hitting the larger heart/lung area compared to most neck shots. However, I think we have all seen plenty of TV shows and DVDs where the "sport" misses the heart/lungs and gut shoots the animal.

Like most, I concur with Slowpoke Slim's notion of using "enough gun" to do the job. That is why I believe in the neck shot. When you hit an animal (big or small) with enough foot pounds of energy in the neck, then the hydraulic shockwave does all the damage for an instant kill - you don't need to hit the spine directly. I've seen this enough times to know it is true. Of course, you need to use the correct bullet in both weight and performance for the animal you are hunting.

It just seems that too many hunters simply buy a rifle, grab some ammo off the shelf at the same store as they got the rifle and then go hunting. Maybe it isn't an issue of neck/head versus heart/lung? Maybe we simply need to do a better job in our sport of emphasizing range practice and using the right tool for the job? I believe that any hunter who can effectively center-punch the heart/lung area is more than capable of making a clean/killing neck shot.

Thanks again.

I think that the main reason you see hunting shows waiting for the perfect broadside shot in the heart/lung is that the producers don't want to be seen as encouraging their viewers who may be less experienced to take marginal shots.
The advantage of the neck shot is that it is typically immediately lethal or survivealble. In other words, if the animal is not DRT, the game is probably just grazed and will live if not recovered.
While neck shots require more precise bullet placement, you do not have to sever the spinal column in order to kill the animal. Anything close will typically disrupt nerves enough to kill and of course there are major arteries in the neck as well. Given the option, I'll take the neck every time. You can do what you like.

I'm really not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. If an animal is hit with a single bullet and that bullet causes the rapid death of the animal, isn't that a one shot kill?

If you're really interested in a drop to the shot kill, then you talking about something else besides a one shot kill. And, that comes down to a personal choice.

As for me, I almost always take a chest shot. I've done a few head and neck shots, but prefer the chest. It is simply a bigger target and doesn't move as much. Plus, I've had to finish of a couple of wounded elk over the years that have had their bottom jaw shot off by someone. Not pretty.

If I want one to drop to the shot, I'll still take a chest shot, but will aim a little higher and take out the shoulder. I've never had a deer or elk take a single step after I put a Nosler from my 7mm Mag there.

I think you're trying to split hairs and assume a somewhat superior position based on very little actual experience. After all, you state

quote:

My dad has killed six big bull elk in his life time and shot all of them in the neck. On every occasion, the elk fell dead door nails in its' tracks.

Well, 6 elk in a lifetime isn't really a lot of experience. I've personally killed over 25 elk in my native Colorado and have seen at least 100 others killed. Some were shot in the chest, some in the head and some in the neck. I can't remember ever seeing one lost that was shot in the chest, but have seen several neck/head shots go bad. Some of the chest shot elk may have covered a little ground, but they all ended up in the skinning shed.

So, feel free to shoot for the head and neck. I'll shoot for the chest on my next elk. And, when I do, I'll be eating liver and onions that night. Bottom line, nothing lives with a hole in its heart or lungs. But a neck shot that misses the spine may very well be just a muscle hit and may not bring the animal down. That's a risk I'd rather not take.

I shoot for the heart/lung area because after a hard hunt, crawling through bushes/brush/cactus/rocks/etc., sweating on the rifle/bow grip, assuming a less than perfect field shooting position, and factoring in all the other uncertainties associated with trying to kill a live animal, the last thing I want to worry about is making my internet-perfect 1/2" "all day long" rifle hit that tiny moving target of the head/neck. I suppose if all deer/elk/whatever would stand nice and still for me at the shooting range where I could use the solid concrete bench, I'd go for head shots. However, in my experience, which granted isn't as vast as some here, very few game animals are killed at the shooting range. In my opinion, in 99% of hunting situations the most reasonable and ethical shot is one for the large target - heart/lung area. We owe it to our quarry to remove as many variables as possible to ensure a relatively quick, clean kill. The heart/lung shot, I believe, is almost always the best option for that. Only under very controlled circumstances (which some get to experience - food plots, calm deer, comfy box blinds, solid rests, etc.) do I advocate head shots on deer-type critters. Hogs - whole 'nuther ball game. Shoot for the "neck".

To add to my post, I am not a died-in-the-wool neck shot man. I am a guy that takes advantage of the opportunity offered him. Although I don't shoot at animals at very far distances, as the distance grows, your attitude should change. A neck or head is a very small target at 300 yards and the heart/lung might be a better target. And, as someone posted, you need to shoot to take out a shoulder or such. If you're shooting for the far shoulder, you are pretty sure to be getting into the heart and serious arteries. A shot at the near shoulder will send bone shards scattering thru the animals torso.
IMO, many folks, when they talk about the heart/lungs, are really talking about the big middle. Also, IMO, not too many folks can accurately draw in the heart on a deer outline.
Finally, FWIW, a deer with a double lung shot, can go a long ways. And if it's a high double lung, he can go a longs ways before leaving a blood trail.

I head neck shoot or head shoot everything with a Rifle excepting what I want mounted.With a handgun,I shoulder shoot them.

quote:

Originally posted by MAC:
I'm really not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. If an animal is hit with a single bullet and that bullet causes the rapid death of the animal, isn't that a one shot kill?

If you're really interested in a drop to the shot kill, then you talking about something else besides a one shot kill. And, that comes down to a personal choice.

As for me, I almost always take a chest shot. I've done a few head and neck shots, but prefer the chest. It is simply a bigger target and doesn't move as much. Plus, I've had to finish of a couple of wounded elk over the years that have had their bottom jaw shot off by someone. Not pretty.

If I want one to drop to the shot, I'll still take a chest shot, but will aim a little higher and take out the shoulder. I've never had a deer or elk take a single step after I put a Nosler from my 7mm Mag there.

I think you're trying to split hairs and assume a somewhat superior position based on very little actual experience. After all, you state

quote:

My dad has killed six big bull elk in his life time and shot all of them in the neck. On every occasion, the elk fell dead door nails in its' tracks.

Well, 6 elk in a lifetime isn't really a lot of experience. I've personally killed over 25 elk in my native Colorado and have seen at least 100 others killed. Some were shot in the chest, some in the head and some in the neck. I can't remember ever seeing one lost that was shot in the chest, but have seen several neck/head shots go bad. Some of the chest shot elk may have covered a little ground, but they all ended up in the skinning shed.

So, feel free to shoot for the head and neck. I'll shoot for the chest on my next elk. And, when I do, I'll be eating liver and onions that night. Bottom line, nothing lives with a hole in its heart or lungs. But a neck shot that misses the spine may very well be just a muscle hit and may not bring the animal down. That's a risk I'd rather not take.

MAC:

I think you've done a very good job of stating your position and I appreciate your comments. Certainly, your 25+ elk trump my dad's paltry 6. If I had the experience you had on elk, I'd probably feel more comfortable with the heart/lung shot.

As I said in my initial post; to each hunter their own. Best of luck to you in the future.

Mac has got it right!

Geedubya, why don't you give it a rest?

Siome folks just don't want to see picturfes of the stuff they see in the field after they make a kill.

Does it make your nuts any bigger to post those pictures or make you feel more macho than folks that have killed just as many animals or maybe more than you, yet see no sense in displaying or looking at such pictures?

There is or should be such a thing as respect for other hunters and their attitudes toward such pictures and respect for the animals we kill.

Your continual whining about people not liking the pictures you posted is getting really pathetic.

I don't care what kind iof puicture you post, I just question the motives for a supposedly grown man posting pictures that have the potential for alienating other hunters.

Jeff Welker as to your original post, keep this thought in mind, not all of us hunt under the same conditions, in the same locations or are presented with the same type shots as your Dad.

Any elk killed and recovered is a Trophy, Bull/Cow/Spike.

Elk are hard animals to hunt and equally hard to kill sometimes with properly placed bullets.

Head/neck shots have their place and are effective, but they are not the be all/end all of bullet placement on game animals.

Neither are heart/lung/shoulder shots.

There is a lot of stuff going on between the muzzle of the rifle and the point of contact on the animal, that the shooter may not be aware of.

You and your Dad should be proud of his record, but that does not mean what the rest of us have done or experienced is wrong.

Geedubya, get a god damn life on this picture bullshit, I don't care what you post, but evidently sdome folks do and usually your posts are informative and worthwhile, this picture BS isn't.

And yes, I know you don't agree with that or what I think BFD.

It seems like the long held tradition is to shoot a deer/elk/antelope is the "behind the shoulder" location is starting to be reviewed.

With archery equipment, a animal hit in this area and usually its a pass through, will die in about 10-20 seconds. If the arrow passes through in front of the diaphragm they will have massive blood in the thorax region when opened up. Whether they die there or take off running seems to depend on the conditions of the shot with the arrow. I've shot a bull elk at about 30-35 yards with an arrow into the chest/lungs area and had him retreat about 10 yards and then respond to my bugle with an attempt of his own to only collapse to the ground after the 15 seconds. I've shot mule deer in the same area, chest/lungs, with an arrow and had him take off on a rodeo and make about 100 yards on a dead run before the 15 second rule kicked in. Seems like it depends on how the arrow entering their body affects them.

With a rifle a growing trend seems to be the high shoulder shot instead of the low behind the shoulder shot. This seems to put the critter down right there and is something to consider.

The FBI's studies on the effect of a manstopper one shot deal, dead right there, found that the only effective zone was a head shot designed to sever the brain stem or make mush of the majority of the brain. A bad guy shot in the lungs can still live to stick you or shoot you. Problem: Head shots with a pistol especially are hard to pull off. The Marine and Army sniper will, when time allows try to shot the diaper heads right at the eye level when facing the sniper in order to server the brain stem as the bullet passes through the head and out the back. This will cease all brain activity to the other organs and its time to scrape them up. Most times they just try to hit the bad guy though with the conditions that they find.

I'm finding the head shot to be very effective on big game if the conditions warrant it. My experience is that a round put in their pumpkin will in deed turn the lights out then and there. I don't find the fantasy of rapid head movements to be a limiting factor at all and to the contrary find that if you are detected and the deer/elk is looking at you, they become focused on trying to discern your intent and end up with a stare pose. If they haven't detected you, I don't see all this supposed rapid head movements.

I have hunted mule deer mostly and only shot two whitetails so most of my experience is with the muleys. Perhaps the whitetails are wired on Red Bull and are jerking their heads around all the time. Just my limited experience with whitetails.

CHC,

The feminisation of hunting. Your post is more indicitave of a facet of what I had in mind rather than the direction the thread took.

Also, when I step over the line in the "crater" the moderator usually bans me for a couple days or sends me a PM telling me I've crossed the line. I've yet to receive such an admonition from a mod. on any other forums. So it would seem that I've not crossed that line.

Tell ya what.
Why don't you do a poll. Figure out a way to make it objective. If the others that post here are of like opinion, I'll happily refrain from posting pictures.
Best
GWB

No, Geedubya, my post does not have one damn thing to do with the feminazation of hunting or anything else.

It has to do with you having a problem that not everybody likes seeing such photos.

I don't care, what about that is so hard to understand.

On your best day you can not offend me, I bet I can you.

If you don't care about how others feel about the pictures you posted, quit whining about the reactions and quit trying to find a way to explain the reasons why people may not like them.

Maybe you do need to drink a little more when posting, I find in many ways that it helps me be a tad more lucid with my thoughts.

If you want to take a poll do it big boy, I don't really care.

I just have a tendency to agree that such pictures rfeally don't do anything for the hunting community and may be harmful.

You don't feel that way, so post anything that the PTB's of this site will let you.

Some how the fact that just because people find something less than tasteful, does not make them you or anyone else's enemy, eludes you , is not my problem.

I seriously doubt that you have seen game shot up any worse than I have so we are not impressing each other here, nor are we impressing anyone else with this arguement, other than that we are both stubborn as hell and set in our ways.

You post what ever you are comfortable with and I will look at the pictures and wonder what purpose they are serving, but to say that this has anything to do with the "Feminazation" of hunting, is about like saying the "HOMOPHOBIZATION" of hunting.

If a person finds these pictures disgusting or non-respectful of the game they must be queers!

CHC,
I guess the perception of whining is subjective.

IIRC, you've taken me to task, publicly, on a couple of other occasions, rather than through PM.

Well I'll then state publicly, that we disagree.
Best
GWB

That is one thing that I will and do agree with you on Sir, my hat is off to you.

I do not pm people with public opinions I have made.

I will and do respond to pms if I get them, but to me pm's turn into he said/he said situations.

On the forums I have been on, I have never seen anything between two individuals realy solved by pm's.

I see no profit or purpose in them except when it concerns a pleasant subject

Agreeing to disagree is an honorable solution, as we are both entitled to our opinions.

In another time and reality, I feel that we would be able to share a campfire together and find much we agree opon, this subject is not one of them.

You have my sincerest apologies for any offense I have created.

CHC,
Publicly, I believe you to be a man of respect. No harm, no foul, and no offense taken.
Best
GWB
PS:
As the apostle Paul admonishes Timothy, I do take a bit of wine for my stomach's sake from time to time.



********* No animals were harmed during the posting of the preceeding picture, but a few grapes were crushed...........

Geedubya

I like all of your pictures. I am not offended in the least by any of them and it shows that you do have experience to support your input. That is unlike one of our favorite posters who offers no pictures nor proof.

This is a reloading/ hunting website for the purpose of exchanges of experiences and input, not a recruiting tool for the uneasy. If others don't like the content..........surf someplace else.

I get tired of the constant reminders of those who feel the need to critique and criticize with an eye to the PC. Just my opinion....... yours may differ.

Over the past year or so, I have began to believe in the calmative and curative powers of the juice of the grape.

A pleasant evening to you Sir.

Pictures only show what the person posting them want others to see.

I have some pictures of my various kills, along with the horns/antlers/hides that were the result.

Unfortunately meat after it is digested does not photograph or preserve very well.

I take or allow very few pictures of myself to be taken, because I am not vain nor do I have anything to prove to anyone.

I have the trophies I collected on my hunts, and the memories that only matter to me.

At 60 years old with 40 plus years of hunting experience I do not feel that I have to post pictures to prove my successes, as we all know, pictures regardless of their age can be faked.

I feel that all of Geedubya's pictures are real time pictures of the game he has actually killed, I applaud the man for that.

I just don't see the importance as the only person that knows what it meant for me to kill any single animal is me, and when I am dead it won't matter to anyone.

Had this job in a slaughter house swinging the hammer and they made sure to tell me to hit em right behind the shoulder with it for an instant kill.

All fun aside desert ram is correct. Tell me about what happens when everything goes wrong not when everything goes right. There are very few real world hunting situations where the head shot is best about 1% lifetime. Neck shots are ok right in front of the shoulders but behind the ear they are just another head shot.

there are only really three ways bullets kill. one letting all the blood out of the animal and or collapsing the lungs either way call it suffocating your basic heart lung "boiler room hit" works every time if you hit it.

The central nervous system “computer control hit" that’s brain or spine in front of the shoulders it is turning off the lights. Not a low percentage shot just not a real world option most of the time.

The structure "beams and braces” this is a bone crushing hit break down the structure holding this animal up. Not great but will anchor him for a follow up. Its best used in conjunction with the boiler room hit you know break both front shoulder joints and collapse the lungs. Break one front shoulder and trench the heart. Works but tears the hell out of a lot of good meat. Also used by breaking the hips mostly on big stuff in Africa so you can hit them again quickly somewhere better. This was my bread and butter for a long time with heavy bullets and big bores.

I have some great pictures of broken shoulder joints and blown up hearts but some will bitch and I don’t care to hear it. So I will just leave it alone and hope they will too.

quote:

Posted 27 July 2010 16:43 Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Welker:
...I've often wondered why we don't employee more ...head shots in our hunting? ...

Because it is a small, constantly moving target, which has a high probability of wounding-maiming, resulting in needless long-term suffering.

Enough of this BS! It isn't a small target unless you're hunting chipmunks and gophers. No animal subject to being eaten is constantly moving it's head, That defeats the use of their eyes and ears to a pretty substantial degree and it also makes them Much more visible. Stillness looking and listening are the characteristics of prey animals. Head bobbing is decidedly uncommon. If you are going to make up bullshit at least make up good bullshit.

If I cannot hit a golf ball every time at 100 yards, I do not hunt with that rifle and load. I have yet to see anywhere near the percentage of wounding from head shots that I have witnessed from body shots. In point of fact, in 54 years of hunting I have never seen one wounded and lost head shot, either one that I shot or by anyone else. I have run down a lot of wounded deer for people. Some have been lost to botched body shots. most have been recovered. People lacking in shooting skills adequate to killing a deer with a head shot almost never attempt it because they know it is likely to be a miss. For them, better a poor hit on the body, than a miss seems to be the operative guide.

I have never pulled the trigger on a head shot and had the deer go anywhere but straight down. The probability of wounding/maiming an animal with a head shot is not greater than any other shot, and I would submit it is in actuality much, much less. In my life I have found many wounded deer dead, unrecovered in the woods. I have never found one wounded in the head. I have never seen one wounded in the head.

BS is BS and enough is enough.

Well, from my experience neck shots don't work out more than they could for a couple of reasons.

First off: I'm always surprised how little the average hunter knows about game anatomy. No, I'm serious, next time you are out with one of your friends that always takes his or her deer to the processor to be cut up, ask them to point out exactly where the spine is on the animal, all the way from the head to the body. I'll venture that they are quite a bit off, too high, on the neck as it gets close to the body. Even if you are an excellent shot, if you don't know what you are shooting at, well, you're going to "miss" even though you put the bullet right where you wanted it. A high neck shot, especially close to the body will knock the animal down, given the caliber and mood of the animal it might even kill it by breaking the spine. It is also possible that it will mearly render it unconcious for a while. I've put a pistol bullet into the brain of a few animals that should have been dead if the bullet had actually severed the spine.

Secondly: A lot of people are not very good shots. A neck shot near the shoulder provides a larger margin for error. Head shots, even a moderate distances, say 200 yds, can be a disaster. I've seen a few head shots at close range, under 50yds go horribily wrong because of a 2 inch miss-placement of a bullet. Anotomical knowledge again, crack open a deer or even elks brain case, small target with a lot of impact absorbing structures, remember bucks and bulls smash their heads together a lot.

The same shooter that puts a bullet to far back on an animal because of poor shooting skills is not going to do any better on a neck shot. Is the possibility of a clean miss better? Maybe, but the possibility of a lingering death due to infection or slow blood loss is also pretty good. Shooting a deers jaw off or having an elk die several days later from blood loss and infection from a high neck shot is not appealing.

Face it, hitting an 8 inch relatively stationary target that will result in death within minutes is far easier than hitting a 2 inch mobile and "figity" target that will result in instant death for any skill level of shooting skill.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I guess I've never considered having an animal drop at the shot important. Having it die quickly - absolutely. And a good blood trail is nice, but not necessary.

Head shots, neck shots, lung shots, heart shots and Texas heart shots all have their place. It just depends on the situation you're in and equipment you're using. They all work, and in the right circumstances they're all ethical. It just takes experience to know when to use what. For most people, I think a broadside heart/lung shot followed by a quick 50-75 yard tracking job is about as fool proof as you can get.

Pete

quote:

BS is BS and enough is enough.

Your right about that and you sure laid out a load of it with your post.

Head and neck shots are fantastic when everything goes right, I have made a few myself, and they are spectacular.

While I have not been hunting as long as you have, only slightly over 40 years, I have seen, and made a few head and neck shots that did not turn out perfect.

I have seen deer wandering around with their bottom jaws shot off because someone thought that head and neck shots were the only way to fly.

If your are comfortable in taking rthemgo for it and if you are that big a stickler for accuracy, more power to you.

But if you are recommending head and neck shots for the average hunter, that is with a capital B.

UPDATE!

After all my typing on this issue last night, I turned on the TV and watched the movie "Terminator Solution". It was being shown in HD on HBO. Since the wife is out of town, I turned up the surround sound and had a great time. Unfortunately, in one of the first scenes of the movie my long held opinions on neck/head shots was severly challenged. John Connor was being assualted by a terminator that was missing its lower half. Connor must have shot this sucker 100 times in the head before it died. I'm starting to think that when it comes to a terminator, I should consider a center mass shot instead of the neck/head

quote:

Posted 28 July 2010 19:12 Hide Post

quote:
BS is BS and enough is enough.



Your right about that and you sure laid out a load of it with your post.

Head and neck shots are fantastic when everything goes right, I have made a few myself, and they are spectacular.

While I have not been hunting as long as you have, only slightly over 40 years, I have seen, and made a few head and neck shots that did not turn out perfect.

I have seen deer wandering around with their bottom jaws shot off because someone thought that head and neck shots were the only way to fly.

If your are comfortable in taking rthemgo for it and if you are that big a stickler for accuracy, more power to you.

But if you are recommending head and neck shots for the average hunter, that is bsflag with a capital B.

A man's got to know his limitations and if you don't know yours you have no business trying to kill something with a rifle.

I don't care what anyone else does, when I am shooting something with a rifle, my target is never larger than an inch. I know exactly where I want that bullet, exactly what that bullet should pass through and If I miss by so much as an inch I know that I missed and I know usually the instant I pull the trigger.

I have never accepted less than minute of angle accuracy in a rifle to hunt with for that very reason. Minute of deer, minute of paper plate etc is BS and if the gun and you can't do that it sure as hell is unlikely you will not wound deer no matter what size gun or where you aim.

I have hunted deer since the early 1960s. In that time untill now, I have killed a lot of deer due to Alabama's generous bag limits and length of season. Untill recently, we could kill a buck a day, not counting does. I have seen large numbers of deer killed at processors and hunting camps. I can only recall one deer that was shot in the head and I shot it using buckshot while he was trying to crawl and slip by me in the sage grass. Only shot I had.

I have seen only a handfull of neck shots and have made three by myself that I can recall.

Only way I would consider a head shot on a deer would be if I was hunting with an inadequate cartridge.

Joe A.

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:

quote:

Posted 28 July 2010 19:12 Hide Post

quote:
BS is BS and enough is enough.



Your right about that and you sure laid out a load of it with your post.

Head and neck shots are fantastic when everything goes right, I have made a few myself, and they are spectacular.

While I have not been hunting as long as you have, only slightly over 40 years, I have seen, and made a few head and neck shots that did not turn out perfect.

I have seen deer wandering around with their bottom jaws shot off because someone thought that head and neck shots were the only way to fly.

If your are comfortable in taking rthemgo for it and if you are that big a stickler for accuracy, more power to you.

But if you are recommending head and neck shots for the average hunter, that is bsflag with a capital B.

A man's got to know his limitations and if you don't know yours you have no business trying to kill something with a rifle.

I don't care what anyone else does, when I am shooting something with a rifle, my target is never larger than an inch. I know exactly where I want that bullet, exactly what that bullet should pass through and If I miss by so much as an inch I know that I missed and I know usually the instant I pull the trigger.

I have never accepted less than minute of angle accuracy in a rifle to hunt with for that very reason. Minute of deer, minute of paper plate etc is BS and if the gun and you can't do that it sure as hell is unlikely you will not wound deer no matter what size gun or where you aim.

All that is well and good, and may actually work if you're only shooting deer in a Minnesota wood lot. But, not all hunting situations lend themselves to that kind of shooting.

Put a pronghorn buck out on a sagebrush flat at about 250 yards in a good crosswind and I seriously doubt you can shoot for a square inch target. The same can be said for a mule deer across a canyon with a rising air current brough on by thermal.

Bottom line, the chest is simply a bigger and better target for most hunters.

miles58, I don't know how many deer you have killed, nor do I really care.

You continue hunting the way you want to and I will continue my way, and under the conditions I have to shoot in from time to time minute of critter is as good as it gets, and I can live with that.

To the best of my knowledge in my years of hunting I have lost only one deer that I knowingly hit, and that shot was made with a 22 Hornet, after I had already killed a deer with that same rifle.

That is the last time I used a 22 Hornet on deer.

Clearly with your level of superiority, you have me outclassed.

i haven't yet read any of the replies (which i am sure will prove to be quite lively), but here are my thoughts, personal experiences, and other assorted anecdotes:

how far can you run without breathing and without any blood pressure? i'm not talking about holding your breath, i'm talking about not having the ability to breathe, period. add to that, rapid blood loss, the world growing dim, shock, etc. etc.

i've never had to track a lung-shot deer more than a few yards (never over 20) in overly-brushy country, it has proved to be a challenge a couple of times, but the deer was always right there if i kept my wits about me and started my tracking right where the deer was when shot.

regarding head shots, i've seen a few, and have performed one myself (against my better judgement). in all cases that i have personally witnessed (no more than 5), luck prevailed and it was either a clean kill or a clean miss; however, my dad still talkes about a nice buck that he once took a shot at - blew its muzzle off, tracked it for 2 days, finally found it suffering and finished it off - felt like dogshit for years afterward.

in my opinion, the percentages are not there. the heart/lung area of a deer is so much bigger than the brain, it simply makes sense to do your shooting there and make sure you have the bullet and the skills to ensure a hit and acceptable terminal performance in that area. the farther away the deer gets from the muzzle, the more i believe this.

quote:

Put a pronghorn buck out on a sagebrush flat at about 250 yards in a good crosswind and I seriously doubt you can shoot for a square inch target. The same can be said for a mule deer across a canyon with a rising air current brough on by thermal.

Bottom line, the chest is simply a bigger and better target for most hunters.

Head shots are a fifty yard and in proposition. Even under ideal circumstances.

I don't care how far, or what wind condition though, the target remains the same inch.

quote:

how far can you run without breathing and without any blood pressure? i'm not talking about holding your breath, i'm talking about not having the ability to breathe, period. add to that, rapid blood loss, the world growing dim, shock, etc. etc.

I have seen more than a few lung shot deer make it a quarter mile or more. One in particular was a doe that left a trail of lung tissues through the brush from a 30-06 180 grain bronze point. I got one lung and not the other. I have seen quite a few deer shot with 30-30s, 35 Rems and 32 Win that were only hit in the lungs and they went a long ways. One of the last deer I killed had no recognizable lung tissue left and the heart was completely ruptured and loos in the chest. That deer managed almost eighty yards total distance before it died.

That reduced the blood pressure to zero instantly. It reduced the ability to get oxygen to it's tissues to zero instantly. That fifty-eighty yard run is not at all unusual for that kind of damage.

Run a 30-30 through a little high and a little far back and they can go a whole lot further than you want them to into a willow swamp.

quote:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230