Shot placement question

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Throw a 16" circle around the three points and now tell me which one has the largest margin of error. I'd rather totally miss than wound with a low percentage of recovery but a high chance of the animal dying. At 16" lots of that circle is off the animal in position #3 but very little of it falls in an area that won't kill it quickly. Not sure you can say the same about the other two aim points. It clearly all depends on your definition of margin of error what the facts are. Just because you see it one way and others see it another...doesn't make your way clearly a fact.

Looking at the anatomy chart of the elk you posted the heart and lungs make the largest vital target. This is not an opinion.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't see the point of a 16" circle.If I am not almost certain of hitting an 8" circle,I won't take the shot. A hit anywhere in an 8" circle centered on point #2 will almost certainly result in a clean kill. I can't say the same for an 8" circle centered on either of the other points.

The point is we were talking what placement offered the highest margin of error. In agree that you should be able to hit an 8" circle but I was also making my point about a high margin of error. #3 offers that.

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Looking at the anatomy chart of the elk you posted the heart and lungs make the largest vital target.

As opposed to what? I'm not talking one specific target, I'm talking all the area around the point of aim that will cause an animal to fall down. While the shoulder blade itself maybe a smaller target, there's a whole lot around it that doesn't take kindly to a bullet either...that's a fact, not an opinion.

[ram crazy]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nobody shoots at running game and that they all shoot at standing game to make that perfect shot so they don't ruin any meat. I know I've shot at running game before and I haven't worried about ruining meat. Most of you guy's are shooting more than one animal a year anyways and so what if you lose a pound or two of meat.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't see the point of a 16" circle.If I am not almost certain of hitting an 8" circle,I won't take the shot. A hit anywhere in an 8" circle centered on point #2 will almost certainly result in a clean kill. I can't say the same for an 8" circle centered on either of the other points.

Yup, but #4 is even better as far as margin of error goes. Right above #1 and in line with #2. No matter where you hit the animal within that 8" circle, it's one dead animal. If you want to include the legs and liver it's even larger than 8".

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

As opposed to what? I'm not talking one specific target, I'm talking all the area around the point of aim that will cause an animal to fall down. While the shoulder blade itself maybe a smaller target, there's a whole lot around it that doesn't take kindly to a bullet either...that's a fact, not an opinion.

What makes what you say a fact and not your opinion?

I agree that directly below your preferred shot will not take kindly to a bullet, what about 6" the left, right, or a bit above?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

As opposed to what? I'm not talking one specific target, I'm talking all the area around the point of aim that will cause an animal to fall down. While the shoulder blade itself maybe a smaller target, there's a whole lot around it that doesn't take kindly to a bullet either...that's a fact, not an opinion.

Yes, you're right. Number 3 will have a higher likelyhood of causing the animal to fall down. So would #5, through the hips. I thought the point was the best shot placement to kill an animal quickly while minimizing the potential error though.

Originally Posted by LongDraw

What makes what you say a fact and not your opinion?

Same thing that makes what you say a fact and not an opinion I guess.

]I agree that directly below your preferred shot will not take kindly to a bullet, what about 6" the left, right, or a bit above?/

Neck, spine....lots of major CNS wiring.

[equanuck]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Seriously, The Op ask for preferences. That means to me, what I have done when faced with that situation/animal/angle/rifle in hand. Not what if.

If I have to resort to if, it's because I have no experience to draw from.

Like so, I prefer to shoot Moose in the heart. If I were to hunt Alaskan Brown Bear I would - - -

See how that works.

If you have no experience to draw from, a if answer is entirely appropriate I would think. If you have the experience, why not use it?

Kind of a give away you know.

And once again all over the place. How can you think I don't have the experience?????

I have taken mule deer, whitetail, moose, big horn sheep and tons of black bear.

I have taken game with archery and rifle both. I have shot 3 black bear with bow from under 20 yards, 3 with rifles under 25 yards and about 25 blacks under 100 yards. The archered bears were in the heart / lung. The 3 bear under 25 yards were just below and slightly back of the ear. The rest were heart / lung area with some getting shoulders quartering away.

All other big game gets shot in the heart / lung as I have previously written.

And FYI. Anyone with with any amount of hunting experience will tell you that there are a lot of "IF's" involved in a hunt.

Please adjust dosage

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I thought the point was the best shot placement to kill an animal quickly while minimizing the potential error though.

That's been my experience with #3 and the reason I prefer it.

[elkhunter11]

I'm talking all the area around the point of aim that will cause an animal to fall down.

A hit anywhere near the spine will often cause an animal to fall down, the problem is that those animals often get back to their feet and run off. A hit a few inches above #3, especially if slightly to the right will strike near enough to the spine to cause the animal to fall down, but it could quite likely regain its footing and run off wounded.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

That's been my experience with #3 and the reason I prefer it.

Can't argue with that. I know a Newfie that swears that the best place to shoot a moose is in the hump.

[elkhunter11]

Can't argue with that. I know a Newfie that swears that the best place to shoot a moose is in the hump.

And I have seen moose get right back up from a shot to the hump. If the bullet hits close to the spine, it can knock the animal down without cleanly killing it.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

A hit anywhere near the spine will often cause an animal to fall down, the problem is that those animals often get back to their feet and run off. A hit a few inches above #3, especially if slightly to the right will strike near enough to the spine to cause the animal to fall down, but it could quite likely regain its footing and run off wounded.

Lots of could ifs with all shots...I'm just playing the odds on shot placement that works well for me.

[Mountain Guy]

How many here would shot a calf elk standing broadside in the shoulder??
Honest answers only please.......

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And I have seen moose get right back up from a shot to the hump. If the bullet hits close to the spine, it can knock the animal down without cleanly killing it.

Oh, for sure. I think the idea is to immobilize the moose and then take a finishing shot. I wouldn't do it.....well, not on purpose anyways. Why would you want to shoot a moose in the hump when you could shoot it in the shoulder. I'm just kidding, I'd shoot it in the boiler room through both lungs if I could.

[Running Bear]

I would shoot it's mom, right in the shoulder.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

How many here would shot a calf elk standing broadside in the shoulder??
Honest answers only please.......

Why is a calf elk any different from anything else?

I think that I might know where you are going with this.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Agree..
A jacketed bullet will cause more spoilage insofar as blood clotting. If it hits a rib, and at the right velocities there will be bullet fragments going into meat probably causing waste.
Solid coppers or bonded's will less likely cause extensive tissue damage when parting the ribs.

Sorry I'll disagree with this statement as well based on a pile of anecdotal evidence from my own kills. The amount of blood shot caused by mono metal bullets never ceases to amaze me.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Sorry I'll disagree with this statement as well based on a pile of anecdotal evidence from my own kills. The amount of blood shot caused by mono metal bullets never ceases to amaze me.

That's why ya oughta shoot them in the ribs.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Sorry I'll disagree with this statement as well based on a pile of anecdotal evidence from my own kills. The amount of blood shot caused by mono metal bullets never ceases to amaze me.

And my experiences are different than yours.
Since I've started using bonded bullets I've had little to no blood shot meat.
Makes sense to me that a bullet passing thru an animal, that doesn't break up, will cause less colateral damage.
My observations prove this...

[209x50]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

That's why ya oughta shoot them in the ribs.

LOL you really should keep up. But for the Cliff notes, I do and have and bullet construction and shot placement haven't been a factor in meat damage as far as I can see.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

And my experiences are different than yours.
Since I've started using bonded bullets I've had little to no blood shot meat.
Makes sense to me that a bullet passing thru an animal, that doesn't break up, will cause less colateral damage.
My observations prove this...

When you have bloodshot a foot laterally from the bullet entrance do you believe that is done by shrapnel?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by 209x50

LOL you really should keep up. But for the Cliff notes, I do and have and bullet construction and shot placement haven't been a factor in meat damage as far as I can see.

What's getting bloodshot and damaged at the ribs?

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by Running Bear

I would shoot it's mom, right in the shoulder.

Nice.... and leave an orphaned calf fro the wolves.

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Nice.... and leave an orphaned calf fro the wolves.

Ethics again

[equanuck]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Sorry I'll disagree with this statement as well based on a pile of anecdotal evidence from my own kills. The amount of blood shot caused by mono metal bullets never ceases to amaze me.

I'm shooting mono lathed bullets in my 408 Cheytac but haven't put them thru an animal yet. Just curious as to how much blood shot to expect if I decide to use it this upcoming season. Am thinking whitetail doe @ 1000yds just to see.

[equanuck]

Originally Posted by 209x50

When you have bloodshot a foot laterally from the bullet entrance do you believe that is done by shrapnel?

Best shot I ever made for no worry of bloodshot damage and bang / flop was dead center thru the brisket with the moose looking at me from 30yds. HPBT 168gr 300 Wby. It fell over backwards, kicked once and was finished in 30 seconds. I reload and find that the HPBT bullets don't tend to cause the damage to the meat that you might think.

The break up of the bullet happens so fast that it really messes up the inside of the rib cage without usually causing too much lateral meat damage.

It's what I like. Just my opinion

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by equanuck

The break up of the bullet happens so fast that it really messes up the inside of the rib cage without usually causing too much lateral meat damage.

It's what I like. Just my opinion

x2 I used 168 gr Nosler BT in my 3006 last Fall for the first time. I actually started a thread on here asking questions about them at the end of the season because I thought that they were exploding on contact with the deer that I had shot. There was a very audible "smack" when they hit the ribs, no exit wound and lungs pretty much toast. Two bang/flops and one bang/wobble/flop. I would have liked to recover a bullet but couldn't find anything except bits of shrapnel. Definitely not designed for the type of shoulder shots that are being discussed on this thread.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Easy big fella....
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that fellow hunters question why you intentionally waste meat when other shots are better.
Thats all I'm saying.
.

stating your opinion as fact generally makes a guy come across as an arrogant know it all. remember that everyone in this discussion has a right to their own opinion and opinions can be debated. to state that your opoinion is fact and someone elses opinion is wrong ....well.....

Originally Posted by Walleyes

To the young readers on here and the more in experinced hunters,, please do not take what this man says on this matter as the whole truth if you do you will have many heart breaks over the years from lost game. Not everyone can afford the high powered guns, the best scopes, the time to test for the best bullets most are just regular smoes that use average stuff. Be smart,, put a bullet through the animals lungs and it will die,, it has no choice.. If after that you get a second shot by all means drill it through the shoulder but at least you will have the confidence that the animal will die from the first shot.

..

same thing applies to this one....