Shot placement question

[LongDraw]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

#3

Great picture.

#2 has the greatest margin of error that would still result in a dead critter..

I would label #3 as a spine shot. A few inches higher and you are SOL...

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

#3

Yea, I can see where those "big bone" hits result in CNS disruption. Or is it hits to the CNS that cause the disruption?

[elkhunter11]

no elk...i wouldnt call it high at all. in any post ive ever made about advocating a shoulder shot i have never said "high". f

Some people specifically included the word "high", as Chuck did, when he described the wound on the deer that they found.

[Mountain Guy]

Interesting that it appears to me that the ''long range'' proponents seem to also be the ''shoot for the shoulder'' proponents.
Is this possibly a case of pinpoint shooting to get the said results of an animal folding all 4 legs before hitting the ground?
Thats what I'm reading into this..
trying to take an animal in the ''knuckle joint'' seems to be a test or maybe proof of the great ability of a marksman??
Like I said earlier....debating shot placement on dangerous game is debatable.
Shooting a moose/elk/deer in the shoulder joint so that he folds up like a cheap lawn chair seems to me to be more for self gratification or perhaps because it looks really good on tv..
Personally...it shows a lack of respect to the animal if one purposely shoots an ''eater'' animal in the shoulder and purposely wastes meat for the ''fold up drop to the ground'' shot.
Sorry for deviating from the OP's post, but this thread has gone full circle a couple of times.
My 2 cents....

Ok shoulder guys..... fire away

[5575]

This is what happens to most of the animals I've shot . I'm no expert and heck maybe its pure luck, I don't know but shooting them a little high works for me. My gun is 3 3/4 high at 100 and I try to put it tight between the shoulder and lungs if that makes any sense at all..
I used to always aim for the middle of the lungs growing up.
Then while working the gas fields I met a guy from the south that told me about shooting them high and hydrostatic shock and all.
Guess where he was from deer were like rats and they could shoot a pile of them, so he honed his skills quite well. I had the pleasure of watching him shoot a B&C bull in why with a 338 and at the shot his chin hit the ground.
I don't care how anyone shoots game, I'm just glad folks are out hunting!
No arguements here, its fun to listen to everyones opinions!

elk video, "not mine"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WylIrg98KU

STW on does "dumb ones at that!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwnCB...eature=related

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Great picture.

#2 has the greatest margin of error that would still result in a dead critter..

I would label #3 as a spine shot. A few inches higher and you are SOL...

I think most people don't really understand where the shoulder actually is in relation to the spine. I'd call it a shoulder shot. Any shot you are a few inches out on has the opportunity to go wrong. You are correct, a few inches higher and you are SOL. Likely the critter will live though. You miss by that margin on some of the other points of aim and the ending in often not so happy. It works well for me and I see it has having the widest margin of error....if error equates to the animal living or being recovered quickly that is. Not trying to convince anyone they should use it.....I just don't think my ethics should be questioned because I do....that's all.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think most people don't really understand where the shoulder actually is in relation to the spine. I'd call it a shoulder shot. Any shot you are a few inches out on has the opportunity to go wrong. You are correct, a few inches higher and you are SOL. Likely the critter will live though. You miss by that margin on some of the other points of aim and the ending in often not so happy. It works well for me and I see it has having the widest margin of error....if error equates to the animal living or being recovered quickly that is. Not trying to convince anyone they should use it.....I just don't think my ethics should be questioned because I do....that's all.

Ethics cannot be questioned when in regards to wasting edible meat ?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

#3

If I had to make a choice of one of the 3 shots shown I'd have to pick # 2. IMO numbers 1 & 3 are too small of a target for field shooting and there is too much margin for error. I am a #4 shot shooter, the largest visible mass in the vitals area, the same height as #2 but farther back above #1. I think that it is a high percentage shot and if it is not perfect (+/- a few inches left or right/up or down) chances are you'll still recover your animal.

Some of things that effect my decision to take a #4 shot as opposed to the 3 shots shown include: I'm a meat hunter and I don't want to waste meat unnecessarily, the type of bullet that I hunt with is not designed to destroy bone (Nosler BT), I don't use a bipod and I don't use a laser range finder.

Of the 3 deer that I shot with a #4 shot last Fall two were bang/flops and the 3rd went about 25 yds or so before dropping. No finishing shots were required. If I were hunting dangerous game I'd change my bullet type but my shot placement would probably remain the same. I may not get a bang/flop but an animal shot through the vitals won't go too far.

Where's that "Would You Shoot Again Thread" that Arn?Narn posted awhile back with the cariboo in it? Like that.

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Ethics cannot be questioned when in regards to wasting edible meat ?

So the only ethical shot is a head shot then?

[LongDraw]

Shoulder location is not a constant. In the example posted of the elk put his right front leg in a stepping position and the top 1/3 of the blade (spot #3 in relation to the blade) is now lower and farther back.

The location of the heart and lungs is constant, the shoulder blade not so much..

[Stinky Coyote]

i tend to aim a little bit back of position two, almost inline between 1 & 2, my arsehole, i mean opinion, is that is more the middle of the front end and giving most margin for error 360 degrees...

what ever happened to the advice 'just front end em'? i would think that would mean aim for middle of front end?

the middle to high rear quarters isn't a bad spot either but sure messes up a lot of meat, not the gist of this post i gather though

there really is a lot of hits that work, i like middle of front end myself

lately the high shoulder shot gets touted a lot because it anchors and apparently getting elevation errors not as great as windage errors....i still like middle of the front end myself, don't think i could train myself away from that

and of course if at angles etc. then whatever puts me through the middle of front end, except archery where quartering away is rule of day for angle shots, quartering too.... not so much

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

So the only ethical shot is a head shot then?

Well, if the range permits, for me I like head shots for does and cows...under 100 yards kinda thing. Although I like a bleed out heart shot as well.
We can't lose focus on the fact that we are all supposed to be hunting because we'' like the meat''.
Have we lost focus??
I can't speak for most...but I remain steadfast to not feed any anti-hunting sentiment.
Not trying to blow this outta proportion.... but you can understand my point I hope.

[walking buffalo]

Thanks TJ.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

#3

For Dangerous Game comparison.



Black bear



Brown bear




Polar Bear



Teddy Bear

[Stinky Coyote]

teddy gets it between the eyes, purely because i feel i'm being insulted by his stink eye

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Well, if the range permits, for me I like head shots for does and cows...under 100 yards kinda thing. Although I like a bleed out heart shot as well.
We can't lose focus on the fact that we are all supposed to be hunting because we'' like the meat''.
Have we lost focus??
I can't speak for most...but I remain steadfast to not feed any anti-hunting sentiment.
Not trying to blow this outta proportion.... but you can understand my point I hope.

Of course we hunt for meat but in that quest we must dispatch the animal quickly and humanely.......there are many ways to achieve that depending on the situation. Unfortunately, some cause damage to meat. So why only head shots on does and cows? Is the meat less important on bucks and bulls? No need to answer that....I think you get my point

Good stuff WB, I don't think most people realize how low the spine sits at the shoulder. Some of the African game is crazy.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Of course we hunt for meat but in that quest we must dispatch the animal quickly and humanely.......there are many ways to achieve that depending on the situation. Unfortunately, some cause damage to meat. So why only head shots on does and cows? Is the meat less important on bucks and bulls? No need to answer that....I think you get my point

No prob.. but I wll answer that.
I shoot bulls and bucks in the heart/lungs. Bigger target, fail safe , bleed out and only loose a little rib meat in the process. Don't want to damage the hear gear either.
Cows / does ... head shot, smaller target..if I miss animal walks... not to worried about it. Excuse to hunt longer...wife doesn't know the diff

[elkhunter11]

Cows / does ... head shot, smaller target..if I miss animal walks..

Except for the instances where the jaw is broken,and the animal starves to death,or an eye is damaged, and the animal lives on with one eye.

[1shotwade]

I saw a hunting video of a hyena take it thru what i thought was the vitals,and looked good to the hunter! The guide was concerned apparently they are put together a little different! The trackers tracked him for hours and it required a second 1 to the neck!

[KegRiver]

A lot of good comments, and the drawing does help clear some things up with regards to some folks choices. Too bad there wasn't one showing the vitals as well. But that is what it is.

I would pick #2, which I would refer to as a heart/lung shot.
Now maybe I'm wrong but it has always been my understanding that this is where the largest concentration and largest area of vital organs are.

Heart, Lungs, and most of the largest blood vessels all live in this area so far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe the heart lung area is about 8 inches wide.

As I said way back in this thread. There are folks on this site capable of making some rather difficult shots. Shooting for the shoulder joint would be one such shot, in my opinion. As I pointed out, with that shot one is aiming for a 2 inch target that they can't even see.

For myself, that is too iffy of a target. For those who can hit it, the more power to you. For a novice, I think it is the last place you should try to hit an animal. The margin of error is too small.

The way I see it. If one takes a gun capable of better then average accuracy, lets say .5 MOA. Then we take a Bear in the field at 350 yards, add in a hurried shot error variable of lets say 1 MOA and we arrive at a margin of error with the shot of about 5 inches.
If the target has a size of five inches it certainly could be done. On a two inch target the chances of hitting is unacceptable in my opinion.

That same shot at aimed at the heart/lung area would have a grace of three inches.

I rather like insurance.

Once again. I have no doubt that there are people who can hit a two inch target at 350 yards. I doubt very very much that anyone other then the very best can do so on a consistent basis.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Except for the instances where the jaw is broken,and the animal starves to death,or an eye is damaged, and the animal lives on with one eye.

Correct.....I should have been more precise when I said <100 yrds. I only use a head shot when I know I will part the ears.

Originally Posted by KegRiver

For myself, that is too iffy of a target. For those who can hit it, the more power to you. For a novice, I think it is the last place you should try to hit an animal. The margin of error is too small.

.

And I think the margin of error is bigger than any where else. I've never proclaimed to be anything but an average shot. For an average shooter like me, this represents my best opportunity for a bang flop in my experience. Heart lungs is a big target too though

[elkhunter11]

And I think the margin of error is bigger than any where else.

Using the elk pictures posted, it looks as though #2 gives the biggest margin for error to ensure a clean kill.You can miss by a few inches in any direction,and still hit vitals.That isn't the case with #3.

[KegRiver]

That's what I thought Elk. It's certainly the impression I got from butchering animals. Not a lot up there other then the shoulder joint and a few medium sized blood vessels. I suppose a bit of shrapnel might take out the top of a lung, possibly even go wild enough to hit the heart. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Last time I butchered a Moose I'm sure I looked at the shoulder joint, while quartering, and to me it looked to be about 2 inches across. Give or take a fraction of two.

I know hydro static shock is an amazing thing. Perhaps it is capable of more then I ever realized.

I did hear stories about soldiers being killed without ever being hit by the bullet. Story goes that the shock wave of the high speed bullets used now destroys the brain if the bullet passes close enough to the head.
I thought it was BS, but maybe not.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

#3

I just went and referenced Craig Boddington's "The Perfect Shot North America" Oddly enough he does not even consider #3 as a viable shot on any North American big game animal.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Mountain Guy

Cows / does ... head shot, smaller target..if I miss animal walks... not to worried about it.

I watched a bafoon try and finish off a Bull Moose at 15 yds this last fall and after 3 or 4 shots to the poor beasts nose and jaw I told him to shoot the poor thing in the lungs. The bull was sitting up and he then proceeded to "High" shoulder shoot the thing repeatedly until I could not take it anymore and walked away. That bull was still sitting upright when I left.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by chuck

I watched a bafoon try and finish off a Bull Moose at 15 yds this last fall and after 3 or 4 shots to the poor beasts nose and jaw I told him to shoot the poor thing in the lungs. The bull was sitting up and he then proceeded to "High" shoulder shoot the thing repeatedly until I could not take it anymore and walked away. That bull was still sitting upright when I left.

Ok... I'll narrow it down to the brain.
Don't recommend a nose or jaw shot although in my younger years I have to admit I hit a running buck thru the nose. He folded up like a cheap lawn chair and when I got up to him he stood up and started to wobble. I stood beside him and wasn't sure whether I should steer wrestle him to the ground or shoot him again. I dispatched him with a head shot.
I took a mule doe this past season with a head shot. Have missed a few head shots in my day. Never wounded one with a head shot that I couldn't recover.
I would suggest that if at a range that a small error could result in a jaw/ nose shot then DO NOT use a head shot.
I never attempt a head shot without a good rest.
Common sense to me but maybe not for all...

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I did hear stories about soldiers being killed without ever being hit by the bullet. Story goes that the shock wave of the high speed bullets used now destroys the brain if the bullet passes close enough to the head.
I thought it was BS, but maybe not.

You were right Keg. It's BS, at least for small arms fire. It just makes a "crack" noise from breaking the sound barrier like the sound a whip makes.

[Mountain Guy]

Oh, I wouldn't recommend a frontal head shot on a moose either.
As a volunteer firefighter I tried to dispatch a live bull moose laying on the highway with a broken back. I walked up to him ,wound up and put all of my 230lbs into his forehead with a pick axe. I thought it would easily penetrate his skull and it would be quick and painless for the poor critter. To my amazement the axe bounced off his forehead !! He shook his head like he had a bug in his ear. Not sure what to do I wound up and did it again with the same result. The other firefighters watched as I had to beat this poor thing a few times before he finally succumbed. Boy did I learn something about how tough a moose is...
I've since learned that the soft spot behind the ear is the place to beat a moose with a pick axe

[equanuck]

The way I see it. If one takes a gun capable of better then average accuracy, lets say .5 MOA. Then we take a Bear in the field at 350 yards, add in a hurried shot error variable of lets say 1 MOA and we arrive at a margin of error with the shot of about 5 inches.
If the target has a size of five inches it certainly could be done. On a two inch target the chances of hitting is unacceptable in my opinion.

The OP was large and dangerous... 350 yards???? Nothing is dangerous at that distance. This exact scenario was already written somewhere around page 2 of this post.

I guess maybe age does have an affect on things. LOL!