Huntnful
Well-Known Member
They damage tissue resulting in lack of oxygen or blood flow. They both do it. That's how they relate.
Great discussion.
- Thread starter Huntnful
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
That's typically the effect, but the mechanism is different.
Let's say an arrow passes above the lungs on a broadside deer, but under the spine. What is the outcome. In case you don't know they live. I've done this with a 4 blade muzzy. I know the deer lived because I killed him a month later with an x on both sides completely healed and healthy.
Let's say that that a high velocity rifle round is placed in that same location, what is the outcome. The deer hits the ground.
They went in the same location. If they kill the same should the outcome be the same?
I once shot a deer from a tree stand and the arrow went low and did not enter the cavity of the deer. One blade from the broad head caught the deer in the leg. It did not break the leg. It was a glancing shot, but it cut an artery and the deer died within 100yds.
I've seen the same situation several times where legs were practically blown off by rifles and they live. The wounds bleed differently.
Let's say an arrow passes above the lungs on a broadside deer, but under the spine. What is the outcome. In case you don't know they live. I've done this with a 4 blade muzzy. I know the deer lived because I killed him a month later with an x on both sides completely healed and healthy.
Let's say that that a high velocity rifle round is placed in that same location, what is the outcome. The deer hits the ground.
They went in the same location. If they kill the same should the outcome be the same?
I once shot a deer from a tree stand and the arrow went low and did not enter the cavity of the deer. One blade from the broad head caught the deer in the leg. It did not break the leg. It was a glancing shot, but it cut an artery and the deer died within 100yds.
I've seen the same situation several times where legs were practically blown off by rifles and they live. The wounds bleed differently.
willfrye027
Well-Known Member
A hair beyond 400 yards, 134eld from a 25 creedmoor. I could stick my fist through the hole in the lungs without stretching tissue..
I do like the 25 creedmoor but from odd positions and quick shots..I shoot my 22 creedmoor better and can spot my shots/stay in the scope easier.
I will be downsizing my elk rifle unless legally required to shoot something bigger.
Highly recommend necropsies of the animals you kill. It's very interesting to see what actually happened in the tissue.
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
I like those examples. Especially the lower leg artery.
I also arrowed a buck in the same exact spot. Blood and bubbles running all the way down his side. Never found him. Without a question would have been a lethal shot with a frangible bullet as well.
But the first example is the point I was making. A bullet causes more damage, not less, in almost every instance.
Last edited:
Jim Carmichael wrote an article a long time ago about shooting a mule deer (at ~200 yards as I remember). It took 2 quartering on shots as the deer turned after the first shot. The animal took the first shot and then went back to eating. He moved a little and took the second hit, walked some and went down. When they got to the deer it has 2 "perfect" hits from the .338 WM with 250 Partitions. I know several people who have hunted with this man and they say he was the best game shot they have ever seen. Since 2 over then are professional guides with a lot of experience, I believe this is true. From THIS ONE EXPERIENCE, we could say a .338 WM is marginal for mule deer. I don't believe that is correct. The "fastest dead" elk I ever saw went down with 55 grain bullet from a .22-250. It was a head shot. This was a Native American hunting on his reservation with no caliber/cartridge restrictions. I would not use a .22-250 for elk even if (like this gentleman) I had a very long open season in a area with LOTS of game.
I believe one should hunt with something they can shoot well from field positions, not just bench or bipod. From my experience guiding and watching people sight in at various ranges, I believe that 300 yards (for many even less) is a reasonable limit. That said we have all seen people who could "go longer". The thing I like best about this group is the work they seem to put in with getting in shape, practicing A LOT from all positions and picking great cartridge/bullet combinations.
I believe one should hunt with something they can shoot well from field positions, not just bench or bipod. From my experience guiding and watching people sight in at various ranges, I believe that 300 yards (for many even less) is a reasonable limit. That said we have all seen people who could "go longer". The thing I like best about this group is the work they seem to put in with getting in shape, practicing A LOT from all positions and picking great cartridge/bullet combinations.
Alex Wheeler
Well-Known Member
Im an 1k BR guy. We shoot 6mms to punch holes in paper. Its the most accurate cartridge size and bore for that purpose. We have shot 1000s of rounds at 1k with the smaller stuff. It groups, but that group gets moved. As much as I love the 6mms for accuracy. Give me a heavy 30 or 338 for hunting...
But Id prefer you go out and see for yourself. I have read and watched enough stuff on posts, pod casts, and youtube to say thats not where you want to get your info.
But Id prefer you go out and see for yourself. I have read and watched enough stuff on posts, pod casts, and youtube to say thats not where you want to get your info.
But the argument is the type of damage and how they kill not how much damage.
I gave an example of how an arrow will kill, when a bullet won't, with the exact shot placement, and vice versa.
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
And excellent, real world, understandable examples at that. I see your point for sure.
Putting them each in the lungs is what I'm talking about though honestly.
But I do see your point about the slice on the random leg artery, and how it created a different type of wound in that instance to still be lethal.
Alex Wheeler
Well-Known Member
Some guys want to act like elk are no tougher than any other game. I get it, blow up the lungs or heart and its dead. True. But after you have been around elk enough I thing you will see that this is not a moose or whitetail. Use enough gun.
Last edited:
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
I agree, and some of the socials certainly aren't where you want to get all of your info. But you can absorb information, rationalize what makes sense to you, and then go test it. That's all I did, plain and simple. Small, heavy for caliber, frangible bullets flat kill animals at moderate ranges. I loaded them, I killed the animals, I looked at the lungs. It's not a theory or anything. Do I want to do it every time, for every scenario? No. But they kill animals pretty easily within their distance and expansion limitations.
I don't even know how many listened to the podcast, but he never mentioned 1000 yards and 6mm in the same sentence. The only time he mentioned true long range, was that the vast majority of people shouldn't even be shooting it because they don't do the work to effective or practice enough. Everything was in relation, to average hunting distances, mostly 400 yards with longer shots being in that 600 yard range, impact velocities, shootability, and what bullets at what impact velocities caused wound channels that were large enough to be more than effective.
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
I am definitely one of those guys unfortunately. With proper bullets and shot placement, as well as with proper archery equipment, I have not see anything from an elk that lead me to believe they were super animals. HOWEVER, with poor shot placement, from a rifle or bow, they do have exceptional endurance and strength and will not just give up and wait for you to come shoot them again, like some different ungulates may do.
My small group of hunting partners are well over 40 elk between us. Have not had a single issue with a genuinely well placed arrow, or proper bullet. Or anything leading me to believe their vitals are any tougher than any other animal I've killed. Any and all issues with elk shots have been from poor shot placement.
Last edited:
Have you ever shot an animal and not recovered it with a rifle? Curious the details and if you think a smaller gun would have prevented it?
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
1 unrecovered animal with a rifle. It was a nice mule deer at 525 yards quartering away with a 6.5 creedmoor and 143 ELD X factory ammo. I was brand new at hunting and IMO shooting way further than I should have been. And taking poor shot to begin with. I was sheltered from the wind and didn't even make a wind hold. As far as I know the bullet enter way back behind the last rib, obviously I don't know for sure because I never recovered him.
In that specific instance, certainly a 338 Lapua with 285 ELDM's would have had a different outcome. If I was able to shoot it well and put it in the exact same spot.
Now with that said, I could easily ask 100's of people that have never recovered wounded animals that they hit with larger calibers and poor shots because they sucked at shooting 8lb magnums "would you rather have had a gun you could actually manage, learned to shoot, weren't scared of the recoil, practiced more with, that allowed you to put a smaller bullet in an actual lethal location?"
I'm just playing devil's advocate obviously. I shoot magnums all the time. Hunted all last year with a 14lb 300 Norma Improved. And a 300 Norma Improved the year before that as well. Killed maybe 12 animals with them I think?
I've always liked analyzing bullet performance, and testing different bullets (on animals, not in theory) and making judgements based off of that.
Huntnful
Well-Known Member
Another huge factor here is recoil, not caliber. People want to go with a huge cartridge/caliber, but not put any extra weight in the rifle to manage it and make it shootable. You can absolutely shoot a heavier, big magnum rifle exceptionally well in more controlled field scenarios. The recoil is quite mild with a good muzzle brake.
But that's the caveat. Most people don't put themselves in, or aren't offered a very controlled field shooting scenario. Immediately losing insane amounts of perceived accuracy they once had the bench. Then, they have to pair that with a light weight cannon of a rifle they thought they absolutely needed in order to kill something, that they hardly ever practiced with in any other way besides sighting it in behind a lead sled at the range because it kicked so much.
But that's the caveat. Most people don't put themselves in, or aren't offered a very controlled field shooting scenario. Immediately losing insane amounts of perceived accuracy they once had the bench. Then, they have to pair that with a light weight cannon of a rifle they thought they absolutely needed in order to kill something, that they hardly ever practiced with in any other way besides sighting it in behind a lead sled at the range because it kicked so much.
