El Jason
Well-known member
You could also rebore to a 338-06. Very versatile round.
Caliber for under 500 yard shots and big bears/Moose
- Thread starter Habbernator
- Start date
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,924
As I dive into the controversy zone....
It's actually physically impossible to shoot over the lungs and under the spine. If you look at a cross section of a deer/elk the top of the lungs are actually higher than the bottom of the spine. Not only that but there is a major artery that runs under the spine and is incredibly lethal. I know all those pictures people take of dead animals that appear to have a dead space/void in the thorax keep this myth alive, but keep in mind those pictures show collapsed lungs after death and after the diaphragm has been punctured.There is a slight potential to have a lung shot animal not die due to various reasons such as bullet malfunction, not causing enough trauma to collapse lungs or lacerate major blood vessels in the lungs, etc. However, IMO, most "void" shots are actually shots through or into the loin/backstraps. The bullet doesn't break or traumatize the spine and it's essentially a flesh wound.
As anecdotal evidence I'll offer two personal experiences. The first one a doe I shot with my bow. I hit her high and didn't think it was a good hit. She went down after a short run and when I examined the hit I found that the arrow had chipped the bottom of the spine, severed the artery running underneath AND penetrated both lungs.
The other experience was an elk that I shot right up the leg through the muscle about slightly below mid-body. He was slightly quartering to me and the arrow passed through the diaphragm and stomach as it exited. Looked like a perfect shot and I was completely convinced he would be dead within 200 yards. Waited a bit and took up the bloodtrail only to find him standing in an area where I couldn't get close enough for another shot without spooking him. I watched him 2 1/2 hours before backing out and coming back in the morning. He was dead close to where I had left him but by appearances had taken several more hours to die.
Inspection of the path of the arrow showed I center-punched both of the lower lobes of the lungs, but fat and muscle plugged the entrance wound and stomach material plugged the hole that was in the diaphragm. His lungs did not collapse and evidently I didn't cut any major blood vessels in the lungs when the arrow went through. I think he died from Peritonitus from his stomach being pierced rather than the lung trauma although I can't say that for certain.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I think you have all of the tools necessary, but who doesn't like buying new guns.
I would personally double punch the lungs and have a critter run a little, saves meat. You need to destroy too much bone (which equals bloodshot meat) to get the drop in their tracks shots, most of the time.
I would personally double punch the lungs and have a critter run a little, saves meat. You need to destroy too much bone (which equals bloodshot meat) to get the drop in their tracks shots, most of the time.
El Jason
Well-known member
Since I've started using Barnes TSX bullets, I've been amazed at how little bloodshot damage there is to meat. This holds true even when hitting the scapula. The lone exception was hitting the backbone/ribs on a weird quartering away angle, but even then I fully expected to lose the better part of the tenderloin and didn't.
I'm not concerned with hitting shoulders, but I do tend to simply aim for the "<" sweet spot in the shoulder pocket. I've had a number of animals fall within a matter of 2-3 steps and never get up after hitting them there.
I'm not concerned with hitting shoulders, but I do tend to simply aim for the "<" sweet spot in the shoulder pocket. I've had a number of animals fall within a matter of 2-3 steps and never get up after hitting them there.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,924
It's that "hydrostatic" shock from them bullets.
I too have noticed that the trauma of hitting close to that area tends to produce near "bang flops"
I too have noticed that the trauma of hitting close to that area tends to produce near "bang flops"
Last edited:
El Jason
Well-known member
It's that "hydrostatic" shock from them bullets.
I too have noticed that the trauma of hitting close to that area tends to produce near "bang flops"
Silly me, I thought it was massive blood loss from hitting the aortic arch.
Never underestimate the importance of knock down power :hump:
Thanks for saving me the jump...As I dive into the controversy zone....
There is a slight potential to have a lung shot animal not die due to various reasons such as bullet malfunction, not causing enough trauma to collapse lungs or lacerate major blood vessels in the lungs, etc. However, IMO, most "void" shots are actually shots through or into the loin/backstraps. The bullet doesn't break or traumatize the spine and it's essentially a flesh wound.
As anecdotal evidence I'll offer two personal experiences. The first one a doe I shot with my bow. I hit her high and didn't think it was a good hit. She went down after a short run and when I examined the hit I found that the arrow had chipped the bottom of the spine, severed the artery running underneath AND penetrated both lungs.
The other experience was an elk that I shot right up the leg through the muscle about slightly below mid-body. He was slightly quartering to me and the arrow passed through the diaphragm and stomach as it exited. Looked like a perfect shot and I was completely convinced he would be dead within 200 yards. Waited a bit and took up the bloodtrail only to find him standing in an area where I couldn't get close enough for another shot without spooking him. I watched him 2 1/2 hours before backing out and coming back in the morning. He was dead close to where I had left him but by appearances had taken several more hours to die.
Inspection of the path of the arrow showed I center-punched both of the lower lobes of the lungs, but fat and muscle plugged the entrance wound and stomach material plugged the hole that was in the diaphragm. His lungs did not collapse and evidently I didn't cut any major blood vessels in the lungs when the arrow went through. I think he died from Peritonitus from his stomach being pierced rather than the lung trauma although I can't say that for certain.
I find a bullet through one or both of the shoulders ends up with critters not going far and dying quickly.
sneakypete
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,947
7mm will do it all! I killed my Canadian moose with 1shot of 175 corelokt!
JohnCushman
Well-known member
Thanks for saving me the jump...
I find a bullet through one or both of the shoulders ends up with critters not going far and dying quickly.
That's why you shoot 'em in the head
VAspeedgoat
Well-known member
As I dive into the controversy zone....
There is a slight potential to have a lung shot animal not die due to various reasons such as bullet malfunction, not causing enough trauma to collapse lungs or lacerate major blood vessels in the lungs, etc. However, IMO, most "void" shots are actually shots through or into the loin/backstraps. The bullet doesn't break or traumatize the spine and it's essentially a flesh wound.
As anecdotal evidence I'll offer two personal experiences. The first one a doe I shot with my bow. I hit her high and didn't think it was a good hit. She went down after a short run and when I examined the hit I found that the arrow had chipped the bottom of the spine, severed the artery running underneath AND penetrated both lungs.
The other experience was an elk that I shot right up the leg through the muscle about slightly below mid-body. He was slightly quartering to me and the arrow passed through the diaphragm and stomach as it exited. Looked like a perfect shot and I was completely convinced he would be dead within 200 yards. Waited a bit and took up the bloodtrail only to find him standing in an area where I couldn't get close enough for another shot without spooking him. I watched him 2 1/2 hours before backing out and coming back in the morning. He was dead close to where I had left him but by appearances had taken several more hours to die.
Inspection of the path of the arrow showed I center-punched both of the lower lobes of the lungs, but fat and muscle plugged the entrance wound and stomach material plugged the hole that was in the diaphragm. His lungs did not collapse and evidently I didn't cut any major blood vessels in the lungs when the arrow went through. I think he died from Peritonitus from his stomach being pierced rather than the lung trauma although I can't say that for certain.
Looked at a diagram and I'm wrong. I have had two so called "no kill zone" shots. Both left outstanding blood trails for a short while and then it was as if the faucet shut off. The one I saw well enough as they ran to know it was not a high flesh wound. Perhaps it was deceiving where the blood was and indeed it was way high. Thanks for the info, nothing like looking real stupid before lunch
..........well actually a while just read this morning.nuevo_eph
Active member
JLS,
What caliber are you talking about? I've just made the move to 30-06 TTSX and am excited to put in play on an oryx hunt this weekend for EXACTLY the reasons you mentioned. My deer's far shoulder this year was a waste thanks to the 165gr ABs I used (great shooting round).
What caliber are you talking about? I've just made the move to 30-06 TTSX and am excited to put in play on an oryx hunt this weekend for EXACTLY the reasons you mentioned. My deer's far shoulder this year was a waste thanks to the 165gr ABs I used (great shooting round).
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,924
Looked at a diagram and I'm wrong. I have had two so called "no kill zone" shots. Both left outstanding blood trails for a short while and then it was as if the faucet shut off. The one I saw well enough as they ran to know it was not a high flesh wound. Perhaps it was deceiving where the blood was and indeed it was way high. Thanks for the info, nothing like looking real stupid before lunch
Just doing my job, helping to eliminate ignorance from this planet, one mistaken conclusion at a time....
I wouldn't worry about appearing stupid. You are one of the few people who have had this pointed out to them who are willing to accept it and move on.I have no doubt that the high hit/"void" area happens frequently enough to make it seem like a plausible explanation. Definitely some un-recovered animals leave us scratching our heads and looking for possible explanations. A lot goes on after we pull the trigger and complete certainty that we know exactly what happens isn't possible unless we get to inspect a carcass.
Funny story from my hunt this fall. Couple friends of mine from Bergton came out to hunt for elk. They both shot the same bull milliseconds apart as it was moving through the timber. We couldn't find blood in the darkness and decided to come back in the morning as we were all pretty certain they had hit the bull. I was quizzing them how the sight picture looked and how they felt about the shot. Both were certain they had hit the bull right behind the shoulder. We found the bull the next morning about 50 yards from where we had lost tracks the night before. Both guys connected with their shots being about 6" apart from each other, three feet behind the shoulder.
El Jason
Well-known member
VAspeedgoat
Well-known member
Just doing my job, helping to eliminate ignorance from this planet, one mistaken conclusion at a time....
I have no doubt that the high hit/"void" area happens frequently enough to make it seem like a plausible explanation. Definitely some un-recovered animals leave us scratching our heads and looking for possible explanations. A lot goes on after we pull the trigger and complete certainty that we know exactly what happens isn't possible unless we get to inspect a carcass.
Funny story from my hunt this fall. Couple friends of mine from Bergton came out to hunt for elk. They both shot the same bull milliseconds apart as it was moving through the timber. We couldn't find blood in the darkness and decided to come back in the morning as we were all pretty certain they had hit the bull. I was quizzing them how the sight picture looked and how they felt about the shot. Both were certain they had hit the bull right behind the shoulder. We found the bull the next morning about 50 yards from where we had lost tracks the night before. Both guys connected with their shots being about 6" apart from each other, three feet behind the shoulder.
Just like arguing when your mad, its hard to think straight with adrenaline pumping. I'm glad I looked it up, I think I'll have the boys study the same picture. It helps. Sorry I took the thread off topic a bit.
Igor
New member
I use a .338 WinMag for Browns/Moose and a 30-06 Ackley for everything else. The reason I chose a WinMag for up North was if for some reason I came up short of ammo it can be more readily acquired than some other calibers up North. Even though all I shoot in both rifles are hand loads.
I have have on occasion used the .338 on elk. It is not a pack it a long distance rifle though, too darn heavy and I am not getting any younger, but it does hit hard. Of course between the two, they may take 1/2 a step more with the Ackley. In these two rifles, the reason I would carry the .338 over the Ackley is that it is a bit more accurate.
All in all, all of the cartridges mentioned in this thread will work just fine as long as the projectiles are placed in the correct spot.
Shoot what you shoot the most accurately.
I have have on occasion used the .338 on elk. It is not a pack it a long distance rifle though, too darn heavy and I am not getting any younger, but it does hit hard. Of course between the two, they may take 1/2 a step more with the Ackley. In these two rifles, the reason I would carry the .338 over the Ackley is that it is a bit more accurate.
All in all, all of the cartridges mentioned in this thread will work just fine as long as the projectiles are placed in the correct spot.
Shoot what you shoot the most accurately.
shootbrownelk
Well-known member
Did you drop down in weight when you switched to solid copper Barnes bullets? I went down to 150 gr. Barnes TTSX bullets because of their weight retention.They shoot great for me.
sbhooper
Well-known member
I would hate to guess how many big bears have been killed by an '06 and heavy bullets. I would choose the monos for the big bears for sure. You don't need another rifle. You have it covered.
It's that "hydrostatic" shock from them bullets.
I too have noticed that the trauma of hitting close to that area tends to produce near "bang flops"
THIS!
I hit my buck last year,up the shoulder,under the spine and it was instantly "toes Up".
Just nicked the spine on the bottom and blew it up and took out the major arteries.
Both lungs gone on top.
Hydrostatic shock. Nosler AB work almost as good as a Barnes in this catagory.
