Stirring the pot on shot placement

[SaskHunter]

Talking about stirring the Pot. What do you think about a Texas Heart shot then?

They stink and it's a pretty shitty thing to do!

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

They stink and it's a pretty shitty thing to do!

Had to be one

 

[HSi-ESi]

One thing to keep in mind is that younger / newer hunters will learn a specific aiming point and it will take conscious thought to move off that aiming point later in life. My Dad was taught head/neck shots (back in the 50's). He taught us for heart shots. I usually try for lungs now, but if there is any kind of reaction or I need to make a quicker shot - my instinct is heart shots.

I'll be teaching a lung shot, broad-side only - for my young hunters. It has more room for error than other shot placements and keeps meat loss to a minimum.

 

[Dogwater]

So who here would shoot a rag horn bull in the head or neck?

I feel that a double lung hit behind the shoulder ruins less meat than a neck shot. I'm personally a major fan of a neck roast from deer, and would hate to ruin a couple pounds of meat by blowing it to shreds and filling it with bone chips. Plus, interrupting the spinal column typically sends the animal into full rigor immediately, possibly compromising the tenderness of the meat.

Having mentioned that, I've noticed a MASSIVE decrease in bloodshot while using solid copper ammo opposed to lead. I shot an antelope a couple years ago through both humeri (took out the heart in between), and lost 6 oz of meat to bloodshot- just a tiny handful that was too mangled to even grind. If I had been using lead, it would have been at least 4 lb (based on experiences with whitetail does while working a butcher shop).



I think you mean the humerus. Scapula is the flat paddle of the shoulder blade that comes up from the shoulder joint and covers the front upper quarter of the lungs, while the humerus is the solid round bone that angles down and away from that same shoulder joint to the elbow, covering the bottom half of the heart.

I have been trying to figure out why one particular cow I shot a few years ago was so tuff. It was totally unaware I was there, about 75 yards away grazing. I shot it at the high neck/base of the skull to avoid any meat damage. It dropped like someone flipped a switch, not even a twitch or a quiver. There was snow on the ground and it was cleaned and cooled properly. I thought it would be great eating. It wasn't unusually large, old or anything unusual, just the toughest elk I have ever tried to chew in my life. Even the burger and backstraps were tough. Good thing it wasn't my first elk, or I probably wouldn't be so excited about shooting them. I have had old bull's that were better eating. Maybe there is something to the "instant rigor".

 

[TheJason]

Maybe there is something to the "instant rigor".

Location of the shot doesn’t affect the biochemical processes of rigor mortis.

 

[Muley_Stalker]

Dad taught me and my brother to hunt. He had strict rules. One of them was to take nothing buy double lung shots.

It's been almost 70 years of hunting since then and I still have taken any other shot than a double lung shot. It takes some discipline and I have to pass up a lot of shots. My reward is i've never lost an animal.

Dad was right.

 

[Dancerpro]

Talking about stirring the Pot. What do you think about a Texas Heart shot then?

Had to look that up. So why is shooting an animal in the ass called a "Texas heart shot"?

 

[noharleyyet]

Had to look that up. So why is shooting an animal in the ass called a "Texas heart shot"?

I think the supposition is that a DAT will blissfully stalk a 90 degree arc from a broadside opportunity...personally I've not found stupidity, unlike deprecation, to be state specific.

 

[Dancerpro]

Being from and living in Texas, I generally find politicians, no matter the state, the most DA and low thinking. The hunters, anglers and outdoors folk I've met and spoken with, no matter the state, are some of the, smartest and free thinking people around. However, since childhood, I've noticed, even amongst the smartest people, there are those who presume to be jackasses.

All that said, I understand that a ringer shot IS a good way to kill a turkey quickly. Is that true?

 

[jt13]

All that said, I understand that a ringer shot IS a good way to kill a turkey quickly. Is that true?

When using a shotgun the best way to kill a turkey is a shot to the head/neck as their feathers act like body armor when hit with pellets. However, with a rifle or bow you aim for where the wing meets the body for a heart/lung shot

 

[Dancerpro]

I have got to get good anatomical targets, you folks have really helped me see the necessity of hitting vital organs. I do still see the brain and spine as viable targets, but that is at least a shot for an expert shooter and not a beginning hunter.

 

[Dancerpro]

I have seen hunters drop an animal (on TV and in video), one shot and not another step, just dropped like a stone. Seeing this is why I look at head and spine shots as viable. Where are these hunters hitting these animals? I ask, because those shot placements are never discussed and I believe they are the perfect shot placement.

 

[ImBillT]

I shoot behind the shoulder and for the center from back to brisket. It has the most room for error and if you hit right where you’re aiming, you waste almost zero meat.

 

[Nick87]

I have seen hunters drop an animal (on TV and in video), one shot and not another step, just dropped like a stone. Seeing this is why I look at head and spine shots as viable. Where are these hunters hitting these animals? I ask, because those shot placements are never discussed and I believe they are the perfect shot placement.

More than likely through the shoulder blades.

 

[jt13]

I have seen hunters drop an animal (on TV and in video), one shot and not another step, just dropped like a stone. Seeing this is why I look at head and spine shots as viable. Where are these hunters hitting these animals? I ask, because those shot placements are never discussed and I believe they are the perfect shot placement.

Something like the image I attached would have a high likelihood of anchoring an animal in its tracks. Bullet will hit all the muscles of the front shoulders, both lungs, and major vessels from the heart. Depending on a few other variables you may also hit scapula or damage the bottom of the spine.

 

[Elkdog]

How much bloodshot loss was there?

I asked the question because I was hunting with a friend last fall, and we had a raghorn at 60 yards in the timber with the vitals covered and neck exposed. Buddy had won the rock-paper-scissors at the truck for first shot, and he waited for the vitals to get exposed instead of a neck shot. We didn't get the elk, and I've been second-guessing our decision making ever since (and why in the world I decided to throw rock instead of scissors).

My last elk I shot in the neck, it was the only shot I had. And as hard as it is to draw a Nevada elk, I wasn’t giving up any shot. I didn’t lose much meat at all. And I treasure elk neck meat. We always make mincemeat out of the neck and it is absolutely one of my favorite things in the world!

 

[Hunting Wife]

I have seen hunters drop an animal (on TV and in video), one shot and not another step, just dropped like a stone. Seeing this is why I look at head and spine shots as viable. Where are these hunters hitting these animals? I ask, because those shot placements are never discussed and I believe they are the perfect shot placement.

I’ve had plenty of thoracic hit animals hit the ground immediately, never took a step. But suboptimal shots (dorsal spine or non-lethal head for example) can make an animal drop like a ton of bricks too. Just because it falls immediately doesn’t necessarily mean it dies immediately. And just because it runs 30 yards after the shot doesn’t mean it suffered.

Take what you see on most hunting shows with a grain of salt. They aren’t going to show you a paralyzed animal thrashing around on the ground that they had to finish off. Or the one that jumped back up and had to be chased down, if it was recovered at all.

 

[Randi]

250 gr woodleigh from a 348 into the head of a caribou when they are swimming across a river leaves no meat damage.

This should fit this thread on several levels

I thought you guys hunted everything with a 22

If you are patient with your shots, you can quickly kill an animal with nearly zero meat loss. And in the scheme of things, I guess I would prefer higher probability of a quick kill with a small amount of meat loss than a higher probability of wounding and not recovering.

yes !

I also will take more meat loss over wounding or suffering.

This was discussed recently amongst a group of young hunters and some felt it was a gender thing. Some felt that female hunters will take less risky shots than males, as females have more concern in regards to the possible suffering of an animal. I am not so sure this is true however, at least not in my family, as my father who taught me, is very patient and will let an animal walk rather than take a risky shot. And Panda Bear shots poor helpless Caribou in the river

 

[Hunting Wife]

I thought you guys hunted everything with a 22

yes !

I also will take more meat loss over wounding or suffering.

This was discussed recently amongst a group of young hunters and some felt it was a gender thing. Some felt that female hunters will take less risky shots than males, as females have more concern in regards to the possible suffering of an animal. I am not so sure this is true however, at least not in my family, as my father who taught me, is very patient and will let an animal walk rather than take a risky shot. And Panda Bear shots poor helpless Caribou in the river

I also think the ability to accurately assess the “riskiness” of a shot is highly dependent on shooting ability and a thorough understanding of anatomy. It’s different for everyone.

 

[Nameless Range]

I personally always go for heart/lung, but not every shot situation is going to be perfectly broadside. If it looks like my only option is through a shoulder, I’ll take it with no qualms.

Agreed. I have shot an animal in the neck, and it was not quick, and it was not pretty. I have also shot animals that I never found, but I think died that day.

To cause undue amount of suffering to an animal is such a terrible feeling. To lose an animal you think you killed an even worse one. I like to think I will take the shot that maximizes the likelihood of a combination of quick and certain death and cessation of movement over concerns of meat loss that may occur.

I guess what I am saying is that for me personally, room for error is more important than blowing up a portion of a shoulder. I'm not confident enough to get fancy.To each their own.