Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting Distance traveled after impact.......

There seems to be a misunderstanding about why fast openers kill deer quicker. It's because they destroy more tissue, hips, guts, lungs, shoulders or whatever. I have used the 150 grain .284 Ballistic Tip enough to know it will never fail to give me excellent penetration and break bone if needed. This bullet will also destroy a lot of bone. I have yet to recover a Ballistic Tip as they have all exited, even the 95 grain 6MM version. I consider X bullets of any diameter real safety hazards in the woods as I also feel people that shoot at any part of a deer are. If all you expect are the worst possible shot angles then you are a poor hunter and need to scrutinize your methods.

Oh man ... you have GOT to explain that one ...

I will string along with higher velocity translates to faster kills in general. Or maybe a better way to say it is I think you have a better chance of dropping on the spot with a non-CNS hit. I also think high velocity does better on marginal body hits. That being said I've killed plenty of deer with slower rounds and never needed a dog to trail them if they were reasonably hit. The vast majority of deer I have killed with centerfie that have run with good vital hit has been less than 40 yards or so. The ones that ran further than that are an exception and there is no trend as to which cartridges. I have not taken many deer with bows/ML/shotgun, but have killed some and have seen several more. I would say on average ML/shotgun (low velocity) deer shot at close range behave about like centefire, but those that have been at longer ranges (>75-100 yards where velocity is really low) have ran much further on average (more like 100 yards).

Lou

This why i like the 'Fire lots of good folks from around the world,we all know it's shot placement yet we argue this one over that one my.260Rem. isn't idea for dangerous game (black bear and cougar)but if i'm threatened by either i'll have an empty magazine.As far as hogs and deer i use the 140s on the former the 120s on the latter and no complaints or failures one the best deer hunters i know uses a .270 and can anyone really say a .300Rum is "better" than a .270?

I did see a 7mm 140 BT NOT penerate an antelope shoulder once. Its no condemnation of the bullet, just its application in that instance.

If you take the worst possible shot angle, can make it, and your bullet can perform the task (and you will do your own gutting), I see no condemnation when the animal's demise is quick (which it can be).

Here's two examples of tissue damage and speed:
This frothy mouthed guy was shot with a 338 Win and a 250 NP at 100 yds; Twice. The first shot went through the front of both lungs, it hobbled in a circle; the second shot angled the near lung and exited the shoulder knuckle, leaving coffee can exit (and sprayed too). It was still on its feet for about ten more seconds, with soup for lungs and a broken shoulder.
This was hit at about 75 yds with a 45 Colt and a cast bullet through both lungs. It took one step and dropped dead. It had a nice 3/4 in hole through both lungs.

The only consistent way to drop deer near or far doesn't put much regard in speed, more so the bullet. Collect both shoulder joints (and the goodies between them) and they drop fast and die fast. If you shoot the softer stuff like lungs, yes, a more volitile bullet/fast speeds can provide some impressive stops; they can get iffy at southbound targets.

People shoot fast stuff and slow stuff, all you gotta do is your part. (Long way of saying VA is right IMO).

I really don't understand the last sentence at all.What does the angle you anticipate in an as yet unknown hunting situation,have to do with your ability as a hunter? Does it logically therefore follow that,if a guy uses a load/bullet that provides a bit of extra penetration to provide some insurance for a long-angling shot, that he is somehow an inferior hunter?Precisely what "methods" should he be using? Just real curious about this comment.

Personally, I think we still don't know as much about what actually kills deer as we think we do. Otherwise, there would not be this much disagreement. Mind you, I include myself in that statement.

I had oodles of DRT deer early on in my career. The last few years, it's been mostly short runs less than 100 yards. The necropsies all look the same: jellied lungs and hearts. The only huge difference are the bullets: 12 Ga slug 180 grain 30-06 in the old days and 165 grain in various .308 bore cartridges since. My last DRT was in 2004 with a .54 cal Hawken.

That's not to say I don't agree with the premise that faster and lighter, with some moderation, kills better. I'm just saying I don't know.

As a shaman, I get to read all sorts interesting stuff. I have an idea that may or may not have bearing on the subject. First off, let me try to cast our understanding of what makes the deer's lights go out in an historical perspective. For thousands of years, man did not operate under the understanding we have now of the role of organs in maintaining life. It used to be, back when all we had were spears and clubs, that consciousness was thought to rest in either the heart or the liver. The brain was thought to be largely filler. We got well into the era of written history, before our current understanding of the brain and the CNS came to the forefront. You killed based on that understanding too; in the old days you aimed at the heart or the liver and tried to get your opponent to give up his life force that you figured was somehow all balled up in this organ.

About 30 years ago, an anesthesiologist from Houston started studying how nitrous oxide worked on the body as an anesthetic. He knew empirically how it worked-- apply gas, patient becomes unconscious. Apply too much, patient dies. He wanted to know why. By the time he started submitting papers, he had discovered a whole separate structure to the body of humans-- a previously overlooked network of microtubles. Microtubles had been observed for years and fairly well understood by cellular biologists studying individual cells, but this anesthesiologist was theorizing that the interconnection between cells via microtubles was possibly the seat of consciousness.

That was not to say that the brain and central nervous system was not important. They just might not be the actual place in which consciousness resides. Instead, as this guy theorized, consciousness might be a whole-body kind of thing. It would explain a lot besides just how nitrous oxide works. It would also explain things like acupuncture. It would also explain the vast difference between the observed number of interconnections in the brain, and the astronomically greater number of interconnections that information theorists believe are necessary for a subtle faculty like consciousness and self-awareness to exist-- either in a human or in an artificial intelligence program running inside a computer.

There continues to be research in the area of microtuble networks. It would be easy to understand why they were missed for all of human history: they're just so daggone small you need microscopes that have only been around in my lifetime to see them. If this pans out, it would be the first new system discovered in the human body since . . . what, the Renaissance?

Some day I believe we will be taught about microtubles in elementary school the same way we are taught about the circulatory system and the digestive system now. Remington will produce ads promising better microtuble disruption with their new .30 Light Ultra Magnum, that looks remarkably like a 30-06. We will sit around the barbershop and talk half-wittedly about microtuble disruption the same way hydraulic shock is now discussed.

My point in bringing this up is that even the Egyptians had it right up to a point when they said that if you attacked the liver, all life force would exit the body. We operate under a much more sophisticated understanding, but there is still room for refinement and possibly even a great leap or too. Egyptians were baffled as to why, when you brained someone with a club, they fell down and died-- it didn't seem to effect the liver at all. They probably sat around and argued small club versus large club, while the spear and arrow guys looked on in disgust and wondered what the silliness was all about.

Well no wonder.......look how skinny he is.

I'd like to hear this one too.....

I guess I come from the other side of the equation here. All my deer have been shot with 30-06, 300 Savage, 12 guage with slugs, or with a .490 diameter 50 cal. patched round ball. No big revelation here, but shot placement is key. The only deer I ever lost was the result of a poor running shot and a nominal flesh wound in the leg. Hit 'em where you're supposed to and they go down quick. I've had lots of bang-flops, and the longest I've had to track a wounded deer was less than 25 yards, with the exception of the one I lost. That being said, I've seen the results of a lot of kills using faster loads. Everything from .243's to .300 Win Mag's. (On whitetails) They do seem to anchor their targets more quickly, on average I'd say. It does seem like they do much more damage when they hit bone. 'Tough to teach an old dog new tricks, and I'm a Mauser and Savage Model 99 junkie, so I'll continue to do my 10 to 20 yard tracking jobs, and continue to enjoy hunting with my favorite old guns. Great thread here guys.

Rick

Man you Gotta splain that one.......x bullets dangerous? at the same time you decla

And if you don't understand shot angles, ya need a bit of more education, vitals are the same place period, just gotta know that and then take into account how to get there. Same like head shots, brain sits same place but I know how to get there from any angle.

You've never hunted public land? Especially in brushy country?

So your saying you will take any shot offered no matter what the angle just because you have a deep penetrating bullet? I've been hunting since 1971 and never had to take a rear end shot and wouldn't anyway no matter what I was shooting.

Bullets with exceptional penetrating abilities tend to carry a lot of energy after they exit smaller game animals like deer. There will be times in thick brush that you won't know what is 100 yards beyond the deer you just shot. This includes stock also not just people.

Well from a sharply angled animal how are you going to put both lungs out of commision after the bullet has shed it's ability to make radial damage because it was used up breaking bone in a hindquarter? Oh your sure the bullet will travel thru a deer in a straight line after 20 inches of penetration, sure you are. Thats right you can hit the heart every time from any angle, forgot about that. I hate sloppy shooting and deep penetrating bullets seem to birth a lot of it.

Yep, I've hunted public land, and even been shot at. Ironically there was no deer between my group and the "offenders" across the field. Even had bright orange on.

Yes, I'll take any shot that is offered, particulary when I want to KNOW how a bullet will perform when put in certain situations (it doesn't hurt I have lots of tags to fill). Bear in mind I am trying to collect the vitals and the animal; you'd be surprised how straight a line a solid revolver bullet will go through a deer (and the dreaded X bullet).

I hope your state casts a "slug only " hex on you like ours has for decades, for SAFETY reasons; you'll find slugs aren't safe either.

I have no qualms about what bullet or cartridge or placement you use either. If the shot leaves a quick death who cares? If your way is the best way, (genuflect) then hooray!

The vitals include more than just lungs and heart BTW; some people can hit the other stuff with boring repetition, some can't: "A man's got to know his limitations".

I do not know what the tally for wounded or killed hunters or wounded or killed livestock are with pass throughs. Probably not as high as those killed by ricochets, slobs not knowing what a deer is, and shooting as fast as one can jerk the trigger. (I agree, I hate sloppy shooting too).

We all take that risk, just like the freeway. Its more fun than sitting inside with a helmet on.

You just scared the heck out of me with that statement. If you don't KNOW FOR SURE what is behind the critter you are shooting at, YOU DO NOT take the shot!!! My god, that's hunter safety lesson #1.

Get out and scout the area, call the neighbors and ask where their stock is going to be at, find someplace else to hunt.. but NEVER take a shot where you don't know where that bullet might go. If you think you're safe because you're using a bullet that won't penetrate the deer, what the heck is your excuse when you miss?

Don't put words in my mouth; answer the question.I never said any such thing...and I don't take rear end shots at game unless it involved an animal already wounded.But you made a statement that a guy who uses such bullets should reevaluate his hunting methods.I am asking, once again,in what manner should his "methods" change? Pray tell, what precisely is he doing "wrong", and in what manner does the bullet he uses act as a "barometer" or measuring device, of his skill sets? I'm all ears...



Under your highly illogical argument, the softer the bullet, the less penetration it gives, the more skilled and ethical the hunter..correct? And if the guy is afield shooting Barnes bullets, he's a lousy hunter,correct? Your entire premise is not only flawed,its absurd.



I have no doubt you've been hunting since 1971(who hasn't?), but I doubt you've been hunting very much....

Some of you guys are really comical...I've killed three deer that were running directly away from me. Put the bullet right up the pooper...bang/flop DRT...just a coincidence they were all with a 30/06 "150 corelokts" when I was a kid...kinda a mess to clean but not THAT bad...no meat loss either...The first deer I shot with a .222 Rem. was with a 50 gr. psp at about 100 yds. he was walking away from me & I hit a rear rib bone going in. Another bang flop. He did kick for about ten seconds though. Internal damage was severe & I stopped shooting deer with .22's until Barns x's became available because the meat was peppered with tiny frags of lead...I might just be lucky but I've never lost a big game animal...

The premise is that if you shoot at any deer you see from any angle and this is the type of shot you expect then you should adjust your hunting methods. People who rely on bullets like Barnes X's to do this tend to take those kind of shots . The inference was not that your a sloppy hunter because you choose monometal bullets to hunt with, but that if you know your projectile is up to it you may just take the shot carelessly.