Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 10,000 Swedish Moose died to teach us this lesson.

Lou 270,

Good point. However, I was talking about double-lung hits--or double-lung-top-of-heart, or whatever.

I would disagree that one-lung hits with a centerfire rifle make recovery a lot easier. A lot would depend on the animal, for sure. Two instances that immediately come to mind are a 245-pound wild boar in California that I shot as it ran quartering away with a .270 and 150-grain Speer Grand Slams. Pigs have their lungs crowded forward more than many other animals, and the bullet just nicked the rear of the near lung and centered the far one. This boar never even broke stride, and was still very lively half an hour later!

Another was a youngish but adult Cape buffalo bull hit in only the near lung with a .375 on a recent safari (by somebody else, and it wasn't his fault that the bullet only got one lung). After waiting an hour, four of us went in after the bull, only to find him very much alive. It took another 45 minutes and 10 shots with a .416 and .458 before he died.

Have also seen a bunch of deer, pronghorn and elk live a long time with only one lung hit by rifle, and all took more shooting. I also suspect (but cannot prove) that some blood trails that never panned out were due to one-lung hits.

Also, to everyone else I would like to state again what I have stated before, both in this thread and magazine articles. There is indeed a difference between how various cartridges kill, and there are definite advantages to bigger rounds, whether we're talking the same bullets driven faster, or bigger bullets.

But there is simply not as much difference as most people would like to believe in the effectiveness of most rounds, especially when a good hit is made with a bullet that penetrates sufficiently AND make a good hole in the heart/lung area.

Also, there is no direct correlation between kinetic energy and how quickly a big game animal will die from a good heart/lung hit, the sort of hit that I know most of us strive for. THAT is the major point here, not that a .22 Hornet is a effective as a .416 Rigby,or a 6.5x55 as good as a .375 H&H.

I have run into a great many hunters who like to think that there is a quantum leap in power between the .270 and .30-06, or between the .30-06 and .300 magnums. (Our friend Allen Day is a firm believer in the last.) Okay, whatever. I do think there is a quantum difference between the .22 Hornet and the .416 Rigby.

But the reason I use "magnums" and other larger rounds(and I do, frequently) is not becaue I believe they will dump an animal on its nose that much faster. No, I use a fast magnum (like the various .300's) to flatten trajectory, especially with the heavier bullets that can break, say, elk shoulder bone more reliably. Using a .300 makes hitting at 350 yards easier and, if the angle involes a shoulder, maybe a little more effective.

Similarly, using a .338 or 9.3x62 or .375 on moose or eland makes penetrating heavy bone or a corner of the paunch more reliable. Maybe it even kills them quicker than when hit correctly with a .30-06. I don't know, but from what I have seen, I would guess not, especially with bullets designed to penetrate deeply. During the years when I used the .338 a LOT, I eventually noticed the quickest kills, even on game larger than deer, came from 200-grain bullets designed to open up pretty easily, not from 225-250 grain bullets designed to excavate a freight train.

I use a .416 on Cape buffalo because I might have to drive a bullet into the front end of an oncoming bull, and want reliable penetration. I am under no illusion that whacking him with 5000 foot-pounds will knock him over.

If anybody wants to put words in my mouth to the effect that the cartridge and bullet doesn't matter at all, then they have willfully misread what I've said not just here, but in print for any years.