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

Actually, I have done a lot of testing of bulets through brush, and have little faith in any of them anymore. And one of my stories of failure involves a 250-grain .338 Nosler Partition that was turned sideways in a matter of inches by a Namibian thorn-twig smaller than my little finger.

Getting through brush is mostly a matter of chance. In fact, in one of the tests I did, the 105-grain 6mm Speer bullet did the best, at 2900 fps out of .243. The only reason I could figure was that it was small enough to zip between the branches more frequently.

I never shoot in the shoulders because to much meat is wasted. I always try to hit just behind the shoulder.Broadside lungshot or hump.
I shot one mule deer in the front quarter facing me and that was a big mistake. When I went to start working on the animal I grabbed the front leg and went to roll it over and the leg almost fell off. The hole was huge and that quarter was completely wasted. The bullet had glanced upward and kept travelling the length of the animal and exited in the lower back ribbing a hole the size of a softball on exit. Hump shots and lung shots are the best for me. If you hit in the hump they fold up like a cheap lawn chair because this is the muscle group that drives the front legs. Polar bears also need shooting in this area.

Twig bends or breaks.

Bullet changes direction.

Maybe skinny bullet misses twig.

Maybe not.

Might come down to batting a baseball vs a softball.

GE

At least that's how I figure it.

Edit: JB knows a heck of a lot more than I and was answering when I was figuring.

It's hard to judge killing power based on isolated episodes, and that includes Hagel's 378/moose episode. I was on a moose hunt in BC where a big bull was dropped where he stood with one 130 gr. Nosler out of a 270 Win., and I can recall an elk hunt where a raghorn bull ran for some distance after being shot through both lungs with a 270 gr. Hornady out of a 375 H&H, yet on the same hunt a big six-point dropped like a stone - like the BC moose - after taking a 130 Nosler out of a 270 Win.

Blend these episodes and it would begin to appear as though the 270 Win. is a better moose and elk killer than a 378 Wby. or a 375 H&H, but day-in and day-out, I would seriously doubt that this would prove to be the case under all possibly hunting conditions, given identical shot-placement and bullet-construction.

Based on eveything I've seen over the last 35 years, the faster cartridges in a given caliber (i.e. 300 Win. versus 30-06) provide the most consistently fast and decisive kills, provided that all other factors are about equal. I completely disagree that energy has little to do with killing power, which is in complete opposition to not only the laws of physics, but collective experience.

AD

I think kinetic energy is getting a bum rap here. I contend that kinetic energy can/does affect wound channel size (otherwise wound channel would always be no more than expanded caliber size).

1000 ft-lb is the energy needed to raise a 1000 lb block one foot off the ground. 2000 ft-lb can raise the 1000 lb block two feet of the ground.... and so on. Now make the 1000 lb block a channel of tissue and there's your wound channel totally dependent on kinetic energy.

The same increased energy "can" manifest itself as a larger wound channel. I see kinetic energy as the potential to do work. That's why I used the word "can". You have to hit something to get that energy transfer, and the tougher the tissue the more increased kinetic energy can be used in your favor. Bullet construction also obviously comes into play. You don't use a solid to transfer maximum kinetic energy in most mediums.

As far as hydrostatic shock is concerned I offer the example of milk jugs. Take the same round with the same bullet and handload to vastly different velocities. The higher velocity strike will always be more violent. That's energy at work, the same energy difference that "can" shock an animals system. My buddy disintegrated a small ground hog with a 220 Swift at spitting distance, never found even a drop of blood... that's energy transfer!

So what I see in these examples is not the irrelevance of energy but rather the mind numbing inconsistency of transfer of a rounds useful energy potential. All bullets arrive with varying kinetic energies (and momentums). You can't take energy out of the equation and expect to understand what happens after impact.

I agree with your posting and you have the experience with various calibers and in many countries. I have also killed elk with my 30-06 (165 SPBT) and one elk which I hit through the lungs fell almost right away. I was quite surprised because it was a near 300 yards. When we worked on the animal I found that the bullet had traversed the diaphragm (the section over the lungs that make them work) It seemed if you hit this section that make the lungs function, was more deadly than a heart shot.
I've seen a moose that was shot through the heart go about 30 yard before falling. Maybe this is comparing apples and oranges but still mystifying sometimes how animals hang on longer than others.

Obviously we don't.....and my comments we largely tongue-in-cheek anyway. (That moose only had 560 grains of lead in it anyway prior to that Core-Lokt! ) Perhaps the most significant thing may have been the fact that the bullet from the '06 made a goodly exit hole. What was significant in looking over the results after the fact was that those little 140s, two Noslers and two A-Frames did not make exits on any of the basically side-to-side shots, while the 180, 30 cal did. Those little 140s also made some rather small, (slower leaking I presume) holes in the lungs while the last bullet- admittedly one which may not have been a factor- tore a rather large, ragged hole in the lungs.

Having seen moose take and fall from all variety of sizes and speeds of projectiles at varying distances, I do believe it is rather difficult to quantify exact factors. A number of years ago I watched a moose take 850 grains or more of lead in virtually the same places from virtually the same distance (as the one I previously noted) - that was a 340 Wtby vs the 6.5. But then, I also know that 55 and even 40 grains can bring them right down.



I have never been on a moose drive nor hunted Swedish moose. The moose I've killed have mostly been standing animals. I'm sure driven moose are a different deal so distances traveled might be different considering their momentum and mindset prior to the shot(s). Since most of the moose I kill are "standers" - animals which after the initial lethal shot, often a simple lung shot, never wander far, a more significant statistic would be time from first shot to dead or down.

If you must break their big bones - or if that is a concern even though it is not necessary- then bigger, tougher bullets are an advantage and truer as distances get longer. I have yet to see a moose that won't die before leaving the county with a single solid lung job though.

I�ve thought about this thread before posting.

We can twiter-pate all we want about the meaning of this data. We can make it say anything we want.

Here is what the data does say:
Put a high velocity bullet in the right place and the animal dies in short order. 10000 friggin moose were shot. A sample of this size evens out a lot of the �sample of one� phenomena. Apparently many want to argue if moose traveling 19 yards/meters/furlongs makes a deader moose than one traveling 57 units. The difference in distance traveled is fairly insignificant.


I don�t understand the magnum vs standard cal argument. Admittedly, many/most have shot more truly big game than I. But����.

A 30 cal bullet traveling at 2800 ft/sec (30-06) vs the same bullet doing 3100 ft/sec (300 WM) gives the faster 30 cal about 150 yards of �effective� energy difference. Both bullets will have the same KE when both are traveling the same speed. The faster bullet happens to retain more velocity at a given distance than does the slower bullet at the same distance. At some point they have the same velocity � 300 yard 30-06 velocities are the same as 450 yard 300 WM velocities. The question is whether animals shot at 450 yards with the 300 WM react the same as when shot by a 30-06 does at 300. The answer has to be yes��������.

I also don't think KE has any bearing on killing an animal. I've shot lots of deer with recurves and sharp arrows. They die just as quick as shot with a rifle. Its about wound channels and bleeding - irregardless of projectile size or energy.

My $0.025 worth.

-- BW

I think that often, in these type of discussions the "speed guys" (and I used to be one of them) think in terms of "actual numbers" - rather than the much more useful "percentile differences".

To hear some people tell it, the .33 caliber cartridges are MUCH more deadly than .30 caliber cartridges. I've read that many times. This logic seems to ignore the fact that the bigger round is only 10% bigger across.

Does it really matter that much to you if a nail gun puts a 1/4 inch nail through your hand vs a 3/8th nail? Is the effect on the use of your hand going to be THAT different? I think not. Your hand is probably out of commission for a while and it's probably going to involve a trip to the hospital either way. Same with an animal hit with a bullet 10% bigger across.

Or another example, this one concerning bullet speed. The magnum round that sends the bullet out at 3300fps is only 10%faster than the "slow" standard round, that launches the same bullet at 3000fps.To hear some magnum fans tell it - that extra 10% makes so much difference. Please.

If you get hit by a car - it's the difference between getting hit by one moving at 33mph vs one that smashes into you at 30mph.

Is there anyone who is going to be able to tell the difference? A doctor, a policeman, or perhaps a statistical analyst? Anyone who works with accident scenes regularly, will tell you there is no way to state, with certainty, a vehicle's actual speed with anywhere near that kind of certainty - when looking at the results of an accident after the fact.

No one who accepts the data from this statistically valid study is arguing that a round that moves 10% faster, or is 10% bigger round won't THEORETICALLY kill an animal faster. What is being argued is, whether in a lifetime of shooting animals, will a person be able to see ACTUAL verifiable differences?

Until any one of us has shot 8000 moose or so, it would seem that the evidence shows - it's probably not a difference any one of us would be be able to measure.

Animals that get hit with appropriate bullets, die within a few metres of one another - what is so hard to believe about that?

After reading seven pages of thir thread, I am bound to conclude:

1. For animals weighing 2000 pounds or less, it does not matter what you shoot them with, provided your bullet is strong enough to hold together and has enough sectional density to penetrate deeply enough. Anything from the .260 Remington to the .375 H&H is just fine. (Maybe even the .25s?)

2. It does not matter what cartridge/bullet you use to try to penetrate brush.

3. The only imortant thing is size of the wound channel. This depends on bullet action and MAY be larger if kinetic energy is greater.

Is that about it?

Here's another study that concluded "Mean distances deer traveled varied between 14 and 40 yards but there was no apparent relationship with increasing or decreasing caliber size or the inherent differences in velocity or energy that is related to the different caliber groups."

Thank about that! "NO APPARENT RELATIONSHIP" in caliber size, bullet velocity or energy - vs. the distances the deer traveled after being hit. It appears deer are a lot like moose in that respect.

Here's the rest of the study:


Answering Questions About Guns, Ammo, and Man's Best Friend
ABSTRACT: Harvest of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) through regulated hunting is the most important tool available to deer resource managers. As wildlife professionals, we are often looked upon as outlets for information concerning not only biological concepts, but hunting in general. The hunting community can pose unique questions and in some instances, hunting related information is not supported by data. The purpose of this study was to attempt to answer questions most often posed by sportsmen. We attempted to determine; the importance of a trained dog in locating dead and wounded deer, the distance deer traveled when shot, the effects of shot placement, and differences in the effectiveness of various firearms and ammunition. Statistical significance was based on a probability level of P = 0.05.
We determined that on this study site, the mean distance of shots taken at deer was 132 yards and that there was a significant difference between shots that resulted in a deer (127 yds.) and those resulting in a miss (150 yds.). Overall it required 603 shots to harvest 493 deer resulting in 81.7 percent shooting success. There was no difference in shooting success with respect to antlered (81% ) or antlerless deer (83% ). Approximately 50 percent of the 493 deer ran when shot and the mean distance traveled was 62 yards. Antlered and antlerless deer traveled the same distances.
Of the 221 deer that ran when shot and were located dead, 61 left no discernable sign in the vicinity of the shot. An additional 19 deer were wounded by the shot. Using a trained dog expedited the process of recovering these 240 deer.
Deer were assigned to 3 groups depending on how difficult they were to recover. There were significant differences in the distances deer ran depending on whether they would be recovered; (a) easily (46 yds.), (b) with some difficulty (85 yds), or (c) not recovered without the aid of a dog (147 yds). Overall, a trained dog increased the harvest approximately 20 percent at this site because it almost totally eliminated unrecovered dead deer and crippling loss.
We determined that deer shot in the shoulder ran significantly shorted distances (3 yds.) than those shot in the heart (39 yds.), lungs (50 yds.), and abdomen (69 yds.). There were no significant differences in the efficiency of weapons when grouped by caliber. However, deer ran significantly less frequently (42%), less distance (27 yds.) and left sign more often (88%) when struck with soft type bullets than when struck with hard style bullets (60%,43 yds., and 81%).
Introduction
Harvest of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) through regulated hunting is perhaps the most important tool available to deer resource managers. As wildlife professionals, we are often looked upon as outlets for information concerning not only biological concepts, but hunting in general. The hunting community can pose unique questions and in some instances, hunting related information is not supported by data. The purpose of this study was to attempt to answer questions often posed by sportsmen. We attempted to determine; the importance of a trained dog in recovering deer, how deer react versus shot placement, and differences in the effectiveness of various firearms and ammunition
Study Area
Data for this study was collected at the Cedar Knoll Club which is a private hunting club located in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Although Cedar Knoll is a private club it has cooperated in a number of University sponsored white-tailed deer research projects since the late 1980s. The area is typical of the coastal plain of South Carolina with the majority of the area being in some form of intensive timber management. Due to timber management, habitats can best be characterized as being exceptional for deer and for the purposes of this study it cannot be over emphasized how thick habitat components are. An intensive deer management program has been in place since about 1984 and includes various techniques like burning, mowing and fertilization of native vegetation, plantings and direct supplemental feeding.
Methods
Essentially, the bulk of the data for this study was hunt type data. Still hunting was the method employed and hunts were conducted in the morning and evening. Hunters were placed in elevated permanent stands based on wind direction and recent use by deer. All stands were equipped with seats and rails to improve safety and facilitate marksmanship. Deer were harvested with scoped center-fire rifles. After each hunt, participants were picked up at the stand. If a deer was shot and it did not leave the hunters sight, it was removed to the club for processing. If the deer left the hunters sight after the shot, a trained dog was used to determine if it had been hit and to attempt to recover the animal. For this study all shots at deer were recorded as was an estimate of the range of the shot. The distance the deer traveled and the type or amount of sign was noted. Information concerning the recovery or attempted recover of all deer was recorded as was the involvement of a trail dog. If the deer was recovered it was assigned to one of four categories describing how difficult the animal was to recover. Other data included the caliber of rifle and type of ammunition. Shot placement was determined for all harvested deer when they were processed.
As it relates to recovering deer, please keep in mind that there are a number of factors that potentially enter into the likelihood of recovery. Habitat type is one of the key elements affecting how easy recovering deer will be. This particular study area is characterized as being exceptional deer habitat on the basis that most of the land use was in intensive timber management. Southeastern habitats that are under intensively forest management typically are very dense in the under story especially early in the rotation, therefore visibility and accessibility can be greatly limited. Second, we must consider that the times during the day when deer normally present themselves to the hunter are not times that offer good visibility. Most deer in this study were taken around sunup or sundown. Finally, wildlife openings or food plots tend to be long and narrow. All of these factors combine and lend themselves to situations in which hunters can have trouble determining exactly were a deer was standing and the direction it traveled.
Results and Discussion
A total of 493 deer were harvested during the study including 305 antlered deer and 188 antlerless deer. Hunters fired 603 shots to harvest these deer and were therefore, about 82 percent successful with their shooting. There was no statistical difference between shooting percentage depending on the sex of the deer. We feel that this is a pretty good shooting percentage considering the variable experience levels that the hunters had.
The mean distance of all shots taken at deer was 132 yards. For shots that resulted in a deer the average was 127 yards. On the other hand, shots that were unsuccessful had a range of 150 yards, significantly further than the distance of successful shots. Intuitively you would assume that marksmanship suffers with increased distance to the target, however, I would not have expected a statistical breakpoint between roughly 125 and 150 yards.
Of the 493 deer that were harvested, 51 percent dropped when shot and 49 percent ran. If there is no consideration given to shot placement, it would appear that how deer reacted was largely random on this study area.
Recovering Deer
Using a trained dog to assist in the recover of deer is a technique that has gained in popularity in recent years. Recovering deer in the traditional sense can be inefficient when conditions such as darkness, rain, thick terrain or when wetlands or water bodies exist. Also, a trained dog can almost immediately determine whether a deer is hit which ultimately saves time attempting to recover something that is not there. For this study a dog was used anytime a shot was taken at a deer regardless of what the hunter thought or said about the shot.
We were able to estimate the importance of a dog in recovering deer by assigning each animal to one of 4 classes based on how difficult it was to recover. Certainly, assigning deer to these classes was subjective and depended largely on our experience. However, tangible considerations were important in this process and included the distance the deer traveled, the amount of sign where the deer was shot and the type of habitat that the deer entered after leaving the vicinity of the shot. Also, the general feeling from the hunter concerning where the deer was standing, the direction it traveled and their confidence level concerning the outcome.
If we look at the data in table form, it appears that assigning deer to the classes based on difficulty of recovery worked well. Note that dramatically fewer and fewer deer were assigned to the classes which represent the more difficult recoveries. Similarly, the average distance deer traveled varied between each class with deer traveling progressively and significantly further as recoveries became more difficult.
If we keep the distance data in mind and look at the more subjective characteristics it seems that the Classes make pretty good sense. Deer that were assigned to Class 1 either did not run or did not leave the hunter's sight, therefore, a dog was not necessary. Obviously, anyone would recover deer assigned to this class. Deer that were assigned to Class 2 would have also been recovered very easily. These deer ran short distances, often into relatively open habitat and they left very good sign. The average hunter would have no trouble recovering Class 2 deer if an attempt was made.
Class 3 deer on the other hand, ran significantly longer distances than Class 2 deer and these deer left little or no evidence that it was hit particularly near the area where it was standing. Also, Class 3 deer generally entered thick terrain were visibility and access was restricted. The average hunter would get his buddies and struggle to locate Class 3 deer without a dog. It is our opinion that many Class 3 deer would not have been recovered without a dog, however they were assigned to Class 3 rather than Class 4 based on the criteria.
Class 4 deer were judged unrecoverable without the use of a dog. It turned o that only 24 deer were assigned to this class which represents about 5 percent of the animals harvested the study area. Deer in this Class traveled significantly further than Class 1, 2, or 3 deer. There was no evidence that the deer was hit where it was standing and generally, any sign that was discovered before the deer was recovered was sign that was located by the dog. In addition to significantly longer distances, Class 4 deer traveled into extremely thick habitat that often included wetlands or water.
Thus far we have discussed the characteristics of recovering deer that were found dead. However, during this study an additional 19 deer that were not dead but had been wounded by the shot were recovered using a trained dog. Deer that were still alive typically had suffered a wound one or more of its legs, a wound to the lower most abdomen or flank or some other significant wound did not involve major organ systems. As with Class 3 and 4 deer, these deer traveled into extremely thick habitats that often involved wetlands or water. Normally the dog located the deer bedded in dense cover. In some cases the dog would bay the deer which would allow us to determine were the deer was and we would be able to work our way to the location and dispatch the animal. In other cases, the deer would run after being located by the dog and travel some distance before bedding again. This process was repeated until the deer would hold at bay allowing us to determine were it was, traverse to the location and dispatch the deer. Distance determination was not possible for these deer because they traveled too far and erratically.
Overall we feel that a trained dog accounted for 15-20 percent of the deer harvest during this study. This can be determined by recognizing that the dog was responsible for many of the 61 Class 3 deer that left little or no evidence of being hit, al124 of the Class 4 deer that were determined to be unrecoverable without a dog, and 19 deer that were still alive and had been wounded by the shot. Also, by using a dog every time a shot was fired, the efficiency in recovering deer and differentiating deer that are hit from those that are not was greatly increased.
Shot Placement
In this study we were also interested in documenting the importance of shot placement because this is often a point of debate among sportsmen. We have already seen that deer run nearly 50 percent of the time when they are mortally wounded. Certainly, shot placement is the most important factor related to how deer react after being shot. Several types of trauma can lead to the rapid death of an animal that is struck by a bullet. Significant trauma to the central nervous system, the respiratory system or the circulatory system will all prove effective.
For the purposes of this study, bullet placement consisted of neck, spine shoulder, heart, lungs and abdomen. Since animals that were hit in the extremities or hit superficially were still alive they were eliminated from this particular analysis in favor of more traditional bullet placement locations. In this study deer shot in the neck and spine were immediately rendered immobile and succumbed quickly. Deer that were shot broadside in the shoulder ran a mean distance of 3 yards while animals hit in the heart, lungs or abdomen traveled 39, 50 and 69 yards respectfully.
So what shot placement is the best. Neck shots worked well in this study, but they can be problematic because the target area is very small and there is a risk of wounding associated with the target. Potential problems include a shot to the esophagus or mandible. Also, spine shots can be ruled out as a recommenced shot because few shots are consciously directed at the spine. In other words, most spine shots result from shots that miss their mark high and incidentally hit the spine
Based on the data collected in this study we feel that the best shot placement for deer is the shot directed at the shoulder. Traveling an average of only 3 yards, deer shot in the shoulder traveled significantly less distance than deer shot in the heart, lungs, or abdomen. Also, with such a short distance of travel, deer shot squarely in the shoulder did not generally leave the hunter's sight. In this study, the broadside shoulder shot essentially gave results similar to what most hunters expect from a neck shot. Presumably the broadside shoulder shot works well because it strikes part of the heart and or lungs which itself is a mortal blow. However, a shot through the scapula damages the brachial plexus which the central nervous system thereby rendering the animal immobile. It knocks the animal out and it never regains consciousness. Also, the shoulder is a very large target offering room for error; a high shot hits the spine, a low shot the heart and a shot to the rear hits the lungs.
Firearms and Ammunition
Hunters are often very opinionated with respect to firearms and ammunition and similarly, there are many misconceptions related to the subject. It is still common for hunters to place more emphasis on their firearms and ammunition than on shot placement. The old saying "I use this magnum because you can hit them in the butt and blow their head off' is still common. Also apparent are skeptical remarks implying that smaller caliber center-fire firearms are less effective and result in deer running further and increased crippling rates.
During this study there were in excess of 20 different center-fire cartridges to harvest deer. To reduce variability the various cartridges were group by their respective caliber. T resulted in the delineation of 5 caliber groups; .243 cal., .25 cal., .270 cal., .284 cal., and .30 cal.
In order to gain some objective measure of how these calibers performed on deer, we looked at the distance deer traveled. This included all animals regardless of whether they died in their tracks or ran. We found no significant difference in the performance of these caliber groups when comparing how deer reacted. Mean distances deer traveled varied between 14 and 40 yards but there 1 no apparent relationship with increasing or decreasing caliber size or the inherent differences in velocity or energy that is related to the different caliber groups.
Custom versus Factory
Recently there has been an increasing interest among hunters related to custom firearms and the super accurate shooting that accompanies these weapons. Questions often arise concerning potential differences between factory made and custom made equipment. Since we recorded the type of firearm and ammunition, we were able to check for differences between factory made and custom made firearms. Once again, the distance deer traveled was used as the determining factor and there was no statistical difference between custom and factory firearms. Regardless of the weapons make, deer traveled about 30 yards.
Ammunition
The final question that we addressed in this study dealt with differences in the performance of different bullet types. With the popularity of hand loading and super accurate shooting sportsmen often debate the merits of different bullet types. For the purposes of this study and because there are so many different bullet types, we placed bullets into 2 categories. Group 1 consisted of softer type bullets. In other words, bullets that are designed to rapidly expand on impact. Bullets falling into that group included ballistic tips, bronze points or any other soft point bullet that is of the appropriate weight for the caliber, for southeastern sized deer. For example, a 150 grain ballistic tip bullet in a .30 caliber rather than a 200 grain bullet in the same caliber. Group 2 bullets were just the opposite and included some of the premium types of ammunition loaded with controlled expansion bullets including Partitions, Grand Slams, Barnes X, and various types of solids. Also, bullets that are generally accepted as being too heavy for southeastern sized deer were placed in this group. For example, a 200 grain bullet in a .30 caliber weapon is generally considered too much for southeastern deer. Overall, Group I bullets could be characterized as being explosive on impact, where as Group 2 bullets were controlled in the manner they expand.
Again, using the distance that deer traveled as a measure of performance we found that deer struck with the more explosive type bullets traveled a mean distance of about 27 yards while those struck with hard or heavy bullets traveled an average of approximately 43 yards. This represents a significant difference with deer struck by hard bullets traveling further. The second method of monitoring bullet performance dealt with the percentage of deer that were dropped in their tracks by the respective bullet groups. Again, explosive type bullets significantly outperformed the hard/heavy bullets with 58 percent knock downs compared to 40 percent. Finally, and more subjectively, we looked at the percentage of deer that ran and left poor sign. Again we found a significant difference between the two groups indicating that deer struck with more expanding type bullets left poor sign only about 12 percent of the time compared to over 21 percent for the hard/heavy group.
Summary:
Objectives to determine
Importance of trained dog in recovering deer
How deer react vs. shot placement
Differences in firearms and ammunition

Study Area
Coastal plain of South Carolina
4,500 acre private hunt club
Intensively managed

Data Collected
Number and distance of shots
Trail dog necessary
Deer hit, yes or no
How far did deer travel
Deer recovered, yes or no
Weapon and bullet characteristics

Shot placement
As it relates to recovering deer, please keep in mind that
Habitat type affects recovery
Deer are often shot in poor light
It can be difficult for hunters to determine where the deer was standing and the direction it traveled. Particularly on long, narrow roads or food plots.


Shooting Percentage
Deer type # Deer Shots Percent
Antlered 305 375 81.3
Antlerless 188 227 82.8
Total 493 603 81.7

How far were shots?
Average distance of all shots = 132 yards
Shots resulting in a deer = 127 yards
Shots resulting in a missed deer = 150 yards
Significant difference in distance "deer vs. missed deer"

How did deer react?
A total of 493 deer were taken.
253 deer ran when shot, 51%.
240 deer dropped in tracks, 49%.
If shot placement is ignored, how deer react is a coin toss.

Recovery data
Class 1 � didn�t leave sight, no dog required.
Class 2 � ran short distance, left good sign.
Class 3 � longer distance, poor/no sign, rough habitat.
Class 4 � judged unrecoverable without dog, considering all factors: distance, sign, habitat.

Recovering deer
Class # Deer Yards Traveled
Class 1 253 <5
Class 2 155 46
Class 3 61 83
Class 4 24 152

Importance of a trained dog in recovering dead deer.
Class 1 deer did not run or did not leave hunter�s sight. Dog not necessary, anyone would recover deer.
Class 2 deer ran short distances, left good sign and good visibility in habitat. If an attempt to recover deer was made it would have been located easily without a dog.
Class 3 deer ran significantly further than Class 1 or Class 2 and left little or no evidence of hit. Trailing condition involved heavy cover, wetlands, etc. The average hunter would get a friend and struggle to recover deer without a dog.
Class 4 deer were judged to be unrecoverable without use of a dog. These 24 deer traveled significantly further than Class 1, 2 & 3 deer. If sign was found it was always well away from the scene and typically this sign was found by the dog. Recovery involved extremely thick habitat, wetlands, water, etc.

Importance of a trained dog in recovering live deer.
An additional 19 live/wounded deer were recovered using a dog.
These deer suffered wounds to various body parts including legs, mandible, lower abdomen, etc.
Thick terrain, wetlands and/or water involved in recovery.
Deer traveled too far and erratic routes for distance determination.

What about unrecovered deer?
There were 15 unrecovered deer:
Superficial wounds
In many cases this was determined only by the reaction of the dog.
Dog trailed an average of 297 yards.


Importance of a trained dog in recovering deer � bottom line.
Dog accounted for many of the 61 Class 3 deer, all 24 Class 4 deer and all 129 live/wounded deer.
This represents approximately 75 -100 of the 493 deer harvested on the property, i.e. 15 �20%.

Effects of shot placement.
Shot Location # Deer Yards Traveled
Neck 25 <1
Spine 27 <1
Shoulder 170 3
Heart 14 39
Lungs 152 50
Abdomen 58 69

Firearms and ammunition.
More than 20 centerfire cartridges in 5 different caliber were used on study area.
To reduce variability, cartridges were placed in caliber groups: .243, .25, .270, .284, .30

Firearms and ammuntion � calibers
Caliber # Deer Yards Traveled
.243 (6mm) 48 40
.25 36 14
.270 84 31
.284 160 26
.30 116 33

Firearms and ammunition � Factory rifles vs. custom rifles
Make # Deer Yards Traveled
Factory 164 29
Custom 169 29

Firearms and ammuntion � Bullet types
Group 1 � Rapidly expanding bullets such as Ballistic Tips, bronze points, etc. Any soft point bullet of appropriate weight for a particular caliber for southeastern deer.
Group 2 � Harder or more controlled expansion bullets such as Partitions, Grand Slams, Barnes X, etc. Any bullet that is heavier for a particular caliber than is generally recommended for southeastern deer.

Firearms and ammuntion � Bullet type results.
Type # Deer Yards traveled % Dropped % Poor sign
Soft 360 27 58% 12%
Hard 84 43 49% 21%

Conclusions.
Shooting percentages about 82%.
The farther the shot, the lower the chance of getting the deer.
Deer ran about 62 yards on average.
Shot placement is determining factor. All things considered, broadside shoulder shot worked best compared to others.
About 50:50, deer run vs. deer don�t run.
Trained dog expedited recovery of all deer that ran.
Dog very important in recovering 61 deer that left poor/no sign, 24 deer judged unrecoverable, and 19 live/wounded deer.
Dog accounted for approximately 15 � 20% of total harvest on hunting area, i.e. 75 � 100 deer.
No difference in effectiveness of various calibers.
No difference between factory vs. custom firearms.
Significant difference between bullet types. This study indicates that rapidly expanding bullets lead to deer running less often and less distance and when they run they leave better sign.




Home � Up � Feedback � Site Map � Search
This site is best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer and an 800 x 600 monitor screen setting.
Send mail to scilowcountryyahoo.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 10/18/07

The cross sectional area is 17% graeter for the 338 as compared to the 308. At some point there will be a differance. I tend to group cartridges into classes. Like sayin' is a 270 better than a 280, the answer is no. They are in the same class. All the bullet has to do is penetrate the animal to the point that the vital organs cease to function.

One of my points was that you have to take bullet construction into the equation. It's the bullet that makes use of the available energy in concert with the resistance it meets in the form of reaction force/pressure at its leading edge.

That's why there is no apparent relationship until you add in the bullet type!

Lessee here...
Experienced hunters like Mule Deer and Phil Shoemaker say there is little difference in the killing power of various calibers...
And lookee over there! Got a couple of studies that say virtually the same thing... little difference in killing power...
Now, got lots of people with much less experience and no studies that say there HAS to be a lot of difference...
Hmmmm.... who should I believe...

Almost. Don't forget placement. Where the animal is hit is more important than what it is hit with.

I'd sum it up by saying something like "accuracy, accuracy, accuracy is the most important factor in killing power. Every other topic of discussion is mere noise." I think I've seen a saying similar to that...

You should believe ballistics, you should believe the science of physics, and by all means you should believe "the man who could have been so much more", Bob Hagel, who stated, quite simply honestly, and to the point:

"According to all rules of mathematics and ballistics, the cartridge that starts a bullet the fastest of the same weight, caliber and shape, not only packs more punch but shoots flatter. It follows that any advantage in killing power lies with the cartridge delivering the highest velocity."

What's so hard to understand about all that, anyway? It's in complete agreement with all known physical laws, and it's the foundational reason why the U.S. Army dropped the 45-70 and went to the 30/40 Krag, then the 30-06. If you double a bullet's weight, you double its energy, but it you double a bullets velocity, you QUADRUPLE its energy. Any college student who's a non-hunter but managed to pass Physics 101 could understand this concept quite easily.

But to illustrate, you could take a couple of reasonably bright 16 year old kids out to the range as observers and shoot some water-filled milk jugs at, say, 300 yds. with a 308 Win. and a 300 Win. Mag., both load to their full potential with 180 gr. bullets of the same make and construction, and then ask those kids which of the two cartridges is more powerful. This is also a good and practical illustration of energy-transfer, since animal tissue is some 75% water in the first place...........

AD

One of the things I took from the 30 caliber bullet test was that it didn't matter if the bullet was doing 2700 or 2200,the expansion was the same, as was the penetration. So basically a 308 and 300 magnum had the same killing power.

First off, believe whomever you want... but why not the one who is right!

Never said there was a lot of difference. In fact I concede that there may be no difference in most kills that can be detected. But there is a good reason for that and its founded in good science.

I will say though that "useful" energy is present in the high energy rounds. Experiments can be set up to show it. Since energy has to be extracted, it's footprint can be elusive. An example is when a bullet sails through between the ribs and empty lung cavity. The energy leaving was just not needed.

The problem (why energy is out of style) is that energy is the entity that is transfered when penetration doesn't happen fast enough for a particular bullet design. And since it's possible to kill with a fraction of the available energy when you hit a vital, some people can be fooled into thinking energy has irrelevancy... maybe partially because of the broad spectrum of bullet types available today.

The pendulum seems to have swung too far to one side for my tastes. I'm an engineer and will react to anyone who disregards some of the physics. Like I said before, Einstein's genius was that he didn't disregard anything in formulating his theories... while many others threw out what didn't fit their model. I think that has happened here.

But you're right, who am I.

One, at least two posts have mentioned water-filled jugs now. Problem is, and this has verified by science, that while there's a lot of water in animals, it isn't contained in jugs. Most soft animal tissue stretches to one extent or another. This is the reason that hydrostatic shock doesn't function as a part of killing power in any animal too large to be disinegrated by a bullet. In fact, the "temporary wound cavity" caused by hydraulic expansion has no bearing in mortality.

Two, Bob Hagel was not a forensic scientist. The conclusion of the folks that are is that the size of the PERMANENT hole is all, no matter how many foot-pounds made it. The best we can say is that more kinetic energy has the potential to make a bigger hole, but the two are not necessarily connected.

Three, there is still that little matter of blood pressure not dropping for at least 10 seconds, no matter the size of the hole.

Well I've read this thing, ever which way up and down and sideways. I had time to reflect on this - One thing for damn sure we have 10,000 dead moose in Sweden and probably 500 running around glad there not.