Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting Ballistics and meat damage

Good morning all,

Ringworm,Selmer, and Mule Deer...


Fellas, in no way am I trying to be disagreeable, or come off as an "expert" or some kind of arrogant "authority" on trauma caused on live tissue by hunting bullets.

I completely respect your experiences, and do not question that they are and or have been different than what I have seen, but than again, I don't think we are in too much disagreement.

My point was that bullets cause a general amount of damage, as they pass through tissue.
I am intregued by the fact that some of your testimony states that there was no blood shot tissue ... My experience has been that even a 85 grain Thunderhead broadhead causes some bruising around the wound upon entry, though not as much as projectiles moving 3x as fast.

I believe that my previous statement was something along the lines of, "any object that displaces, tears, or upsets the tissue is damaging to that tissue..." Though not word for word, I mean this in terms of realitivity, as in such comparisons as schrapnel from a an IED blast, to that from the surgens schalpel that removes the schrapnel from the wounds. I think this is a good illistration of what I was trying to say. Most everytime tissue is perferated by fragments of a blast it is "damaging." So too is it damaging when a surgen takes out the knife...but to a much differing percentage, but none the less, a wound is made because tissue is upset.

Ringworm, Selmer, and Mule Deer.. I believe that we are on the same page to a great degree. My point was supposed to convey the fact that bullets cause a similar amounts of tissue damage... but that they are all distructive. Perhaps we were not coming at this from the same place, and believing that we were comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples.

I appreciate the article on "Shooting Holes Through Wounding Theroies," it's a must read (of which I have before), and also that excerpt from Mr. Whelen..., (I always liked what he had to say).

I did not mean to be rude, or seem arrogant...and I am sorry if that was clouding the simple point that I was trying to make, a realitive point, that when it comes right down to it, we are probably in more agreement than disagreement.

Some of our findings are honestly quite different, and this might be the reason for us to have such strong convictions on this topic.

For example, Ringworm, you state that the 270 Wby. bullet goes in and out too fast to caust much damage. My personal findings are quite different. Besides a quartering toward shot that I took on a Deer with my 300 Savage and a 165 Hornady (which, upon exiting the off side flank opened that deer op from the last rib to the pelvis), that 270 Wby caused the most damage of any I have shot, one such incident found the deer with a wound channel that was "cone" shaped from the point of entry to that of it's exit, where upon the off side scapula was removed from the deer leaving a coffee can diameter hole out that side. Now, if you had looked at this deer and the amount of tissue damage you would have an entirely different view of the bullet damage of the 270 Wby, and would not say that it's an in and out kind of thing.

It could be different experiences such as this that cause up to make such conclusive assessments.

Agreeably, the damage that occured from that one incident with the 270 Wby. was much less than the damage (in general) caused by a 300 grain .452" 45 colt slug out of my Blackhawk. And what I am trying to say is that they "Both" create their share of damage.

Again fellas, I am not trying to be difficult here.

Respectfully,
Scott

selmer, here in the South, we shoot a lot of deer, no check station, no tags, season from Aug 20 to Jan 1, non stop.

When does are being chased buy bucks, things are hot and heavy. We all help each other finding deer that have ran off with good hits in the lungs. As the distances increase, so does the tempory wound cavity that is created by the projectile. Simply punching a hole through the lungs often(not all the time) leads to deer running from 50 to 200 yards...deer run in strange patterns when they are dying, also.

I help my cousin often on doe days at his deer processing plant. So, in a day, I may bone out 25 or more deer(long day). We hear all kinds of stories, half of the lung shot deer may run, usually 30-50 yards, large bucks shot while pumped up may run 200 yards is shot in the back of the lungs.

The area of the country you live in makes a huge difference whether or not a deer runs. Out West, if they run 200 yards you probably will never loose sight of them. In the South, woods are thick as a Jungle and 200 yards seems like 200 miles. I have had to track many lung shot deer down on my hands and knees feeling for their tracks in the leaves, trying to get a direction. Deer often will circle and circle and circle as they are dying, disoriented from loss of blood.

I've lost two really good bucks shot thorugh the lungs at ranges between 200-250 yards, good solid hits as seen through my scope with a rifle that has a muzzle break on it(you can see the bullet impact on the animal).

With all the tracking that I have had to do, lost deer, one thing for sure, I preach to the average hunter to shoot the running gear out from underneath the deer...get some meat vs no meat at all.

A shoulder shot will take out their ability to run, internally the heart or top of the heart is gone and front of the lungs. When they are knocked down, they don't have the blood pressure to get back up, it does not get much better...blood pressure to the brain drops to zero instantly. On a lung shot, they hemorage or bleed out internally and can can cover a lot of ground in 6 seconds till the Oxygen gives out in their brain.

On the other hand, a deer shot low in the heart will probably go at least 100 yards+.

Gunwriters have really done the deer hunting public a huge disservice by promoting "aim behind the shoulder" shots on deer or having a picture of a deer with the cross hairs behind the shoulder, just my opinion.

"Gun writers?" Do you mean that every gun writer in the business suggests only shooting deer behind the shoulder? Or do you mean SOME gun writers?

I once had a table at a local gun show, among other thinsg selling some of my books. A guy stopped by and noticed the books, and within a minute or so was off on a rant about "gun writers" saying the .270 isn't enough for African plains game, citing his experiences in Africa. Which, of course, is something that I have never written....

I guess we're all one guy, writing 25,000 articles a year under different names.

the last time I checked a deer's heart is well below the shoulder--but have always thought the shoulder was that joint connecting the leg to the spine

educate me here guys...

"...guess we're all one guy, writing 25,000 articles a year under different names."

You must be very busy...and very wealthy!

Damage to meat depends upon what you hit. Hit a bone going in, good luck. Hit/damage a subcutaneous blood vessel, big blood patch, etc.

The only thing that routinely drops an animal on the spot is CNS (read nerve) damage- head/neck, spine, high shoulder. No nerve signal, muscles don't move neither does the animal.

Lung/heart shots may as well, but depends on how long it takes for the blood than normally goes to the brain doesn't any more (10- ? hundreds of yards).

For deer I prefer a high lung shot, just behind the shoulder crease. Minimal damage to meat, I don't care for the ribs. Spikes get a head/upper neck shot. For big game (I have found that universally, guides want to limit locomotion) I prefer a high forward shoulder shot...lots of nerves to hit.

Since they've come out I've used TSX exclusively on all my game from deer to nilgai (.270 Win - .340 Wby in the field). I've found TSX are great bullets, especially at 2-300 yards, deadly. That's their perfect niche.

But at 100yds on deer, they're "too efficient" once the petals open they just slice through the animal, giving the impression that it's a pencil shot, but I truly don't believe it is. They just slice through the meat rather than push through. Great meat saver, but variable walk offs......of course it all depends on what you hit goin in/out.

This is pretty much where my thinking is. It's what my experience would indicate and why I hunt with all old traditional rounds like the 7x57, '06, etc. Very effective for the hunting I do and I don't blow the meat all to hell-o. Ballistic tips and magnums are not in my cabinets based on my experiences with them.

Respectfully, hard to believe you weren't trying to be difficult with statements like that. Not exactly a welcome to a friendly discussion among friends -is it? OK -done with it, see you are fairly new and welcome you aboard. Hey for all that don't like rib meat - I threw some of the puny things completely unseasoned on a gas grill figuring I would let the dogs have them. I tried some for the heck of it and was very much surprised at how good the things were. Not enough meat to worry about ruining one or two- just saying don't dismiss them automatically as junk meat. As for shoulder shots, I hated the reaction I got from deer. One in particular sort of upset me - an obvious amount of agony and kicking. Double lungs seem more humane. Had one or two just stand there after being hit rather peacefully slump over dead in a matter of seconds. Am beginning to a bit higher up might be the way to shorten\stop a long run.

When a FMJ hits bone the bones become secondary projectiles causing lots of damage. (A rumor I heard)
whelennut

Keith, I understand your reasoning to a degree, and thanks for a concise explanation without assuming that I was saying that you were gut shooting (or somewhere else) deer. Most of my hunting IS done in fairly open areas, Iowa and South Dakota. I've never hunted the really thick stuff that goes for acres upon acres, but I'd lung shot some deer in pretty thick stuff, cattail and willow sloughs that require perfect tracking. I've never seen a lung shot deer that didn't leave a wide swatch for a blood trail, but obviously our experiences differ.

Oh, and Scott not only put out a public reconciliation, I also got a kind PM from him as well. I was afraid we had another troll on our hand, but it appears not to be the case.

So, you're saying the 120 gr 7mm Ballistic Tip seconds I was eying for my 7mm WSM at 3500 FPS are a bad idea? ;-)

Actually I was thinking of loading them at 3000-3100 FPS, maybe that'll work out better.

I really need to get that .338-06 built..

The problem with taking out the running gear is that if you end up with a three legged deer they can cover a lot more ground than a lung shot or heart shot deer on a death run.
A lung shot deer normally leaves a Helen Keller blood trail.
Unless you are using a small caliber.
Some of our woods goes for miles in each direction.
We also have timber wolves and it is best to find the deer before it gets dark. Otherwise they will chew some of it up.
More than is damaged by a Ballistic Tip!
There also two legged wolves who will try to tag your deer if they get to it first. It is good to damage enough meat so that the deer doesn't travel very far after being shot!

My son shot his deer with a 120 gr Ballistic Tip @ 3300 fps
from his 7mm Magnum. It worked so well I used it to fill my tag the next weekend.

Jack O' Connor was the one who advised hunters to take out both lungs because it is a big target and very easy to find the deer because of the blood trail caused by an exit wound spraying blood. It works for me. YMMV
whelennut

Well said, and point taken,

Scott

There is no joint that connects the front leg to the spine. The shoulder on ungulates is the scapula, a bone that starts narrow at a joint just above the middle leg bone, and becomes quite wide and thin. The shoulder is basically attached to the side of the ribs by muscle tissue over a large area. Most of the shoulder will be above and in front of the heart. I've personally been unimpressed with the reaction of heart shot deer. If you're not shooting one of the shoulders, I prefer trying for just above the heart, where the aorta can be torn or severed. As with the heart shot, lung tissue will be damaged in the process as well, and it's still low enough in the chest cavity so that it will start to leak without filling the entire chest cavity.

we do a disservice to kids by bringing them up shooting fast light highly expansive bullets. when i was brought into deer hunting a quick kill was as important as how much meat was gained. shoulder shots were verboten and light fast calibers were seen as varmint rounds. i was rasided up shooting 180 gr. corelocts and told to make neck shots. when we send these young hunters into the woods with reduced loads and light bullets we are telling them that blowing away the front shoulders is acceptable. whats the difference between a man who kills a deer and leaves it to rot and a man who intentionally shoots a bullet into the shoulders when he could otherwise put it behind them. waste is waste is it not?

My poem. Tell them where you heard it first.

Shoot 'em high, and watch 'em die,
Shoot 'em low, and watch 'em blow.

Life is good.

Can't see where a neck shot differs from a shoulder shot in the meat loss dept, more so when the bullet follows the contour of the spine, unless that never happens?.

Haven't shot an animal yet I haven't had to get rid of the bullet path from the meat.

Lung shots work fine, as do most shots through vital organs. I prefer to use loads that take out the running gear and the front of the vitals, but I'm not beyond a lung shot.

Head shots or lassos from now on I guess.

Why would you want that bullet to shoot deer in the neck?

It wasn't a disservice to young kids to use such, apparently.