It's becoming more and more accepted. What say you? I've used it with stellar results on elk and antelope.

Nope, not for me, YMMV.

Looking at the angle of the arrow coming in, that was not that close to a frontal shot, JMHO.

I agree that particular shot didn't have the ideal angle, but it was obviously a frontal shot.

A phrase often uttered by those attempting to justify poor choices

I hear it a lot from the LGBT crowd too

The cameraman wasn't even directly in "front" of the bull and the kid was well to the left of him. Say what you want, but even though it did the job it was a lucky hit, was not what you would call a classic "frontal shot" and I'd bet the kid was actually aiming for behind the front leg and blew it. Sometimes luck beats skill and IMHO this was certainly one of those times and that bull bled out so fast he didn't have time to decide what to do!

Go spend some time on Bowsite and watch dozens of highly skilled seasoned elk veterans promote the frontal shot. Guys with 30, 40, 50 elk under their belt. Until a few years ago I had the same opinion as you do.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, just letting people know about what I consider another good shot option, under the right circumstances.

The odds are stacked well against you. So if you consider it fair, then its your call.

I've actually had it work but I can see how it would be easy for it to be only a wound most of the time and as such refuse to take it anymore with an arrow.

A bullet is another story.

Boils down to ethics, which means whatever you decide, is right. For you.

I'll shoot one in the hams every last time, rather than frontal.

Curt Wells, editor of Bowhunter magazine also advocates the shot.

He ain't some unhinged crackpot without any hunting ethics.

Say what?!!!

There are a lot of guys in the TV media selling/promoting Long Range gun/scope outfits that are advocating 1000 yard shots on animals too, but it doesn't make it right!!!

You have asked for opinions, I'd call it a shot in front of the shoulder, with little to no chance of reaching the heart and lungs from that angle.

Had the neck artery been missed, I doubt we'd see a video.

YMMV

You're right, I have asked for opinions, but I never said that I'd agree with them.

NO on a shot from a bow,and to tell the truth I dont really like a frontal shot with a rifle.

That's because shooting tame animals is more and more common.

Nah.

I've shot exactly two animals with the shot in the last 5 years... a raghorn elk in CO on public land and a Wyoming antelope buck on public land. They both went down within 20 yards.

I can assure you neither were tame.

Get educated on the shot before dismissing it outright.

The odds are not in your favor just like previously stated and I would pass for another opportunity and a higher percentage kill zone shot, but that's JMHO on it.

I'm no stranger to it. It is a good shot for animals that you know are going to just stand there and let you shoot them.

Is there anything more twitchy or quick than a pronghorn coming into a public tank?

15 yard frontal, down in 20. Dressed and on ice in 30 minutes.

No sweat off my balls. People take risky shots all the time and sometimes they get lucky. Whatever floats your boat.

Well, abit of a tough crowd.

This forum is just a tiny pimple on the ass of the real archery discussion forums though. Go to AT or Bowsite for a more rational discussion of this particular shot...if youre just lurking.

I'm taking my ball and going home.

Don't get mad. I shoot stuff in the eye sometimes.

Oh I ain't mad, I suspected I'd get just what I got.

A 80 pound pronghorn is one thing, plus it's not like he's going to run off into the timber. Stupid shot on deer or elk and anyone with experience will tell you that a single lung hit is anything but quick. Basic anatomy, and odds aren't with the archer on a frontal angle. Poor shot selection, period.

Yeah, what do I know, I've only bow hunted elk since 1989.

...in 6 states...

Well I guess we should make an exception for you given your years of experience and expansive geographic territory. Fact is you should be smarter than this by now. Frontal shots are stupid, period.

I've only bow hunted for 36 years

33 for me.

I know where the friggen lungs are.

I talked to an elk guide in salmon Idaho......he said he quit bowhunting elk. He said he would call em in and end up trying frontal shots....kept losing them.

"There was a little girl who had a little curl, right in the center of her forehead. When she was good, she was very very good......but when she was bad, she was HORRID."

I'm still on the fence. Done it one time on a whitetail and it worked great, he was wobbling from the first step and plowing dirt by the 3rd. I guess I'd let the situation dictate what I was going to do. I'll take it if I am sure I can make it just right, but if I have any doubts I'll hold off.

I've been trying for an archery bull elk for about 5 years now, and last year I had probably a half dozen chances where I could have shot but distance was 60 yards and I'd imposed a 50 yard limit on myself. I trust myself pretty well to not get carried away if the shots not there. But at 20 yards, calm animal, wind and angle just right, I might take that shot.

It's beyond you, that much is obvious. We both know where the lungs are. It's very hard for some to grasp, but you play percentages and in time, with frontals, your odds are greater of wounding. If that doesn't bother you, we'll carry on. Stupid shot on an elk.

IF thats the case you should know that a straight on frontal shot will not get both and that not getting both is not a good thing.

What the frontal shot is good for is the heart and top pipes off of it.

IF you hit the hollow spot all is good.

Beyond that its too easy to deflect as the ribs are set up overlapping from the front. Forming the start of a bony shield if you will, that can deflect an arrow. Not saying it will but with anything but especially a bow, you are supposed to be thinking take solid high percentage shots.

Again the ethics are yours and carry on. Just don't need to be convincing the rest of us that your ethics makes for our best shot. kind of like convincing us that all jews are bad...

No, it's not 'beyond me'. I've trailed single lunged elk from broadside shots, it can be tough, really tough...and not much fun.

What you fail to grasp is that even a one lunged elk from a frontal will slice through most of the entire lung from front to back, not just put a neat little hole in it. Massive hemmoraging ensues. The heart and arteries are almost guaranteed to get clipped by a proper frontal as well.

Believe.

Believe what? Let me type slow so you can grasp. Punch one lung broadside or front to back produces a deflated lung, period! Same ugly scenario and an animal with plenty of stamina to make a tracking job very difficult, sometimes impossible. If you can hit the heart or the top of it every time, and even you aren't that good, then another story. But that's nobody, no disrespect, it's a percentages game and you will get burned. Carry on.

I killed a coot with a 9 volt battery one time.

I remember reading an article by Fred Bear about "should you take this shot?" It was a deer "frontal" he said only take the shot if you can routinely hit a baseball at twenty yards.

In frontal shots one must be aware of elevation differences between target and archer,and try to avoid the urge to "sneak" it past the shoulder blade.

The video the OP posted does show a VERY humane harvest. It would seem odd to try and refute the footage.

Hey, an open mind!

Thanks Angus!

I used to regularly dispatch coons with a 7 iron. All my critics said I had to use a least a 3 iron.

Ghost,

Thought you might be stirring a big pot with your question. I think it all comes down to what the individual feels is a clean way to kill the animal. My personal limit is 60 yards, broadside, under PERFECT conditions. Frontal would be 25 or less, because you need to put that shot ON THE RIGHT HAIR and not within a 6"-8" circle. If someone doesn't want to take a frontal shot due to their personal concern over making a clean kill I respect that. However, if they are against the shot in general and speak poorly of me for taking it, then that is a different matter. It is a very deadly shot if done correctly, as is a broadside one. The comment about shooting one in the hams is purely asinine.

On an elk the frontal offers a decent sized hole to put the arrow in. Most hardcore elk guys say its about 7-8". That's an easy shot at close range, which is the only range I'd ever take this shot.

On a smaller animal like an antelope, the arrow will blow through the animal like butter. My shot went through the honey hole at the base of the neck and exited through the anus.

I'm sure that came as a *shocking* surprise to the coot...

A friend of mine, who has taken a lot of elk with a bow, told me he read an article written by a moose hunting archer in the north east who in the article advocated the ham shot. The reasons given in the article stated all the blood will hit the ground as there is no cavity to fill or hold blood. The femoral artery and vein are not very guarded by bone, and if the shot misses the vasculature component of the ham, there is very little risk of secondary infection/peritonitis. I am not advocating a ham shot as a first choice, but if tracking a wounded animal and I get the ham presented to me I will take it. It is extremely lethal.

I hope not on a first shot, as that's about the dumbest place I've ever heard of shooting an animal in 60+ years of hunting.

Chuck Adams is an advocate of the ham or butt shot.

Look it up.

Frontal shots have never let me down...

No need to look it up and just because his name is Chuck Adams doesn't mean he's right! Have you ever read an article anywhere with his name on it saying that's where he shot the animal the article was written about?

I don't understand the question.

I do own a few Chuck Adams books and he's an advocate of the shot. I've also read articles where he says the same thing. It's all out there on google foo I'm sure.

Very simple---Have you ever read an article or story where he actually said he intentionally killed the animal in the article with that ham shot? I haven't and advocating something and actually doing it are two different things.

Oh.

Yes I have. He's not shy about it and explains the positives of the shot in detail.

With an arrow, or bullet whether from a rifle or muzzleloader I always figured on disrupting TWO major organs to bring down and recover a big game animal. Lung-lung, lung-liver, heart-lung etc. I have no experience with elk but I know moose have lungs the size of a beach ball and tracking a beast in heavy timber with one collapsed lung don't make my list for a desirable hunting experience.

I have recovered whitetail deer other hunters have taken by cutting femoral arteries and sliced neck veins but one time the tracking job covered a mile in melting snow and standing corn over a 24 hour period. When things go wrong I lose sleep. I don't care to repeat that experience.

Frontal shots? Only once - through the neck patch on a large doe while carrying a very accurate, scoped Knight muzzleloader under 20 yards. DOA!

Lethal as hell...

I think he was talking about big game animals !

And IF that was a deer or elk er uh frontal shot then I probably would be even more hesitant to take the shot as it looks a mite too destructive !

Try lowering velocity and or using a bullet of stouter construction.You will have venison to eat next time.

It's a shot that takes a good understanding of the vitals. That said it has caused my freezer to become full many many times. Sure a lot of high mighty hunters on the campfire the point is to kill and an arrow in the heart or lungs kills just fine no matter if from the top (like shooting from tree stands) the bottom like (getting way to close) or the front dead is dead.

While dead is dead as you point out remember the "the High and Mighty" hunters on the campfire as you put it were ASKED for for their opinions.

Yes he is.

That arrow may have kept him from going down the hole to die, but he is certainly still alive. That is exactly why I'm against frontal and ham shots because even if they prove fatal you may not recover the animal and the last I heard ethical hunting should be only shooting an animal with as close to a 100% chance of a quick, humane kill that involves a quick, successful recovery. Missing the femoral artery on a ham shot or only taking out one lung on a frontal shot, especially on an elk, is not going to do either most of the time!

Here's an interesting discussion on the frontal.


http://www.elknutforums.com/Hunting/viewtopic.php?p=2827

A little late to the discussion but I tried this shot a couple years ago - never again. I was whitetail hunting, in a tree stand about 14' up and low enough I could see and shoot under the mid-October tree foliage. About 10:15 a nice eight point came along from my left side on a course to cross directly in front of me going to my right about twenty yards broadside. At 21 yards on the left the buck stopped and turned nearly dead on toward me. He picked around munched on some leaves from a low bush occasionally glancing around. The buck was relaxed and facing toward me, maybe turned about 15* toward the right and I had a good wind direction.

It seemed he was about to turn broadside and I drew my 62 lb. Elite Answer. I shoot Gold Tip Pro Hunters and a QAD Exodus broad head that was shaving sharp. The bow is perfectly tuned and broad heads fly like a dart and perfectly to the pin as far as I've shot it, out to 70 yards just for fun. Unexpected the buck looked directly at me. I had read about all those success stories with the frontal shot so I carefully placed the HHA pin (set at 22.5 yards) about 4" inside the near shoulder and about 5" up from the bottom of the chest. I was hoping to hit the heart and at least one lung with angle. The pin settled, held, and I made a smooth shot and watched the arrow bury to the fletching exactly where I aimed.

The buck wheeled and ran nearly directly away and went down about twenty five yards from the hit. He flailed around on the ground for just a couple seconds, got his feet under him and ran another thirty yards and hit the ground again. Again he got up and began to run curving away to the left back in the direction he came from in a button hook circle. About seventy yards out he hit the ground a third time, got up and moved off just out of sight. I heard the buck cough blood twice, sounded like he fell yet again, he grunted a long drawn out grunt and then coughed blood again. I heard him moving, back down and toward me, it sounded like he fell again and he coughed blood again. Then I heard him fall heavily in the leaves about 80 yards on my left where he came from originally. Real quiet after that.

This whole thing played out in much less than a minute, just real fast action then total silence. I had sat back down and was quietly reliving the shot and celebrating my success when after about 35 minutes I heard the buck cough again. Damn! A full minute went by and I heard him cough again, further down the side of the ridge headed off into the steep brushy holler below me. Now I knew he was on his feet and moving... oh no! I waited another thirty minutes and quietly got down, packed my stand up and hiked the 1/2 mile through the timber back to my truck. I hunt large timbered blocks of public land national forest in the deep Ozark's. Once at the truck I drove the fifteen miles to the small town cafe closest to me. I goofed around five very anxious hours and drove back to recover my deer.

At the site I found serving platter size blood splashes on the ground and blood on trees about knee high. This was medium dark blood with bubbles. I tracked the bucks semi circle route and found his last bedding spot against a huge down tree. The blood stopped there. I began to make semi circle swings below the last bedding spot looking for sign in the direction I last heard the buck go. I jumped him from an undercut creek bank about 150 yards down the hill. I watched with a sinking heart as the buck scrambled out of the creek bed and tried to climb the low ridge in front of it. It was too far for a follow up shot. I saw it fall over and wallow around trying to get its feet under it. It finally did and I sat another hour before moving over there. With dark coming on I pushed on and jumped the buck one more time. He scrambled to his feet, wobbled around, fell over, got back up and very slowly moved off. I thought about trying to rush up to him for a follow up shot but felt he was so weak he had to go down for the last time and I didn't want to risk really pushing him out of the country at dark. I don't know, in hindsight that may have been a bad decision. I waited as long as I could before pitch dark, about 45 minutes and went looking for him. Blood was in extremely small dots and very very sparse. Couldn't find him that night. I took off work and went back the next day. Nothing... I searched both days the next weekend with zero results. I hate it, still bothers me tremendously. I personally won't take the frontal shot again - never.

Too bad, MOGC. Sounds like you got one lung. I would only take a frontal shot from the ground, never a tree. Arrow from 18' up and only 63' away is a pretty steep angle. Sorry you lost him. That is a sick feeling that lasts for days and you never forget.

Agreed, my frontal shot was taken from the ground at 20 yards, about the only situation that I would have taken it under I think.

Have passed and will continue to pass on frontal shots. Not ethical for me. It's not that I can not make the shot, it's that if the animal moves ever so slightly that it is a wounded animal that will not likely be recovered. You don't have to kill every deer or elk you see, it's ok if they win sometimes.

Few years back I took a full frontal shot at a white tail (aprox 25 yards) He ducked at the shot and I hit him a bit high, thankfully he circled around to my left and stopped and I got a 30 yard shot into his vitals.

If he hadn't done so, I'm not sure if I would have recovered him and I don't ever plan on taking another similar shot.

You're Safariman's brother,aren't you?

Now why would you say that?

It wasn't clever or funny and didn't add anything to the discussion.

I doubt you've ever drawn a bow back in your entire life. I could look up how many times you've posted on this forum but I won't.

My conclusion is that you're pretty friggen bored.

Because, your post follows his suit of asking for advice and then schitting on everyone who gives that advice


I'got my first bow when I was around 7, was the co-captain of my High School archery team, and aside from the past 4 years hiatus from bow hunting due to concentrating on chasing Waterfowl, i've killed atleast one deer with a Bow since I was around 14

As for AT, I quit going there years ago.. You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger group of idiots on the internet.

I think a frontal shot at a whitetail especially if out of a tree would most likely end in tears. Elk and whitetail are very different in how they behave post bow shot.

Kind of like spraying a black lab (elk) with the garden hose versus a house cat!(whitetail)

Again most elk are shot from the ground, however the terrain can be very steep, so there is a lot to consider.

The described frontal shot from the treestand on the whitetail is simply a description of a deer hit far too low in one lung, with an injured sternum.

Deer with an injured sternum stumble and fall around like that.

A frontal shot from a treestand angle would need to enter right under the chin to be angling down and out through the vitals.

DD,
I think you are right, I was trying to hit the heart and run the arrow through at least one lung. I was probably too low in the chest. What you are saying is probably what happened, but no matter I have no intention of trying that shot ever again.

Yes, losing one that way imprints on the brain pretty strongly. Thanks for sharing your real experiences with real life and what can go wrong in real situations.

A buddy hit a bull straight on once. Never found it.