A Can of Worms; Shot Placement win's every time

[coldboremiracle]

I didn't wan't to risk hijacking another thread, so I decided to start this one.
Shot placement is more important than caliber, bullet type, and bullet size. That isn't to say those other things aren't important, just that shot placement is more important. I have spent several years putting together photos and stories depicting this theory, and we've managed to make a pretty good body of evidence. We also discuss taboo subjects like hunting with match bullets, long-range hunting, solid copper bullets, and other things that some find a bit controversial.

For those who are interested in the topic, I'd welcome you to read and discuss here:

Is Shot Placement More Important than cartridge and bullet selection?​

 

[25 Sharps]

I’ve just seen a 540 yard headshot advocated and the principle that if you don’t have enough energy to penetrate the chests you could still damage the neck or head ….. I’m out

 

[The Singing Stalker]

I’ve just seen a 540 yard headshot advocated and the principle that if you don’t have enough energy to penetrate the chests you could still damage the neck or head ….. I’m out

Where did you see that? I just read the whole thing and obviously missed it.

When I take newbies out, I preach, a little bullet in the right place is much better than a large bullet in the wrong place.

The only thing I see wrong in the article is that there were a lot of (what I consider) long range shots, bearing in mind that I shoot to 100 yards and wouldn’t go past 150 as I do not practice enough for it.

 

[25 Sharps]

Where did you see that? I just read the whole thing and obviously missed it.

When I take newbies out, I preach, a little bullet in the right place is much better than a large bullet in the wrong place.

The only thing I see wrong in the article is that there were a lot of (what I consider) long range shots, bearing in mind that I shoot to 100 yards and wouldn’t go past 150 as I do not practice enough for it.

Caption under the elk ‘shot between the eyes’ at 540 yards.

And the para above talks about bullets that don’t have enough energy to penetrate the chests and do damage to H&L could still work on neck or head.

I’ve no issue with reasonably long range shots, shot groups that would have been in the kill zone of a moose at 1000 yards on Sunday. Would I shoot a deer at 5-600 yards? No. 3-400 I have shot deer and foxes. But I do shoot a fair bit including with 2 clubs so get plenty of practice, and even then I had particular shot go wrong on a guided stalk, but that may well have been down to bullet performance in terms of stability. Stopped using them after that, the point is though the further the animal is the more chance there is of something going wrong so the right bullet comes into it.

To be honest I think the OP is just hungry for attention, a bit like people who post write ups of seemingly every single outing on here. I don’t have any interest in YouTube hunting channels etc. would rather be out shooting. Or talking sh*te on here

 

[Mungo]

I’ve just seen a 540 yard headshot advocated and the principle that if you don’t have enough energy to penetrate the chests you could still damage the neck or head ….. I’m out

That is just silly.

What's the bet he was trying for the chest and got it wrong...

 

[hoodwink]

I’m not writing this as a bitch fight. I actually agree with a lot of what you have written, you have given many examples of animals taken at what we would consider extreme ranges, now thats great and i expect it boosted the Ego of the shooter no end and continues to as they regale the stories to others, but why to what point, have they no stalking skills at all, can they not get closer or does it matter so much that a quarry walks on by to live another day.
How many times have you heard oh i clean missed that one, how the hell can you tell from 400yds.
How many times have you heard oh i clean missed that one, too then load another and fire again to either miss again or hit, with no excuse as to why they missed or for that matter why they hit the second time.
I think it best you carry on doing what you do, but please don’t encourage others to do likewise.
I know people that shoot well as do most people in this game, but we all know people who’s Ego’s are bigger than there ability.

 

[coldboremiracle]

That is just silly.

What's the bet he was trying for the chest and got it wrong...

In the case you are talking about, the shot between the eyes was a coup de gras. The bull had been shot through the lungs already seconds prior. The head shot was to finish the deed. It was included in the overall work to simply illustrate the point that a projectile might not have enough power to subdue an animal through traditional means, but could still do the trick when placed in an acutely sensitive place. Not that a 308 from 500 yards isn't enough for an elk, but other cartridge and bullet configurations might be.

 

[coldboremiracle]

I’m not writing this as a bitch fight. I actually agree with a lot of what you have written, you have given many examples of animals taken at what we would consider extreme ranges, now thats great and i expect it boosted the Ego of the shooter no end and continues to as they regale the stories to others, but why to what point, have they no stalking skills at all, can they not get closer or does it matter so much that a quarry walks on by to live another day.

I understand that perspective, it used to be a very popular one here in the US years ago. As I understand it long-range hunting isn't particularly popular on your side of the sea, much the way it wasn't popular here in decades passed. That's ok, everybody is welcome to their hunting practice in my opinion. I actually prefer people stay well within their comfortable practices, as its best for all involved. My children have been learning to hunt and shoot with me, as yet without the judgement or bias from other hunting perspectives we might consider antiquated. They have done very well for themselves so far as hunters, and I expect they could stand up against most of their peers hunting skills, regardless of their preferred practices.

 

[hendrix's rifle]

can they not get closer or does it matter so much that a quarry walks on by to live another day.
How many times have you heard oh i clean missed that one, how the hell can you tell from 400yds.

Firstly - if I see a deer and am under instructions to reduce numbers, it's getting shot. It doesn't matter of its 30 yards or 300 yards. It's a deer down and then take whatever is walking next to it.

Secondly - i can tell if I've had a clean miss by the sound the bullet makes on impact. I can also tell by the fact at 400 yards, the rifle and settled down again given i practise under said condition and recoil control is part of that practise. I can see an impact at a hundred yards or again, 300 +. Deer reactions tell a hell of a lot too.

Having said that, I've not actually missed at 400. Ive missed at 60 and ive missed at 100, not anything out at range though. Its always been a satisfying thud and drop.

 

[VSS]

I understand that perspective, it used to be a very popular one here in the US years ago. As I understand it long-range hunting isn't particularly popular on your side of the sea, much the way it wasn't popular here in decades passed. That's ok, everybody is welcome to their hunting practice in my opinion. I actually prefer people stay well within their comfortable practices, as its best for all involved. My children have been learning to hunt and shoot with me, as yet without the judgement or bias from other hunting perspectives we might consider antiquated. They have done very well for themselves so far as hunters, and I expect they could stand up against most of their peers hunting skills, regardless of their preferred practices.

I think one of the main differences is that you guys in the US don't seem to shoot many deer (as I understand it), compared to a UK stalker. Even a recreational (hobby) stalker here in the UK might be shooting a couple of hundred deer per year, and the professional guys will be knocking over 4x that many in a year.
So, when you demonstrate something that "works", and you do a write up all about it, you've only actually trialled it on a very small sample of animals. Whether you'd continue to get consistently good results when your sample size, per hunter, ran into hundreds of animals per year, is another matter.

 

[Lateral]

I didn't wan't to risk hijacking another thread, so I decided to start this one.
Shot placement is more important than caliber, bullet type, and bullet size. That isn't to say those other things aren't important, just that shot placement is more important. I have spent several years putting together photos and stories depicting this theory, and we've managed to make a pretty good body of evidence. We also discuss taboo subjects like hunting with match bullets, long-range hunting, solid copper bullets, and other things that some find a bit controversial.

For those who are interested in the topic, I'd welcome you to read and discuss here:

Is Shot Placement More Important than cartridge and bullet selection?​

I'm really sorry, but talk about stating the bleedin obvious ! It's like saying learn to drive, before worrying about what car, to buy, or what engine it has..............................

But once you pass the "test" shooting, or driving, the chambering, or engine needs to be appropriate the it's intended purpose, and ideally, with some head room, bigger calibre, & chambering for bigger game, bigger engine for towing....................

 

[coldboremiracle]

I think one of the main differences is that you guys in the US don't seem to shoot many deer (as I understand it), compared to a UK stalker. Even a recreational (hobby) stalker here in the UK might be shooting a couple of hundred deer per year, and the professional guys will be knocking over 4x that many in a year.
So, when you demonstrate something that "works", and you do a write up all about it, you've only actually trialled it on a very small sample of animals. Whether you'd continue to get consistently good results when your sample size, per hunter, ran into hundreds of animals per year, is another matter.

I suppose that's a possibility, but my method is shared by friends and government contract hunters who kill thousands of deer and elk, so possibly not?

 

[webley701]

I understand that perspective, it used to be a very popular one here in the US years ago. As I understand it long-range hunting isn't particularly popular on your side of the sea, much the way it wasn't popular here in decades passed. That's ok, everybody is welcome to their hunting practice in my opinion. I actually prefer people stay well within their comfortable practices, as it’s best for all involved. My children have been learning to hunt and shoot with me, as yet without the judgement or bias from other hunting perspectives we might consider antiquated. They have done very well for themselves so far as hunters, and I expect they could stand up against most of their peers hunting skills, regardless of their preferred practices.

Out of interest, what hunting practices do you consider “antiquated”?

 

[Bowland blades]

Its perfectly possible to drop a big Red Stag with .222 and 22 hornet IF PLACED SPOT ON THE SPOT ! Heavy high recoil heavy Dangerous game rifles are useless to kill a Rat IF YOU MISS IT . Nobody could deny the above !
What we need is Balance and logic in regards to the job at hand of which you are faced with .
IF ANYONE ISN'T SURE ASK THOSE WHO UNDERTAKE THE TASK AT HAND WELL

 

[Mungo]

In the case you are talking about, the shot between the eyes was a coup de gras. The bull had been shot through the lungs already seconds prior. The head shot was to finish the deed. It was included in the overall work to simply illustrate the point that a projectile might not have enough power to subdue an animal through traditional means, but could still do the trick when placed in an acutely sensitive place. Not that a 308 from 500 yards isn't enough for an elk, but other cartridge and bullet configurations might be.

So it was down, and the second shot was an insurance shot? From the same range?

Were you worried it was going to run?

 

[25 Sharps]

In the case you are talking about, the shot between the eyes was a coup de gras. The bull had been shot through the lungs already seconds prior. The head shot was to finish the deed. It was included in the overall work to simply illustrate the point that a projectile might not have enough power to subdue an animal through traditional means, but could still do the trick when placed in an acutely sensitive place. Not that a 308 from 500 yards isn't enough for an elk, but other cartridge and bullet configurations might be.

The caption is completely misleading then.

And your still suggesting a round that is not capable of a heart lung shot is fine for a head neck shot.

I have to be honest, I think you don’t show respect to quarry, I think you’re spouting rubbish and what you do is driven by ego.

 

[25 Sharps]

That is just silly.

What's the bet he was trying for the chest and got it wrong...

There’s also neck shot deer at 430 and 500 yards, and a head shot deer shot through the jaw/cheek.

Wonder how many we don’t hear about…..

 

[25 Sharps]

So it was down, and the second shot was an insurance shot? From the same range?

Were you worried it was going to run?

Lung shot with a match bullet, requiring a follow up….

 

[coldboremiracle]

So it was down, and the second shot was an insurance shot? From the same range?

Were you worried it was going to run?

It was still moving, and I generally don't like letting game suffer if it can be avoided. Insurance I suppose you could call it also.

 

[coldboremiracle]

I have to be honest, I think you don’t show respect to quarry, I think you’re spouting rubbish and what you do is driven by ego.

Cool opinion , you're entitled to it. Doesn't bother me.