Clipping a rib with the .270

Happens to me rather every time I cannot take a head shot. This way i deserve now the 270 for boar hunting and go for easier calibers for cervids..Thought 2750 fos with a 130 bullet is one average speed on 270. Not a real hot load
 
Happens to me rather every time I cannot take a head shot. This way i deserve now the 270 for boar hunting and go for easier calibers for cervids..Thought 2750 fos with a 130 bullet is one average speed on 270. Not a real hot load
Nope. More or less mirrors the .275 Rigby 👍

Where I shoot I generally get in close for a head or neck shot, but when I can't gtp the boiler room or I don't chance it. A lot of the time I get lucky and it slips in between. This time I didn't. I just thought it was an interesting example
 
Well, it does, in reality. You won't see any deduction for damage
At some dealers you will, my local does.

What it does show is that there is no incentive or reason to present a good carcass if one like that will command the same price as a cleanly presented head shot carcass.

It's like an employer saying they're paying everyone minimum wage because a handful of staff are unskilled and useless so those who do a good job are putting in the extra effort for nothing.
 
Oof 🤔

130 grain, 2750fps, 160 yards

View attachment 432355
Thank you for sharing this photo and the damage that can (more often than not) be caused when chest shooting.

There is nothing wrong with chest shooting, we all know it is a more forgiving shot placement allowing for greater shooter error but this does highlight the perceived value of the front end of a deer to some people.

If game dealers are accepting this and paying the same across the board then they must be writing off the front end as dog food and only concerned about the loins and haunches. Which again is their business but maybe finding a more discerning buyer would mean they get better prices dependent on what they're selling. I assume this is what my game dealer does.

I bet there are plenty of stalkers out there who don't butcher their own meat and either sell everything to a game dealer or go on paid stalks and let the stalker deal with the carcass. Maybe these stalkers don't realise what a carcass looks like once the skin is off and the carcass is broken down with a shot such as this one.
 
I bet there are plenty of stalkers out there who don't butcher their own meat and either sell everything to a game dealer or go on paid stalks and let the stalker deal with the carcass. Maybe these stalkers don't realise what a carcass looks like once the skin is off and the carcass is broken down with a shot such as this one.
Exactly 👍
 
A good example to show to all those who don't think that a carcass from a head shot deer should attract a higher price than one from a chest shot deer.
Head-shooting might marginally improve individual carcass value or meat quality, but it won't cause a market-wide venison price surge in the UK. It’s a best-practice refinement, not a market disruptor.
 
Head-shooting might marginally improve individual carcass value or meat quality, but it won't cause a market-wide venison price surge in the UK. It’s a best-practice refinement, not a market disruptor.
The whole point is that prices shouldn't be "market wide" they should be tailored to what is being sold. At the moment most game dealers pay the lowest rate they can for everything regardless how good it is rather than pay a sliding scale for good quality or even refusing or charging stalkers who drop off poorly shot or presented deer.
 
Head-shooting might marginally improve individual carcass value or meat quality, but it won't cause a market-wide venison price surge in the UK. It’s a best-practice refinement, not a market disruptor.
Yes, that’s absolutely true that it won't significantly alter the market.
However, the difference in value is more than most stalkers appreciate, which is why the @Quixote's pic is a good one to share.
The only fair way to price carcasses would be after skinning, because until then the extent of any damage can't be properly assessed, but in the meantime stalkers shouldn't be miffed if chest shot carcasses attract a lower price. It is the choice of the individual stalker to balance their personal ethics with carcass value, and no-one should allow themselves to be pressured into taking shots that are beyond their capability.
 
The whole point is that prices shouldn't be "market wide" they should be tailored to what is being sold. At the moment most game dealers pay the lowest rate they can for everything regardless how good it is rather than pay a sliding scale for good quality or even refusing or charging stalkers who drop off poorly shot or presented deer.
I agree, but my point is the current market wide value of venison in the UK does not rely on how clean a carcass is presented. Suddenly flooding the UK venison market with head shot deer and well presented carcasses won't suddenly increase the price of venison. Presenting a clean carcass to your game dealer it’s not enough to push national market prices up.
 
Yes, that’s absolutely true that it won't significantly alter the market.
However, the difference in value is more than most stalkers appreciate, which is why the @Quixote's pic is a good one to share.
The only fair way to price carcasses would be after skinning, because until then the extent of any damage can't be properly assessed, but in the meantime stalkers shouldn't be miffed if chest shot carcasses attract a lower price. It is the choice of the individual stalker to balance their personal ethics with carcass value, and no-one should allow themselves to be pressured into taking shots that are beyond their capability.

Absolutely, but a clean chest-shot deer with minimal bruising may deserve just as much as a head-shot carcass. It’s not about the shot it’s about the outcome.
 
Back
Top