Well, as promised in this thread, I thought that it would be worthwhile to discuss what your thoughts are on the rarely-discussed but often-tried "bunghole shot."
The shot, simply put, is a last resort shot. It involves killing a deer (or elk or what have you) with a shot to the vitals from directly behind. Typically this is fired at an alerted deer, and the white tail is up, providing a brilliant point to find in one's sights. If you hold precicely on that white tail, you're not really trying for a "bunghole" shot; you're aiming for the base of the neck or the top of the spine. This will most assuredly kill the deer, but gives you a smaller margin for error. As this shot usually entails a moving target (albeit a target that is moving directly away from you), a wider margin for error is often preferable. In such an instance, the hunter may decide to drive a bullet directly between the hams, through the gut, and into the thoracic cavity. This is actually done with some regularity without destroying any meat, but there's a mess to deal with upon cleanup. There is almost always some significant meat damage, as well; the bull's eye (or brown eye, I suppose
) is pretty small, and the likelyhood of hitting a ham or a backstrap is pretty good. I
f you're using a lighter caliber or lightly-constructed bullet, this is NOT the shot to take. A .243 can completely expend itself in the ham and pelvis of a good sized deer, never making it forward of the gut. Likewise you hunters who like to put 130g bullets into '06s and .300 WinMags-- that's a LONG way for a bullet to have to traverse to reach the heart and longs.
On a personal note, I've tried this shot on about three or four occasions, with mixed success. On one, I clean missed the first shot and anchored the deer with the second shot, after driving a bullet all the way through the right ham to rest against the sternum. On another, I ended up hitting a bush with my first shot, so I held higher and hit her in the head with my second. On other occasions, I clean missed the deer. Why? Because it was running away from me. Nowdays, I like to believe I wound't take those shots, because of the distance and the fact that they were running.
There has been some discussion of the ability of a round on a head-on shot to punch through to accurately hit the vitals, and more on the issue of possibly piercing the gut with the bullet after it passes though the chest on a head-on shot. This has never much bothered me, I must confess. I only load rounds with bullets that can penetrate the ribcage of a deer from any angle, and I take pride in doing a good job of cleaning my deer in the field. Any clearly tainted meat, I'll excise. (Read, any meat touching the wound channel after the bullet has passed through the gut.)
What are your thoughts on the issue?
The shot, simply put, is a last resort shot. It involves killing a deer (or elk or what have you) with a shot to the vitals from directly behind. Typically this is fired at an alerted deer, and the white tail is up, providing a brilliant point to find in one's sights. If you hold precicely on that white tail, you're not really trying for a "bunghole" shot; you're aiming for the base of the neck or the top of the spine. This will most assuredly kill the deer, but gives you a smaller margin for error. As this shot usually entails a moving target (albeit a target that is moving directly away from you), a wider margin for error is often preferable. In such an instance, the hunter may decide to drive a bullet directly between the hams, through the gut, and into the thoracic cavity. This is actually done with some regularity without destroying any meat, but there's a mess to deal with upon cleanup. There is almost always some significant meat damage, as well; the bull's eye (or brown eye, I suppose
) is pretty small, and the likelyhood of hitting a ham or a backstrap is pretty good. If you're using a lighter caliber or lightly-constructed bullet, this is NOT the shot to take. A .243 can completely expend itself in the ham and pelvis of a good sized deer, never making it forward of the gut. Likewise you hunters who like to put 130g bullets into '06s and .300 WinMags-- that's a LONG way for a bullet to have to traverse to reach the heart and longs.
On a personal note, I've tried this shot on about three or four occasions, with mixed success. On one, I clean missed the first shot and anchored the deer with the second shot, after driving a bullet all the way through the right ham to rest against the sternum. On another, I ended up hitting a bush with my first shot, so I held higher and hit her in the head with my second. On other occasions, I clean missed the deer. Why? Because it was running away from me. Nowdays, I like to believe I wound't take those shots, because of the distance and the fact that they were running.
There has been some discussion of the ability of a round on a head-on shot to punch through to accurately hit the vitals, and more on the issue of possibly piercing the gut with the bullet after it passes though the chest on a head-on shot. This has never much bothered me, I must confess. I only load rounds with bullets that can penetrate the ribcage of a deer from any angle, and I take pride in doing a good job of cleaning my deer in the field. Any clearly tainted meat, I'll excise. (Read, any meat touching the wound channel after the bullet has passed through the gut.)
What are your thoughts on the issue?
.
. Apparently he had just grazed her belly & it had held everything in until she jumped over the stream at which point she "exploded". I still poke fun at him every time I see him "manually" field dressing a deer & ask why he is doing that the hard way.
. My feeling is that a responsible hunter should always try for a clean and quick kill. Obviously, that doesn't always happen, but we try. But to intentionally take a shot that you know won't do that is.... well, it ain't a good thing, IMO.
, Art