Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Liver Shot

Discussion in 'Hunting' started by ArtP, Dec 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    I've read before that if a bullet destroys the liver of a game animal, it's considered a vital or semi-vital organ and can incapacitate quickly.

    From what I know about anatomy, and that might not be much, the only way to quickly incapacitate is to disrupt oxygen to the brain or damage the central nervous system.

    What am I missing?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
  2. GJgo

    GJgo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    966
    Location:
    Western Colorado
    I don't have a technical explanation, but in my time I have shot both deer & elk in the liver & in each case the animal was on the ground within 5-10 seconds. Not as fast as a heart shot, but much faster than a lung shot. YMMV, I suppose.
     
  3. Liberty1776

    Liberty1776 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Nothing. Your instincts are right. A liver shot is a bad idea and can take a hell of a long time to bleed out. It is not incapacitating, especially considering the bullet may have to punch through a stomach or two full of woody browse, depending on the angle...
     
  4. 303tom

    303tom member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,059
    Location:
    Missouri
    Shock kills more times than not..........
     
  5. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Why do you suppose, the liver is mostly shown on kill zone charts? There are numerous other organs left off kill zone charts. To me, it must be of some significance.
     
  6. hirundo82

    hirundo82 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    The Deep South
    Physiologically, the only way to stop an animal is to stop the central nervous system from functioning. This can be accomplished either by direct damage or by interrupting the oxygen supply (ie blood flow).

    The liver has a lot of blood flow through it--all the blood returning from the gut goes through the liver. A good hit to the liver will bleed a lot, and the animal should bleed out in relatively short order. It is nowhere near as reliable as a heart/lung shot though.
     
  7. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    It will kill the animal
    a human shot in the liver will die in about 30 minutes to an hour depending on how bad it was lacerated. And for most of that will be conscious, LOTS of bleeding virtually impossible to stop. The other organs are left off cause while it will kill them, that will happen hours to days later. Question is, why aim there, a lung shot takes their wind away, so at least if the don't flop, they can't/won't run so hard.
     
  8. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    I never would aim for the liver.

    I have a curious mind to a fault, and from time to time, I thought of the subject yet I never could come up with anything that made sense or could explain why the liver was mentioned as vital.

    Heavy bleeding makes sense.
     
  9. 280shooter

    280shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    699
    I shot deer with arrows in the liver,, they didnt last long... they bled out fast,,they walk around then lay down, and die fast,,,I like a quartering away shot. through the liver then lungs and heart area, they dont last long...
     
  10. caribou

    caribou Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,582
    Location:
    North West Alaska
    My wife grandfather lanced Caribou from his kayak as they crossed the river, his aiming point was behind the last rib, which where the liver would be peirced and no bone struk.

    Later, his son , my fatherinlaw used a .22 to the same effect, but with a brain shot.

    Today we use a power boat and a .22 , yet al;l at the same site, same caribou, same reasons and same use......now we have speed, in its various forms, in transportation and weapons.
    Also, my fatherinlaw taught me that if you have to have a larger target because one of your sights is missing or your vision bad (lost glasses, snow blind, ect) the Liver is a large mid animal target.

    If I do, indeed, gut shoot a Caribou or any other animal, I clean it with snow or grass, wiping as much as possible out, and leave the liver for last. I cut the liver and letting them bleed out into the cavity,I place the animal on its back, gut and I wipe the blood around and get out the rest of any moss or chewed vegitation into the inch deep blood in the cavity,, then smoke what I got, have coffee, gas up,........ something to pass 10 minutes, then I tip out the huge clot and all thats in it, that has congeeled while the carcass cooled, and firmed up, and the only sign of a gut shoot is the bullect holes.

    As well, the liver, heart, tounge and kindeys make a great hot meal out in the country while hunting
     
  11. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Caribou, fascinating stories which I found reason to read twice. one, your grandfather-in-law, and the other your own.

    It's my wish that such lessons can somehow find their way into our modern world for me to pass on to my grandchildren, at worst case, from stories I've recounted.

    Thanks for your post!
     
  12. RhinoDefense

    RhinoDefense Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    883
    Facepalm
     
  13. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    you know, when you post a remark that makes no sense, without explanation, and your signature is an advertisement, it doesn't exactly bode well for your cause. In fact it's negative PR, and the phrase "all PR is good PR", doesn't apply.
     
  14. RhinoDefense

    RhinoDefense Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    883
    Facepalm is someone holding their face in the palm of their hand, usually in disbelief of a comment or opinion of someone else that is so far from fact it's dumbfounding. Welcome to the Internet.

    Shock is BS. Does it occur? Yes. Does it kill? No. Does shock kill more times than not? No. To post a comment of "Shock kills more times than not" is such a misunderstanding of terminal ballistics I don't know where to begin.

    Regarding my signature and my company... When have you or anyone else witnessed my account here selling anything? When have you or anyone else witnessed my account here advertising anything of my brand as being for sale to forum users? My signature is there for a disclaimer that I'm a member of the firearms and ammunition industry, not here to sell or other such waste of time on forums. I do plenty of business and make more than enough profit in the markets I serve off the Internet.
     
  15. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA

    Well, you just face-palmed yourself.

    With a one word, vague, comment and an advertisement as a signature, what would you expect?

    If my opinion were asked, I'd offer the biggest offenders of "facepalm" are those who make simple comment or opinion without explanation. What good is that?

    And trust me Rhino, this opinion was formed before your confirmed it.
     
  16. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    Technically, the lack of perfusion (medical definition of SHOCK)
    is the cause of ALL death... just saying, shock kills, actually it's the only thing that really kills, it just happens that there are many numerous ways to inflict it.

    Facepalm...

    Liver is a good target, just saying it may not be the quickest, but it is a sure one.
     
  17. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    but you're talking about shock in the sense that blood loss is "shock". The original poster (of that lame comment) was talking about hydrostatic shock, which is all together different and still debated.
     
  18. Freedom_fighter_in_IL

    Freedom_fighter_in_IL Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,097
    Wow, I find it amazing that such ignorance abounds in this world of information.

    Rhino, have you never heard of "hemorrhagic shock"? Let me define it for you. "Hemorrhagic shock is a condition of reduced tissue perfusion, resulting in the inadequate delivery of oxygen and nutrients that are necessary for cellular function. Whenever cellular oxygen demand outweighs supply, both the cell and the organism are in a state of shock."

    Now not only do you have "hemorrhagic shock" but you also have "Hydrostatic shock". Let me define this for you as well. Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact.

    BOTH kill. As a matter of fact both kill more frequently than CNS disruption because CNS disruption is not a "favored" shot option in most cases. Before you attempt to discredit someones opinion, try boning up on some facts.

    Now as to the OP's question. As has already been stated pretty well, a liver shot, while not being in the best percentile of shot choices, will produce a fairly quick kill from either firearm or bow. It tends to bleed heavily. Especially if hit in the middle to upper lobe of the liver where there are a couple of major arteries. If unpushed, a deer will lay down in fairly short order and expire. If you feel you have connected well into the liver, give the deer about an hour to two hours before you even attempt to go after it. I have often seen them go from 50 to 100 yards then bed down with bow hits to the liver. Also, more often than not, you will nick the rear lower lobe of a lung if you hit a liver. Of course that depends on shot angle. But more often than not, you will see at least slight lung damage as well as liver strike.
     
  19. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    ArtP wrote
    Yeah, um that...
    I wouldn't touch 'hydrostatic' shock with your 10 foot pole
    Lets just say I'm a big believer in the medical definition of shock, everything else is not guaranteed. And no it's not blood loss, it's more about the transport of needed cellular nutrient and the removal of waste, along with the body processes that happen when the aforementioned process start to fail.
     
  20. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    no, you're close.

    Shock, in the medical sense is a loss of blood pressure, oxygen to the brain and a build up of carbon dioxide that can't be evaccuated.

    I think we're close enough by definition to agree and scoff the hydrostatic shock idea that was mentioned earlier.

    No sarcasm intended to you.
     
  21. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Wow!

    FF, I'm certainly impressed with your knowledge of anatomy!! There is no doubt about that.

    However, through the reading I've done, I've yet to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that hydrostatic shock actually kills. None of us can really be sure of the cause of death, but oxygen starvation as a means of death is a certainty that can't be debated. To me, hydrostatic shock makes sense on paper, but there isn't proof. Without proof it remains nothing more than a theory that I contemplate.

    I've read my share of studies and I do understand the logic. It does take more than an understanding of what may be possible to convince me that something is real.

    I wasn't even aware that there was such a thing as hemorrhagic shock, but the mere mention of it, doesn't cause me to suddenly believe in it, either.
     
  22. Freedom_fighter_in_IL

    Freedom_fighter_in_IL Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,097
    ArtP, Hem shock is just a fancy term for bleeding either internally or externally to the point of oxygen deprivation.

    As far as the hydro argument, I've seen a LOT of damage from the "temporary" wound cavity and tend to believe in the theory myself. Plus I have a pretty good understanding of hydraulics and can picture the effects it would have on cellular makeups. Imagine it this way, blunt force trauma to the liver or spleen by way of a punch. I saw several guys in the fight game with lacerated spleens and livers from PUNCHES. How else could you explain lacerations of an internal organ other than hydraulic force? Same theory goes for the extreme deceleration of a bullet upon impact of tissue. It's really very simple physics. I just don't get why people have such a hard time with it myself.
     
  23. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    FF,

    I have to admit, in the studies I've read, if they can be read without any doubt, always gave a cellular reason for hydro-shock. That is that extreme pressure, carried vascular, interrupted the CNS. I had a hard time with this, thinking the tiny size of capillaries would not carry that pressure forward. In the scenario you mentioned, smaller and smaller hydraulic lines may not cause much damage if ruptured.

    However, shown in your light, with the analogy of the boxer with internal organ tearing, makes total sense and DOES give example and credibility.

    I can't say much beyond I'm glad you pointed that out. In other words, I'm not going to proclaim to have the ultimate key terminal ballistics, but I am going to always think about your post when it comes to humane kills. And that's a compliment coming form this skeptic!

    Thanks for sharing!
     
  24. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    FF the boxer...
    Newtons laws, the fact that your insides are pretty spacious and there is room for stuff to 'rattle' around and sheering force of 'hard' tissues

    Hydrostatic stock is SHOCK WAVES
    they tend to pop or knock over stuff, so if the liver is exploded then yeah, I'll take that as damage due to the temporary wound cavity

    Now I shoot you in the big toe and your liver explodes like a popcorn kernel, then yeah, I'll give you your hypothesis
    it's about the damage
    'hydrostatic shock' is not a consistent nor a consistently proven method of injury at the energy level produced by a bullets impact.

    but now I'm getting off topic
    the point is the liver is a viable target, that will produce a consistent kill when shot.
     
  25. ArtP

    ArtP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Alrighty then. You just re-invoked the skeptic in me.

    "insides are pretty spacious"?

    "room to rattle"?

    "hard tissue"?

    How can you possibly describe the "waves"? Video? Were you there? How were they measured?

    Hydro static shock, even with your best analogy remains a theory and there's nothing "consistent" about a theory. Right?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page