rifles vs shotgun slugs for deer hunting

[SpeedAKL]

Just had an epic argument with a couple people about which was more effective for deer hunting here in VA. I favored rifles such as the .270 or .30-06 for their superior power, lower recoil, and immensely better ballistics. They argued for slugs, saying that rifles are dangerous and unnecessary to hunt with in the woods and that they won't have to worry about shots longer than 30 yards anyway, at which the slug will work fine. Discuss.

 

[SpeedAKL]

This probably needs to be moved somewhere else to get a more fair perspective...I've been out of it all day and just realized I put it in the rifle-specific forum, haha

 

[rcmodel]

superior power

A 12 ga slug (2,935 ft/lb) is more powerful (Muzzle Energy) then a .270, (2,700 ft/lb) and just about the exact match for an average 30-06 load.(2,950 ft/lb)

As for killing deer at 30 yards, it will ruin less meat then a high velocity rifle bullet at the same range, and leave a much larger blood trail for tracking, if necessary.

Only at longer ranges, 75 yards and beyond, is either rifle caliber superior to a 12 ga. slug for killing deer. And that is due to flat trajectory and long range accuracy, not energy.

And few can argue that a shotgun slug is probably much safer for use in highly populated areas of the country because of it's limited range compared to a .270 / 30-06 class deer rifle.


rcmodel

 

[SpeedAKL]

I've been told, though, that slugs will penetrate brush more than rifle rounds, thus creating more risk for people nearby.

 

[rcmodel]

I wouldn't bet on it.

Some of the bonded rifle bullets will deflect of brush and continue on quite a ways. It's not like they are simply going to disintergrate on a bush like a varment bullet will do.

A soft lead rifled slug will deform on brush & limbs, and loose energy quite rapidly after smacking a branch. And it was only going half as fast as the rifle bullet to start with.

I'd guess it would be a toss-up on which would be more dangerous after hitting brush.

I wouldn't want to get in the way of either one though.


rcmodel

 

[Guido2006]

With a rifled barrel and sabot slugs, you'll be good to 100-125 yds.
Smooth bore w/ normal slugs, probably looking at about 75-100 yds (those are effective deer killing distances). The drop of a slower slug becomes magnified as you get further out.

Anything past that and the rifle is clearly superior. Inside of 100 yds, either will be sufficient. In the woods, I doubt you'd get many shots past 100 yds. However, if you are on the edge of the woods, you might be siting over a couple hundred yards of field to one side.

As for the safety issue, range wise, a slug will travel less distance than a rifle bullet if you aimed to the sky and let them fly. Practically in the woods, they'll both probably hit a tree at relatively the same distance I'd imagine. EDIT: Some other posters brought up that the bullet will deflect easier, so it might actually travel less distance than the slug in the woods.

 

[Bartkowski]

I too have heard that heavy slugs just go through brush like nothing, whereas a faster bullet will deflect or fragment.

For close range like that, it doesn't matter how flat your gun shoots, I'd take a Marlin 336 in 30-30 for a woods deer rifle though.

 

[grimjaw]

I've been told, though, that slugs will penetrate brush more than rifle rounds, thus creating more risk for people nearby.

I wouldn't count on brush being a firm backstop in any case. Slugs are going to drop sooner than .270 or .30-06.

jm

 

[SpeedAKL]

The background story:

A few of my buddies are going deer hunting in a couple weeks and are using slugs....two are using rifled slugs from a smooth barrel and one is using sabots from his rifled 870. I wanted to bring a Mosin M44 along, but they said it was on private property and would be dangerous, and that it would ruin too much meat. In addition, the discussion also turned into an argument about the moral aspect of hunting for thrills (which they think is inappropriate because it kills without use) versus hunting for food.

 

[Bartkowski]

If it were so dangerous there would be way more accidents than we hear about in the news, and hunting for thrills is fine with me as long as you don't just kill the animal and let it sit there, give it to a friend or soup kitchen.

 

[Deer Hunter]

I hunt for thrills and meat.

It's having the cake and eating it too.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

For me it depends. Some places I go I know the shot will be 50 yards and under. I take the 20 with hollow point sabots. If I'm going along the power line on our land or somewhere where it isn't as certain, I grab a rifle. As to hunting with a Mosin, I use 203 grain soft points and they will do nasty things. I fill up a box with wet newspaper packed tightly and use it as a comparison for my bullets.
Monarch 7.62x54r 203 grain out of a 1945 m44 on newspaper at 30 yards:

As you can see this is an exit. There is an entrance from another shot to the left for comparison.

 

[Orr89rocz]

i hunt with both rifle and slug gun and have taken deer with both. i hope to add another deer to myslug gun list this year

rifled slugs dont travel as far for sure compared to high velocity rifle loads. 270/30.06 with the right gun/load will kill deer to 500 yards. rifled slug gun may never get that far. they loose velocity too quickly.

modern sabots come out very quick and hold speed for quite a distant. if the gun is accurate enough, 200 yards is not out of the question for modern sabots to kill a deer

but they loose velocity too unlike a rifle, since they start out so slow in comparison and are much heavier bullets.

too keep velocity and energy up at ranges 75-150 yards for a slug, you need to push them out the barrel very quickly which increases recoil substantially. some of the top slug loads are absolutely brutal on the shoulder. my gun is now abit over 11 lbs and still punishes me. my dads 06 and my 35 whelen dont hurt anywhere as much in much lighter 7-8 lb guns

as far as safety, i would bet shotguns with much lower velocity and soft rifled lead slugs are much safer than rifles. modern jacketed sabots are not as safe as rifled lead slugs i'd say but still safer than rifle loads.

but then again you need to be cautious about when you decide to shoot and what your background/path of the bullet looks like. Dont shoot when its unsafe to do so

 

[Shawnee]

For starters, I'll agree hands-down with Bartkowski's point about rifles being more dangerous - if it weren't hogwash - would be borne out by accident rates - and it isn't.

As for the lame old claim about rifle bullets "ruining more meat" - that business can be cast aside because it is largely shot placement that ruins meat and - in the real world - there isn't one U.S. hunter in a thousand who really cares about a few extra mouthfuls of venison one way or the other. Even at that, I'd bet tons more venison is ruined because the harvester didn't take proper care of it between field and table.

Truth is - a very good case could be made to assert that the use of shotguns with slugs is most dangerous. Stay tuned...

So has anyone wondered how that whole "shotguns are safer" hoax got started in the first place - and who started it ?

Well... let's see. Back in the day when it was deer rifles-only to hunt deer the deer-hunting population (read license-buying population) was limited because not so many people were willing, or could afford, to go out and buy a special gun to use just a few days a year.

Down at the F&G Dept they were sitting around wondering how they could increase license sales and someone realized that - while few people would go buy deer rifles - almost everyone had a shotgun - so change the rules to "shotgun only" (under the pretense of "safety") and PRESTO - suddenly nearly everyone in the state now had a deer weapon - often more than one and thus practically overnight the number of "deer hunters" (read: license buyers) went from "few" to "nearly everyone" and their cousin Mortimer too !
Needeless to say the F&G really appreciated the huge increase in their budget from the huge increase in license sales - but of course their real motive was just their good-hearted concern for the safety of all of us. (read: ).

But back to the "shotguns are more dangerous" idea.

When there were a few rifle hunters out there they were people who were avid enough to spend for, and learn about, the "extra" weapon, and usually mature enough to act with some responsibility and experience. Their weapons abd skills were accurate enough to easily group within a pie plate.

But when the shotgun was made the deer gun - every cityslicker and their 9-year-old nephew who could find an old smokepole was now a deerhunter - regardless of whether they knew what a deer looked like and regardless of their respect for the game or the land or the landowner. And nearly all those old shotguns were woefully inaccurate - throwing slugs hither and yon in different directions with every shot. And then there was the sheer increase in numbers of shooters afield. So what really sounds more dangerous?

But - the important thing is it made a lot more money for the F&G and that is what they care about - except for their heartwarming concern for their beloved sucke - er constituents, of course.

Think about it.

Local opinion may vary.

 

[MCgunner]

I will forever be a rifleman. Shotguns are for the birds.

A 12 ga slug (2,935 ft/lb) is more powerful (Muzzle Energy) then a .270, (2,700 ft/lb) and just about the exact match for an average 30-06 load.(2,950 ft/lb)

Sure, at the muzzle. Somewhere between the chronograph screens, a .30-30 passes the 12 gauge slug, though. LOL! Serious, what's a slug got at 100 yards downrange, maybe a 1K ft lbs left? It has the ballistic coefficient of a brick. Those saboted hour glass loads are a little better, but no 6.5mm 140 grain spitzer boat tail for BC, I can tell ya that! Nope, give me a rifle that shoots 1 MOA or better for deer hunting and I'm happy, or a pistol. I wanna be able to pick the hair on his back at 100 yards. Just call me picky.

 

[eliphalet]

More to it than "energy", velocity is involved, ever see what bullet from a rifle does to a animals lungs compared to what a big ol' slow slug does? No comparison really, one has hole punched through it and the other is jellied, practically destroyed.

I think one real reason of shotgun only is the distance a rifle will or can travel compared to a shotgun slug. Shoot a 270 level or slightly upward or a 12 gauge slug the same, the distance traveled is or can be very different. How much drop does a shotgun slug have in 300 yards compared to a 270? Velocity difference at 1/2 mile?

 

[Orr89rocz]

modern sabot loads can have more than 1500-1700lbft at 100 yards. 2 3/4" Partition golds carry 2100ft/lbs at 100 yards. thats almost as much as a 140 grain failsafe out of a 270 winchester. only 200 from a 30-06. partitions will carry 1500 out to 175/200 yards or so. They are getting pretty good with those loads.

 

[MCgunner]

1500-1700 ft lbs, eh. Well, just lookin' at a few print outs for my handloads in my reloading notes, My .308 is pushing 2572 fps/2203 ft lbs at 100 yards, so it caught up and passed the ol' slug (aren't they called slugs because they're slow?) and it's still carrying 1540 ft lbs at 325 yards! The slug done fell in the dirt by 325 yards. My 7 mag is pushing 1716 ft lbs at 500 yards! At 100 yards, it's got 2926 ft lbs, around the slug at the muzzle.

And, yeah, the internal organ destruction that big 7 does has to be seen to be believed. Lung tissue just disappears, vaporizes. It's a bit much for whitetail.

Even my little .257 Roberts is making 1858 ft lbs at 100 yards, starts out at 2103. It's kickin' up 1557 ft lbs at 200 yards. That rifle has killed a LOT of deer in its 50 years and one out over 300 yards. Now, depending on my grandpa's story, it was as much as 450 and on a dead run, but eye witnesses to the scene said it was far side of 300. They used to tease him about his "pop gun" on the lease, but that sorta shut 'em up.

To top all that off, even my 7 mag's recoil is mild compared to a 12 gauge 2 3/4" slug. Man, I fired some in my old double once and wound up pointing 12 o'clock after the shot. OUCH!

 

[Orr89rocz]

just saying they arent as weak as you make them out to be... for under 100 yards, in which MOST deer game are taken in wooded areas, there are some very potent slug loads developing lots of energy and more importantly wound channels that will probly take a deer out quicker than most rifles given the same shot placement. you can poke 25-28 caliber holes into those deer all you want.... i do like the idea of 50-73 caliber holes myself Its the big bore slower velocity theory old timers like over the modern high velocity light bullet shock theories. bigger bullets--they bleed easier, much easier to track and usually that 385-500 grain slug hitting that 180lb deer, doesnt leave much tracking The doe i shot at 30-40 yards with my platinum tips ran probly 15 yards and slid another 10-15 downhill in the snow. exit hole the size of a walnut out the back side, right thru the lower lungs and probly abit of the heart. perfect slug performance. all the deer i've shot with rifles from 6mm to 35 whelen, this slug doe traveled the shortest distance and all my shots have been lung shots on deer

if your under 100-150 yards i'd say a modern sabot slug is a good choice, no difference over a rifle except for recoil. "generally safer" since slugs dont have alot of speed compared to rifles. if you do longer shooting then rifle it up by alll means. my area i hunt a rifle or shotgun makes no big difference, i dont have shots over 130 yards i'd say.

 

[M_Olson]

as far as the more/less dangerous argument, heres a copy/paste from a previous thread on the subject:

There is an article in the most recent issue of Guns Magazine debunking the "slugs are safer" theory. Here is a teaser for the story, http://gunsmagazine.com/DSG1107.html. It makes for interesting reading. I'll try to find the study discussed in the article and post a link.

ETA: Found it. http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/

ETA: my link is screwy. Click on the "Reports Released" on the left side of the screen. Scroll down to "Game and Fisheries" and click on the first report. It's a 75 page PDF file.

 

[Titan6]

If we follow the rules (be sure of your backstop and what is behind it comes to mind) than the shotgun for safety argument is moot. Inside 100 yards I find a shotgun superior. Over 150 and I can't seem to hit a thing. Since the deer don't always go where I want them to I usually use a rifle unless I know that there won't be reason to shoot past 100 yards, in which case I use a shotgun. But either is just fine.

Shawnee- I am not so sure about your history of why some states are shotgun only. Do you have any reference for that?

 

[5ptdeerhunter]

In Michigan we have two zones. Rifle hunting zone and shotgun hunting zone. The shotgun zone covers the lower section of the lower peninsula. (I think it's because it is mostly farms, and there are quite a few houses, at least on the east side of the state) I hunt there most of the season with my 870, and I am confident up to 125 yards no problem. But when I get to hunt in the rifle zone I use a rifle, simply because of the range. But where I do hunt with a rifle I hardly get a shot that is over 100 yards, but I feel reassured that I can shoot a greater distance if the opportunity presents itself. My cousin has taken deer with his .308 at and over 300 yards. That is something you can't do with a slug.

 

[MCgunner]

I have no doubt that inside a hundred yards and providing for accuracy, especially one of the sabot rifled barrel rigs with a scope, a shotgun is effective out to a hundred or so yards and might even be stretched to 150 with the sabots. However, I am and will forever be a rifleman.

Shotguns are versatile. Having the slug option ALMOST turns 'em into a rifle, at least to 50 yards, even with a bead sight and smooth bore. That's a cool thing about shotguns. They make a great gun for the survival type because of that. I have this little double barrel screw in choked coach gun in 20 gauge that I can break down and stow in my backpack. It's quite light and quite effective with slugs to 50 yards and will take birds or small game just as well as any 28" barreled shotgun. When you think about it, that's kinda cool! If one were backpacking in bear country or wanting to pack along a long arm for survival for any reason, bush pilot maybe, this is probably the most versatile type of firearm you could choose. Heck, Stoeger even makes a survival OU 12 gauge with rifle type sights just for this type of weapon.

For deer/hog hunting or any other big game, though, I'll stick with my rifles. Where my land is, I could get away with hunting with a shotgun. Longest shot I've ever made there was about 150 yards with my .257 Roberts, dead right there. However, I've pulled off a 300 yard shot before out in New Mexico with my big 7 and 100 yard plus is not uncommon in west Texas. It sorta depends on where you are hunting, but when I know I'll have all my shots under 100 yards, I'm more apt to grab my Contender than my rifle and certainly wouldn't go for one of my shotguns. I like handgunning deer, it's fun and challenging. Even if I lived in the midwest where they think rifles are evil (parish the thought), I'd go black powder before I'd pick up a shotgun. I just prefer rifles on big game.