a scholarly thread
H&Hhunter & others,
This is a very interesting and useful thread for me. Thanks. I've been away from hunting for years, and the last time I hunted - as a teen & early 20's guy - I didn't study such topics as this much. Now it seems much more relevant ... AND interesting. (Part of my interest lies in the fact that I'm a biologist with more knowledge of the organs & tissues being shot at than how to shoot them...but thanks to more knowledgeable folks like you, I'm gaining on the latter.
Nematocyst-870
A true statement sir. I am not , however, a proponent of the head or neck shot due to the very real possibility of a non bleeding wound if the "cpu" or the spine aren't hit. Which is a very real possibility with either shot.
Good points, H&H. I agree.
Just for the record, I was also agreeing with you in my original post, even if perhaps I didn't articulate it quite well enough. My point was that IF (a low probability event) one could hit a head more easily than a shoulder with high probability (let's say in a
hypothetical situation where the head of the animal was 2' closer to you than its shoulders, and closing in at a velocity of 10' per second), THEN a head shot (actually, of course, brain shot) may be the better option. Otherwise, I'm definitely in your school of thought.
I'm also firmly in your camp (actually, probably more Oldnamvet's camp) when it comes to distance. I've been reading lots of threads in rifle country about (approximately) .30 cal rifles (.30-30, .35, .308, -'06...) because within coming months I'm planning to purchase one. As I've explained
in another thread, I foolishly sold my Marlin 336 in .35 a number of years ago during a financial crunch while trying to finish grad school. It was the only rifle larger than a .22 I ever owned (well, OK, there was the .58 Springfield caplock, but ...)
Now, I want another rifle. I am considering another Marlin 336 in either .30-30 or .35, but am lusting for .308 & 30-06 also. In addition to numerous other factors in the decision, I'm considering effective range & accuracy with that range.
Again, that's one reason I'm finding interest in this thread.
Personally, I doubt that I'd attempt a hunting shot longer than 100-150 yds, regardless of what rifle I wind up with. (Unless in some future-primitive scenario, I found myself desparately hungry...). I don't have the skills, and for the time being, am unlikely to be able to spend the time developing them in the near future. But, of course, even at 50 yds, shot placement is very important.
Hey, I'm guessing from some of your signature lines - not to mention that "8 bore"
- that you hunt <ahem>
LARGE game in Africa.
(By the way, could someone offer a word about what, exactly, an "8 bore" is. I get a bunch of hits on Google for "8 bore rifle", but nothing descriptive for the rifle-undereducated like me.)
Being a large game hunter with an appreciation of the feeling of not being at the top of the food chain, have you ever heard of
entelodonts? They lived in my region about 30 - 35 million years ago. Fortunately, they only exist now as fossils, because some were the size of rhinos, and had head lengths in the 1 meter range. They were omnivores, feeding on vegetation, carrion and - according to a description on a self-guided tour sign in John Day Fossil Beds N'tional Monument - "any small mammals that got in their way".
Relative to one of those, I'd be a small mammal.
If I ever meet one running rapidly in my direction with a look in its eye that says I'm dinner, I'll take an 8 bore and a head shot for 50, please, Alex.
I look forward to learning more about shot placement in this thread.
Nem