If you would shoot it with a bow why not a .243?
- Thread starter RoscoeT
- Start date
This is correct as far as I have read. From what I have seen, a deer does not die quickly unless hit in vital organs. A heavy rifle shot will cause more trauma based on hydrostatic shock and in theory result in more knock down power.
However a hole though both lungs, one in the heart or a combo of this, Bambi is pretty much anchored in place. May run ~30 yards on pure adrenalin. But once that chest cavity fills with blood, they are down. I've not yet buggered a shot bad enough to see them not recovered. Knock on wood.
My .243 is like a laser beam. I've been very happy with it.
Where do you place a shot that kills a deer without any bleeding, brain I guess. Poor shot placement relies on blood loss to kill? Heart\lung shots are what everyone considers good shot placement because the animal bleeds out and dies quickly.
Meh.
Where you hit it, matters more than what you hit it with.
After that, choosing the appropriate 'thing' to hit it with (appropriate projectile) matters in all cases.
Use the .243. Hit where it counts. Use an appropriate bullet. Eat steak all the coming year!
Where you hit it, matters more than what you hit it with.
After that, choosing the appropriate 'thing' to hit it with (appropriate projectile) matters in all cases.
Use the .243. Hit where it counts. Use an appropriate bullet. Eat steak all the coming year!
I met an older woman up north moose hunting some years back who used an 88Win in 243. Met her, and her gang on day #3, where we helped them retrieve two fork bulls. She had shot both of them. Talking later that night at camp one fella in their gang told us she had taken 30 or so moose over the years with that very rifle. When I asked how many got away wounded, he assured me none, and said she rarely fired more than one shot.
ninepointer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Central Ontario
No offense, but if you are speaking from experience I think your experiences differ from the experiences of most of those of us who hunt with both guns and archery.
I can only speak in terms of whitetailed deer, but as an overwhelming general rule my tracking jobs are much easier (if needed at all) with a gun.
With a rifle a bang-flop is quite common.
With an arrow a twang-flop is an unexpected bonus.
what Im tying to say is with guns the hydrostatic shock is what kills game mostly, then comes major organs damage and lastly bleeding, cant put a projectile of any kind into a living thing without causing bleeding,
the shape and size of a bullet is not a most effective way of causing bleeding, unlike an arrowhead which is designed to cut as many blood vessels as encountered
a damaged hart is not able to pump blood starving brain of nutrients and oxygen, death occures within minutes when minimal levels are not acheived, same goes with lungs, an animal drowns in its own blood, the amount that it takes to fill lungs (no, not all the way to the top, one can drawn in a spoon of liquid after all
) wouldnt necessarly cause death if it was drained from a limb or other non vital organ
notsorichguy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- The city that rhymes with fun
I used to know an older native gentleman who had great success on moose and caribou (woodland variety). The only rifle he ever owned was a cooey single shot in 22LR.
He always said " if you get to with-in 40' and shoot them behind the ear, they always go down!"
He was always successful, 30+ times that I know of, with a one shot kill........
Would I ever, no. Would I ever recommend it, no.
He always said " if you get to with-in 40' and shoot them behind the ear, they always go down!"
He was always successful, 30+ times that I know of, with a one shot kill........
Would I ever, no. Would I ever recommend it, no.
Pudelpointer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lethbridge, Alberta
You have a very poor understanding of how a broadhead kills. A "sharp" broadhead that goes through the lungs of a relaxed deer (or elk, or moose, or bison, or....) will result in a completely incapacitated animal in 6 seconds, period.
I have seen it happen many times. Shoot deer in the lungs, count to 6 and never hear another sound.
The key to the 6 second rule is - using an extremely sharp braodhead, not one you have shot into a target a half dozen times (or even once!). We are talking surgically sharp.
Use a dull broadhead, and then yes, tracking an animal for hours is a distinct possibility on even the most perfectly placed arrow.
What you are suggesting as the "norm" Suka, is BS, and is the same crap the PETA types like to spew. Ethical hunters (whether using a rifle or bow) know their tools and know their quarry, and kill with respect. Morons on the other hand, well....
ETA, as for the OPs question, using proper bullets in the .243 makes it a much more versatile tool than a bow. Range and accuracy are exponentially higher with a rifle than any bow. Bullet selection being the only concern with the .243
what Im tying to say is with guns the hydrostatic shock is what kills game mostly, then comes major organs damage and lastly bleeding, cant put a projectile of any kind into a living thing without causing bleeding,
the shape and size of a bullet is not a most effective way of causing bleeding, unlike an arrowhead which is designed to cut as many blood vessels as encountered
a damaged hart is not able to pump blood starving brain of nutrients and oxygen, death occures within minutes when minimal levels are not acheived, same goes with lungs, an animal drowns in its own blood, the amount that it takes to fill lungs (no, not all the way to the top, one can drawn in a spoon of liquid after all
I will agree that without hydrstatic shock a bullet would not do nearly as much damage. What I am saying is, it is not the shock that kills it is the resulting tissue damage and blood loss.
If you shot deer with an arrow tipped with a field point it would cause a small hole and minimal tissue damage\blood loss. When you shoot a deer with that same arrow tipped with a sharp broadhead you create large tissue damage\blood loss.
If you shoot a deer with a 150gr non-expanding bullet traveling 2700fps the result is a small wound channel, slow bleeding.
If you use a 150gr soft point bullet traveling 2700fps the result is a large wound channel and massive bleeding.
Both bullets would hit with the same amount of energy, but the soft point bullet can use the energy to deform and caues the devastaing wound\blood loss.
A deer shot through both lungs with a broadhead will not go any farther than a deer shot through both lungs with a bullet. There is no hydrostatic shock from the broadhead. So I believe that shock plays a minimal part in the actual cause of death(blood loss) but it plays a major part in how a bullet causes said blood loss.
its been a while since I done research on how bullets kill, but from what I remember it is/was not fully understood (belive there was such a discussion on this forum as well)
Ill still disagree on a lung shot, I dont belive the blood loss is the main cause of death, drawning in blood and loss ability to oxygenate blood therefore supplying oxygen to brain and other major organs results in death
Ill still disagree on a lung shot, I dont belive the blood loss is the main cause of death, drawning in blood and loss ability to oxygenate blood therefore supplying oxygen to brain and other major organs results in death
I agree, when I say blood loss I mean loss of blood supply to the brain. That's why I say "shock" has little to do with cause of death, But alot to do with how a bullet causes blood loss which is the actual cause of death.
ahhh mon amis, but shock is a very dangerous medical condition and can cause death, a blood loss does cause shock but is not necessary, shock can be caused by many ways (rapid heat loss for instance)
edit; after little refresher, the mix up maybe due to one refering to shock as a physical force (shock wave?), while in medical terms its a disturbance of heart's ability to maintain blood pressure
edit; after little refresher, the mix up maybe due to one refering to shock as a physical force (shock wave?), while in medical terms its a disturbance of heart's ability to maintain blood pressure
"Hydrostatic shock" was always the magical ingredient in the Weatherby recipe, i.e. smaller caliber bullets driven at super-high velocities. There was always a lot controversy surrounding the idea...I wonder if it was ever actually proved or disproved?
In any case: a .243 loaded with an elk-appropriate bullet (if such a thing exists) obviously will kill an elk if placed perfectly. Just as obviously, and whatever the size of the exit hole (whether golf-ball-size or, more likely, nonexistent), the entry hole is going to be pretty much .243-caliber. A sharp broadhead or expandable is cutting a 1.5-inch path through the critter immediately from impact. Which wound will result if greater and more immediate blood loss? Can anyone possibly know?
A good point was made when someone stated that treating the .243 rifle as though it were a bow would work well...but we know that'll never happen. A rifle shooter has greater range and accuracy, and will attempt to utilize that advantage. Then, when a shot is flubbed, or attempted at a less-than-perfect shot angle, bad things happen. Not the fault of the caliber chosen, but rather that of the guy who chooses the smaller, marginal caliber and then expects it to perform like a big boomer.
If you have the discipline and will-power to forego any shot other than one at an animal presenting itself perfectly, and can then place that shot perfectly, then fire away with bow, .243, or anything else that strikes your fancy and is legal. If, like most of us, you have a limited time that you can spend hunting and want or need to make the most of opportunities, a bigger gun (still shot competently and accurately!) will afford the added penetration and tissue destruction that allows quartering-to and other less-than-perfect shots, and will break bones and continue on into the vitals from any angle if needed. For shots like this, both small-bore riflemen and archers need not apply...and once in a while, we are all going to be offered shots like this.
John
In any case: a .243 loaded with an elk-appropriate bullet (if such a thing exists) obviously will kill an elk if placed perfectly. Just as obviously, and whatever the size of the exit hole (whether golf-ball-size or, more likely, nonexistent), the entry hole is going to be pretty much .243-caliber. A sharp broadhead or expandable is cutting a 1.5-inch path through the critter immediately from impact. Which wound will result if greater and more immediate blood loss? Can anyone possibly know?
A good point was made when someone stated that treating the .243 rifle as though it were a bow would work well...but we know that'll never happen. A rifle shooter has greater range and accuracy, and will attempt to utilize that advantage. Then, when a shot is flubbed, or attempted at a less-than-perfect shot angle, bad things happen. Not the fault of the caliber chosen, but rather that of the guy who chooses the smaller, marginal caliber and then expects it to perform like a big boomer.
If you have the discipline and will-power to forego any shot other than one at an animal presenting itself perfectly, and can then place that shot perfectly, then fire away with bow, .243, or anything else that strikes your fancy and is legal. If, like most of us, you have a limited time that you can spend hunting and want or need to make the most of opportunities, a bigger gun (still shot competently and accurately!) will afford the added penetration and tissue destruction that allows quartering-to and other less-than-perfect shots, and will break bones and continue on into the vitals from any angle if needed. For shots like this, both small-bore riflemen and archers need not apply...and once in a while, we are all going to be offered shots like this.
John
Last edited:
I asked this same question about my .243 for my first moose hunt. I got replies (flames) with guys talking about a 200 or 300 yard shot? Really?
They point I could not get in their heads is I am NOT looking for a 300 yard shot to brag to my friends about... At 300 yards I will have my Camera and zoom lens out, not my rifle.
I never take a shot that I am not 110% sure of. This is my first moose hunt, I have a CALF tag and thats all I am looking to fill... If I get a 60yard shot, I will take it.. anything more than that ant I will have had a great vacation out of the city and have lots of great video and pics.
The reason I dont buy a bigger rifle? Simple.. I cant afford it. I have a .243 I love to hunt and be in the bush. Just because I cant afford big expensive rifles doesnt mean I should be shunned.
They point I could not get in their heads is I am NOT looking for a 300 yard shot to brag to my friends about... At 300 yards I will have my Camera and zoom lens out, not my rifle.
I never take a shot that I am not 110% sure of. This is my first moose hunt, I have a CALF tag and thats all I am looking to fill... If I get a 60yard shot, I will take it.. anything more than that ant I will have had a great vacation out of the city and have lots of great video and pics.
The reason I dont buy a bigger rifle? Simple.. I cant afford it. I have a .243 I love to hunt and be in the bush. Just because I cant afford big expensive rifles doesnt mean I should be shunned.
