cartridge/bullet ethics of hunting Moose.
- Thread starter Mr. Friendly
- Start date
Bingo.
Spining an animal doesn't ensure a quicker or more painless death than a heart / lung shot. All spining does is paralyze it from the point of injury back. Shoulder shots just prevent it from running. Neither mean death as instantaneous as the immobilization. The cause of death is still exsanguination. I've seen plenty of spined animals take longer to die than from a heart shot which instantaneously drops blood pressure and results in unconsciousness in very short order.
It's like, if you had to choose, would you rather be shot through the hips (same as a shoulder shot) or through the spine, or right through the heart? There's a reason the execute people with heart shots, not spine or hip shots.
The advantage of spine and shoulder shots is in anchoring something where you need it anchored, not in a necessarily quicker death.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
Exactly. Europeans tend to use heavy for caliber bullets, especially in the smaller ones, something we in North America tend to stay away from as many are only interested in the best possible ballistics.
You're talking about one specific type of hunting which is far from the only method. Spot and stalk for deer in England and Scotland, calling moose in Sweden, hunting Chamiois in France, etc etc. Saying hunting in Europe is driven game is like saying hunting in North America is tree stand. It's just as varied as it is here.
I beg to differ. A couple of members here have had bad experiences with the Hornady 9.3mm 285 gr. Spire Point, blowing up on hip and shoulder bones etc, on both moose and deer. Likewise with the Hornady DGX on buffalo... very poor reputation. Are you suggesting that a 285 gr chunk of lead fired at moderate velocity from a medium bore was only intended as a varmint bullet?
Of course there are poorly constructed bullets.
They are the ones that don’t perform properly inside thier intended parameters. Shoot and hunt enough and you will find them.
I think I saw him doing that; or at least someone was on a shootin' show years ago. I'm terrible with names.
Asprin thrown in the air might be a little high for a minimum, hit this or go home standard. At least for people that can't leap tall buildings.
Well, perhaps. I've only been at it 30 years on four continents, including just over a year in Africa. Blasting stuff with everything from .22 LR to .416 Rigby, from cast lead to cup & core to mono metal to premium bullets. I guess I definitely need to get out more.
I guess I'd have to see the particulars of each circumstance. One or two anecdotal examples of perceived lousy performance doesn't a poorly designed bullet make however. I've had cup and core bullets perform less than ideally in one or two instances, and perfectly in every other. I definitely accept that in some cases circumstances may lead to bullet failure; that's an entirely different thing than a poorly designed bullet however. A few internet posts is one thing; a poorly designed bullet would have a thousand.
You've been very fortunate to never have had a bullet not perform properly.
It seems that bullet manufacturers ditch the poorly constructed and problematic designs though.
I wish. I have. Indeed, I said "I've had cup and core bullets perform less than ideally in one or two instances, and perfectly in every other." To be precise though, I guess less than ideally isn't the same as inadequately.
What I'm getting at is that one or even several instances of inadequate, or perceived inadequate performance doesn't mean a bullet is poorly designed. There's plenty of other reasons apart from poor design - unrealistic expectations being but one example. I dunno what the failure threshold is to count as poorly designed - I guess that depends on each shooter's tolerance - but I think expecting 100% perfect performance each and every time is unrealistic, unless you're talking about the very top end of premium bullets.
Sure, using a bullet outside it’s parameters can lead to problems. But that doesn’t mean there haven’t been poor designs or poor manufacturing. When a bullet manufacturer re-designs a line of bullets, (or discontinues them) there was probably a design problem.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
A shoulder shot is the same as a hip shot!!?? Time to get a book on game anatomy. Just like shooting a human through the chest from shoulder to shoulder, the same shot on game is immediately effective. If your observations suggest otherwise, it means either your bullet failed, you misidentified the location of the shoulder, or you missed.
I played the magnumitis game for years, then as I got older, and experienced many a moose hit the deck, either by me or one of my party, I realized that shot placement trumps bullet size. My personal "minimum" for moose is a quarter-bore (.25-06 rem) BUT I have been with several guys over the years that felled bull moose with a .243 win. The placement of the bullet is paramount. I still have a 25-06 but really, just take one of my .308 win's everytime now.
BUT , after all I just said, the gun/caliber combo that I have seen drop the most moose is a Win 94 in .30-30. We always have one in the front of our boat, and 90% of all our moose have been dropped near water. It is the quickest gun to get action when we chance upon a moose suddenly , as "the designated shooter" often has to fiddle with his gun for a few seconds to get a shot ready. Inevitably, the guy nearest the front of the boat just grabs the 94, pops off a quick shot and we all groan at the work ahead of us.
So, really, anything >/= to a 243 win will work, and power is second to bullet placement. I've rarely met a moose that was hard to kill. They certainly aren't bulletproof. One shot dropped 25 of the 30 and 5 required a second shot as they started trotting slowly to tree cover. I never stand admiring my shots, I always shoot till they drop to ensure jerky for the winter. Just use a good bullet in case your shot placement meets thick bone. Never cheap out on the cheapest part of a hunt.......the ammunition.
BUT , after all I just said, the gun/caliber combo that I have seen drop the most moose is a Win 94 in .30-30. We always have one in the front of our boat, and 90% of all our moose have been dropped near water. It is the quickest gun to get action when we chance upon a moose suddenly , as "the designated shooter" often has to fiddle with his gun for a few seconds to get a shot ready. Inevitably, the guy nearest the front of the boat just grabs the 94, pops off a quick shot and we all groan at the work ahead of us.
So, really, anything >/= to a 243 win will work, and power is second to bullet placement. I've rarely met a moose that was hard to kill. They certainly aren't bulletproof. One shot dropped 25 of the 30 and 5 required a second shot as they started trotting slowly to tree cover. I never stand admiring my shots, I always shoot till they drop to ensure jerky for the winter. Just use a good bullet in case your shot placement meets thick bone. Never cheap out on the cheapest part of a hunt.......the ammunition.
"Magnumitis?" I guess I could be accused of that...although couching it in terms that make it sound like an affliction seems a bit much. If you shoot for many years and try many different guns and cartridges, you will simply find that like some more than others. Many of the ones I like are bigger rather than smaller...to each his own.
I have much more concern with the prevalence of "minimitis": the obsessive desire to see how small of a cartridge you can get away with for any given purpose. I've never understood this viewpoint. So what if a cartridge is capable of slaying a critter...if you do your part...bearing in mind that placement is everything...if you wait for the perfect shot presentation? Did I get all the overworked catch-phrases into that one? If I have a week or two on an expensive hunt, I don't want to pass up less-than-perfect shots because of marginal cartridge performance.
Minimitis is especially dangerous when it occurs in concert with another shooting malady: "Nearophobia", the obsessive fear of shooting an animal which is so close that you don't get to fiddle with all the neat adjustments on your 3-pound high-magnification scope. When you get shooters lobbing tiny bullets at animals two counties away, bad things are going to happen. Those are the video clips that don't make it onto YouTube or Best of the West.
Velocity does great things for you. Bullet weight/diameter are wonderful to have. And, of course, accuracy and shot placement are essential. There's nothing wrong with wanting all three at the same time.
I have much more concern with the prevalence of "minimitis": the obsessive desire to see how small of a cartridge you can get away with for any given purpose. I've never understood this viewpoint. So what if a cartridge is capable of slaying a critter...if you do your part...bearing in mind that placement is everything...if you wait for the perfect shot presentation? Did I get all the overworked catch-phrases into that one? If I have a week or two on an expensive hunt, I don't want to pass up less-than-perfect shots because of marginal cartridge performance.
Minimitis is especially dangerous when it occurs in concert with another shooting malady: "Nearophobia", the obsessive fear of shooting an animal which is so close that you don't get to fiddle with all the neat adjustments on your 3-pound high-magnification scope. When you get shooters lobbing tiny bullets at animals two counties away, bad things are going to happen. Those are the video clips that don't make it onto YouTube or Best of the West.
Velocity does great things for you. Bullet weight/diameter are wonderful to have. And, of course, accuracy and shot placement are essential. There's nothing wrong with wanting all three at the same time.
