How big is the kill zone? ***Poll added for extra excitment!!***

How big are th evitals of a DEER

  • 6"

    Votes: 13 14.9%

  • 8"

    Votes: 40 46.0%

  • 10" or more

    Votes: 34 39.1%
  • Total voters
    87
John Y Cannuck said:
6" gives you a hell of a lot of room for error. I've held deer hearts in my hand that easily go four inches. Note, that that is the heart alone, does not include, the lungs, the arteries, or, and I note that you guys have forgotten the spine.
Even the heart from a fawn (in November) will go two and a half to three inches.
Moose hearts in general run five to six inches. They make a nice roast!

12" is kill zone for deer as far as I'm concerned, and you could extend that to 15 for moose.
i've not shot enough bear to put an oar in on that one, But I'm thinking, for black bear it's similar to deer, if a tad lower to the ground.
Click to expand...
In addition to to the spine bordering the heart lung area there is also the shoulder and a hit there can be pretty dramatic. I guess the two most effective organs to hit are the heart and or lungs. Just as a future reference on the next animal 'we' get, measure the height and length of a lung or the lung cavity. Your suggestion of a realistic 'kill zone' is probably pretty close.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
In addition to to the spine bordering the heart lung area there is also the shoulder and a hit there can be pretty dramatic. I guess the two most effective organs to hit are the heart and or lungs. Just as a future reference on the next animal 'we' get, measure the height and length of a lung or the lung cavity. Your suggestion of a realistic 'kill zone' is probably pretty close.
Click to expand...
I have held hearts that were huge on big deer ,like 6 by 4.5 inchs , and lungs were mush , but easy fit a 15 inch monitor screen :D Coolest was a split in 2 halves heart from a 165 gameking, at 200 meters, a pass through , wish I had a metal detector , cause you could see the line in the snow the bullet made going past where the deer stood. :cool:
 
I've held deer hearts in my hand that easily go four inches. Note, that that is the heart alone, does not include, the lungs, the arteries, or, and I note that you guys have forgotten the spine.
Click to expand...

Well i didn't forget the spine :) I mentioned it above. But it's generally accepted that the 'safe' shot only refers to the heart and lungs. The spine is a small target and it's possible to not get a kill if the bullet doesn't hit it - but a heart/lung is always fatal. I mean, we could include the head too - a good hit to the head will generally take 'em down, but it's not considered to be the 'safe' shot.

Yes, deer hearts are a good size - but they are not round, nor are they 'below' the lungs entirely. You cant add up the size of the heart and the lungs and say 'that's the kill zone' because the lungs often are in front of part or all of the heart (depending on the angle of course). If it wasn't, we wouldn't ever see a lung/heart shot, yet that happens all the time. And while a heart may be 4 inches long, it may only be 2.5 inches wide at it's widest point. They're more of an oval than a circle.

The idea of a 'kill zone' is an area where ANYWHERE in that circle you're getting a guaranteed fatal shot. That generally means at least both lungs or lung/heart combo. And you're talking about more than just absolutely perfectly broadside. Depending on the species of deer, for most 'average' deer that won't be a WHOLE lot bigger than 6 inches - maybe 8. If you're outside that zone, you may well still kill the animal. But the chances of it either being wounded or going a long distance before it goes down increases. Same as a head shot - might well kill the animal outright, but now the chances of a wounding go up significantly. Most hunters avoid headshots for that reason, unless conditions are very favorable.
 
With deer, I tend to agree wiht Bigredd and John Y- About 10", maybe a bit more- like 12", especialy since all of the shoulder will guarantee a kill, too.

It is far larger than 6" or even 8" in diameter, although I can see practicing on 6" targets to make sure you are better prepped.

If the kill zon was only 6" I bet we woudl see alot more wonded deer out there, because there are alot of guys that have real trouble keeping it in a 6" circle at 100 yards...6" is pretty small, the length of my hand is almost 8"..I can't imagine a deers vitals all fititng into a cantelope size...However, i have probably heard the 6" number thrown out in more campfire sessions than i can remember, and I never even questioned the number until I started to relaly look at deer and sheep carcasses...

Moose are much larger, and easily have 15" of vitals, and I'd say elk have more like 12+"

Black bears have about 10" but it's lower slung.

With everything, ona broadside shot, I aim 1/3 up fromt he bottm of the chest, in line wiht the shoulder. Works for everything.
 
Last edited:
With deer, I tend to agree wiht Bigredd and John Y- About 10", maybe a bit more- like 12", especialy since all of the shoulder will guarantee a kill, too.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends how you define 'kill zone'. A shoulder hit isn't a 'guarantee' shot for a lot of people - there are lots of stories of animals taking hits in the shoulder and not going down without another shot (or spines, as in the story told above.) and people find deer and moose with wounds in the shoulder that survived till they were shot later. But there is no way a deer struck in the lungs can survive.

Mind you, with that sweetheart 300 you shoot, or the ole 375, i don't imagine there's a lot of deer that'll walk away from that if hit in the shoulder :)
 
Foxer said:
Heh, well there is that :)
Click to expand...
Which is why I think that fella in the video (12 yard shot) or whatever it was called there, is a weenie to have taken the shot at the moose on the road , ass to, what a waste if he hit it, I would a slapped him up side the head if I was on a party hunt with that dude. :rolleyes:
 
Levi Garrett said:
Which is why I think that fella in the video (12 yard shot) or whatever it was called there, is a weenie to have taken the shot at the moose on the road , ass to, what a waste if he hit it, I would a slapped him up side the head if I was on a party hunt with that dude. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thats the one you & I discussed, I agree.:mad: Either a slap up the side of the head or a kick with a frozen boot.
 
With the "right projectile" the shoulder can be the optimum shot!
Ideally you would wait for the animal to move its near leg forward and aim through the vitals at the far shoulder. This acomplishes two things an exposed vital area which the bullet can reach without the chance of bullet deflection or fragmentation on the near shoulder. And the far shoulder gets hammered delivering even more energy and hopefully taking it off its feet.
I have used the "near" shoulder and spine area most often when hunting with heavy muzzle loader bullets and it is the most effective anchoring shot bar none!
When Hunting for Moose with a rifle I use heavy bullets and I try to break both shoulders like Gatehouse says.
 
Last edited:
I've used the shoulder shot on deer in thick cover where even a 60 or 70 yd dash could be too much and make for a long night tracking. Generally required a folloe up shot, but guaranteed to be anchored right there (30/06, 180 gr Win) lose some meat off of the far shoulder, but better than losing a deer to the yotes.
 
The last few comments are priceless, and I totally agree :D , the hind quarters are the only parts worth saving anyway . And to relate to earlier coments of kill zone sizes , and angles, and all a that BS. No need to thread the needle and try and take out just one shoulder, drive it through both. Anchor that beast .:D Edit ;)
 
Last edited:
After a lot of the discussions and comments on kill zones, their sizes and precise location etc, I pulled close to a dozen old hunting hard cover books off the shelf in my den and started 'thumbing'. Many of these books were published years ago and a number of the authors are no-longer with us. Time may have passed on but some things remain the same and those are the number individual perceptions and preferences that exist on the subject. Many of our comments on this thread are a mirror image of those expressed in the past by a distinguished and diverse number of people in the know.
 
About that big :p Now if you look close , a shoulder hit(for the folks that shoot for this point) would require a hold quite far forward. But there is a nice pocket to shoot for , just up from the elbow , and 1 to 2 inches forward of that
scan0001.jpg
 
Last edited:
Johnn Peterson said:
When my Dad got me started, his 'suggestion' for basics was, on an ideal broadside shot, pull for the immediate back side of the shoulder. Quartering away, aim for the opposite shoulder and quartering towards you, aim for the lead shoulder or the one closest to you.
Click to expand...
Well, I've got to go back to Dad's initial instructions to me when I started as I mentioned above in an earlier post. It has worked well for me over the years so, no sense in me trying to fix something that 'isn't broke' this late in the game.
As I also made mention of earlier, thumbing through a good number of my old hardcover hunting books, I found the authors are distinguished and their opinions many and varied. Not much different from the people posting on this thread, and our opinions. If you ask 10 people you'll get 11 opinions, and that's not a bad thing. It would be the s**its if we all thought the same. For the poll, I voted 8", but my personal experience indicates it's probably a little larger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom