why shooting through brush isn't such a good idea - with pictures

[blasted_saber]

Am I the only one who thinks that shooting through that brush was a bad idea, and wouldnt have taken the shot in the first place? Where you're holding your hat is awefully thick!

But, thanks for the re-affirming of my thoughts as to what would happen!

 

[Why not?]

I have killed a lot of moose, caribou and bear up here, quite a bit of it with a 358 Norma Mag, 9.3X62 or 375 H&H, almost every time with a single shot.

One of the worst experiences I ever had was a 62" bull moose that I shot at, twice, in a patch of willow at close range. The first shot was standing, broadside, at less than 20 yd. The next shot was quartering away at the same range. The moose simply turned and walked away. I was sure I had hit him, and expected to find him down shortly.............

Without going into all the details, I ended up shooting that bull in the neck at around 100 yd as he stood in a grove of small aspens and willow. When we skinned the bull, there was just one hole in the neck and that was it.

The bullet? A Hornady 270 gr .375 Spire Pt going 2700 fps. I never tried a shot through brush again.

Ted

 

[KodiakHntr]

Am I the only one who thinks that shooting through that brush was a bad idea, and wouldnt have taken the shot in the first place? Where you're holding your hat is awefully thick!

But, thanks for the re-affirming of my thoughts as to what would happen!

Nope. That was an awful lot of brush in front of his hat. To me, personally, that wasn't a shot opportunity due to the amount of shrubbery there.

 

[220Swifty]

Something i have always expected. Even the biggest bullets are pretty light in the grand scheme of the hunting environment, it doesn't take much to deflect them.

For a visual example of how it goes down, fire an arrow into a willow bush.

 

[Longwalker]

FWIW, I did not deliberately shoot through the "awful lot of brush", I ignored it because I didn't think it was actually in the way. Bullet path was at the top 1/4 of the hat in the second photo, just above the green leaves. Things do look different in good light. The shot was at sunset, I was facing West, and I couldn't even see most of the twigs without leaves on them - they were the same colour as the elk hide behind. I was using what I consider about the best possible scope for the shot, a Leupold 1.5-6 set at 2X, so I can't fault the equipment. Knowing now what I didn't then, I should have taken a neck shot. And I don't take neck shots unless I'm very, very sure of placing them exactly in the vertebrae. Too easy to wound and not kill outright. The entire neck & head were in the open. Animal had paused. I was using shooting sticks and the crosshairs were steady. If in my place you would have truly passed up that shot??? I guess we're all different, part of what makes life interesting.
Rather than questioning other people's shooting ability or judgement, in our camp we advocate taking any shot we feel comfortable with. But if the shooter draws blood, and he does not recover the animal, he is done for that year and hangs his tag on the "wall of shame". Or he isn't invited back again. The policy has a nice self-regulating way about it! We have never had to un-invite someone for reckless wounding. But lots of "shot opportunities" at 300 yards plus were turned down over the last few years. So far we have lost three animals out of about 80. Amazing how well camp members and guest hunters can self-regulate their behaviour when there are consequences. Works for us!

 

[Gatehouse]

The idea of some perfect brush-busting bullet is a dream, not reality. The only way to get through brush reliably with any bullet is to put it through an unobstructed hole in that brush. Bullet diameter/speed and construction has little to do with it's ability to get through even a thin screen of brush. The story here told simply re-enforces that fact. Regards, Eagleye.

Agree 100%

there is no such thing as a "brush buster" bullet or cartridge

 

[John Y Cannuck]

While I totally agree that there is no such thing as a brush buster. I also think that some bullets, driven at the right velocity, are better than others, although all deflect.
High velocity bullets, particularly light ones, and it doesn't take much over 2500fps to qualify here, tend to come apart. Low velocity, heavy bullets, AKA 45-70 405gr., tend to tumble, rather than self destruct.

The difference?
A tumbling bullet may give you a good kill, assuming the deflection isn't great.
A fragmented bullet will give a nasty flesh wound if it connects that may result in a prolonged death for the animal.
When shooting in the woods, or anywhere there is brush of any kind, you can never be totally sure your bullet will not encounter a branch. Your line of sight does not match the bullets path except at two points remember.
I believe in using a bullet, that if it hits after being deflected will still have enough oomph to do a decent job.
I was quite surprised to hear that an Orxy came apart under those circumstances.
If you duplicated the shot, it might not.
Such are the hazards when shooting through brush.

 

[straightshooter]

FWIW, I did not deliberately shoot through the "awful lot of brush", I ignored it because I didn't think it was actually in the way. Bullet path was at the top 1/4 of the hat in the second photo, just above the green leaves. Things do look different in good light. The shot was at sunset, I was facing West, and I couldn't even see most of the twigs without leaves on them - they were the same colour as the elk hide behind. I was using what I consider about the best possible scope for the shot, a Leupold 1.5-6 set at 2X, so I can't fault the equipment. Knowing now what I didn't then, I should have taken a neck shot. And I don't take neck shots unless I'm very, very sure of placing them exactly in the vertebrae. Too easy to wound and not kill outright. The entire neck & head were in the open. Animal had paused. I was using shooting sticks and the crosshairs were steady. If in my place you would have truly passed up that shot??? I guess we're all different, part of what makes life interesting.
Rather than questioning other people's shooting ability or judgement, in our camp we advocate taking any shot we feel comfortable with. But if the shooter draws blood, and he does not recover the animal, he is done for that year and hangs his tag on the "wall of shame". Or he isn't invited back again. The policy has a nice self-regulating way about it! We have never had to un-invite someone for reckless wounding. But lots of "shot opportunities" at 300 yards plus were turned down over the last few years. So far we have lost three animals out of about 80. Amazing how well camp members and guest hunters can self-regulate their behaviour when there are consequences. Works for us!

Yours was an excellent post and the pictures really help. I'd be surprised if anyone would have passed on the same shot in identical conditions (if you can't see anything between you and the shot placement, why would you?). Your camp goes to great lengths to hunt ethically and you are to be commended for it. Keep it up and don't hesitate to share your thoughts with us in the future.

 

[KodiakHntr]

Bullet path was at the top 1/4 of the hat in the second photo, just above the green leaves. Things do look different in good light. The shot was at sunset, I was facing West, and I couldn't even see most of the twigs without leaves on them - they were the same colour as the elk hide behind.

True enough. AND, I wasn't there when you touched off your shot. But myself, I'd of passed on the shot due to the amount of brush directly adjacent to where I anticipated the shot to go. If I couldn't clearly see that there was nothing in the way I wouldn't of taken that particular shot. I've passed on similiar shots, and felt good about it.
In your first post, you said that you ignored the brush in between you and the elk. In this one, you say that you didn't think it was in the way...At 14 meters where do you think your bullet path is in relation to your Point of Aim?

For the record, I wasn't there. I wasn't looking through your scope, and I didn't squeeze the trigger. I don't find any fault in you taking a shot you felt comfortable with. You finished the job, and made meat. All I'm saying is that I personally would of passed on that particular shot.
That said, bear in mind I'm talking about that particular shot. Myself, at 14 meters, over sticks, I'd of poked a hole in the brain, or broke some vertebrae. Shot opportunities were there, you took one, I'd of chosen a different one. Thats all.

Good work on the elk though, and informative post.