If a bullet drops 4 MOA between 1000 yards and 1100 yards then that is about 40 inches. So to simply the math lets us just say it drops one yard in 100 yards. That is one percent. So in traveling through a twelve inch wide animal standing 1000 yards away, it would drop one tenth of an inch while in the animal.
Your right and your wrong. If a bullet was spent itís vertical fall would be greater than its horizontal movement.
If you keep your calculations within a bullets kill zone you will find that the horizontal movement is huge compared to the fall or vertical movement of the bullet.
A 338 depending on the load with a 250 gr. bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps has about 372 inches of drop at a 1000 yards with a 200 yard zero. Its velocity at that range is about 1150 fps. If you do the math you will find that there is only about .124 inches of fall per foot of lateral movement in 3000 feet. So if your target was 2 feet thick there would be about .248 inches of difference from where the bullet entered and where it exited at a 1000 yards.
There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. Sir Winston Churchill.
Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom. Einstein
the reason that you do a high sholder shot on long range animals is that it gives you more room for drop at those ranges. so if you hit low heart, hit back spine/ lungs, forward spine/complete miss, hit alittle high spine. its a win win all over. traditional behind the shoulder. first of all the animal will get adrenilan and run before dies. to far back gutzzz. low miss/ wounded, high spine. forward heart. this can be switched if animal is turned around. point being i dont want to shoot and animal at 800 yards. then walk over there only to start trailing it or to realize that i gut shot it. its all about what puts them down. and it does....
Never had troubles behind the shoulders. Long range or any other range. It provides the greatest margin of error equally in all directions from the point of aim. Yes, if you aim at the shoulder you have more allowance towards the diaphram but less allowance for error in front of the shoulder. I could say aim at the liver and I'd have a lot more room for error towards the shoulder but little into the guts. It's a mish-mash of words. Aim dead center on the largest kill zone on the animal, and I have some allowance for error in all directions.
I've seen two moose walk off with broken front leg bones and shoulder shots that were too far forward. Didn't get away because of follow-up hits, but they weren't stopping or dying with a broken leg/shoulder. Never seen one walk or run far with a hole through the lungs.
You don't think a shoulder shot animal is pumping adrenaline? Now these shoulder shots are beginning to sound like magic. The shoulder shot animal is going to live about the same length of time as an animal shot just behind the shoulder, and I can assure you the adrenaline is pumping. I'd be curious as to the logic on the no-adrenaline shoulder shots.
Shoot through the shoulders if you don't mind throwing the shoulder meat away. Shoot behind the shoulder if you want to eat front shoulder roasts. I understand that long range shoulder shots cause less meat damage than short range shoulder shots. But the shoulder shot still ruins more meat than the behind the shoulder shot at equivalent distances.
Maybe the difference is, I don't mind if the animal moves 50 yards before dying. Never have. Started archery hunting when I was pre-high school and have always enjoyed tracking an animal to where they fall. Don't tell me it's inhumane to let the animal run 50 yards before it expires. Shoulder shot animals are living just as long. Only difference is mine may walk, trot, or run until collapsing because they still have four healthy legs and normally use them until no longer able.
The only thing I'll give for the shoulder shot is it looks good on camera for the uninformed if they see the animal drop at the shot - provided that the camera is then pulled off the animal until he stops kicking and thrashing on the ground. What doesn't look good on camera is the animal in its death throws, which is why the camera is often quickly pulled off the animal until the thrashing ends. An animal that runs naturally after the lung hit and finally falls deader than a door-nail 50-100 yards away looks much better on TV than a shoulder shot animal that thrashes in a panic on the ground until expiring. I won't go into ethics other than to argue the animal's death is relatively equal time-wise either way - through the lungs or through the shoulders. I'll just end up with a little more meat in the freezer compared to the shoulder shot animal.
The high shoulder shot does allow for more windage error. At long range the wind owns you. Elevation is infinately easier with lasers and exbal on palm, kestrel pocket weather etc. As far as terminal performance, arrows into the vitals cut and bleed the animal to death with BROADheads. The actual fpe of an arrow is quite low in comparison however it is enough to insert 2,3,4 scalpels into stuff that leaks air or blood. Bullets kill with much more traumatic damage. At long range the performance of the projectile becomes highly suspect. High shoulder gives you bone to break the animal down, and to become secondary projectiles. So if the bullet won't expand because of lack of speed into soft tissue,(behind the shoulder) it probably will on bone and those bone pieces are hell on heart and lungs. It seems there is also some neurologic shock imparted as well even if the spine is not hit directly. I believe this is because of the proximityof the spine to the impact. It does damage more meat, but attempting to track a deer hit at 100 yards and one hit at 1000 yards is two different things. Try it. It works. It is the long range solution.
AR-10T in .308 & .243 both 24"
700 LA 7 WSM 30" 5R
AR-15 Rock River lower, WOA 26" varmint upper
Savage/ Broughton 23" .308
Last fall I shot a bull caribou at 850 yds with a high shoulder hit which clipped both shoulder blades and took out the spine. The animal dropped in its tracks on the opposing mountain face, but continued moving it's head, neck, and front legs. He didn't die in the first two minutes and wasn't going to die without another shot - a fatal one. It was going to take about 35 minutes to get to where I could fire a killing round from closer range due to the terrain and distance needed to be covered to bring the animal into full view. The animal was horizontal on the ground and the only portion visible was the top of the head and the back of the neck almost down to about the junction with the front shoulders. Even that portion would have been obscured if the antlers weren't proping the head and neck up off the ground. The rest of the torso was pointed away from me and lie underneath the horizon of the knoll the animal fell on. In the effort to end this bull's life sooner than later, I took another shot and was fortunate to hit the much smaller lethal target now available to me, which was the neck. This second shot didn't dead center the neck vertebrae, but grazed the vertabrae and was close enough to damage the central nervous system such that the animal expired very quickly after impact. Point is, I'd have preferred to double lung the animal and watch him fall a little later - dead.
I will agree that the immediate impact from the high shoulder hit does seem to impart a physiological nervous system response that can be immediately or at least momentarily disabling at the longer ranges in comparison to simply punching out both lungs. In my observations, the same thing applies at closer ranges also. And I see merit in the argument that striking bone could help ensure bullet expansion at long range. I consider the range and terminal bullet velocity prior to taking a long shot and try to ensure there will be enough ramaining velocity to initiate expansion. It sounds like the Berger VLD bullets are performing very well in that regard, from what I've read on this forum. And I agree that it's normally easier to allow for elevation at long range than for the windage.
I'm not following the argument that there's the benefit of more windage error with the shoulder shot. I've got to allow for the wind whether I'm centering the kill zone or aiming nearer one edge of it (shoulders). If I don't allow for windage properly while aiming for the shoulders, I can wound the animal in front of the shoulders or end up just fine in the other direction with a fatal hit through the lungs. Aiming just behind the front shoulders I can tolerate some point of impact shift in either direction and still have a lethal hit.
I agree the front shoulder shot can kill the animal just as effectively as lung shots missing the front shoulders at long range. But I think there's very little difference in lethality between the two, and point of aim for the lung shot allows a bit more latitude for impact error in any and all directions, compared to targeting the shoulder.