Barrel twist and length?

[Jungleexplorer]

"A hunter's objective is normally to cause significant soft tissue damage, especially to the heart and lungs, so that the animal dies quickly, minimizing the chance of losing the kill"

This is what a properly placed bullet does. When a well built bullet enters the chest cavity it creates a hydraulic shock wave that will pretty much liquify the heart and lungs. If shot placement is good (or at least what I call good), the bullet will enter the chest cavity behind the shoulder and there will be no tissue damage to the muscles normally harvested when cleaning the animal. Some people prefer to shoot the animal in the shoulder so the animal is less likely to be able to run off. After penetrating the shoulder there is still massive trauma to soft tissue for a clean kill. A shoulder hit will damage some of the meat. Depending on the range and the species (size of the animal), a neck or head shot can result in a quick, clean kill with no damage to the carcass. I personally consider an ethical shot one that I KNOW (not believe) I have a very high probability of making. At 100 yds or less the neck/head shot may be a viable option. At 300 yds I am going for the larger chest cavity target. Even though you may shoot 2" groups on paper at 300 yds, are you willing to trust the animal to keep its head and neck in a stable position for you to execute the head or neck shot?

Just my 2 cents.

Dennis

I agree, a 300 yard head shot on a whitetail, is a little risky. I have made the shot successfully a couple of times, but when making such a shot I always calculate my aim for the very top part head, so if I miss, it will be a clean (high) miss over the top of the head. I have never in 35 years had a head shot deer leave wounded (and I used to cull hunt for a large Texas game ranch that required all animals to be head shot). I have only missed once and it was a clean miss. On the other hand, I have lost a couple wounded deer that I shot in the chest.

I agree that each person must shoot according to their skill and comfort level. The number one rule of accuracy in long range shooting is confidence. Shooting is a very psychological sport. If a person is not confident in their ability to hit a small target, they will almost always miss. This is where training comes in.


I still find this mentality of chest shooting being superior to head shooting puzzling form a practical stand point, for reasons I have already stated. I would venture to bet, that if I created a poll and asked hunters how many chest shot wounded animals they have seen in their life vs how many head shot wounded animals they seen, the result would be 10 chest shot animals to every 1 head shot animals. There are lots of theories about how an animal can be wounded by a head shot, but ask yourself, how many head shot animals have you personally seen wounded? I have only seen one in my whole life, and I can't even count how many chest shot animals I have seen wounded.

Just my opinion?

 

[Jungleexplorer]

Couple different topics here and some good discussion! As for the "match" grade bullets, the term match from our standpoint means consistency and quality not necessarily competition vs hunting. Even our hunting bullets are "match grade"
as we try to keep them uniform as possible. As said earlier, there are more factors to bullet design and application than just the tip design.

On the hunting shot placement side, I don't think there is a "best". I personally prefer the main heart/lung area behind the shoulder. Its a larger area that gives me more margin of error in case a shot is pulled or something happens in the heat of the moment (we are all human and "buck fever" is real!). I can see the benefits of head shots but I just don't like the smaller target area and the fact the head of a deer can move erratically, much more so than the body will. Just personal preference. No matter what shot you prefer, if you can execute it by putting the bullet into the vitals (heart/lung/brain) at least 9 out of 10 times, then you should be good to go!

Corey Schwanz
Berger Bullet Tech Support

Thanks for the reply Corey. Does your company make a .223 68 or 69 grain jacketed soft point? The reason I ask is because my recent research suggest that grain of bullet is the optimal size for my 1:9 twist barrel. I have looked around and have not been able to locate that size of bullet in a JSP thus far. I am needing to get medium sized animal kill power out to 200 yards, and I have seen some suggestions that a 55gr JSP is not very good at that distance. Thanks

 

[benchracer]

I have a 1/9 .223 (actually 5.56 NATO chamber) bolt action. I have shot both the 75 grain BTHP and 75 grain AMAX at an altitude of approx. 1000ft and down to temps around 50 degrees. The 75 grain BTHP is short enough that it stabilizes reliably from a 9 twist. The longer 75 grain AMAX stabilizes, as well, but is less likely to be stable under all conditions. The colder the temp, and the lower the altitude, the less stable it will be. Bullet length, rather than simply bullet weight, has the major effect on stability.

Some BTHP match bullets work just fine in hunting applications. People experimenting with Berger Match bullets discovered that they were excellent hunting bullets some years ago, resulting in the Berger Hunting line of bullets. The chief variable in the Berger line is jacket thickness. Most other manufacturers put disclaimers on their match bullets, because they were not specifically designed as hunting bullets. That does not mean that they will not work, however, but some experimentation/research on a case-by-case basis would be a good idea. Some match bullets have a reputation for being harder than others.

The Hornady AMAX, though it is a match bullet, has a good reputation for violent expansion down to fairly low impact velocities. Really, though, if you are a die-hard head shooter, I fail to see where terminal performance of a bullet will matter to the outcome. Even an FMJ will do the job if placed in the head. Either you empty the cranium or you don't. Pure shot placement. The only exception I could see with a head shot might be surface blowup of a varmint bullet at high velocity.

Realize that the behind the shoulder shot is often referred to as the "meat saver" shot. Going through the ribs as it does, very little meat is lost even to a destructive shot. I have yet to lose ANY meat (other than that taken by the bullet diameter hole) taking my game in this manner, even at close range. Shooting THROUGH the shoulder is another matter entirely. In either case, I view meat loss as more a result of bullet selection and impact velocity than anything else. A lot of people have been sold on light for caliber bullets at high velocity. IMO, THAT is the cause of more lost meat than any other factor.

Every year, I see poorly hit deer in sufficient numbers in the eastern woods to really **** me off. Most of them are the result of poor marksmanship and poor preparation. I know some guys who are excellent woodsman, but are not proficient with their rifles. Just convincing them to zero or confirm the zero on their rifles prior to the season is often a losing argument.

Even if I disagree with someone's choice of shot placement, I am not inclined to argue with someone who is sufficiently dialed in to take their chosen shot and can do it on demand in the field. I do not believe the majority of wounded game to be the result of poor shot selection. Rather, poor shot placement resulting from a low skill level has been the typical cause IME.

 

[Jungleexplorer]

I have a 1/9 .223 (actually 5.56 NATO chamber) bolt action. I have shot both the 75 grain BTHP and 75 grain AMAX at an altitude of approx. 1000ft and down to temps around 50 degrees. The 75 grain BTHP is short enough that it stabilizes reliably from a 9 twist. The longer 75 grain AMAX stabilizes, as well, but is less likely to be stable under all conditions. The colder the temp, and the lower the altitude, the less stable it will be. Bullet length, rather than simply bullet weight, has the major effect on stability.

Some BTHP match bullets work just fine in hunting applications. People experimenting with Berger Match bullets discovered that they were excellent hunting bullets some years ago, resulting in the Berger Hunting line of bullets. The chief variable in the Berger line is jacket thickness. Most other manufacturers put disclaimers on their match bullets, because they were not specifically designed as hunting bullets. That does not mean that they will not work, however, but some experimentation/research on a case-by-case basis would be a good idea. Some match bullets have a reputation for being harder than others.

The Hornady AMAX, though it is a match bullet, has a good reputation for violent expansion down to fairly low impact velocities. Really, though, if you are a die-hard head shooter, I fail to see where terminal performance of a bullet will matter to the outcome. Even an FMJ will do the job if placed in the head. Either you empty the cranium or you don't. Pure shot placement. The only exception I could see with a head shot might be surface blowup of a varmint bullet at high velocity.

Realize that the behind the shoulder shot is often referred to as the "meat saver" shot. Going through the ribs as it does, very little meat is lost even to a destructive shot. I have yet to lose ANY meat (other than that taken by the bullet diameter hole) taking my game in this manner, even at close range. Shooting THROUGH the shoulder is another matter entirely. In either case, I view meat loss as more a result of bullet selection and impact velocity than anything else. A lot of people have been sold on light for caliber bullets at high velocity. IMO, THAT is the cause of more lost meat than any other factor.

Every year, I see poorly hit deer in sufficient numbers in the eastern woods to really **** me off. Most of them are the result of poor marksmanship and poor preparation. I know some guys who are excellent woodsman, but are not proficient with their rifles. Just convincing them to zero or confirm the zero on their rifles prior to the season is often a losing argument.

Even if I disagree with someone's choice of shot placement, I am not inclined to argue with someone who is sufficiently dialed in to take their chosen shot and can do it on demand in the field. I do not believe the majority of wounded game to be the result of poor shot selection. Rather, poor shot placement resulting from a low skill level has been the typical cause IME.

Thanks for the info and personal experience on 9 twist and 75gr .223 bullets. That is very informative and useful.

Yes I know my line of conversation seems conflicting in that I am talking about head shooting and am looking for body shot ammo (JSP). The reason is that this rifle is going to be primarily a varmint rifle, that on rare occasion might be used to shoot a deer. When it comes to shooting varmints, I shoot for the body in most cases, especially if they are way out there. Thus the need for an expanding round. I am the type of person that when I find a round that suits my needs, I stick with it and never mess with anything. I am not constantly changing scope, trying out new ammo, re-sighting my gun in. I bought my Savage 110 model .234 in 1993. I tried three different brands of ammo in it until I found one it like, which turned out to be Winchester 100gr Power Points. I bought 10 boxes of that ammo (all the same run) and I still have 2 boxes of that ammo. Every time I have pulled the trigger on that gun in the last 21 years, it has dropped what every I aimed it at. I did upgrade the scope in 1996 from a Simmons 3x9x30 (came on the gun) to a Bushnell Banner 4x12x40 (mostly for low light conditions) and had to re-sight it in. But other then that, it stays in it's hard case until deer season, when I take it out and shoot it once at a 200 yard target (this shot is for psychological confidence purposes, to remove any doubt that the gun is still dead on). This is what I am doing with this new 223. I want to find a round that were serve the guns primary purpose of varmint hunting up to 300 yards, but at the same time be a reasonable good round to kill a deer out to 200 yards.

Also, I have 20 nieces and nephews who's fathers are not hunters who come to me to take them hunting, and this will be the gun I will most likely let them use as well. Since they are not trained in marksmanship like I am, I want to put something in their hands that I am sure will take the animal down, even if they do decide to take a chest shot on it.


I wholeheartedly agree with everything you had to say about poor marksmanship being the cause of wounded deer. I also agree that a properly placed chest shot does not waste very much meat, although it is very messy to clean the deer. But if you will bare with me here, I have found that the number one reason, most (not all) hunters not only choose the chest shot, but defend it vehemently, is that they lack the confidence or do not want to dedicate the time and energy to become proficient enough to consistently make a head shot. If you go back and read some of the post by other posters that are in the chest shooting arena, you will see a consistent line of thinking in this chest shot mentality.

Before I say anything else I want to make it clear that I am not attacking anyone here. I am simply making a philosophical case. I am not not trying to offend anyone or say that anyone else is wrong or unethical. I believe everyone on here is a great American, sportsman and very ethical. I am going to use some statements from some posters here to show a psychological mindset that I believe is pervasive and to may lead to some people (not anyone on here) being poor marksman's.

Take this statement by Corey, in regards to why a chest shot represent a better option for a kill shot on a deer. "Its a larger area that gives me more margin of error"

And these statement by Garycrow; "A heart/lung shot is a much more ethical shot because of the size of the kill zone, a slight miss from point of aim is still a lethal shot." and "Because the head is a very small target"

What is the number one rule of good marksmans ship that I think we can all agree with? "Aim small, MISS small" But if you ask a dozen chest shooters why they think the chest is the best area to shoot a deer, their answers will amount to, "It's a larger kill zone with greater margin for error". This is essentially the opposite mentality of "Aim small, miss small." It essentially saying, "Aim big so you can miss big".

As you so eloquently stated in regards to all the many chest shot deer you have seen wounded, "Most of them are the result of poor marksmanship and poor preparation." I agree totally with you on this, but my point is, why are there so many poor marksman in the woods wounding deer. My argument is that this pervasive mentality of chest shooting a deer because it is a larger kill area with greater margin for area, leads to sloppy poor marksmanship. Why? Because new, less experienced, lazy or irresponsible hunters are lead to believe that there is no need to become proficient marksman because if they can use a gun designed to kill an elephant and shoot the deer somewhere in the shoulder region, they can kill a deer.

Again, I am not saying anyone on here is this way. I am making a generalization here. As you stated benchracer, the right kill area on a chest shot is a small area behind the shoulder. So it is clear that you personally and the other posters here believe that the correct area on a chest shot is a "SMALL" area that must be precisely aimed for. I totally agree. But the general overall hunting arena at large does not share this dedication to precision marksmanship and for them, a chest shot is the "Lazy hunters choice", for a kill shot, and this results in poor marksmanship and thousands of chest shot wounded deer each year.

I believe that if the pervasive mentality in deer hunting was, "Aim Small, Hit Small" (i.e. head shot), this would encourage better marksmanship throughout the deer hunting community at large.

Just my opinion.

 

[benchracer]

My point is this: There are a lot of deer hunters out there. Quite a few are decent to excellent woodsmen. Very few are rifleman.

If a person doesn't truly understand their equipment, it doesn't really matter what shot that person takes. Their mentality isn't driven by shot selection. Rather, their mentality is driven by shallow knowledge. Like a person with poor vision, they have no idea what they are missing because they can't even perceive it.

I think many of us tend to forget how ignorant the average hunter/shooter really is. A good friend of mine is a fantastic outdoorsman, far better in the woods than I am ever likely to be. But, he is someone who thinks that having a scope mounted and boresighted at the store means it doesn't need to be sighted in and thinks that bullets of the same weight have the same point of impact. He actually has decent shooting skills, but a poor understanding of his equipment. I have tried for years to convince him to put in some range time before hunting. He is one of those guys that hunts for four or five years from the same box of ammo and just sees range time as wasteful of both his time and ammo. He is frustratingly hard-headed about that. The trouble is, the woods are full of people like him.

ETA: I was pretty ignorant when I entered the world of centerfire rifles and big game. I came from a family of bird hunters. The only rifle shooting I did was with a .22LR with iron sights. I worked to educate myself when I realized how poor my skills with a centerfire rifle truly were. It was a steep learning curve.

 

[Jungleexplorer]

I come from a family of survivalist where we use the smallest possible weapon to take the largest possible animal and compensate for the size of weapon with knowledge and skill. Both my father and grandfather were champion Navy shooters and taught me all the basics of how to shoot accurately. My father's philosophy was, one shot one kill, and he was hard core about it. As a child growing up, he would let me practice all I wanted, but would only give me one shot when I went hunting. To come back empty handed was a crime of unthinkable proportions and beyond contemplation. He was also a true conservationist and believed in the philosophy of, "Waste not, want not". As a result, I became an excellent woodsman, able to survive, hunt, fish, fish clean game and fish, build a fire with a single match and cook them all by myself at the age of six. I also became a very good marksman.

Range time is important, but by itself it does not make a person a better marksman or hunter. I know many people that spend a hundred times the amount of time at the range then I do and are still only mediocre shots. I know others that excel at the range but are horrible shots when it comes to hunting. I feel that there is more of a physiological aspect to hunting then just raw shooting skill. First, the is the respect God and His creation which He has Commanded to be" Good Stewards" of, (which means, do not be wasteful or kill senselessly). Second, there is the respect for the animal you are taking the life of, and because of this respect, you want to waste as little of the animal as possible. Third, there is the basic need to feel that we have the basic skill to survive and provide sustenance for ourselves.

Many modern hunters have none of these, and view hunting as a sport for the purposes of entertainment. They want not for anything, therefore they have no problems wasting. They take more pride in what they can mount on a wall then they do their skill as a marksman or precious meat of the animal. Every year I clean and dozens process deer that come of big game ranches, shot by people that arrived in jets to shoot penned up deer and left the valuable meat behind when they left. I give the meat away to people who need it and to woman's shelters and such. I do it so the meat will not go to waste and to help people, but it is hard for me though because, it is hard for me to see the senseless mangling of deer that was shot with a canon designed to kill an elephant. In most cases, because of the damage to the shoulders and the internal damage to organs and intestines, I have to throw the whole chest area and front shoulders away.

I guess because I process all my deer myself, I have an appreciation for head shot deer. It is so nice and clean to process a deer that is not chest shot.

 

[Rich Coyle]

First, the is the respect God and His creation which He has Commanded to be" Good Stewards" of, (which means, do not be wasteful or kill senselessly).

This takes care of Numbers 2 and 3.

Many modern hunters have none of these, and view hunting as a sport for the purposes of entertainment.

I'm one.

They take more pride in what they can mount on a wall then they do their skill as a marksman or precious meat of the animal.

My family is precious. Meat is food.

I give the meat away to people who need it and to woman's shelters and such.

I give meat to poor also. But usually my family eats it all. That does not make me better than someone who only wants a wall mount.

it is hard for me to see the senseless mangling of deer that was shot with a canon designed to kill an elephant.

"Senseless mangling"? A head shot deer is not mangled? The gun thing: That's because they like different things than you do.

I guess because I process all my deer myself, I have an appreciation for head shot deer. It is so nice and clean to process a deer that is not chest shot.

Now we get to the bottom line.

 

[Jungleexplorer]

Happy Thanksgiving all.

 

[Jungleexplorer]

Now we get to the bottom line.

No. The bottom line is this. I have proposed 6 separate points about this subject of chest shooting vs head shot. You are referring only to the last one. Here are the six points. I present them here in a more concise manner so you can see them all together. The detailed argument for each one can be found throughout each of my former post.

Point 1. A head shot is a more sure kill then a chest shot.

Point 2. Chest shooting results in exponentially more wounded deer then head shooting in actual practice. I have asked twice for anyone here to honestly say that they have seen more deer wound by head shooting then chest shooting and so far no one has challenged this statement or offered any factual non-theoretical evidence to counter it.

Point 3. Chest shooting results in more wasted meat then head shooting. Whether large or small, chest shooting results in wasted meat, where as head shooting result in zero wasted meat.

Point 4. The philosophy of chest shooting is diametrically opposite to the fundamental philosophy of good marksmanship. The fundamental philosophy of good marksmanship is "Aim Small. Miss Small" where as the fundamental philosophy of chest shooting is, "Aim for the chest because it is a Larger target (AIM BIG) with a greater margin for error, (MISS BIG).

Point 5. The philosophy of chest shooting encourages sloppiness and laziness in marksmanship (when it comes to deer hunting) because is suggest that it is not necessary for a person to strive to improve their marksmanship skill to hunt deer.

Point 6. It is much easier and cleaner to process a deer that is head shot vs one that is chest shot. I don't think I will get much argument on this last point.

In your post, wildcater, I felt that you were trying to launch a personal attack against me, instead of presenting a reasonable fact based argument to counter any one of my six points. I have not attacked anyone here and I don't feel that your kind of dialog is effective in the area of philosophical discussion. It basically amount to you "Throwing rocks". If you feel that anyone of my 6 points are not valid or are in error, I welcome you to present a fact based argument as to why. I will ask that you try to keep your line of discussion philosophical and non personal though. I don't expect everybody to agree with me, but I do expect people to act like mature adults and be capable of having a philosophical discussion without getting all personal and start throwing rocks.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Jungleexplorer,

I have heard a word to the wise is sufficient. I will take your rebuke to heart. But I must bring up a point that may seem like a personal attack. That is we are on a long range hunting forum. This year I killed my buck at 276 yards with a head shot. If you add a hundred yards to that there is no I would try for a head shot. At that range and further the chest becomes a small target to me; and perhaps to many here.

I will go with personal experience and answer the points.

Point one. I have never seen a chest shot deer or elk get away. My opinion does not establish any facts for others.

Point two. I have seen only one dead deer in the woods that I or someone with me didn't kill. It was a cougar kill.

Point three. When I used to process my deer I didn't fool with the rib cage. Therefore there was no wasted meat. Again my opinion does not establish any facts.

Points four and five are covered in the above about this being a long range hunting forum.

Point six is irrelevant to me. I still have to reach up inside a dead animal to get the inards out. The deer mentioned earlier in this post still got blood on my hands and arms.

Again sorry to seem like I attacked you personally. Your post is the only one that had a lot of specific points I could enjoy responding to. I hope you enjoy hunting and posting this and every year.

 

[Unofficial Gun Addict (UGA)]

Jungleexplorer... I think the issue with a head shot on big game is that due to target size and the numerous factors that can move point of impact while in the field, most hunters prefer to shoot at the vital organs as opposed to the head.

Sure a head shot will kill a deer, but so will a shoot through the vitals. When looking at my ballistics for my 223 varmint rounds, just changing the temperature and pressure changed my drop by 7 inches at 450 yards...and they weren't extreme changes. Obviously, at 300 yards, the amount would be less, but then you have to potentially factor in angle of incline, wind, adrenaline, etc etc. the margin of error just gets bigger as you go.

So... If all things line up and you have an easy 100 yard shot in low wind, Well then perhaps a headshot is the way to go if you prefer. But as distance stretches out... Perhaps the vitals would yield a greater likelihood of success. Plus... If you've ever seen a deer come out of the brush with his lower jaw blown off because someone failed miserably on a headshot... Tongue drooping and wagging around in a horrid display, perhaps you would rethink it. If my buddy didn't take mercy... And it really wasn't the animal he wanted to tag... That buck would have spent almost a month starving to death. Crappy way to go out.

 

[Deleted member 46119]

The world has changed since the chest shot was preferred.

Before the external ballistics understanding, software, hardware et al.. Before internal ballistics understanding twist rates, powders, ignition timings.

Basically from the say 1980s back. Way back to non-rifled barrels. We needed the larger target to hit any part of the animal so we could break a leg or get a blood trail to follow.

In this modern world of reliable sub 3" targeting to 500 yards, preserving a trophy is a reason not to head shoot. If the head is level with the body, a wind drift error will result in a complete miss or a body shot. If the head is down for the animal to be browsing food, probably a complete miss. If the head is up winding, probably a complete miss.

The biggest?

Has anyone actually seen a "horribly maimed" head shot game animal?

Or

Are you all following dogma from hundreds of years?

 

[Deleted member 46119]

I have taking one LR shot on game unless 300 yards is LR then 2.

A pig quartering away at 11oclock, 535 yards. Pig looking to 9oclock The intended shot to be behind the elbow, though the ribs and lungs and out the spine. Shot POI elevation was with a fraction of an inch margin of POA. Windage may have been 1" off to the left in 5 to 7mph. The bullet glanced off the rib entered the ear and exited the forehead. DRT. I got to keep everything including all the ribs and pork ribs rock....

If the 300 yard shot counts it was a spine hit dead above the shoulder blade. DRT. I was aiming traditionally but had not practiced off hand with that rifle and did not know that I would get muzzle rise in the follow through no matter how hard I tried. If I had attempted a head shot, I would just have missed.

So in the "real" world, I don't believe any of what you say about body shots being preferred.

 

[Jungleexplorer]

Jungleexplorer... I think the issue with a head shot on big game is that due to target size and the numerous factors that can move point of impact while in the field, most hunters prefer to shoot at the vital organs as opposed to the head.

Sure a head shot will kill a deer, but so will a shoot through the vitals. When looking at my ballistics for my 223 varmint rounds, just changing the temperature and pressure changed my drop by 7 inches at 450 yards...and they weren't extreme changes. Obviously, at 300 yards, the amount would be less, but then you have to potentially factor in angle of incline, wind, adrenaline, etc etc. the margin of error just gets bigger as you go.

So... If all things line up and you have an easy 100 yard shot in low wind, Well then perhaps a headshot is the way to go if you prefer. But as distance stretches out... Perhaps the vitals would yield a greater likelihood of success. Plus... If you've ever seen a deer come out of the brush with his lower jaw blown off because someone failed miserably on a headshot... Tongue drooping and wagging around in a horrid display, perhaps you would rethink it. If my buddy didn't take mercy... And it really wasn't the animal he wanted to tag... That buck would have spent almost a month starving to death. Crappy way to go out.

You make some really good points and I agree with what you have said. As I have stated before (in this thread), I personally will only make a head shot if I feel sure I can make it. As we all know, hunting is an exercise in chaos. There are many ever changing variables that occur in the field that a responsible hunter must consider before pulling that trigger.

To make it redundantly clear; I am not in anyway advocating that hunters should be head shooters in exclusivity. What I am addressing here is the general prevailing mentality among American hunters, that the "Chest Shot" is the, "Best" or "Correct" shot to make on a deer. I have never said or implied that a chest shot is not a good or effective kill shot. My concern is that the chest shot is promoted and taught in exclusivity as the best or correct shot.

Take this thread for example. Even though I have not attacked anyone directly on here and have gone to great lengths to openly demonstrate my respect for everyone on here, many posters have attacked me, ridiculed me, implied that I am an unethical hunter and more. Almost every poster has reacted to my statements as if I were attacking them personally, simply because I am talking about the benefits of the head shot. I dare say that, not a single other poster that has commented, has come down on my side of the discussion.

It is this prevailing mentality among hunters that I am talking about. American hunters seem to take offense, get very defensive and will attack you if you even suggest that a head shot might be an acceptable or preferred alternative to chest shooting. The reactions on this thread alone provides enough evidence to support what I am saying here. The reaction can be so strong as to even threaten friendships in some cases.

There seems to be a loud voice among American hunters that is say "The chest shot is the RIGHT shot on a deer." I believe the ideology of the chest shot being the "Right" shot on a deer is in error and is actually harmful. The chest shot is certainly a good shot and if done properly can be an effective shot, but it is not the "ONLY" shot and it is certainly not the "Right" shot in all cases.

I know a couple of professional cull hunters that shoot literally hundreds if not thousands of big game animals each year on on high fence ranches for population control purposes. They are hired by the ranch to thin out the herds. I have had many discussions with these men about shot placement. Everyone of them, and all the people that they know in their line of business, are all head shooters. The only reason they would ever consider shooting a big game animal anywhere else then the head was if they wanted the head for a trophy. I myself have operated as a cull hunter, (though not professionally) on a high fence ranch that had thousands of deer and other big game exotics. This ranch required that I pass a test before they would allow me to cull hunt. The ranch mandated that a cull hunter must exclusively be a head shooter. When I asked them why they had this rule, they answered, "Because chest shooting results in too many wounded deer." They drove me out on the ranch and pointed to a whitetail deer about 100 yards away and said shoot that deer. As I lined up on the deer's head to shoot, a massive trophy whitetail buck stood up 10 yards on the other side of the of the deer I had my scope on, with it's chest region directly in line with the head of the deer I was aiming at. The ranch manager whispered, "Take the shot". BOOM! I shot and the deer I was aiming at dropped and the big buck ran off. I asked the ranch manager, how much was that big buck worth, if I would have missed and killed him? $10,000 dollars! I was like, DUDE! Why would you tell me to take that shot? "Because, to cull hunt on this ranch you will always be shooting in a crowd of deer with trophy animals walking around. If you don't have the confidence to do a head shot on a deer in a crowd, you can't cull hunt on this ranch."

Out of 4 hunters that were being tested that day, I was the only one to qualify. It was on that day that I saw my one and only drop jawed deer. One of the other hunters (that was being tested) was lined up on a front facing deer and the manager gave the shoot command and said "DO NOT drop jaw that deer". Boom! Down went the jaw and out went that hunter. I cull hunted for that ranch for over a decade with many other cull hunters, killing countless deer. All head shots. Not a single wounded deer.

My concern is not that some hunters chest shoot deer. My concern is that most American hunters promote the idea that the chest shot is the "Only right shot" on a deer and attack anyone who suggest otherwise, when the facts clearly support that the head shot is a much better choice in most (but not all) cases.

I am not against the chest shot. I have used it myself when the situation warranted it. I know lot's of people that I highly respect that are chest shooters for one reason or another ( bad eyesight, hand tremors, lack of confidence, disagree with me. LOL! etc.) I respect every hunter here and the choices you make and I am not trying in the slightest way to say that you are doing anything wrong by choosing to chest shoot a deer. I guess my goal is not to eliminate the idea of the chest shot, but to encourage hunters to consider the head shot as a viable alternative to the chest shot under the right conditions.

Anyway, I have to go out and check on my smoker. A friend shot three 200 pound wild hogs yesterday and brought out them to process them at my ranch. He gave me a fat sow and I put the ribs and front shoulders in the smoker over night. I pre-smoked them over mesquite wood and sealed them in two layers of heavy duty tin foil to slow roast. They should be juicy and falling off the bone right about now. Wish you guys could come over and help me eat them.