A Case of Use Enough Gun?

[HankBuck]

Just 2 weeks ago on a quota hunt using:

Weapon: Remington 11-87, 12 gauge, scoped rifled slug barrel,

Ammo: Remington Slugger Rifled Slugs, 12 gauge, 3 inch, 7/8 ounce slug, at 1885 fps, 50 yard zero.

Range: Guesstimated 50 to 60 yards, slightly uphill, full broadside, in the open.

shooting position: Standing unsupported, buttpad on shoulder strap of pack.

Shot went high right from point of aim.

This deer: bang-flop-slide down hill. On the second shot at another deer. The first deer got up and ran up hill. The final shot, on the first deer, a quartering to neck and head shot, on the first deer, was around 20 yard; DRT.

View attachment 655292

The drawn quota hunt for this area choices are: archery only or gun. The gun area allows for use of: archery, muzzleloader with single projectile, or shotgun with slugs only.

Looks like a 7 month old fawn

 

[Ridge Runner]

Looks like a 7 month old fawn

According to the check station officials estimated the doe at 12 to 14 months old, weighed 115 pounds.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Just saw trail cam pictures. It was a ten point, but with several stickers and heavy black pearling up from the bases. Wow.
BTW, what is the official scoring requirement for a sticker to count as a point, and are they included in total inches at measurement?

In Montana a ten point would have to have 10 on one side (Western count). Not sure what the law is on counting points there, but in some western states the point must be one inch. Sometimes counted from the main blood line to the tip of the point. In Washington it's 1" from a line drawn along the top of main beam to the tip. When I lived in California, we always figured it was a point if you could hang a ring or a watch band off of it. None of us were ever actually challenged on it there.

 

[steve white]

In Montana a ten point would have to have 10 on one side (Western count). Not sure what the law is on counting points there, but in some western states the point must be one inch. Sometimes counted from the main blood line to the tip of the point. In Washington it's 1" from a line drawn along the top of main beam to the tip. When I lived in California, we always figured it was a point if you could hang a ring or a watch band off of it. None of us were ever actually challenged on it there.

No, I did not mean "western count"on the antlers.
And one post was spot on--the shot was taken late, and light was failing fast. But could a shot have been taken while the deer slowed to walking....maybe. The concern was that if spooked, the deer might really take off on adrenaline and be lost. As it was, it got lost anyway. I am rooting for it's survival, but I wouldn't be surprised if it will be super wary or even nocturnal after this close call. It has for sure been educated.

 

[sureshot375]

A .375 with the same shot placement would likely have the same result. Maybe a bigger caliber would have caused enough shock to the spine to drop the animal and allow for a second shot. Maybe…

The real trick is to not shoot them through the back straps. Below the spine and above the lungs is bad times.

 

[Longwalker]

I've seen the often repeated comment about a bullet hitting "above the lungs but below the backbone" so many times during discussions like this. There is no such thing. It's impossible. There is no void in the chest above the lungs, if there were the deer would be walking around with a pneumothorax and the deer couldn't breathe. The lungs lie tight up against the inside of the chest cavity, all the way up to the backbone and around either side.
If the deer was indeed hit high in the chest area, there are only two possible ways it lived afterwards.
1. The bullet failed to damage the lungs enough to make the animal bleed out or to collapse the lungs
2. The bullet hit higher up, not in the chest cavity, but over the spinal cord, not damaging it but perhaps took out some of the bone of a vertebra, and did not do enough damage to incapacitate the deer.
Neither situation would happen when a deer is hit with a big enough bullet that expands properly.
That .243 with whatever bullet was used was not "enough".

 

[roklok]

"I've seen the often repeated comment about a bullet hitting "above the lungs but below the backbone" so many times during discussions like this. There is no such thing. It's impossible. There is no void in the chest above the lungs, if there were the deer would be walking around with a pneumothorax and the deer couldn't breathe. The lungs lie tight up against the inside of the chest cavity, all the way up to the backbone and around either side."

Yep, as I have stated in an earlier post, this is impossible. It amazes me how many times I have seen folks state this. The center of the spine is lower than most realize at shoulders, no where near top of back. Guys shoot high above the spinal cord and think projectile went between spine and lungs. NO, cant happen. The lungs extend above the bottom of the spine on either side of spinal column.

 

[Ridge Runner]

.......

I've seen the often repeated comment about a bullet hitting "above the lungs but below the backbone" so many times during discussions like this. There is no such thing. It's impossible. There is no void in the chest above the lungs, if there were the deer would be walking around with a pneumothorax and the deer couldn't breathe. The lungs lie tight up against the inside of the chest cavity, all the way up to the backbone and around either side.
If the deer was indeed hit high in the chest area, there are only two possible ways it lived afterwards.
1. The bullet failed to damage the lungs enough to make the animal bleed out or to collapse the lungs
2. The bullet hit higher up, not in the chest cavity, but over the spinal cord, not damaging it but perhaps took out some of the bone of a vertebra, and did not do enough damage to incapacitate the deer.
Neither situation would happen when a deer is hit with a big enough bullet that expands properly.
That .243 with whatever bullet was used was not "enough".

"I've seen the often repeated comment about a bullet hitting "above the lungs but below the backbone" so many times during discussions like this. There is no such thing. It's impossible. There is no void in the chest above the lungs, if there were the deer would be walking around with a pneumothorax and the deer couldn't breathe. The lungs lie tight up against the inside of the chest cavity, all the way up to the backbone and around either side."

Yep, as I have stated in an earlier post, this is impossible. It amazes me how many times I have seen folks state this. The center of the spine is lower than most realize at shoulders, no where near top of back. Guys shoot high above the spinal cord and think projectile went between spine and lungs. NO, cant happen. The lungs extend above the bottom of the spine on either side of spinal column.

Take a good look at my previous post of the photo of my deer. That is the entrance wound of a 12 gauge slug that went clear through the deer; straight through. The exit hole is about 3/8ths of an inch larger than the entrance wound.

Guess someone should have told that deer its lungs and part of its spine were blowed out and it couldn't run up and around the hill like it did.

The only spinal damage was caused by the exiting neck shot.

Only blood in the cavity was caused during gutting when I nicked a vein/artery in the hind quarter. The lungs collapsed as I was pulling them down and out of the chest cavity.

 

[Longwalker]

Yes, that shot with a shotgun slug was too high to even enter the chest cavity. Probably took off one of the spinous processes that extend vertically from the spine. that causes a certain amount of temporary shock. Certainly the slug didn't hit the spinal cord. I'd expect the same general spot was hit by that little .243 bullet that we're debating here, with even less effect on the deer.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Yes, that shot with a shotgun slug was too high to even enter the chest cavity. Probably took off one of the spinous processes that extend vertically from the spine. that causes a certain amount of temporary shock. Certainly the slug didn't hit the spinal cord. I'd expect the same general spot was hit by that little .243 bullet that we're debating here, with even less effect on the deer.

That I think we can agree on.

Although legal in some states like Tennessee and North Carolina....I would much prefer someone deer hunting to opt for a .243 vs .223/5.56 caliber.

A former hunting buddy's son shot a deer running, an away shot, at maybe 30 yards. A while later, the deer was shot and dropped by the son's friend using a 300WM at 20+ yards, also a running shot, broadside, coming past him. It was a head shot.

During the butchering process the 223 bullet was recovered at the base of the neck. The bullet had entered just in front and center of the hind quarters and traveled up the spine to and lodging at the base of the neck.

Both bullets, the 223 and the 300WW were Pointed Soft Points.

The 223 was, probably still is, the most common caliber for deer in certain locations across the US....using FMJ ammo. And the 223 using FMJ ammo will kill big game animals. But there are better calibers and better ammunition to use.

I rate the .243 caliber slightly above the .223 caliber as a varmint caliber.

 

[mark-hunter]

The 223 was, probably still is, the most common caliber for deer in certain locations across the US....using FMJ ammo. And the 223 using FMJ ammo will kill big game animals. But there are better calibers and better ammunition to use.

I never though somebody would use FMJ bullets for deer.
Why is that so?

 

[375Fox]

The 223 was, probably still is, the most common caliber for deer in certain locations across the US....using FMJ ammo. And the 223 using FMJ ammo will kill big game animals. But there are better calibers and better ammunition to use.

I rate the .243 caliber slightly above the .223 caliber as a varmint caliber.

I’m not sure why you’d think this? Most states have laws against using FMJ ammo for hunting.

 

[Ridge Runner]

I never though somebody would use FMJ bullets for deer.
Why is that so?

I’m not sure why you’d think this? Most states have laws against using FMJ ammo for hunting.

I don’t know of any state allowing the legal use of FMJ for hunting.

If you were to say re read my thread, take into consideration of the "sub"context of the ammo and particular caliber and the "broad stroke", as perhaps, possibly, maybe, a hint. I'm sure their are "a few good...." or "be all....." AH members that can relate to the content.

Let's say it's hunting season and an individual (or several) has (have) a hunting license, and there's a choice of eating certain pre-packaged food, or it's a practical learning experience and an alternative food source of opportunity appears.

I can neither confirm nor deny such campfire stories took place.

 

[Certus]

'243 was well regarded by the Scots for stalking Red Deer, which generally are larger than white tail.'

I am afraid that we have to knock that one on the head right away.

A .243 is just legally acceptable, but you would have a hard time getting a proper stalker to allow you to 'take it on the hill'. A .270 or 6.5 is the de facto minimum (up to the usual .308 or 7mm).

I am hesitant to criticise in such a situation, where I was not present and do not know all the facts. Any experienced stalker or hunter has been in a position where they have wounded an animal which has then got away. However, we ought to respect our quarry, and that means giving it the mercy of as quick a death as is in our power to do so. What appears to be a gut-shot stag and leaving it to die overnight, expecting to come back in the morning to recover the carcass... sorry, no. Get off your fat arse and make the effort to put the animal down: then you can come back in the morning.

The legal minimum there was applied because 243 works well for it. Should we argue the 375h&h is useless for big game because it’s the minimum too?

 

[HankBuck]

According to the check station officials estimated the doe at 12 to 14 months old, weighed 115 pounds.

@Ridge Runner I’d have shot that deer too, and 115 lbs is a good size doe especially for under two years old. I don’t think I’ve killed a Doe over 125lbs in Virginia regardless of age

 

[HankBuck]

If a guy can't take a proper shot with a proper caliber and proper bullet, maybe he should find a different hobby.

An adult hunting whitetails, mulies or elk with a .243 is ridiculous IMO.

@CJW: agree with You on a guy being able to “take a proper shot” and “shot decisions” are a critical part of hunting —- when to shoot? Waiting for the cross hairs to “settle”, knowing the angle the deer is presenting ie: is it really broadside or slightly quartering away/towards?? Then factor in “How bad to I want that Buck”? The pressure mounts when its a real trophy, bigger then any you’ve ever taken, excitement kicks in and an easy shot becomes harder. Then other factors affect the shot, feeling rushed if the deer seems spooky, daylight running out might pressure you to take a bad angle or shoot before ‘rock steady’. The least important factor is “caliber” —- just put the bullet where it needs to be and No excuses. More big strong men can shoot a .243 accurately then a .300 mag but few will admit it. We all have our minimum for Deer and for me - a .223 is too small but I know it easily kills deer out to 200 yrds with proper bullet placement. Hit your Aim & don’t Complain…

 

[HankBuck]

It doesn’t but it will give some additional flexibility. Most lead core hunting bullets will fragment/shed some weight. Those fragments on a larger heavier bullet from a more powerful cartridge will go further and do more damage outside the direct path of the bullet. A more powerful cartridge also makes a larger temporary wound channel with energy transfer. That’s why when you watch ballistic tests on gel blocks a larger cartridge will throw the block off the table when a smaller cartridge won’t. A larger more powerful cartridge does give more room for error. A heavier bullet will also penetrate more deeply. I think a 300 mag would have made a significant difference over a 243 in this case.

@375Fox - I agree that all things being equal “Bigger is always Better”…. Will ask you this: If a Hunter can’t place a .243 bullet where he needs to at 160 yrds - how can he possibly handle a .300 Win mag? This shot was off it’s mark, maybe a .300mag makes a difference if it went in exactly the same place but a poor shot is often as bad or worse with a magnum caliber (they won’t admit they can’t handle it).

 

[dogcat1]

Sounds like shot placement is the issue, not caliber.
Also, most wounded animals do not survive long due to infection and predators. Likely need to be looking for the skull in the spring.

 

[dogcat1]

I hunt roe bucks (animal of 60 pounds) with 30-06, 180 grainer, fast expansion bullet and
European boars with 9.3x62.
I really believe bigger is better.
I also am no fan of 243 caliber, i see nothing in that cartridge that appeals to me. Above scenario is exactly that I fear from.

If choosing between calibers is no issue, like if your friends had number of other calibers at disposal, I see no reason why wouldn't he choose something with better punch for such big animal, especially since he planned entire hunt for that deer.

Bigger is always better if you shoot it well. Light calibers are fine if you are very proficienT. Most of us are not. With modern optics, there is no excuse or reason to shoot poorly. Practice practice practice

 

[CJW]

@CJW: agree with You on a guy being able to “take a proper shot” and “shot decisions” are a critical part of hunting —- when to shoot? Waiting for the cross hairs to “settle”, knowing the angle the deer is presenting ie: is it really broadside or slightly quartering away/towards?? Then factor in “How bad to I want that Buck”? The pressure mounts when its a real trophy, bigger then any you’ve ever taken, excitement kicks in and an easy shot becomes harder. Then other factors affect the shot, feeling rushed if the deer seems spooky, daylight running out might pressure you to take a bad angle or shoot before ‘rock steady’. The least important factor is “caliber” —- just put the bullet where it needs to be and No excuses. More big strong men can shoot a .243 accurately then a .300 mag but few will admit it. We all have our minimum for Deer and for me - a .223 is too small but I know it easily kills deer out to 200 yrds with proper bullet placement. Hit your Aim & don’t Complain…

There are plenty of proper deer calibers that aren't .300wm's that anyone can learn to shoot well. Plenty of tricks and well made rifles to make them more shooter friendly as well.

Hit your aim, sure. But do it with a proper deer caliber.