Average Hunter Ignorance.

WKR

WKR
Joined
Jun 14, 2019
Messages
2,001
I dont understand all the negative comments.
The end result was a quick kill and easily recovered elk. Which is the goal. The shot placement was within the kill zone margin of error.

Its not like he shot the darn thing in the leg and lucked out by hitting an artery, he put it in the lungs and killed it.
 

2ski

WKR
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
1,793
Location
Bozeman
So if you had come here and said not an ideal shot but obviously it hit some kind of vitals that's one thing. But you came here making it seem like your buddy made a great shot. Are you advocating for aiming there? Because it kind of seems like it in your first post. That's a pretty small place to aim. Are there lungs there? Sure. But if that shot drops just an inch or two are those lungs still there? And quite possible the 1st shot is the kill shot. The 2nd shot could've hit nonideal organs. It's just timing where the first shot took complete effect right after the 2nd shot.

As for questions about the shot. Where the bullet came from. What organs it actually hit. I thought this was your buddy. Why don't you ask him the questions and let us know.
 
Last edited:

2ski

WKR
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
1,793
Location
Bozeman
Yeah. I honestly didn’t think I was going to have to prove that the first shot was better than it looked. That was the point of sharing it lol. I pointing out that the elk died extremely fast, which isn’t the standard result of a poor shot, yet people still claim in to be lol. Elk have big vitals. Put a bullet in them, and they die fairly quickly.
At 500 yard at a bull laying down, yes it's a poor shot. Just because it killed him effectively doesn't make it a great shot. It was effective. But if your buddy says he was aiming there then that would make it a good shot. But I doubt her was aiming there. So I think the thing here is that both are not mutually exclusive.
 
OP
huntnful

huntnful

WKR
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
2,321
Small technicality. Unless there is a bad thing going on (blood/air/fluid in the chest cavity), the lungs always touch the chest wall. So inhalation or exhalation a shot right below the spine is in the lung with some margin for error as being in the spinal column is an incapacitating shot.

Your overall point is spot on, the shot put the animal down and that result says the shooter did his job adequately. You are either in the vitals or you are not, no points for just being close.
Appreciate the clarity! Thank you!
So if you had come here and said not an ideal shot but obviously it hit some kind of vitals that's one thing. But you came here making it seem like your buddy made a great shot. Are you advocating for aiming there? Because it kind of seems like it in your first post. That's a pretty small place to aim. Are there lungs there? Sure. But if that shot drops just an inch or two are those lungs still there? And quite possible the 1st shot is the kill shot. The 2nd shot could've hit nonideal organs. It's just timing where the first shot took complete effect right after the 2nd shot.

As for questions about the shot. Where the bullet came from. What organs it actually hit. I thought this was your buddy. Why don't you ask him the questions and let us know.
I agree, first shot is the kill shot more than likely. I never said anything about stellar shooting and pin-point accuracy. Just that clearly, the shot(s) weren't that poor, and certainly not gut shots (second shot is on the fence though), based on how fast the bull dies. He killed the bull 2 years ago and just sent me the video. I don't need his autopsy report to make the conclusion that the shot(s) were good enough to kill the bull extremely fast. And I shared the screenshot of the placement of the first bullet, it's clearly a lung shot.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
3,884
Location
Weiser, ID
I don't understand anyone taking issue with any of what is shown in the video? Hunter shot an elk with the intention of killing it and that's exactly what happened. Just because the hunter didn't shoot him 4 times in 6 seconds using a cinderblock rest and a 6mm doesn't change anything.

I'd bet the vast majority of hunters wouldn't even touch that bull at 500 yards with a 10 round magazine, many guys have never even seen an elk and their blood would go straight to their head instead of their brain.
 

KenLee

WKR
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
2,583
Location
South Carolina
Happy hunter here, but also now relegated to being somewhere between a half-ass shooter and shitty shooter.
Load up them splatter bullets and "just send it". I'll end up eating what I shoot at and don't care what anyone thinks of my shots...but I won't be posting videos either 😉
 

Mangata

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 29, 2022
Messages
124
As high as those are and as far back as they are, they likely hit very little lung. The more than likely hit major vasculature to the liver, kidneys, vena cava or aorta. Again, highly fatal, but with a good dose of Lady Luck thrown in.
Agree, I vote aorta.
He dumped his blood pressure really quickly!
 
OP
huntnful

huntnful

WKR
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
2,321
Not ideal shot placement but yeah, the comments suck.
Yeah I wouldn't consider them ideal by any means. Picture perfect placement, definitely not. In the vitals and lethal, certainly. Second shot is on the margin, no doubt. First shot is not. It's absolutely a vital shot.
 

TaperPin

WKR
Joined
Jul 12, 2023
Messages
3,428
He hit and killed the elk, roughly in a lethal area - that’s good enough. The world isn’t a perfect place.

Where is the justified outrage when someone shoots at such long range they hit a leg, gut or mis an animal completely and “walk the shot in”?! There’s a lot of missing and wounding on Rokslide that is glossed over.
 

Rich M

WKR
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
5,599
Location
Orlando
He hit and killed the elk, roughly in a lethal area - that’s good enough. The world isn’t a perfect place.

Where is the justified outrage when someone shoots at such long range they hit a leg, gut or mis an animal completely and “walk the shot in”?! There’s a lot of missing and wounding on Rokslide that is glossed over.
It doesn't get glossed over in people's minds. I'd vote to restrict long range bullet lobbing in a heartbeat. For every guy who can do it right, there are 100 or 1,000 that don't.

Long range shooting and archery keep plenty of coyotes and crows fed.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,275
Location
northwest
I have a YouTube channel where I share videos of terminal performance so people can see things for themselves. This is actually my buddy’s video. You can see the first shot hit slightly high, and the second shot hits slightly high and back. Both lung shots IMO. The bull dies in about 25 seconds.


Now look at the comments from hunters who have probably never killed an elk, or possibly any animal in their lives.

How do “shitty shots” results in an 6-800lb animal dying in 25 seconds and going zero yards? Lol. The lack of knowledge and ignorance of animal’s vital sizes and bullet performance seriously boggles my mind.

These are the average hunters that bullet companies would have to educate if they wanted to show them how devastating “non hunting” bullets actually are. Genuinely an uphill battle for sure.
Not a terrible shot at all but it certainly could've gone the other way with a bonded type bullet, I've seen bulls go miles on a single lung hit with poor expansion.

A couple take aways for me are:
1) your buddy found his max effective range
2) Long range killing needs to be done with eldm/bergers for max wound channel
3) people suck!
 
Top