The opposite of the Rokslide special, tooter and quartering gut shots with large cartridges

[MEdude]

Most anything will break the pelvis or clip the spine, but the heavier and tougher the bullet the better since it’s a small target and if the bullet dips under the tail will have to travel a good ways or penetrate the spine at a glancing angle.

It’s really a rear spine shot, so anything that would break a neck will work.

It’s a small target so it’s not something I’d do at more than a few hundred yards.

(This drawing isn’t exactly correct, but gets the basic idea across of what’s at the base of the tail.)

View attachment 996766

RancherJohn, You really dont like 10” plates for some reason. I had to chuckle when you complained I talk about 10” plates but don’t list any yardages. Each person will have different max yardages. Right? What am I missing? If you think it’s important to know what my max yardages are: standing I’m good to about 150 yards, sitting unsupported to 250, sitting with a high bipod 275, prone unsupported 400 yards, over a pack or bipod 500 is doable. My distances aren’t important and each shooter should do enough shooting to know their own max distances. Right? What’s so controversial about that? *chuckle*

You bring up a post where I mention many simple ballistic printouts don’t reference areodynamic jump and you find that debatable? It’s a fact. Areodynamic jump is a fact. In the example of 30 mph winds causing a hand width of jump (or dip) at 450 yards is right off a ballistic solver. Do you want to write them and complain that you don’t agree with the concept?

I posit your stated claims of proficiency, to hit stationary “ 10” plates ” at various ranges.
Using this as your own stated limitation, you also express a willingness to shoot “a few hundred yards” at a “small target” only a few inches in size, oh yeah, and it moves.
I’m not sure you understand your own words, “each shooter should do enough shooting to know their own max distances. Right?”

Your own words, in context, within this thread, convict you of an approach that would, at best be described as lacking prudence. Possibly the definition of unethical hunting practice?
I am in agreement with those who warn newer hunters to reject your philosophy.

 

[KenLee]

I used to say the same thing around closing time at the bar. Got me into some real life or death situations the next morning...

Jay

If a feller hasn't, he's not really lived.

 

[KenLee]

Ugh. I've typed and deleted three responses to this thread, but here goes.

The guy in the video is a hold over to the mentality that writers like Boddington espoused in the 70's: "Put one in 'em and track 'em down".
I hunted with an Uncle of mine who had that attitude, and he often backed it up with nonsense written in gun rags at the time. He is like a dad to me, but we had a blow out years ago about that attitude and i never hunted with him again.

This is a great opportunity to "break the cycle" and have a new generation of hunters and woodsmen that are better rounded when it comes to cartridge/bullet and shot selection as well as all other aspects of hunting.

Our goal should be to provide the quickest and most humane deaths in the woods and on the mountain. Nature itself is cruel and ruthless in how she kills. We should strive to be better.

Just send it!

 

[KenLee]

I don't think it's inherently a low percentage pursuit, it's that people take the same philosophy as what started this thread - "it was the only shot I had" - and make some wild decisions. They're taking low percentage shots when, IMO, they should be passing.

Couldn't get a range because it "came in too fast"? Hold high and send it! Frontal shot at 60 yards, while it's staring you down? Send it! Bull's hung up at 80 yards because you're bad at calling? Dial that sight and send it!

I've talked to all of these people during elk seasons, it's always the same excuses. It's always a clean miss or a flesh wound, they just grazed the brisket, he'll recover. None of them have considered that maybe they didn't actually have a "shot opportunity", they just saw an elk and flung an arrow.

Bowhunting elk can be a really high-percentage affair IF you're willing to pass up the low-percentage shots. Some people just aren't willing to wait for that.

A frontal shot at 60 yards is risky? WTH?

 

[The Guide]

A frontal shot at 60 yards is risky? WTH?

With a bow, I'd say it is. Most people have issues hitting the lungs at 40 yards and at 1.5x that distance you expect them to hit a smaller target?

Jay

 

[KenLee]

Well

With a bow, I'd say it is. Most people have issues hitting the lungs at 40 yards and at 1.5x that distance you expect them to hit a smaller target?

Jay

Well yeah. I thought we were still talking rifle

 

[The Guide]

Well
Well yeah. I thought we were still talking rifle

In the context of the post you quoted, the poster was discussing how sloppy people are when bow hunting and how they take high risk shots on elk because they think that they "have to" take a shot because they paid so much and finally saw an elk. Same thing they do with elk when rifle hunting.

Jay

 

[hibernation]

A frontal shot at 60 yards is risky? WTH?

The comment I was replying to was specifically about bowhunting, and it being a "low percentage pursuit".