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.