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

[UnckleBob]

Maybe I’m a dumb ass. But are Elk the only animals/mammals that get tougher in there later years. Most mammals as they get towards there life expectancy are not as tough. My 9 year old dog isn’t the same dog as when she was 3. But I hear Tim and JVB talk about 7-13 year old bulls being extremely hard to kill. I’m calling BS.

1) I am not an expert on ass shots unless you count ... nevermind . I don't plan on taking ass shots on anything except possibly a feral hog I am trying to eradicate.

2) I have heard Tim Sundles on two interviews. If I conflate them, I apologize.

3) My takeaways from both interviews:

• He likes to hunt in heavy timber with rifles set up to be effective at short range.
• He thinks the heavy timber is where the old bulls survive.
• JVB And Sundles both believe older bulls are harder to kill. When I listened, my takeaway was that they think older bulls are harder to kill because they are smarter and good at hiding from predators. (I think they are likely right on that theory)
• I did not come away from either podcast thinking they thought old bulls wore body armor. I did come away from the podcast hearing Sundles thinks older bulls have more mass than younger bulls. I could be wrong, but that seemed reasonable.
• His description of his shots didn't strike me as much different than shots I hear are taken at moving animals (shotguns or rifles) on deer drives.
• He wants a cartridge and bullet that allows him to take a shot from any angle if he has to.

 

[cbk215]

I gotta disagree I'm not purposely gut shooting any animal, shoot a good bullet and good caliber, become a better hunter and take ethical shots.

 

[Nevwild]

My takeaways from both interviews:

He likes to hunt in heavy timber with rifles set up to be effective at short range.

• He thinks the heavy timber is where the old bulls survive.
• JVB And Sundles both believe older bulls are harder to kill. When I listened, my takeaway was that they think older bulls are harder to kill because they are smarter and good at hiding from predators. (I think they are likely right on that theory)
• I did not come away from either podcast thinking they thought old bulls wore body armor. I did come away from the podcast hearing Sundles thinks older bulls have more mass than younger bulls. I could be wrong, but that seemed reasonable.
• His description of his shots didn't strike me as much different than shots I hear are taken at moving animals (shotguns or rifles) on deer drives.
• He wants a cartridge and bullet that allows him to take a shot from any angle if he has to.

I had similar takeaways.

When I’ve been hunting elk for the last couple years, I’ve been shooting a 147ELDM around 2650 MV.

I’ve been finding that most of the shot opportunities that I have where I’m hunting in overly pressured public land ends up being in dark timber

When I honestly think about the speed and judgment required to properly place the bullet in the vitals in those scenarios makes me wonder about the validity of his argument.

Does it make sense to have an incredibly powerful cartridge with a deeply penetrating and damaging bullet that does massive damage so that you can take the opportunity that you have on an animal in the woods?

I’d always considered the idea of taking less than ideal shots as unethical, but the reality is that if you’re hunting timber, you could very well just mess up and hit where you don’t intend.

With that being the case, is it more ethical to have a rifle that allows you to consistently make the best placed shots that you possibly can do to reduce recoil, or does it make sense to have an incredibly damaging bullet that has a larger cone of fire that is more likely to incapacitate the animal long enough for you to finish the job quickly after the first shot?

Would it make more sense to have a lever action so that you can take multiple shots quickly at close range?

I was planning on shooting out the rest of the barrel and going down to a 6 mm, but I’ve been forced to reevaluate what I actually think is best for the conditions that I’m actually hunting.

I’ve run the hunters drill many times and I know that I shoot better with a lower recoiling round, but I also know that there is likely to be a moment that I end up taking a shot that is less than ideal on an animal close range.

Am I going for a 6UM? Some kind of lever action? A .338 or something?

What is the most ethical and effective timber hunting caliber, bullet construction, and rifle set up for close range fast paced timber hunting?

I am genuinely struggling to come up with the best answer for this question.

 

[streamerfish]

I had similar takeaways.

When I’ve been hunting elk for the last couple years, I’ve been shooting a 147ELDM around 2650 MV.

I’ve been finding that most of the shot opportunities that I have where I’m hunting in overly pressured public land ends up being in dark timber

When I honestly think about the speed and judgment required to properly place the bullet in the vitals in those scenarios makes me wonder about the validity of his argument.

Does it make sense to have an incredibly powerful cartridge with a deeply penetrating and damaging bullet that does massive damage so that you can take the opportunity that you have on an animal in the woods?

I’d always considered the idea of taking less than ideal shots as unethical, but the reality is that if you’re hunting timber, you could very well just mess up and hit where you don’t intend.

With that being the case, is it more ethical to have a rifle that allows you to consistently make the best placed shots that you possibly can do to reduce recoil, or does it make sense to have an incredibly damaging bullet that has a larger cone of fire that is more likely to incapacitate the animal long enough for you to finish the job quickly after the first shot?

Would it make more sense to have a lever action so that you can take multiple shots quickly at close range?

I was planning on shooting out the rest of the barrel and going down to a 6 mm, but I’ve been forced to reevaluate what I actually think is best for the conditions that I’m actually hunting.

I’ve run the hunters drill many times and I know that I shoot better with a lower recoiling round, but I also know that there is likely to be a moment that I end up taking a shot that is less than ideal on an animal close range.

Am I going for a 6UM? Some kind of lever action? A .338 or something?

What is the most ethical and effective timber hunting caliber, bullet construction, and rifle set up for close range fast paced timber hunting?

I am genuinely struggling to come up with the best answer for this question.

The whole flaw in the premise is its almost entirely about bullet choice.

And big, high penetration bullets dont cause as much damage. Its pretty logical really.

 

[Nevwild]

The whole flaw in the premise is its almost entirely about bullet choice.

And big, high penetration bullets dont cause as much damage. It’s pretty logical really.

I agree 100% but that bullet construction is key.

So I ask again:

What is the most ethical and effective timber hunting caliber, bullet construction, and rifle set up for close range fast paced timber hunting?

 

[Choupique]

What is the most ethical and effective timber hunting caliber, bullet construction, and rifle set up for close range fast paced timber hunting?

.458 win mag and 500gr banded solids?

if we're talking about needing to penetrate corner to corner from any angle at close range and still have a big hole, its gonna take a shitload of horsepower.

 

[KHntr]

.458 win mag and 500gr banded solids?

if we're talking about needing to penetrate corner to corner from any angle at close range and still have a big hole, its gonna take a shitload of horsepower.

Why do you need to penetrate corner to corner though? Does it matter? If you are going to shoot something through the ham anyway, why not pick a bullet that is going to damage the hips enough to allow you to get a finisher in, or hit something fatal and kill the animal regardless?

 

[Jpsmith1]

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.

I've kind of been in the same boat about this topic, every time I see it crop up.

I hunted late season "population control" whitetail with a bunch of guys this year, and I never dropped the hammer on a round for a handful of reasons.

Some of these guys are basically "mag dumping" on anything brown they see. Saw several deer "missed" which I suspect may have been hit and not well tracked and found one "wounded and lost" a couple weeks later.

I agree that, as a community, we need to focus more on marksmanship, anatomy and proper shot placement over sheer volume of fire.

That said, the technique described in the OP is probably a pretty successful technique. Shot opportunities are greater because you're less selective about the shot. Gut shots are lethal and, handled properly with a dog, are a pretty easy recovery. I don't support or condone hunting that way, but I can see how someone could reach that conclusion based on some amount of field experience.

Blast it in the ass, mark the shot, call in a dog in the morning/next day and go find your animal. It could be pretty successful. Not very ethical but reasonably successful.