Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43
  1. #1
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    BFN Freestate
    Age
    45
    Posts
    12,151

    Default Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    Hunting- By Messor- Part SIX

    The Mechanics of wounding and following up.

    I am going to take the time to explain the relationship between the two things mentioned, firstly the mechanics of wounding and secondly what impact that has on the following up of game.

    I will be quoting a lot of stuff, research already done so no need to do it again.

    Lets first start with the mechanics of wounding, in short it’s how you kill the animal, and what makes it die, and the first principle is this :

    Rapid death is brought about only by brain death (i.e., the collapse of the central nervous system). Brain death can be caused directly by damaging the brain or upper spinal tissue, or indirectly by depriving it of oxygen. Oxygen deprivation is the result of cardiac arrest or of hemorrhaging which reduces blood pressure or damage that completely shuts off the circulatory function. Thus rapid death is accomplished by causing the collapse of the central nervous or circulatory systems.

    Right, so in order for you to kill the animal, that is what you need to do, how do you achieve this, well you shoot it with a bullet, in a certain place, the shot placement critical in how long it will take for the animal to expire. I’ll explain this via a scenario(story telling), in order for more inexperienced hunters learning from our forum to understand it as well.

    Mr Jan van Riebeeck is walking in the bush hunting something for the pot, he carries his trusty .270, and he plans on shooting the animal in the heart-lung area because he doesn’t trust his shooting ability enough to make a brain shot. This is a good idea because the heart-lung area gives a much larger target to aim for. Mr van Riebeeck shoots, he hears the usual “thump”, and now he must decide what to do. You see Koos Kombuis told him not to follow the animal immediately, give the animal some time to die, and his other buddy, Piet Pompies told him that’s nonsense, go after the animal and see if it’s dead.

    The argument Koos brings to the table is that you should wait a long time for the animal to expire, if you don’t do this, the animal will not calm down and adrenalin might keep it going. So it’s better just to sit and wait, give the animal some time, have a smoke, and take the spoor. This way the animal won’t go far, and less tracking needed.

    Piet doesn’t agree with this at all, you see he read an article from rathcoombe in which they explain in details how the animal will expire. He knows that :

    The single most important factor in wound lethality is bullet placement. This cannot be overstated. It is true that sometimes a direct hit on the brain by a bullet is not instantly incapacitating (read Massad Ayoob's "terminator" story from several years ago), but generally this is because that portion of the brain struck is the relatively "unimportant" part associated with cognition. Hits against the base of the brain or the upper spine are almost always instantly fatal because these regions control the involuntary vital functions like heartbeat and respiration.
    In the case of hemorrhage resulting from damage to the lungs or arteries, brain death will likely occur prior to cessation of cardiac function; the time required for brain functions to deteriorate to the point of unconsciousness depending on the rate of hemorrhage. However, when damage is done directly to the heart, the circulatory function may be arrested first, leading to unconsciousness within a few seconds.


    So Piet is wondering what is up with Koos, Piet knows that with a proper lethal wound the animal cannot go, adrenalin CANNOT keep an animal going if the circulatory system is broken. You see Piet invented the internet back in 1778, so he knows that all adrenalin does is increase the blood flow to the muscles, and it increases heart rate, and many other stuff he learned from Wikipedia. What Piet wonder is how the hell adrenalin can increase the blood flow to the muscles, or increase heart rate, when either the heart is destroyed, or the circulatory system is destroyed and the heart cannot pump blood to the muscles, I mean :

    Other than hits to the central nervous system (brain and spine) or the unpredictable mechanism of spontaneous cardiac arrest or cranial hemorrhage, the only reliable cause of rapid death is through hemorrhaging produced by cutting a hole through major blood-bearing organs (heart, lungs, liver) or major blood vessels (e.g., aorta). The dimensions and especially the location of the cavity produced by the bullet will determine the rate of hemorrhaging and in turn the rapidity of the onset of death. It is actually more lethal in some cases to sever the arteries directly above the heart, than to penetrate the heart itself. If these arteries are cut, blood pressure instantly drops to zero and death will follow in seconds (this is one reason why an arrow can kill as fast as a bullet). Lethal hemorrhaging does not depend upon how much blood exits the body, but only upon the loss of blood pressure.

    Piet knows that adrenalin thus cannot do anything to an animal if it cannot use that adrenaline, if lethal haemorrhaging is the result of blood pressure loss, no amount of adrenalin can affect the outcome of a correct shot. The adrenalin cannot be used.

    So all this time Jan is listening and wondering what to make of it, so he asks Piet how far does animals then normally run? Piet says first you must understand if he runs or not it doesn’t make a difference, it’s all about the time it takes for the circulatory system to shut down :

    What is not apparent from this assessment is that, owing to physiological operations, causing a more extensive wound than what is sufficient to result in collapse by this definition will not necessarily result in any appreciable reduction in the time for collapse. In other words, given that the circulatory system has been shut down, the animal can still remain on its feet and act for anything up to 10 seconds or so with the oxygen in its blood at the time it lost circulation. Other than by inhibiting locomotion through damage to the limbs or to the central nervous system, more extensive wounding will have little influence on that limitation.

    Jan then asks, you know I shot an animal, it didn’t fall, and it didn’t leave a blood trail, I had a hard time in finding it, what’s up?
    Piet says, first I must remind you :

    Lethal hemorrhaging does not depend upon how much blood exits the body, but only upon the loss of blood pressure.

    Jan then says, you know I shot the animal with a monolithic bullet, it had a small entrance wound and a small exit wound. I used the bullet because Koos said a normal standard cannot work. Can this be the cause of any trouble? Piet first reminds Jan, read the above, shooting a hole through the animal won’t magically kill it! Piet also asks, how fast did you shoot it(MV), you must remember, either it did not expand at all, or :

    The bonded bullets then maximize cavitation for a given level of penetration (slightly better than that of a non-premium bullet), while monolithic and partitioned bullets offer deeper penetration in exchange for reduced cavity dimensions. The erratic penetration of the premium non-bonded bullets at high velocity (>2800 fps) not observed in the other three clases, including a slight trend in some cases toward increasing penetration depth, results from the loss of expanded frontal area; either broken off petals in the case of monolithics

    Jan is dumbfounded, and asks Piet what he can do?
    Piet says, remember :

    The dimensions and especially the location of the cavity produced by the bullet will determine the rate of hemorrhaging and in turn the rapidity of the onset of death.

    Piet says : So use a bullet that creates a bigger cavity Jan!
    Jan says : I see, where can I find data on this?
    Piet says :
    http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/b...s/methods.html
    But he knows Jan won’t read it, he knows people only believe what they hear from ninja's, or their long lost uncle who happens to be a recce, and a green beret.

    Koos wakes up again, bull he says, adrenalin work, I have seen wounded animals that simply won’t go down, and it’s the adrenalin I tell you.
    Piet tells Koos to relax, and explains to him what happens when camouflaged SA hunters wound animals from bakkies :

    The first hit is the most important, because endorphins that are released into the body as a result of serious injury cause the constriction of the blood vessels, reduce or eliminate most pain, and condition the body to operate with minimal oxygen in the blood. If the first hit is not immediately lethal, then subsequent hits will often be less effective in quickly dropping the target, even if they are lethal wounds. Few people realize this, but it is well documented. It is the same mechanism which makes a startled or alert deer harder to kill than one which is completely surprised, because fear also triggers the release of endorphins.

    Koos is starting to realize he has been wrong all along, he now understands that wounded animals can go far, regardless whether they are followed up or not. And that with the correct shot placement you can follow up whenever you like, it will not make a difference to the damage already done to the animal.

    Jan now understands that you must use a large enough calibre, with the combination of a bullet that creates a large enough permanent wound cavity, and shoot the animal in the right place if you want it to die quickly. He also understands the concept of following up, and it’s simple :

    If the shot placement is good there is NO reason not to follow up, the animal WILL die.
    If the shot placement is not good there is NO way of determining how far the animal will run, if it will drop at all, how long you can “leave” it to die, or if you will be tracking it for a day or two.

    End of story.

    Anyway folks, hope you enjoyed fable Friday.
    Remember bush hunters spend their lives tracking dead animals, plains hunters spend their whole lives watching animals die. Thus I can tell you with utmost confidence I have seen thousands of things die. How long it will take to die is up to you, if wounded you are not in control of the situation in the bush conditions since you cannot take a follow up shot.

    The animal is in either one of three states:
    1: Lethally wounded in the major organs, death will follow soon.
    2: Lethally wounded but not in the major organs, an artery is cut, a piece of lung, liver or kidney is damaged, something that will kill the animal, eventually. Trick is you don’t know the extent until you examine. Following up such an animal might cause it to get up and run again, but not because you are following it, just because it is NOT dying quick enough because of shooter incompetence.
    3: Wounded non lethally, but you don’t know this, waiting is putting more distance between you and the animal.

    Thus my opinion is simple, do what you like, just remember if you leave the animal to die you are not in control of how long that takes. It could die in 10 minutes or 10 hours.
    I follow up to put myself in control of the situation, simple as that.
    Last quote for the day, for those who find things to be random, it’s because mostly they are:

    One of the most significant and utterly uncontrollable variables in terminal performance is the target itself; not merely the shot path or point of impact (these can be controlled), but the intrinsic constitution of the animal. I have seen deer with their heart blown quite literally away that ran 100 or even 200 yds on nothing more than the oxygen present in the blood at the instant of impact. Others spring lightly away as if unhurt when hit in an identical manner by a load which has dropped similarly sized game as if struck by a thunderbolt. Some will continue to graze calmly as though unaffected by the passage of the bullet through their vitals or the sound of the rifle's report (clearly in a state of shock). Some appear to be flipped or thrown by the impact while others never twitch a muscle. Some flinch or drop their hind quarters in a spasmodic contraction of agony, but nevertheless run or walk away. The point is this: there is never any certainty of the effect on a game animal even when all of the controllable variables are held constant.

    So don’t base your opinion on the last animal you shot, or your father shot, or that which someone else tell you to be the truth. Don’t think that because you are a bushveld hunter, and that the animals are generally found 50 or 100 meters away they died in the same way. Do the autopsy(slaughtering) yourself, on everything you shoot, and the damage will tell a better story than the one you made up when you found the animal lying under a tree, 30min after you shot it.

    Us guys on the plains don’t have to, we shoot them and watch them die, and we see exactly what happens every time. Our opinions are not based on speculation. If you watch an animal die, you can call the time of death, examine the wound cavity afterwards, and make your correlation between those two. If you sit and wait for something to die, make sure that whatever you preach to someone about that scenario is based on truth, not speculation.

    Messor
    Last edited by Messor; 22-07-2016 at 12:01.

  2. #2
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,547

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    And this is why I want to listen and perhaps stick you for a coffee/beer. Great read, thanks.

  3. #3
    User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    port elizabeth
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,509

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    messor...good read and interesting points...but.....an animal responds far more to stimuli than a human. if an animal is thirsty it will seek out water,a human will carry water because he knows he will be thirsty later. if an animal gets cold it will find a place to stand and sun itself,a human would be prepared and have a warm jacket. now ,keeping this in mind,lets have a look at various shots on an animal. head or spine shots,animal drops on the spot. lightly wounded,but will ultimately recover,animal runs off.heart shot,animal dashes off for a short distance and dies. in these 3 cases it makes not 1 iota difference to the outcome as to whether or not you wait 20 minutes after shooting or if you rush up straight away...what is done is done. take now an animal that is wounded and death may be 20 minutes away or 20 hours away. now keep in mind that the average hunter thinks the shot went on the shoulder but it may have nicked liver,gut shot or 1 lung,whatever. this animal now reacts to stimuli,it has heard the shot and run off which is normal. now this animal is sore,stimuli again,it does not want to run so it stops,it"s instinct takes over and it watches back in the direction it came from [even unwounded animals do this],often that animal will then lie down or move into cover. the longer that animal stays there,the more reluctant it will be to move[pain worsens,wound stiffins ect] Charging in after the shot will get the animal moving again,confirm the threat to it and it will now associate threat to pain and it is going to move untill it dies. giving that animal those 20 minutes gives you a much improved chance of ending matters much faster because of this.

  4. #4
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    KZN
    Age
    63
    Posts
    1,445

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    Thanks Messor. Good read.

  5. #5
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    BFN Freestate
    Age
    45
    Posts
    12,151

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    Quote Originally Posted by pre 64 View Post
    Charging in after the shot will get the animal moving again
    Man

    Do you know how long it takes to type these things?
    Must I now write another article describing how you should never charge around during stalking or following up :)

    Dead animals don't need waiting periods, and people should learn to shoot and stop hoping for success.

    I bet you there are many youngsters out there who's been told to wait 20min, and they do that, they've just never been told why.
    They think they sit and wait for the animal to die, and that is far from the truth. I don't care in the least if people sit and wait, as long as they know why they are doing it, and the Pro's and Con's of it.

    Just clearing up misconceptions Sir, covering the basics, I cannot cover all scenarios, and I cannot please everybody.

    But I do take the time to write these things, because one of us must.

  6. #6
    User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    port elizabeth
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,509

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    messor....i can imagine the amount of time and effort you took to write this,like i say i enjoyed the read and again you brought with it an easy,logical way of following what you are saying. i,agree that dead animals dont need a waiting period,it is the dying ones that do. if i ever bump into you,i will buy you a beer,if you pour it over my head i wont even take offence. i dont agree with everything you say as you dont with me at times. i believe in a waiting period and i stated my reasons. you dont,and you stated your reasons.

  7. #7
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    BFN Freestate
    Age
    45
    Posts
    12,151

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    All cool Mr 64.

    This is how people learn, this is how information, real information is put out there.
    Your opinion brought knowledge and experience to this thread also.

    Perhaps I have a strange way of thinking about or explaining things, must be the fault of that Jan van Riebeeck I tell you :)

  8. #8
    User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    port elizabeth
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,509

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    Messor....just thinking about how we differ on some outlooks. i think your hunting is defined by you and your experiences. mine,i think have been defined to a certain extent by hunting with clients who dont allways know what they are doing. when you fire a shot you know where that bullet has gone. when a client of mine fires a shot ????????then it becomes my responsibillity.

  9. #9
    User
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    port elizabeth
    Age
    60
    Posts
    2,509

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    messor,you cant fool me. i know now what a :) means. Ask BigT

  10. #10
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Roodepoort
    Age
    42
    Posts
    839

    Default Re: Hunting - By Messor - Part Six

    As always, Messor, you put some logical thought processes into your posts and it becomes food for thought.

    I agree that a heart-shot animal isn't going far nor is one where you take out the main arteries above the heart. It is however true that there are times when one may duff the shot, especially when there hasn't been too much recent practice and in those instances where you are not 100% sure I think a waiting period before follow-up is a good thing.

    An example of this happened recently. My friend, who happens to be a very good shot, pulled a shot at a BWB facing us, we were in an elevated position in relation to the animal. The shot smashed the left shoulder missed the heart and went through the left lung, clipping the liver before finally lodging in the intestines. The animal ran into a thick portion of vegetation so we didn't see whether it fell or not.

    At the time my friend felt the shot was good but having heard of the idea to let the animal calm down by waiting a few minutes I suggested we wait a few minutes. I had a smoke, he took a swig of water and about 10 minutes later we were on our way to track the animal when the sound of breaking branches drew our attention to a spot ninety degrees from the initial position of the animal i.e. the sound came from our left hand side.

    Thinking it might be the animal having gone down we ventured towards the sound and found the BWB wedged into a thicket, laying down. As we approached it the animal attempted to get up again with a wildly swinging head and just as it was about to get up I planted it with a shot through the spine into the chest cavity, this happened in the space of two or three seconds. He was not even 30M from where he was originally shot.

    Now, I know the original shot would ultimately have been fatal but I do believe had we gone in guns blazing immediately after the shot he would have gone considerably further. What leads me to think this? Well he must have been standing, looking back, after the initial run at the shot. It took about 10 Minutes for him to believe it was "safe" to have a lie down(When we heard the branches break) and I can tell you he was getting back up in a hurry when we came upon him.

    Does this excuse a poor shot? No, of course not but shit happens (More so to those of us who don't hunt every day or weekend) and I do believe this approach would likely lead to more successful follow up on wounded animals.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •