Flight distance as a function of meat damage?

[Socrates]

A mate and I have this discussion on a regular basis. We both learned to hunt in SA, where meat damage is to be avoided at all cost.

Even on YouTube there seems to be a reluctance with Saffer's to shoot a second or third shot on a mobile animal.

The Americans however seem to keep on shooting until the animal drops.

My own choice, for my own context is to shoot to anchor, irrespective of the meat damage consequencess.

My question to the seasoned hunters: in the carcasses you had a high degree of meat damage, did the animal's mobility suffer because of it?

[Messor]

You must define mobile a bit more clearly, because that is where the cookie crumbles.

[Socrates]

You must define mobile a bit more clearly, because that is where the cookie crumbles.

Fair point. Let's define mobile as movement exceeding 10 meters from where the animal stood when it got shot.

[aimpoint]

I have never shied away from meat damage. If i loose a fore quarter so be it. Id rather have a found animal than looking for a wounded animal. So for me it’s “op die knoppe” as the afrikaans say…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Messor]

A mate and I have this discussion on a regular basis. We both learned to hunt in SA, where meat damage is to be avoided at all cost.

Even on YouTube there seems to be a reluctance with Saffer's to shoot a second or third shot on a mobile animal.

The Americans however seem to keep on shooting until the animal drops.

My own choice, for my own context is to shoot to anchor, irrespective of the meat damage consequencess.

My question to the seasoned hunters: in the carcasses you had a high degree of meat damage, did the animal's mobility suffer because of it?

It’s a story of two sides, financial and ability.

Finances must be dealt with by the land owner, it’s their product, and in this case I say the buck stops with representative of the land/product owner, in most cases in SA either the owner or his PH.
If the PH says shoot again, then shoot again, it’s his job to make informed decisions bases on his experience. We can play around with the idea of a guy being on his own, but percentage wise few people are allowed to wander alone on dedicated game farms. If it’s just private land not dedicated to game and people mess around the owner will see the carcass in any case and decide if he will allow them there again.

I know this does not answer your question directly, I also know what you are trying to ask but trying to break it down clearly, it boils down to the second side, ability.

A shooter with experience will know what to do next, they will read the scenario and shoot again if needed, and if the shooter does not possess this knowledge then the topic is moot since they cannot make an informed decision. Even worse, much worse, I always ask why must a person who missed a shot on a stationary animal be allowed to take a follow up shot on a moving animal, it defies logic.

So according to your criteria, 10m, there are only a few choices to select from.
1: The animal is down but you cannot determine its state since it’s not sitting up or trying to move, don’t shoot unless being told to (dangerous animals).
2: If the animal is down but sitting up or trying to move, take a follow up shot and end the suffering.
3: If the animal is wounded and on the move, you are already in the SHTF scenario and resort to the advice of the most experienced person at that moment, be it yourself or your guide.

[TStone]

There is a difference between a clean killing shot and an anchoring shot. My preferred shot on any game animal, whether I am hunting myself or guiding a client, is a heart/lung shot. On an animal standing broadside, this should be placed on the shoulder at the top of the heart or just above the heart, where it will penetrate both lungs and either the top of the heart or the heavy plumbing above the heart. This is a deadly shot but it is very seldom an anchoring shot because it does not break heavy bone or destroy the CNS. Animals shot here will normally run, almost always more than 10 meters and often much further, even when using large calibers. I recently shot a blue wildebeest bull, through both shoulders with a 400 grain soft nose bullet (±2300fps) from ±100m. The bullet tore a tunnel through both lungs and destroyed the top of the heart. The wildebeest ran almost 100 meters before dying. Finding it was easy thanks to a heavy blood spoor.

Because a heart lung shot is a safe option and I accept the fact that the animal will run, this is the shot I would normally recommend. There are situations where it is important to drop an animal in its tracks. Culling at night is one and preventing an animal to run into an area where recovery is very difficult is another. Destroying the brain or spine are two options but neither are really easy unless you are a very good marksman and have a very steady rest. Breaking both front legs, low in the shoulder, is an option and will normally damage the lungs and the heart but it is, again, a small target and not really located where most hunters believe it to be. If you shoot too low, and don't break both front legs, you have a problem. (See attached diagram).

Another option is placing the shot towards the front of the chest cavity where the legs, shoulders and the spine meet. This shot is deadly but not a large target and if your shot is too far forward, you are going to wound the animal and it does a lot of damage when properly placed.

A fragile, high velocity bullet placed in the lungs will often drop an animal on the spot but just as often it won't. Yesterday, I shot a blesbuck ram through the center of the lungs with a 87gr V-max bullet (from a 6mm CM) travelling at ±3000fps at 150m and despite major damage to the lungs and arteries above the heart it ran ±50m.

As for a follow up shot, if I am sure of the initial shot, I do not shoot again, even if the animal runs. If I have any doubt about the first shot, I do shoot again, immediately. The same applies to animals that drop and then attempt to get up or do get up. If an animal drop at the shot and then get up again you have a serious problem and, in this situation, I recommend that you shoot again and keep shooting until the animal goes down or you lose sight of it. There is now a very real chance of losing that animal and a mangled carcass hanging in the cold room is preferrable to a lost animal dying a slow death and rotting somewhere in the bush.

On a wounded animal, running straight away from you, shoot for the root of the tail or to break the pelvis. It is a very effective anchoring shot although you will probably need another shot to finish the animal. Whoever work your meat will probably swear at you but at least you will have some meat.

[TStone]

Even worse, much worse, I always ask why must a person who missed a shot on a stationary animal be allowed to take a follow up shot on a moving animal, it defies logic.

Doing this is really stupid.

[pre 64]

Hi Socrates.Just to make a comment on your post.
.No,i do not agree that South African hunters shoot to avoid meat damage at all costs.Any ethical hunter will place a bullet to kill as quickly as possible.Meat damage is generally a result of poor shot placement , shooting an animal at an unfavourable angle or using a too fast poorly constructed bullet.

Youtube is not the norm. Just remember that the youtuber would be reluctant to shoot a follow up shot as they believe it would throw a negative light on their shooting/hunting prowess.

In a lot of areas in South Africa , the bush/visability does not allow a follow up shot as the animal dissappears within a few meters. If that animal is not found within 100m [ an animal can go this distance with a double lung or heart shot] the , the hunt stops and every available person will look for that animal. If found wounded and still alive , then follow up shots will be taken even at long range or awkward angles.

The only times i have seen this desire to avoid meat damage at all costs are on Springbuck driven hunts which can really lead to c**k ups...but that is a discussion for another day.

[BBCT]

TStone.......

That might just be the best summary I have ever read!

[Heath Robinson]

My opinion: my first responsibility is to kill the animal as quickly as possible. Thus I would rather take a shot that accomplishes that than an anchoring shot that inevitably results in a longer period of suffering for the animal. This is for the first shot, not follow-up shots.

Thus the shots I favor are the high heart shot as described by TStone, or in some situations a high neck shot. I only take the high neck shot in the following situations:
1) The target animal is of a species that has a relatively thin neck and tends to hold it's head high (such as Impala, Springbuck and Kudu and definitely not Wildebeest or buffalo).
2) The animal is completely stationary (excluding the tail). This actually applies to all my shots except backup shots.
3) The animal's head is pointing directly at or away from me, not side-on.
4) I have a very stable supported position at moderate range or the range is extremely short.
The advantages of this shot, if taken in the above conditions are that the shot is both immediately fatal and anchoring or results in a minor flesh wound or a complete miss, with basically nothing in between, a reasonable vertical error (due to range estimation and sight height-over-bore) has no effect on the outcome, bullet failure is almost completely eliminated and the meat is best-quality as there is no adrenaline present.
While this is my preferred shot, I probably only use it less than 10% of the time.

I don't really consider meat damage at all in my shot selection process.

As for follow-up shots, most of my hunting is done in terrain that virtually precludes them at my skill level. I have spent 40 years shooting at stationary targets and very little time practicing on moving targets. As a consequence I know that I am not particularly adept at hitting moving targets. Also I have gravitated almost entirely to single-shot rifles.