Do you think a Heavy Bullet corrects for poor bullet placement?

[jeepmann1948]

 Do you folks think a misplaced (for instance) 45-70 405 grain bullet will dispatch an animal faster than a 35 caliber 158gr bullet? This is assuming the 45-70 is a factory load and the 357 is a Max load ?
 

[hoytcanon]

NO! Bullet placement is where it is at... REGARDLESS of the projectile... .223 or .45/70, if it is placed right the death will be quick and relatively painless... shot through the paunch, death will be slow and painful and recovery may not occur, with the .223 OR the .45/70. Of course a bigger bullet does more damage and theoretically kills quicker... but in comparison to the tissue it is passing through and doing that damage, the point is somewhat moot. The problem with believing that a heavy projectile expands shot placement options, is that some hunters will use that belief to take marginal or poor shots, hoping they will get lucky... that is not ethical and is unfair to the game we hunt. We all should strive for clean "one-shot" kills... and only take high percentage shots. Fifteen years ago I passed up the buck of a lifetime at 15 yards because I could only get a neck shot when bowhunting, and never got a clear shot to the lungs, that massive 14 pointer walked away, and as far as I know, he was never taken.

[bikerbeans]

No, unless the bullet is from the main gun of an Abrams Tank.
 
BB

[YRUpunting?]

Nope, but that is the conventional wisdom.  The average deer hunter will be more successful with a .243 they can shoot well over a 30-06 they cannot. 

[Dee]

No

[Drilling Man]

Do you folks think a misplaced (for instance) 45-70 405 grain bullet will dispatch an animal faster than a 35 caliber 158gr bullet? This is assuming the 45-70 is a factory load and the 357 is a Max load ?

  Generally NO, BUT!  Did the 158 give full penetration like the 405 will??  That does make a big difference!  Like was said though, generally poor placement is just that POOR placement and "usually" is doesn't matter what bullet did it, but not always...
 
  DM

[cwlongshot]

Excellent topic George!!

The correct answer is of coarse NO. You cannot make up for poor marksman ship by using "more gun".


BUT also as other have said, some do seem to kill faster and more efficiently. From my experience the 35 and up crowd gets hat acalade.

The following is just a rambling form some thoughts I jotted down on. The subject some years ago;

If you look at a 357 Mag shooting a 158g HP at 1300fps. Now lets also say at 50 yards shot into the lungs, broadside, of a calm, 150# whitetail deer death is certain with in three minutes of impact.

Now change to a 35 Remington, shooting a 200g rnsp @ 2100fps. Same deer, same distance, same senero. Only now the deer will pass in less than a minute.

Now change to a 358 Norma Magnum, also shooting a 200g bullet. This time a Spitzer and @3000fps. Again same deer, distance, senero. This time deer passes in seconds of impact.

Which is more efficient? Which is better?

I'll say if the 357 bullets impact was moved back to the diaphragm, the deer would run off to die certainly, but recovery would be in question.
The 35 Remington same senerio, likley same out come. But possibly slightly better as the destruction of the heavier bullet traveling faster will produce more disruption.
Lastly the Norma mag. That deer quite possibly would still fall where it stood and pass with in minutes.

There exists a number of variables. Any one could change the outcome drastically.
1) Calm animal
2) Broadside
3) 50 yards
4) Realitive power of ammo
  4a) Velocity
  4b) Energy
  4c) Bullet weight
5) Size of animal
  5a)Species of animal

So I guess within the scope of a good hunter/marksman and a adaquite cartridage, bigger is better...



It fits with your posting George. Excellent topic!!

CW

[RPRNY]

A bigger hole does not compensate for a poor shot in terms of ethical hunting. The hunter should only take that shot with which he is reasonably confident will safely make an ethical (quick) kill on the animal being hunted.

That being said, in the event of a mistaken poor shot, a .458" hole will do substantially more permanent tissue damage (and resultant blood loss) than a .357 hole assuming similar penetration depths. And a 405 gr bullet is more likely to deliver a deeper and more damaging wound channel than a 158 gr bullet (in the circumstances of those cartridges under discussion). So, if you were to make a poor shot by mistake, given similar shot placement and penetration, the 45-70 would likely lead to a quicker and more certain bleed out than the 357 Max. With good shot placement, any deer in NA should not have a dissimilar experience of rapid death from either the 357 Max or 45-70, IMHO.

[Sourdough]

Nope!  Big or small hole in a bad location and the animal can run off and never be found.  Put the bullet in the right location no matter what the size and the animal goes down.  I've seen Moose hit with a 458 Mag run off and never be found by the hunter.  Trappers found it later that winter.  I've dropped Moose with a 125gr varmint load, one shot.  So placement is the most important, being close don't cut it, no matter what the size of the bullet.  Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

[srussell]

i live in Indiana were shotguns are used, we had a check station at one time. i have seen deer shot 4/5 times with 12 gauge slugs just because the first one was a bad hit .

[LaOtto222]

President Reagan was shot with a 22 rim fire snubby. It bounced off of a couple of ribs before entering his lung. He did not even think he was shot, not until he spit up some blood. He would have died if the Secret Service did not act quickly and divert his car to the hospital. So a small, slow projectile will kill if placed correctly. A poorly placed 45-70 will kill too, but not fast enough to find. A deer was gut shot with a 16 gauge slug. It had already ran 200 yards when it went by my father. It's tongue was hanging out as well as innards. They tracked it for half a mile and never did find it. I am sure it eventually succumbed, but was never found. When I was a youngster, I speared a bunch of bullfrogs (yum, frog legs). While cleaning them, one got away. I tried to chase him down, but he got into the brush where I could not go. 3 weeks later, I saw him again. He went from a fat frog to a very skinny one, with some of his innards hanging out. I know that a frog's nervous system is different than a deer, but a frog gig diameter in comparison to the size of the frog is big. He survived for three weeks, eventually he would have died had I not dispatched him.

So, shot placement is everything. A poor shot is a poor shot, likely to inflict a lingering death.

Good Luck and Good Shooting

[twoshooter]

Back to the technical issues of your question, YES, a poor shot with a BIG gun will be better and more effective than a POOR shot with a small gun, and that is the way your question is phrased. A heavy gun is more likely to have an exit wound and leave a blood trail.
That being said, a poor shot is a poor shot. I have never lost a wounded deer. OK. I will say that again. I have NEVER lost a wounded deer. I have come close, had to track a few, but not many. Some people doubt that, but it is so.
I have shot 1, ONE , deer running. That is out of about 85 or so deer I have killed. Three or four were walking. The one running was the one and only one I have ever shot with a 270 Win, and I have never seen more damage than that shot did.
Every other deer I have taken has been with a 35 or larger caliber. I would say that there is no replacement for shot placement. One mistake that I think many may make is their point of aim. Most have been drilled continually with trying for a double lung shot. The deer I came closest to losing was a yearling that I shot broadside with a 44 mag super blackhawk. He ran almost a 1/4 mile and we looked for an hour and a half for him. When we found him there was a hole that you could have dropped a golf ball all the way through him, both lungs. It was impossible for him to run that far, but no one told him that. I made a point after that, unless they are in clear territory to aim high in the shoulder. It may not kill as fast, but it is an anchor shot, most likely taking out the spine , and damaging the shoulders to where they cannot run. The spine shot usually sends bone fragments through the upper lungs, esophagus and jugular vein, so death is relatively rapid, just not instant. If you are in brush where tracking is tough, take the shoulder/ spine shot. I have put more deer down right there with that shot, using a 444, than any other.

[mechanic]

No.
 
Ben

[michael30.06]

Got to agree it's a NO. For every ethical / planned situation.

[NickSS]

This is an interesting subject.  In my life time I have killed 18 deer, 4 elk, 1 Moose and 42 head of Carabou, 2 Antilope, and one Buffalo.  The smallest caliber I used was a 38 spl (from a modle 36 S&W) and the largest (power wise not diameter) was a 338 Win magnum. All but three were 1 shot kills.  The three that were multi shot kills were two Whitetails and one black tail deer two were shot with a handgun at really close range and one with an M1 carbine. None of the bullets exited on these three animals and I feel that the one shot by the carbine would have gone down from the first hit but it was running and I kept shooting until it fell over from three hits in the lungs.  All but the following were shot with a 30-06 at between 30 and 275 yards. Whitetail deer with 8mm Mauser, Whitetail deer with 30-30, Moose with 338 win mag, 3 whitetails with Muzzle loader (one 58 and two with 45 cal all using round balls0, Oe Whitetail with a 243 win, one elk with 45-70 and one buffalo with 50-70.  They all died and the 30-06 wsa a real fast killer on deer and Carabou.

[ibgp3]

I didn't even read this thread for a long time because it is such a sore spot for me.


I like the universal NO! The best kill is a well placed shot.


An excited "I hit him!!" as a deer runs into the brush on 3 legs is a clear indication that you drew the wrong blind.

[joeinwv]

Placement is king, penetration is queen - solve those two and the rest will take care of itself.

[OldSchoolRanger]

The answer plain and simple is "No"!

[tykempster]

I'm going to take the other side and say yes, not simply a "heavier" bullet, but a larger, more powerful bullet should do more bodily damage all things being equal, and kill faster on a misplaced shot.

Is that fast enough to be humane, ethical, and should a larger bullet ever be a reason to take a poor shot, NO.

[Land_Owner]

Let's see:

Hit 'em in the leg with a Brick, or shoot them in the neck with a pill?

Gotta go with:

NO!

[yukondog]

Gotta go with NO.

[Fred243]

No, a poor shot is a poor shot and either way the animal suffers whether it's a big hole or a small hole. Yes, maybe the big hole will do more damage and the time from shot until expired may be shorter but it doesn't make it better. Shot placement is at the top of the list of importance. My .02 cents !!