Huckleberry, I'm going to take a higher road and avoid the childish, personal insults. You talk a lot about penetration of the ribs (perpendicularly) that you like with a broadside shot. Just FYI, the ribs in front of the leg bone are much smaller and easier to penetrate than the larger ribs behind the shoulder. A slight quartering-to shot will give you perpendicular access to the smaller ribs for easier penetration. I will give you the argument that there are more muscles and thicker hide in front of the shoulder, but I am not concerned about a 420 grain arrow flying at 285 fps with a razor sharp broadhead cutting through muscle and skin. If you remove the shoulder/leg bone from the carcass you are left with a rib cage that houses/protects the vitals. Those vitals (with the leg/shoulder bone removed) are equally accessible from all angles. The only drawback I can see to a frontal shot would be the shoulder/leg bone. If you have seen 3 elk wandering around with arrows sticking out of their fronts, I would have to say the shots did not hit where they were supposed to (i.e., point of shoulder, etc). I have personally seen a handful of elk walking around with arrows in the shoulder blade from broadside shots as well. Or one with an arrow in its hind quarter from a quartering away shot. If you can't hit the mark, it doesn't matter what angle the elk is at! If you can hit the mark, a frontal shot is no worse than any other shot on an elk. In my opinion, a quartering away shot on an elk is less than ideal due to the fact that you typically only get one lung, the arrow usually doesn't pass all the way through due to the off side shoulder, and the entry wound seals up with fat from behind the rib cage. This makes for an elk that will often go a long ways without leaving very much of a blood trail. I can see your argument that shooting whitetail out of a treestand with a frontal shot is not a good choice. The vitals are pretty much blocked by the shoulder blade. But I am having a really hard time understanding why a frontal shot on an elk, with a watermelon sized vital area, from a level "on-the-ground" angle is such a bad shot. Huckleberry, if you have killed 35 elk with a bow, you are certainly every bit as experienced in elk hunting as I am and I will not question your choice to not take a frontal shot, nor do I feel a need to convince you or anyone else to do so. The fact that you compare the arteries in an elk's knee to the major arteries (jugular, aortal, etc) in the front of an elk's rib cage points towards someone who would rather argue than learn... Respectfully, Corey Jacobsen P.S. OHBowhntr - Danny M. is a GREAT elk hunter and a great one to learn from for sure!
Personal Insults? You kidding me??? This guy Huck has a passion for bowhunting that Is absolutely huge. He's a hunter ed Instructor, should he be promoting a shot such as yours to his students? You made the shot and were successful this particular time so why wouldn't some other young hunter or newbie think the same thing. You better be damn careful In what you put out there for the general public to see. Sometimes It's better to leave things be and not post stuff such as this on the Internet. Stuff that Is Iffy and questionable when talking shots. 1st time bowhunters soak any Information up they can. I'm by no means an elk veteran like Huck and probably you but It would seem to me that the sternum Is big and would be bigger then that of the ribs. Wouldn't the chance of deflection be that much more too If you hit the sternum? What about 2 holes? You aren't getting that with that shot. At least there's no way you did In that video. It seems to me the end result (the kill In your case) Is much more Important to people these days then how they went about It. I'm short on time here and would love to comment more on this subject but I've got bears to feed this weekend. I'm out!
Schultzy, Yes, personal insults. Name-calling, etc. It's one thing to civily debate an issue, it's another to call names as soon as someone disagrees with someone else. Would someone please list all of the perceived reasons why a frontal shot is not a good shot? I keep hearing "penetration" as the key issue...is that the main concern? I'm also seeing a lot of traditional equipment in avatars here. If I were shooting a recurve or long bow, I would not take a frontal shot unless it was inside 10 yards. If I were a whitetail hunter shooting down out of a treestand I would not take a frontal shot due to the location of the shoulder blade and the poor angle into the vitals. Shooting a compound bow (400+ grains at 285 fps) at an elk with a watermelon sized vital area is not going to be slowed down by the grissle that makes up the sternum. It is also not going to be stopped by the small ribs at the front of the rib cage. Period. On a straight on frontal shot I definitely aim for the opening above the sternum that will take me straight into the largest tangle of circulatory arteries, lungs, heart, right on back into the rest of the vital organs, unobstructed. With a slight quartering to me shot, the arrow hits perpendicular to the small ribs and crushes right through to the same vitals. If I miss my mark I deflect or stick the shoulder/leg bone. No different than if I miss my mark on a broadside shot and hit the guts or the shoulder/leg bone. Negative results from this shot or any other effective shot are 99% of the time due to a performance issue (i.e., misplaced shot). Huck made that point for me with his example of less than 40% of "seasoned archers" being able to hit a 9" opening at 15 to 25 yards. That has NOTHING to do with shot selection and everything to do with practice and ability to make a shot. It doesn't matter if they are shooting at a broadside elephant or a frontal coyote, if they can't hit the vitals they aren't going to have good results. That example proves nothing about the effectiveness of a frontal shot, only the effectiveness of the archer in question. There is nothing between the vitals and me on a frontal shot that is going to affect my shot anymore than there is anything between the vitals and me on a broadside shot. Thicker hide, more meat, smaller ribs on a frontal shot. Thinner hide, less meat, thicker ribs on a broadside shot. Outside of that, what is the issue? A smaller target to hit? Maybe a slightly smaller target to hit on a frontal shot, for sure. It's not a small target by any means, but it is smaller than the large target on a broadside shot, definitely. But it's still over 12"!!! If you hit that area there is no reason your arrow won't get into the vitals. Heck, a frontal shot on an elk is a larger target than a broadside shot on a deer! What is the concern with a frontal shot? Target size? Penetration? Lack of knowledge of anatomy? Rather than bash someone who takes a high percentage shot with great results (not the first elk I've shot, by the way), why don't you list the valid reasons why a frontal shot isn't a good shot. Especially when kinetic energy is plenty to go through grissle and muscle and a 12" target is not going to deter someone who is proficient with archery equipment. Is there any other reason? Respectfully, Corey Jacobsen P.S. Having two holes is definitely nice for tracking, but a slightly quartering away shot will not produce that. Unless you don't take quartering away shots, that is not a valid argument either. Plus we have never had to track a frontal shot elk. They have all crashed within eye sight or ear shot (in thick terrain).
i'd pass on that he almost hit the opposite shoulder it was so hard quartered. Yes he did put that elk down but 9 out 10 times that elk would not have been recovered.
tek, Just FYI, 9 times out of 9 times in the past 5 years elk that have been shot in our group like that have been recovered within 80 yards of the shot. The short bloodtrails usually look much worse than the picture shown... Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone to take the shot if they aren't comfortable with it, just the same as I tell hunters to pass on a 35 yards broadside shot if they aren't comfortable with it. I've been blessed with very few lost animals in 23 years of archery hunting. I won't say it hasn't happened, but I will say that it hasn't happened with a frontal shot, and I am confident that as long as I hit my mark, broadside or frontal, it won't happen. Corey
Corey, Man up here. If you can hit your mark, then which shot has the higher risk? Is it the broadside shot or the frontal shot? Please respond knowing that your target can and will move (and please do provide us with a video of you hitting a moving target-9 out of 9 times). If you anwers the frontal shot, then why are you risking it? As Steve said, 'is the kill that important to you'? Are you hunting for the right reasons? We can "what if" this thing to death, but I want you to tell me which shot, if you could have it 100% of the time and given the choice, you would prefer....broadside or frontal? I know my answer....I'll wait for it...and I have a lot of pictures showing the net result. And I guarantee Tek is on my side no questions asked. There's doubt there.
Huck, I take the higher road and don't call names and your response is "Man up"? Nice. You said "If you can hit your mark, then which shot has the higher risk?" If I can hit a 2" spot every shot at 30 yards, neither shot has a higher risk. I can get my arrow in the vitals every time with plenty of room for any error with either shot. A bull can "and will" move whether he is frontal, sideways, backwards, or wherever he is. You're throwing variables at one situation to try and make it seem like it's evil. If there isn't any room for error in you taking a shot at a 12" target at 20 yards, don't take it. Period. I am confident that I can make the shot every time I take it with enough room for error that it is not a risky shot. I have never taken a shot at a moving target and never will. Inside 40 yards I have never had a standing elk move enough to effect my shot. A whitetail is definitely a different story. I am not "risking it" as you imply when I take a frontal shot. My range is definitely closer than with a broadside shot and I know and stick to my range, whether it be frontal or broadside. I shoot my bow year round and have complete confidence that when I place my pin on a target that my arrow is going to hit there. I don't shoot 60 yard shots in the wind because I know what happens. I don't take risky shots. I respect the game I hunt which is why I spend all year preparing for the 10 days I get to hunt elk every year. The goal is to inflict a lethal shot that puts the animal down as quickly as possible and the frontal shot does that. If you personally feel that you aren't able to hit a 12" target at 20 yards, even if the elk moves at the shot, don't take it. "but I want you to tell me which shot, if you could have it 100% of the time and given the choice, you would prefer....broadside or frontal?" At 20 yards, I'll take a slight quartering to me shot over a broadside shot on an elk in a heart beat. There won't be a tracking job on that elk. At 30 yards and out, I'll take the broadside over the quartering to me, if given a choice. The target is bigger, but that doesn't mean there isn't a big target frontal. "...and I have a lot of pictures showing the net result. And I guarantee Tek is on my side no questions asked." And this has anything to do with the effectiveness of a frontal shot? If you're not confident in taking a frontal shot at a 12" target with the intention of causing the most destruction possible, you have no need to question the reasons why I hunt. Corey
Been following the thread since the beginning. I've never elk hunted so I'm not gonna judge him for taking the shot. But honestly, who are you to ask him if he's hunting for the right reason? Hunting's a personal activity, different people do it for different reasons. I'm sure the reason I hunt is probably in some way different then the reason you hunt. Just like it's different from the next guy in the line's reason.
In honor of Florida Marine and his Asianish (do not know exactly what that means...) I hereby put a cease and desist order on this thread, thereby bringing both sides of this argument back together in a brotherly embrace (that sounded bad)......
Then don't. Hint-hint. I told you guys.....both sides of the slope are slippery. If you feel that strongly about this, Wilbur....it really is best to just let it go.
Message received Jeff, Corey, best wishes my friend. Man, I hope you knock-em dead this year! I mean that!
For those who'd like to read more about it, it's been well versed over a couple times on Bowsite as well.... http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=384670&forum=36#3001832 http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=364621&forum=5#2669042 I might mention the second thread was started by me after a late night chat with a couple of the guys on that board who advocated the shot and one who did not.
I would not take that shot with a bow. There is just too much margin for error. I don't think this is a question of proficiency, I can just see too much going wrong. You rarely get pass through on a frontal shot, and blood trailing would be difficult if even a slight miss occurs. On an antelope sized animal in North America, then maybe I consider it....but conditions have to be perfect. It is a low percentage shot on larger game and I would always recommend waiting for a broadside or slight quartering away angle.
Who am I? That’s a fair question Rory. Before I answer, I am going to ask you a few questions of my own. I am also going to extrapolate a tad to make my point. I really want you to think about what I’m asking; what I’m saying. I apologize for the long drawn out nature, but I think the food for thought present here is important. Here are the first four questions: 1) If a farmer gives you the privilege to hunt on his farm and asks you to stay out of a certain pasture with cattle, do you go there anyway when he’s not looking? 2) If a ranchers gives you the privilege to hunt on his ranch and asks you to leave the gates the same way you found them, do you disregard his wishes and leave them in an opposite position? 3) If a quality deer property manager gives you the privilege to shoot small cull deer and asks you not to kill large symmetrical bucks and one leaps out, do you kill it? 4) If a property owner asks you to stay on the property’s existing road system, do you blaze new trails? I personally think it’s WRONG and DISRESPECTFUL if you, or anyone else for that matter, answered yes to any of these questions. If you’re that disrespectful, I would more than likely question your motives for hunting (there lies the rub, by the way). I’d ask, “Is that person driven by some form of arrogance or greed?” You answer yes and wouldn’t you essentially fly in the face of the very people who have given you the privilege to hunt? Moreover, wouldn’t you be jeopardizing those potential hunting privileges for every hunter coming down the road? Really, how hard is it to simply do as you’re asked? As a property owner, how would you feel if someone slipped something out from under you, or did something against your request? Would you be upset? What if it becomes a trend…? So now, let’s examine the issue of shot selection (on elk) a little further. In doing so I ask that you keep the words “privilege” and “disrespect” plus the phrase “against the will” in the back of your mind. There are, to my knowledge, nine western states which possess indigenous elk herds. There are also a few outside the west which have re-established elk herds-places like Kentucky and Pennsylvania come to mind. I’m not 100% sure (sorry I do not have the time to research and would appreciate input from the community), but I believe each of these states requires some form of hunter education training before a hunter is eligible to hunt within its boundaries (I think Pennsylvania requires HE and an orientation-not sure if the orientation is optional or mandatory). This is certainly the case in Colorado-the state with which I’m most familiar. In Colorado, you are excused from participation in (but not excused from its proper/standard application) this training if you were born prior to January 1st, 1949. Without this training you cannot hunt-period- and there are no exceptions. This is the will of Coloradans! Again, and let me re-emphasize, the WILL of Coloradans (not mine exclusively). Colorado does accept HE certification from other states providing that certification comes from a program sanctioned by the International Hunter Education Associate (IHEA). The particle purpose is to make sure we’re all on the same page-we receive the same training! I believe all 50 programs around the country met this criterion. Here’s a list of states and provinces within North America which require actual (not to be confused with general hunter education) bow hunter education: Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont. Thank you, New61375, for providing us with the IBEP pdf. It helps prove my point since the IBEP certification (or similar) is indeed the certification necessary to hunt in the above listed states. Here’s the link; feel free to re-visit it: http://www.dundeesportsmansclub.com/...tplacement.pdf Now, let’s take a look at that training. I am going to use Colorado as an example. Again, it’s because that’s the state with which I’m familiar. At the instruction’s commencement, each student is issued a Colorado Hunter Education Training Manual. Colorado has two distinct manuals. One focuses more on the DOs and DON’Ts of firearms while the other focuses on bow hunting. Both are publications adopted by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (a law enforce branch of the state), approved by the Colorado Wildlife Commission (its members are appointed by the governor and oversee all things pertaining to wildlife within the state), and approved by the governor himself (elected to this position by “we the people”). The firearm training manual is a lengthy 122 pages whereas the bow hunter’s manual is merely 82 pages. I’ll include a picture of both for your review. I can attest…they’re both beefy publications. These documents essentially define the “standard operating procedures” given to us ultimately by “We the people of the State of Colorado” (and rightly so since they/we own all wildlife within the state. “We the people” commonly refer back to these publications when situation arise. “Own” or “ownership” is fundamentally important to this discussion since property rights are so valued here). In other words, it is their will…what they expect from us as legally authorized/certified hunters within the state. Their goals and objectives are no different than those given to us by the rancher when he enumerates his “ranch rules”. Here are pictures of the first two pages of Hunter Education Manual. I’m not sure they’re clear, so let me pull out the pertinent information. Bruce McCloskey, the Wildlife Division’s Director, states, “Now, it is up to you! Preserving hunting as a choice means that you must learn to be a safe, involved, responsible, and knowledgeable hunter”. In the second picture the text states. “Hunter education is designed to benefit inexperienced hunters regardless of age and is an excellent refresher course for anyone who enjoys hunting. The program continues to grow in communities where public spirited citizens want to reduce the possibility of hunting injuries and ensure that hunters behave responsibly. To hunt safely is the duty of each hunter; to make an enjoyable and safe experience even safer is the responsibility of all. Hunting is much more than just taking game animals with a firearm (please do insert bow here as well); it means meeting your responsibility to the land, the landowners, other humans, the game, the public and to yourself. We see the world changing around us daily. Some people are even questioning the need for hunting. As a hunter, your knowledge and conduct will play a large part in the future of the activity. What hunting will be tomorrow is really up to you!” That’s profound; let me repeat what was said, “What hunting will be tomorrow is really up to you”. Again, that’s not coming from me but rather “WE THE PEOPLE”-the proud folks who provide us this privilege! They are the same people that ask you to exercise the utmost care….leave the gates the same way you found them, etc… Let’s jump into the manual a little farther. On page 57 of the Colorado archery manual, it clearly shows a wonderful illustration (see below) of a quartering towards shot. The text to the left of the illustrate states, “this angle offers a poor shot and should not be taken.” NOWHERE DOES IT SAY, “This shot can be taken conditionally or under certain situations”. “Should not” is pretty darn explicit! It does not mean, “Take it when nobody’s watching, or this applies to everybody but _______ (insert name here).” The manual goes on to say, “The best shots are delivered to an animal’s vital organs (heart, lung, liver) in the forward body cavity inside the rib cage. This area contains major blood vessels and arteries. A solid hit with an arrow in this area will be fatal. Wounds in this area result in considerable bleeding. This helps in tracking an animal that bolts for some distance before collapsing. This area also offers the biggest target. Care must be taken with each shot. Game animals have other vital areas that offer far less opportunity for a clean shot. Head and neck shots are not the best shot due to the very small vital area. Pick the best shot possible. Wait for an animal to turn broadside or away. Once the animal has turned to present the best shot, take one last look along the intended flight path, then shoot. Take shots that do not have to pass through heavy tissue (intestine, stomach) or large bones (shoulder bones). A broadside or slightly quartering away is the shot the public has asked for! Why? Does it matter? The public asked you to do it; you shouldn’t question their reasons! This equates to your mother asking you to keep your hands out of the cookie jar. Big boys listen and heed the advice, little boys have their hands slapped….if you know what I mean. To be continued....
Ok, let’s go ahead and speculate a little-try to understand the thought process of the public (hunters, non-hunters, and anti-hunters). Remember, all these citizens have asked you to exercise the utmost care when practicing your craft. Is a broadside shot at all conditional (barring extremely weather conditions) within a given range, say from zero to forty, and given a competent archer? Is it perceived by hunters as the “standard”? Ask yourself how many times you have heard your father or grandfather say, “wait…wait…wait for it to turn perfectly frontal”? So then, are you going to disappoint and disrespect the public by doing something totally against their will? Think about it. You have already stacked the cards against yourself if something goes terribly wrong, right? Let’s run a scenario. Let’s say a little old lady finds a highly valued dead elk in her front yards. It has an arrow sticking out frontally from it’s neck-apparently it died from infection. She calls the Division of Wildlife office. She demands, “Get this poor thing out of my yard!” An officer responds and apologizes for what he perceives to be a piss poor shot-one which should have never been taking based upon the training the state requires of its hunters. Hmmm…the lady forgets all the good things responsible hunters do (like feed the hungry) and only remembers this bad experience… when she's at the polling booth. Strongly remembering the bad things is human nature…she’ll votes and poof your privilege is gone! You think I’m kidding… I would love it if the blokes from England (on this forum) chimed in! It sucks to lose your hunting privilege! That’s exactly what happened to them! On to your question, who am I? 1) I am a law abiding citizen very much supportive of the desires of the people. I will champion their cause. It’s what I elect to do. In theory I could race 55 miles per hour through a school zone. I could probably do it 10 out of 10 times. But, is this the will of the people? A 20 mile per hour limit has been established to protect the youth of the community. I willing submit myself to that principle, and thus, refrain from racing to thwart certain disaster. I’m the guy who comes to a complete stop at an intersection in the middle of BF nowhere. My reasoning….the stop sign was put there for a reason. What does it hurt to do it right, so I lose a little time? 2) I am a hunter. I accept my role as such, and I am willing to follow the guidelines given to me by property owners-those people providing the privilege(s). To me, there is more to it than inflecting the maximum amount of damage. Shoot the biggest or smallest animal you desire, I don’t care! Enjoy yourself in the process. But please do it with utmost care and respect-apply a little commonsense! Keep the stupid things, or mistakes, out of the public eye. 3) I am a father, dead set on passing this great heritage and opportunity of ours onto my children. I am willing to stand up, when necessary, to protect that heritage and opportunity-especially against greedy arrogant individuals-poachers are on the top of the list. 4) I am a senior level Hunter Education instructor. It has taken me countless hours of time, a huge amount of course work, seminars, training procedures, background checks, field experience, volunteer work, et al to have this title conferred upon me. I’m the guy that is supposed to make sure hunters are competent when they take to the field. I apply my name on their certification. I am also the guy who is going to push to have de-certification made possible when it is deemed necessary (the beautiful thing about my position is it’s ability to persuade minds). Remember that Ted Nugent “baiting thread”? He obviously thought nobody was watching. Turns out he was wrong… I’m the dude who also advocates enrollment into hunter education programs. It’s a great way to become familiar with and comprehend the will of the people. 5) I am in favor of changing the process if it’s flawed. However, I am not in favor of changing it myself without the consent of those holding a stake. Apparently, there are many who feel otherwise. If you desire change, then start collecting signatures. If you cannot accept the procedures, then relinquish your compliance certification! Move somewhere where nobody cares! 6) I am the guy who shot this pronghorn with a perfectly good 25 yard broadside shot this weekend. It ran 30 yards and expired within my sight. The blood trail was, to use their cliché, one that Stevie Wonder could follow. I refrained from frontal shots ranging from 13-18 yards. Why? Because that's what the people of Wyoming requested. 7) I am the pursuer who read the sign and abided by the rules. I could have, in theory, slipped in under the cover of darkness for a much faster retrieval and much less effort. I didn’t. I pulled my goat across the ground a half mile to my vehicle. 8) I am the stalker who pays attention. 9) I am patient enough to get great shots like these. If not. I'll be there another day. Thanks for hearing me out.
Will, I hear what you're saying, and I respect it as well, HOWEVER, I've seen both sides of it as far as the elk thing goes. I'll tell you I'll not likely take a frontal shot on a BIG whitetail buck as they don't have a very large opening into that vital area, and they react so much differently than elk from what I've gathered from other hunters and the many videos I've watched. I think we have to acknowledge that HUNTERS are the only ones who can make the decisions in the heat of the moment, and if the hunter feels CONFIDENT in the shot, then I cannot tell him that he shouldn't be taking that shot. If it's an "PRAYER," then I absolutely agree that the shot is one someone shouldn't be taking. We EACH, as an individual, have to decide on the shot we will take and the circumstances we'll take it under. I swore off shooting at deer at 40+ yds a couple years ago, then proceded to arrow a little button buck at 43yds (Ranged distance) because the circumstance warranted it. The deer was bedded and appeared injured. The arrow hit it's marked almost perfectly, slamming through his spine, and exiting next to his sternum (he was bedded facing away from me). That deer flipped over and died not 5 yds. from where he was shot. The shot that reminded me not to take LONGER shots was one in which the deer ducked the arrow and spun, and was hit directly beneath the ear, and exited out beneath the off-side eye. The arrow passed through her cranial vault and killed her nearly instantly, however, that shot was a very LUCKY shot. I acknowledge that the shot that hit the deer in the head was absolutely a LUCKY shot and am very thankful it turned out as well as it did, and it was a ready reminder that a lot can happen in the less than half second between me releasing the arrow and the arrow hitting that animal. Personal choice, we can't dictate WHICH shot a hunter takes, we can't completely dictate which deer/elk/bear a hunter shoots at all levels, we can only ask the hunter to be confident and competent in what he does.
