Thursday, November 20, 2008
Where An Arrow Or Bullet Goes Is Most Important
Years ago there was an ongoing feud between the legendary Outdoor Life firearms and hunting writer, Jack O??Connor, and another equally famous gun writer, Elmer Keith.
Keith touted the large heavy-caliber rifles and handguns while O??Connor cited more moderated rifles like the .270. Jack urged readers to properly sight in their firearms, and to choose a bullet appropriate for the animal being hunted.
Keith, on the other hand, believed in shooting heavy bullets from a mini-cannon. Back and forth they went, and there were many O??Connor fans then and his influence lives on. Keith wasn??t a very big man, but he wore a cowboy hat big enough for two people, and he preferred his handguns and rifles to be a part of his ??big-bore? theory.
O??Connor passed away first, and some feel he was trying to make up what he and Keith had lost through constant bickering. Both were highly capable writers, and although O??Connor had been a professor, I??ve read a few raw examples of Keith??s prose. He knew his firearms and ammo, but many an editor labored long and hard on his words.
The ??big-bore? theory that Keith espoused is a bit similar to broadheads with big blades and lots of weight. Some hunters favor broadheads weighing 165 grains or more, and sporting four or five blades.
I tend to follow O??Connor??s choice of accuracy and putting the broadhead where it is supposed to go. The larger and heavier arrows and broadheads are more difficult to tune and to fly where they are supposed to go.
Where Keith??s heavy bullets lumbered along, the same is true with the heavy shafts and broadheads. If it hits something, there will be plenty of damage, but it may not immediately kill the deer.
Conversely, even though I don??t recall O??Connon ever writing a story about hunting with a bow, his philosophy stressed accurate placement and a bullet that would do the job. He saw no need for a 300-grain bullet on antelope or deer.
My argument follows somewhat the same lines. The arrow should have a flat trajectory, and the hunter should be able to place the arrow and broadhead in the precise location where it will do the most damage.
Bullets kill through massive tissue and organ damage, and the kinetic energy of a properly constructed bullet striking the animal in the right spot represent a major advantage. However, if the archer places a sharp broadhead through a vital organ, there is very little kinetic energy. I??ve shot deer with my two-blade broadheads, and have it slice right through and the animal would die where it stood.
Arrows and broadheads kill game by cutting through arteries, capillaries and veins, creating heavy bleeding. If the broadhead cuts through a vital organ, it results in a blood loss that kills quickly.
There isn??t much difference between Jack O??Connor??s philosophy of killing game and mine other than he chose to use a rifle, and most often a .270, while I choose a 100-grade broadhead with two blades.
It??s not so much the size of the broadhead or the bullet used. What obviously is far more important is shot placement. A deer shot in the rump with a huge bullet or a large broadhead is going to run off.
Hit that same animal in the heart and lungs with a small, medium or large bullet or broadhead, and you??ll collect the animal. Make a poor hit, and the chances are it will get away.
And, unlike Keith and O??Connor and their verbal dust-ups, there can be no argument with this philosophy. It??s not a matter of how big it is as but a matter of accurate shot placement.
Do it right, with bow or rifle, and the animal dies.??The Whitetail Wizard