PDA

View Full Version : Aiming intentionally for the femoral artery on Elk for archery hunt?


FirstFreedom
May 10, 2006, 03:44 PM
I have an acquaintance (friend of a friend) who had heard to aim for the femoral artery on hindquarters of an Elk with an arrow, and tried it and sure enough, got his Elk by hitting it there intentionally. It didn't go very far. He says that if you do this, you *want* to then spook and run the game, so that they'll bleed out and not lie down and heal up. Anyway, seems weird, but worked for him as an alternate method for these very tough critters. Oh, he did have to shoot 2 more arrows at it to put it completely down. But where exactly on the hind leg is the femoral, anyway?

Fremmer
May 10, 2006, 04:18 PM
I don't know exactly where it is, but he must be a heck of a shot!

casingpoint
May 10, 2006, 04:22 PM
Will that work on a bear?

Scorch
May 10, 2006, 04:46 PM
It will work on any animal, but it is not a shot an ethical hunter should take, in my opinion. The risk of wounding is so large that no one should try it intentionally. Like any arterial hit, the animal will bleed out very quickly, but you have to shoot it right through a large muscle to get to the artery. With a bow, you will likely hit the paunch after passing through the leg. With a rifle, this will ruin a lot of meat and break a leg, then hit the paunch. If you miss the artery, your wounded animal will cover 2 miles so fast you will think it evaporated. It will likely die from the wound after several days of suffering.

Ethically, we hunters should always try to dispatch the game quickly, humanely, and as painlessly as possible. This is not the way to do any of those things.

Charles S
May 10, 2006, 05:29 PM
It will work on any animal, but it is not a shot an ethical hunter should take, in my opinion. The risk of wounding is so large that no one should try it intentionally. Like any arterial hit, the animal will bleed out very quickly, but you have to shoot it right through a large muscle to get to the artery. With a bow, you will likely hit the paunch after passing through the leg. With a rifle, this will ruin a lot of meat and break a leg, then hit the paunch. If you miss the artery, your wounded animal will cover 2 miles so fast you will think it evaporated. It will likely die from the wound after several days of suffering.

Ethically, we hunters should always try to dispatch the game quickly, humanely, and as painlessly as possible. This is not the way to do any of those things.

+1

Why shoot at a little target when you have an excellent large target readily available; the heart and lungs.

Charles

Dave Haven
May 10, 2006, 09:46 PM
Why shoot at a little target when you have an excellent large target readily available; the heart and lungs.
+2
If the animal is heading directly away from you, a "Texas heart shot" with an arrow will often make it into the "boiler room". Much easier to hit than a femoral artery.
Not that I would take a "Texas heart shot"; I wouldn't relish cleaning the animal after that.:p

casingpoint
May 10, 2006, 10:44 PM
<a "Texas heart shot" with an arrow will often make it into the "boiler room">

Is this your idea of an Aggie joke? Works for me. :D

razorburn
May 11, 2006, 12:56 AM
What's a texas heart shot? Aiming for the base of the tail?

Twycross
May 11, 2006, 01:19 AM
What's a texas heart shot? Aiming for the base of the tail?
Yep. Straight down the bunghole.

mete
May 11, 2006, 04:29 AM
The Texas heart shot and base of the tail are two different things !!! The base of the tail shot is made to hit the lower spine where there is a network of nerves that control the hind end . This is a valid shot to stop an animal since it paralizes the entire hind end which will collapse . I saw this recently on the OLNTV program about dangerous game . To prevent a wounded cape buffalo from escaping into the bush he hit the lower spine and the hind end immediately collapsed - perfectly done !! A Texas heart shot is a mess and requires a lot of penetration to get to the vitals .

HangFire83
May 11, 2006, 06:14 AM
Yep. Straight down the bunghole

Up here we call that "tail piping". I agree with most of the other posters here. If you have a broad side shot why not aim for the area with the most vitals. A little bit more room for error and is more ethical.

tomh1426
May 11, 2006, 09:19 AM
They did that in that movie "the bear".
From what I remember they were poachers hunting brown bear w/ a 30/30.
Think they said they couldnt kill it w/ one shot fast enough so they would shoot the hindquarters so it couldnt run away as fast.
Then I guess they would fire the finishing shot(s).
They also used their knives to carve X's in the tip of their bullets for max stopping power.

FirstFreedom
May 11, 2006, 12:40 PM
It will work on any animal, but it is not a shot an ethical hunter should take, in my opinion. The risk of wounding is so large that no one should try it intentionally. Like any arterial hit, the animal will bleed out very quickly, but you have to shoot it right through a large muscle to get to the artery. With a bow, you will likely hit the paunch after passing through the leg. With a rifle, this will ruin a lot of meat and break a leg, then hit the paunch. If you miss the artery, your wounded animal will cover 2 miles so fast you will think it evaporated. It will likely die from the wound after several days of suffering.

OK, thanks you for the info. I won't try it, and I'll give him some spit for doing it when I see him again.

Art Eatman
May 11, 2006, 09:18 PM
The femoral artery is inside the thigh bone. That shot, then, would have to be into the inside of the off hind leg. Not a good decision. The heart is a much larger target, and certainly would bleed out quickly--and probably faster than the femoral artery.

Hit the pump, not the pipe.

:), Art

sparkysteve
July 11, 2006, 06:17 PM
The vitals (heart/lungs) are 10 times bigger that an artery. A hit there will kill it just as dead. If you miss that artery that elk will continue on with an arrow stuck in it. Not a wise idea.

ElkSlayer6x5
July 11, 2006, 08:36 PM
Is the only shot with a bow to try anything less is just plain stupid :mad:
they are tough and can cover so much ground so fast they would be in the next county befor you drew a nother arrow :(
If it cant breathe it wont go far :D so aim for the boiler room only
any where else you should be stuck in the a.. with a arrow :eek:
life time archer and riflemen ;)

Desertfox
July 12, 2006, 01:34 PM
Yep. What Elkslayer6X5,Art and SparkySteve said. EXACTLY!
Tell your friend that just because he got the fever and butt shot an elk, don't try to play it off by saying he meant to shoot that 1/3 inch artery.
I aint a buyer at that price. Sell it to someone else. The 3 shots to take it down sounds like a story too, unless he can run 35mph over deadfall and strait up or down a mountain while reknocking an arrow and firing with accuracy. Wow, is your friend named Clark Kent perhaps?

FirstFreedom
July 12, 2006, 02:14 PM
Hmmm, it would seem there is more investigation necessary into this story.

davlandrum
July 18, 2006, 11:49 AM
Shooting at the femoral artery makes less sense than shooting for the neck artery (cartoid? sorry, my anatomy lessons are long gone). As referenced above, you have to get either through the bone, or around it. Neither a neck shot or a "femoral artery" shot is a legit shot for bowhunting. I have seen a neck shot on a animal that was down and suffering. I helped gut a bull killed with a archery Texas heart shot. By help, I mean held a leg and held my breath - what a mess. The bull jumped down on an abandoned logging road right in front of my buddy, facing dead away from him. One of those "shoot - no shoot" situations that we all face.

rem33
July 18, 2006, 01:00 PM
Prime example why elk should not be hunted with 'bow n arrows'
I have heard WAY to many times " stuck em but he got away"
Half the guys in the woods can't even kill a deer with their magnums the way it otta be done much less with a bow. To even consider shooting any animal in the hind quarters is ridicules.

davlandrum
July 20, 2006, 07:02 PM
rem33 - pretty broad brush you just painted bow hunters with. I started out bowhunting with a guy that would take unethical shots - long range, bad angles. After I had some experience, I tried to steer him in the right direction, but could not do it. Now I don't hunt with him. I am a NBEF Master Instructor, and 90% of bow hunting education is focused on ethics and safety. Many states are now requiring bow hunter education, as firearms hunters have had for years.

There are slob bowhunters and slob rifle hunters out there. A well place arrow will kill anything, just as a poorly placed rifle shot will not kill anything. We are all in this together against the anti-hunters.

Desertfox
July 21, 2006, 05:25 AM
Thanks Devlandrum. I agree with you about not painting all bowhunters with that broad brush.
I am a bowhunter and ibep certified. Plenty of whitetails and hogs have fallen to my arrows. ALL with one well placed arrow. Ethical shots are more important with an arrow and much more preparation is required to bowhunt. Dedication to the hunt and practice are the same mindsets for all hunters.
More practice is required of a bow and arrow.
Lets remember we all are on the same team. Hunters of every kind should be ethical and supportive of our sport.
I think Chuck Adams can tell you to kiss his happy butt, if you tell him elk should not be bow hunted. Myles Keller, Ralph Giancariullo,Will Primos, etc.

Anthony Terry
July 22, 2006, 05:01 AM
thats words against our whole livelihood! we shouldnt be able to kill elk with bow? bows were being used 10's of 1000's of years before rifles. now ive never been on an elk hunt. but ive killed quite a few deer with my bow. if you dont bow hunt, you wouldnt know how devastating a bow shot to the heart/lungs can be. talk about destructive. to say a bow is not enuf is absurd! ive lost 2 deer with my bow. both when i was too young and dumb to even realize what i was doing. now, if its within 40yds, its 95% dead before i release. if its past 40, itll be walking. the bow hunters who take dumb shots are the ones youre referring to. the many of us that follow strict ethics are the ones that were just insulted by that remark.

davlandrum
July 22, 2006, 11:45 AM
I guess I just got us off thread, sorry (I am probably developing a reputation for that).

One thing that contributes to bad hunters is too many choices. Here in Oregon, you get to hunt each species with only one weapon, and the bag limit is one animal, with further restictions on that depending on weapon.

I freaked out when I was stationed at Ft. Drum NY and found out I could hunt multiple seasons (bow, rifle, muzzleloader), with a bag limit for each weapon.

So if someone lives in a multi-weapon area, it is pretty easy to just go to Wally World, buy a bow and start "hunting". After all, you have other seasons to put meat in the freezer and there is no education requirement other than for gun hunting (at least back then).

Teach, Preach, Live ethics. It is the only thing that will keep our right to hunt intact.

castnblast
July 22, 2006, 02:49 PM
:barf: :barf: :barf: That's a lousy target. Go for the vitals. Your odds of wounding are huge.