The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

FirstFreedom · November 21, 2006, 02:29 PM

I dropped two deer in their tracks Sat morning, both neck shots. Not only is there no tracking, and no meat damage, but in addition, since the doe dropped first instead of running, the hormone-blinded buck stuck around that doe because he didn't want to leave her, and so I got him too. Wouldn't have happened with a vitals shot....she'd have run a ways, with him too. In those thick woods, I likely would never have gotten a shot at him, even if she'd only run another 40 yards.

For shots under 75 or 100 yards, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would take a vitals instead of a neck shot. Has anyone ever had any result *other than* a bang-flop with neck shots? My own and everyone I know who describes hunting stories always talks about B.F.s with neck hits. Granted, my experience is pretty limited, so I'm all ears to contrary opinions.

Now I can see when the shot is longer range, over 150 or 200 let's say, shooting for the vitals to provide for a margin of error to ensure the hit, but at close range, with proper bullet selection and velocity, giving you good expansion, I don't see why you'd opt for the meat-damage-tracking-usually-required heart/lung shot. This all assumes your shot is good, but again, it should be at ranges under 75 yards, even if you're fairly unsteady.

November 21, 2006, 02:29 PM	#1
FirstFreedom Junior member Join Date: May 31, 2004 Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A. Posts: 12,451	Why aren't neck shots more popular? I dropped two deer in their tracks Sat morning, both neck shots. Not only is there no tracking, and no meat damage, but in addition, since the doe dropped first instead of running, the hormone-blinded buck stuck around that doe because he didn't want to leave her, and so I got him too. Wouldn't have happened with a vitals shot....she'd have run a ways, with him too. In those thick woods, I likely would never have gotten a shot at him, even if she'd only run another 40 yards. For shots under 75 or 100 yards, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would take a vitals instead of a neck shot. Has anyone ever had any result other than a bang-flop with neck shots? My own and everyone I know who describes hunting stories always talks about B.F.s with neck hits. Granted, my experience is pretty limited, so I'm all ears to contrary opinions. Now I can see when the shot is longer range, over 150 or 200 let's say, shooting for the vitals to provide for a margin of error to ensure the hit, but at close range, with proper bullet selection and velocity, giving you good expansion, I don't see why you'd opt for the meat-damage-tracking-usually-required heart/lung shot. This all assumes your shot is good, but again, it should be at ranges under 75 yards, even if you're fairly unsteady.