50 cal. rb penetration

[sky hawk]

If you're shooting for meat you wouldn't shoot through the shoulders at all - you would take a double lung shot. But if you're in the "I want as much energy expended in the animal as possible" crowd, then put it through both shoulders (if you have the energy to do so). There is no doubt that it will anchor the deer faster, and there are cases where you need that deer to drop rather than run.

 

[paulvallandigham]

But if he can't read footprints, how does he know WHERE to spray????

With footprints in soft tuft on forest floors, you get deep impressions that leave SHADOWS OFF THE WALLS OF THE IMPRESSED LEAVES, AND EVEN MORE SHADOWS coming off the Points of leaves that are stuffed down into the hold, turning their edges UP above the floor of the debris. Low angled light, hold the light about 6-12 inches off the "floor" and out to one side of you or another, so that the light beam shines across your field of vision in front of you, at a slight angle, so you produce shadows, day or night, from the upturned edges of hardwood leaves, or upturned, pine needles, and scuff marks in softwood forests.

In grass, look for patterns- where a bunch of blades or stalks grass all are pushed in one direction. You will see light shining off the blades that are all pushed the same direction( shine). large deer crossing short cut grasses, will leave a dark print, when the tops of the grasses appear light.

The same happens when dew is on the grasses in early morning- dark splotches mark the tracks, as the deer's feet knock off the dew where his feet step.

For any color blind person, reading footprints simply makes even more sense. As has been pointed out, many deer do not leave blood along their path of travel for dozens if not hundreds of feet.

AS A TRACKER, I consider blood evidence the "ICING ON THE CAKE", not the cake. Blood tells me volumes about the point and path of impact of the projectile, giving me a very good idea just how long this deer will be able to travel if pushed. BUT, there is even more tell-tale information in every one of a deer's tracks, and they start right where the deer was standing when the arrow or shot is fired. :shocked2: :v :hmm: :thumbsup:

 

[Stumpkiller]

But I use the blood to tell which set of footprints to follow. :idunno:

One advantage to having the ball exit is that a hole through the chest beside a lung means the diaphragm doesn't draw air in as well - aka "lung collapse". If you have a hole on only one side the blood and tissue may plug up the passage in the less damaged side to allow some breathing. Two damaged lungs with two open holes means the animal is going down in seven to ten seconds from asphyxia. Outside air getting in around the lung prevents it from expanding - aka "sucking chest wound" = bad news for victim.

Scares me how fast an arrow that hits both lungs and exits will drop a deer. The lungs are not muscles, but just bags that expand when the chest and diaphragm muscles expand. If you only hit one lung you may be trailing for hundreds of yards. I once hit a deer WAY too far back - but the arrow sliced the diaphragm in half. It could not breathe and only went 35 yards and collapsed; eventually bleading out because the liver was also sliced.

Granted, a round ball has a LOT more energy than an arrow (only 45 ft lbs +/- with an arrow) and the arrow is killing on hemmorage and organ damage alone.

 

[Spikebuck]

I have certainly followed tracks, but depending on what surface the deer is traveling on and HOW many deer have recently traveled there, I find blood trailing more reliable and even with my color-blind deficiency, the better method. I even get down on my knees and look through the brush at a deer's-eye level because many times you can see disturbed foliage or just "think" like a deer as to what path might be taken.

As I said, unless you're color blind, you can't imagine what we see or don't see anymore than I can imagine what you see. Keep in mind that it's not just COLOR...more volume means a wet pool or frothy pool or large spots that are more visible than small "spritzes" that can dry quickly, which I also find much harder to see than wet blood.

So net, ALL tracking skills are used, but IMO two holes are better than one for many reasons, including more blood on the ground hence my answers to the original question of this thread which revolved around getting greater penetration to assure, as best as possible, two holes.

 

[Robby]

In response to Robby

"But if he can't read footprints, how does he know WHERE to spray????"
I don't know Paul, I suppose like the all of us, he uses the rest of his senses to determine starting point. Its just a tool, like glasses or a hearing aid. He's not an in your face know it all, just a man who knows his limitations and isn't afraid to enhance what he feels he is lacking.
Robby

 

[Trench]

Ishoot bp exclusivly ff all my shots are usually under 50 yard with 70 being my longest all shots are broadside only hit shoulder a couple of times. I can see blood at night with lights cause it shines but in the daylight I can never see it.Ishoot hornady 490 lead rb and sometimes a coppercoated rb. both have equal penetration. I might try cutting back on the charge and see if it makes a diff.Thanks to all who have responded so far I appreciate the help.

If you rarely shoot over 50 yards, do try less powder as an option. My first ML deer was taken with a .490 ball over only 60gr of FFg at 40 yards. It was a complete pass-through.

 

[jeep02]

How do think I have found my deer the last twenty years actually 30 plus counting all kinds of deer hunting. I have learned to watch the animal and their escape route and to alway look for landmarks leading down their escape. Of course all deer have four feet break branches turnover leaves and slide in the mud along the way . I would just like to have a better blood trail to challenge myself to follow it in the way I see others do instead of relying on site and yes sometimes smell. I have found quite a few but that were rutting by smelling them first. Dale

 

[Walks with fire]

I have found that if I load 90 grains in my PA Hunter that shots over 60 yards or so exit but under 40 yards very seldom do but the deer don't go very far. After 60 yards with my .490 ball/90 grains they can go quite a way before they bleed out much at all. My feeling is that a PA deer in winter has a pretty thick and elastic hide and it stretches and springs back leaving less than a .490 hole to let blood out. The flat point conicals make a better hole and although I have not tried a large caliber ball I am sure it would work better as far as blood trails go.

The Amish in our area shoot em in the head with .50 calibers and a light load is easy to hit with and very little recoil. I may just try doing that same thing someday if the opportunity presents itself. 60 grains of 2f in my PA Hunter barrel is very accurate and a behind the ear shot would eliminate the tracking of anything.

 

[KHickam]

I shot a nice whitetail doe tonight - about 25 yds or so - 100 gr FFg with a .15 Wonderlube patch and a .480 RB - shot passed completely through and the blood trail was easy to follow - she piled up perhaps 40 yds from where she was hit. :thumbsup: No problems with a 50 cal RB going completely through

 

[paulvallandigham]

I mean you no insult, sir. I have been tracking both human and animal tracks since I was about seven years old. What I have that so many hunters seem to lack is both more experiences, and more confidence in reading tracks and sigh.

While I am not color blind, I have an idea what you are going through, since I have followed tracks at night, with distant, ambient light from yard lights in farms, and from the stars. The eyes see no color in that kind of light. What I see are various shades of gray. Sound Familiar?

Going one step "harder" as a tracker, I have followed tracks by feeling for them with my finger tips in the ground, one track at a time, when I could not use light to see, and existing light was of no use in seeing the tracks of the deer. I have a tracking stick on which I have notched indicators for the step intervals of the deer I am tracking, to help me confirm that my fingers have found the Next Track.

Blood turns black when it dries out, regardless the time of day. Then being able to see color is of no use to the tracker, either. You will get a bit of subdued "shine" from dried blood, but most hunters can't see it, until I point it out to them. Even after I show them what it looks like, they can't seem to make the adjustment to see the next black spot ahead.

That is why practice, and self confidence built on years of doing this- and failing many time, of course--- is so important to being able to adapt to the ground and weather conditions, and find and recognize sign and tracks no matter what the circumstances.

At least you are making the effort. :hatsoff:

 

[Spikebuck]

While I am not color blind, I have an idea what you are going through, since I have followed tracks at night, with distant, ambient light from yard lights in farms, and from the stars. The eyes see no color in that kind of light. What I see are various shades of gray. Sound Familiar?

Not to hijack this thread to a discussion of what color "blindness" is, but since it's been a big part of the discussion I'll give a little info.

Very, very rarely is someone actually color "blind" in that they only see in shades of grey. I have had people point at their blue jeans and ask me what color they are and when I say "blue" they say "oh, you're not color blind." If you hold up a red object, I'll see it's a red object. While I do sometimes get colors entirely wrong, the problem in blood trailing is seeing red blood on brownish-red dead leaves. Color blindness is usually an inability to distinguish between all the various shades of a color, not the inability to see the color at all or seeing in black and white only.

Usually a person is red/brown or blue/green color deficient. If you're red/brown, that's the one that causes blood trailing issues. In early bow season, I can actually track blood pretty well when it's on green foliage.

One can actually enhance their "reds" color perception by placing a red lense over their non-dominant eye. With a red contact lense on my non-dominant eye I can go from reading only about 3 or 4 of twenty of those little color dot eye tests with buried numbers in them to 15 or 16 of them! That's kind of what those special blood lights are trying to do, they filter out blue/green reflection of light and enhance reds.

When they print those little puzzles on the backs of cereal boxes and include a red lense in the box so the kids can read the puzzle...I don't need the lense...I can just read them since they are built to confuse the eyes of people with normal color vision. The German military used color-blind people in their airforce to "see through" camo netting covering ground items to see what was there.

The gene passes through women on to men. Meaning, my daughters carry the gene but are not color blind, but 100% of their sons will be. Women only have a 25% chance of being colorblind if their mother is a carrier and their father is colorblind.

Anyway, boring, but that might clarify just a bit of what color blindness is. :yakyak: Sorry for the yaking! :yakyak: :grin:

 

[longcruise]

I have never "bloodtrailed" any animal. Never! When properly hit with ball, bullet or arrow, they are not going very far. Usually I can hear them make their last leap or their fall to the ground.

As far as tracking goes, Stumpy makes a good point when he says "But I use the blood to tell which set of footprints to follow". If there is no blood, then you have a puzzle of tracks! :shocked2:

The last deer I killed with a bow should have left a huge blood trail if a big hole in both sides and a double lunger is the criteria. I had both on that deer and there was no blood trail. I clearly saw the arrow impact the deer and heard it clatter through the brush behind the deer.

Since the deer was with five other deer at the time of the shot and they all left my sight together headed in the same direction, I could have followed their tracks for miles and never would have found the deer I hit.

Instead, I went to the point where the deer left my sight and then picked the direction that a wounded deer always seems to take. Downhill(the path of least resistance)! A secondary thing that they seem to seek is water. This deer went to both and was found within a mere 40 yards of the point of being hit. This deer left a huge pool of blood at the point that it fell but did not lose a drop during it's run.

 

[Rat Trapper]

While big holes often help, there are times when there is no blood until you find the critter.
It is all part of hunting, aim true and keep looking until you find the critter. In my old age I find it better when the trail from point of impact to the dead critter is short.

 

[paulvallandigham]

This is what I do as a tracker in your situation:

First, I go to the place where the deer you shot was standing when the arrow or ball hit it. There will be short- 3-4" long -- scrapes on the ground where each of the deer's four feet "flinched" when it was hit.

Then I look past that site to see if I can locate hair(fur) from the deer on brush, or the ground. The color and texture tells me where the arrow exited from the body.

Now, I study those 4 scraps, looking at the tracks left for each foot. Each foot has 2 toes, and each of those toes can have "accidentals"- cuts in the nails made from rocks or stepping on human garbage made of metal. There are 8 chances of finding a unique Toe accidental that belongs to this deer only.

Second, having identified the deer's tracks by length of toes, width between the front feet, and width between the rear feet, then looked for the first step he took after the hit to determine the step intervals, I should know the age of the deer, the sex of the deer, and with that accidental, separating out the other deer that were with the deer shot is not that difficult. Sex weeds out half of the track, or more. Does have wider distances between their rear feet, and their rear feet pitch outward more than do bucks because does have a BIRTH CANAL between their hips!

Then there are right eye and left eye dominant deer, and that can be observed by watching where the rear foot steps on the track left by the front foot, on both left and right foot.

The dominant eye is used to determine direction of travel, particularly during an escape, or panic. Because a deer's eyes are on the side of its skull, it does not share our binocular vision, nor that of other predatory species. It must turn its head slightly to the non-dominant side to get clear vision ahead.

Its dominant side front foot takes just a bit of a longer stride than does the other -non-dominant- front foot( partly to maintain balance with that head turned slightly away from it). Even at a walking pace, or gait, you will see a bit of the dominant front foot track showing at the toe of the rear footprint that steps on and erases most of the rest of the front foot print.

BTW, the same dominant side change in stride also appears in human tracks, when people have their heads up and are looking forward, rather than down at their feet. You dominant side foot takes a slightly longer stride when you are looking forward, to check your balance visually with the signals the brain is getting from the 3 inner ear canals, where fluid levels tell the brain what attitude ( angle) your body is in. The brain is constantly checking balance to protect itself from injury by our foolishness.

Third. I make a tracking stick from a nearby dead branch, using a knife to cut notches in it to determine step intervals, and stride lengths for both sides of the deer. The sooner I determine eye dominance, the easier it is for me to locate its tracks when it leaves the rest of the 'pack".

I once was presented with the tracks of three does walking side by side around a small pond of water. It was JUne, and the smallest track was only about 1/2" long in the toes. Obviously a yearling born that year. The yearling kept much closer to the next sized track, a does with 1 1/2" tracks, and from the relationship of the tracks, I concluded that this was the fawn's mother. The last track was the largest, more than 2 1/4" long, and I took this to be the grandmother. Its not uncommon for young does to stay with their mothers even after they give birth to their own fawn, particularly if the mother does not have fawns of her own that season. Again, these deer were walking very close together, stopping when the oldest deer stopped, and moving with her at the same pace.

The tracks were left before first light on the morning I observed them, as it rained through the night and didn't quit until an hour before daylight. These tracks did not share the rain spatters in the bottoms as appeared in the mud around them.

I knew the weather because I awoke before daylight so that I could travel to the forest preserve where I was to teach a groups of Natural Science teachers how to find and read animal tracks, so that they could use these skills in teaching their kids in school, and arrive at the site at first light. That gave me time to "cut sign" and locate interesting tracks I could mark, and show the teachers later that morning.

No, its not easy, but its not something beyond the ability of any member of this forum to do, if they simply take the time to learn. I grant that after more than 57 years doing it, I do see things that even other trackers often miss- its always a surprise to me when that happens because I have struggled all my life to find the "Next track", just like every other tracker i know. But, I hit my own "brick walls" where nothing makes sense, and I can't find that next track, and the last track simply is not telling me something I should be seeing that tells me about the next track's location. :cursing: :idunno: :surrender: :bow: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: