Head or Heart?

[bdhutier]

Back in the 17-1800's, does anyone know what the typical target area of large game would be? Would hunters tend to target the head to preserve meat, or target the midsection like we normally do now, to ensure there's at least a hit?

I thought about this while reading the squirrel post. If this was my family's sole winter protein source, I could see the plus to a head-shot when I had a clear shot. The only benefit I could really see to a body-shot would be grading for points, mounting, or the obligatory post-kill picture. Down sides, off the top of my head, would be meat damage and compromising a large, possibly very important hide.

Any thoughts or documentation you guys know of that sheds light on this?

 

[horsetrader]

I was culling deer in NZ for a while -and we used head shots to save meat ( sold the meat). However the "kill"area is quite small and you don't want just to shoot a jaw off....So you have a good question here-I could see that most people would not have shot at the head as the wanted a kill and a big as possible target area. I feel that being hungry makes it even harder to make the decision for a head shot. I personally also feel there is really not that much damage with a roundball.....

 

[paulvallandigham]

The very good hunters could get within bow range of deer, and that allowed them to take head or heart shots. Either spoils very little meat, or hide. The heart in a deer lies very low, down against the sternum, in the bottom of the chest, just behind the front leg as it stands. Even on large bucks, the width of the chest at this area is rarely more than 6 inches across. The fur is mostly white guard hairs, and that is often cut away when the hide is skinned off. So, a heart shot does not ruin the hide, either. I know a man, who was a teen back in the 1930s, living in Vermont, who killed deer for the family with a .32 caliber rifle, taking head shots almost exclusively. The extended family turned out to process the meat, and hides, and the meat was Canned for long term storage, before refrigeration was commonly available. He says that rarely were the ranges over 25 yds, and he had so much practice shooting squirrels with head shots, that head shots on deer were " easy "to him. He killed hundreds of deer over his younger years at home, before he left to serve in the Army. The family also had hogs, which were butchered, and part of the venison cuts were added to the pork to make smoked sausage for everyone. Smoking is another way to prepare meats for long term storage. Smoking would have been more commonly used to preserve meat in the 18th century, before inexpensive glass jars, with caps and rubber seals became available for very low cost. Canning began to be used in the last half of the 19th century, and really took off during WWI, when rationing was imposed here in the States.

 

[Dave K]

In a perfect world, head shots are great. But I have seen enough shot off jaws that it makes me feel sick. There is no chance of recovery for the animal, but it will die eventually from starvation. A boiler room shot, at least has a chance of recovery if the shot is muffed.

 

[roundball]

Ditto...and among game animals, a deer is notorious for constantly jerking its head back and forth, up and down, at the slightest sound or movement.
IMO, the heart shot is the best, low right behind the elbow...with a round ball through the heart they make a 25-35 yard sprint and crash

 

[FishDFly]

Considering: Iron sights, head movement, distance of the shot, the avaiable light and the accuracy of the rifle/shooter (minute of deer often mentioned), a heart shot makes the most sense.

RDE

 

[larry wv]

With your choices heart. But I think lungs. A bigger target more room for error plus they could eat the heart. Larry

 

[horsetrader]

Was wondering how good the avarage "rifle"man was to begin with.... Looking around nowadays most hunters go to a gun range and shoot from a bench a few groups ( and not that good) and then brag about the 700 yr one shot kill....

In the "old" days people worked hard and powder and lead was expensive.....
The might have been the same " liars".....
Shot a rabbit in the head at 50 paces....

 

[Vaino]

I agree w/ the lung shot and most don't travel very far when so hit. Have seen a few heart shots go a fair distance and be claimed by another hunter. The only head shots I take are on squirrels....Fred

 

[roundball]

"...Was wondering how good the avarage "rifle"man was to begin with..."
"...In the "old" days people worked hard and powder and lead was expensive..."

I have no documented support for my opinion but I wouldn't think they'd have been all that great...I keep thinking the following about "the average settler / hunter" back then...after all, they were just human being like use...and:

1) I think the quality / precision of their equipment back then was less than what we use today;
2) In many cases they used smoothbores, which are typically less accurate than rifles;
3) The powder was probably not as good / consistent as ours today;
4) They were generally dirt poor and wouldn't/couldn't have wasted powder & ball for practicing like we do today;
5) I think animals let humans get closer back then, and/or "the hunters also got closer" back then;

In summary, I think the average guy on the MLF is probably a far better shot than the average settler...there are no reasons why we wouldn't be and every reason why we should be.

 

[Dave K]

One thing I do know about some of the people I have come across hunting. They do not know the difference between 50yds. and 500yds. By no means all people, but some guys are actually kind of scary with the long shots they say they take. I guess if you are a great shooter, more power to you, but if you are a good hunter, you have little need for really long shots. JMHO

Never forget hunting in Colorado and a guy jumping up and down how he lost the elk he shot at, that was bedded 900yds away and it blew the whole side of the neck off. Oh, he said it was the perfect shot,right where he likes to hit them. Couldn't understand how he still lost the animal after he claims he followed it for 2 miles.Not be a wise arse, but I have often wondered how much you hold over for a 900 yd. shot, with thermals and cross winds :bull:

 

[jtmattison]

Back in the 17-1800's, does anyone know what the typical target area of large game would be?

I'd say they would aim for the largest target area that would produce a kill. As already said, with powder and lead being a precious commodity they would want the shot to count. They may not have been interested in a fast humane kill as we are today but they did want to be sure the meat would end up in the bag. My vote is for the lung shot.

HD

 

[Stumpkiller]

Lungs.

Brains were used to tan and preserve the hide and a headshot would be "iffy" as well as wasteful in that case.

 

[tg]

I think one can make a good head shot on deer buit again one will watch many pass before the conditions are good enough, animal is close enough and stopped, it is not a choice to make lightly, I have often wondered how it is less ethical to shoot at the small part of a squirrel and not a deer, I guess there is a scale that at some point it is OK to take a shot at one animal that was unethical on another.Maybe we should not look to closely at the things we justify or we might embarras ourselves, it is likely that the hunters of the past took what they felt was the best shot at the time kind of like today with different opinions on what that might be.

 

[Dave K]

In my area, the size of a squirrel head and it's boiler room are for all intense purposes the same size. Also the squirrel skull is not as tough as a deer skull and it is easily penetrated. The longish nose of a deer compared to a squirrels, makes all the difference on your preceived target.

 

[nchawkeye]

A few years back Old Salem opened their new gunshop...We had several notable speakers there and one produced a copy of a pin and ink drawing that hung in Old Salem for years and a diary entry from the original Moravians that picked out the 98,000 acres that they named Wachovia...

The diary entry mentions the killing of a buck deer which ran a ways before it fell and they dined on the deer...The pin and ink was an picture of a buck deer, rifle and shooting bag laying across and a hole including a trickle of blood through the lungs...

The speaker said that he realized that he actually had a story with picture of the first hunt the Morvians had in the area...

Now...I've killed about 300 deer with various weapons, I've shot some in the lungs, some in the shoulder, some in the heart, some in the neck and some in the brain as well...But...At least 75% of the ones that I kill are shot through the lungs...
It's the largest target and always deadly with the proper projectile...

 

[jethro224]

Some very good points have been made here.

Personally I always prefer a lung shot.

In regards to the OP's question, I think tg probably hit the nail on the head;

it is likely that the hunters of the past took what they felt was the best shot at the time kind of like today with different opinions on what that might be.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

just my thoughts are that body shots would be more prevalent - some of the reasons are mentioned in previous posts. another reason is that the neck (I will take a neck shot if it presents, base of skull or body juncture) has a good chunk of meat and a shot through the ribs doesn't ruin as much meat - YMMV.

 

[Black Hand]

A body shot would be my choice. Aim for the heart, and if you miss you can still hit the lungs, liver, and/or major blood vessels. Too much chance with a head shot to miss a vital spot and blow off the jaw, nose, teeth, etc and leave the wounded animal to die later.The big, slow-moving roundballs don't cause near as much damage as one of the modern bullets even when they hit bone.

Also, a hole on the hide can be stitched shut before or during tanning.

 

[roundball]

"...The longish nose of a deer.....makes all the difference on your preceived target.

Excellent point...the kill zone of a deer's head is about the size of a pack of cigarettes laying horizontally...the ball needs to get into the brain pan or clip the neck vertebrae...both tiny targets...not a problem with a hi speed scope sighted .22 rifle...much tougher odds with a slower Flintlock & iron sights