Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 as far as anyone questioning the lethality of a 12-gauge shotgun with either 00-buck or slugs..... When I was a young adult (16-17 yrs old), my neighbor a mile down our dead-end dirt road used to keep honey bee's. During the winter, he kept the bee houses/boxes stacked along the side of his house/side porch. We had a good long Winter thaw of almost a week in mid-January that year- temps in upper 40's during the day and a large black bear had come out to do some scouting for food. Well, one night while my folks were out to dinner- a state DEC officer (we used to call them "game wardens" back then) stopped at our house and asked if my step-dad was home. Told him "no", and he sized me up- even then I was a pretty big kid- about 6' tall and stocky. He told me that my neighbor down the road had shot a bear, and would I assist him in loading it on his car. They used to have this board thing that had hooks that fit into slots on the rear bumper. Anyway- my neighbor had heard commotion outside, and went out to find this bear, that ultimately turned out to be over 6' in height, and weighed nearly 400lbs, was tearing apart his bee boxes having smelled some remaining honey left in them. He made several attempts to shout/scare the bear off with no effect. When we walked around onto the side porch, the bear turned, put his front paws up on the steps and growled at him. He fired one shot- 12 gauge 00-Buck at the bear, which struck it right at the base of the head/neck area just forward of the shoulder. The entrance wound was nearly 3 inches in diameter, and when the bear was rolled over- the entire opposite side of the neck/shoulder was gone. A huge gaping wound, which had killed the bear pretty much instantly. I have no doubt a rifled slug would have just as devastating of an impact on both tissue, muscle, and bone. The only difficulty with both buckshot and slugs is the distance. Especially without a rifled slug barrel- slugs are no where as accurate as they are with a rifled barrel. Buckshot, although unquestionably lethal at short close range- obviously begins to scatter as the distance downrange from the muzzle increases.... It's possible that the animal in question could have caught individual pieces of shot, and the rest tore up the trees behind it- but without a blood trail it would seem doubtful.... No type specimen this time.... Art
Guest Jodie Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 But how could the buck shot hit everything but the bigfoot? That doesn't make physical sense to me if it was daylight and he was that close.
bipedalist Posted October 28, 2011 BFF Patron Posted October 28, 2011 Well nobody could prove it didn't hit the BF, the BF just didn't vocalize and leave a blood trail like it did, right? But like Art alluded if it was a rifled barrel the slugs would have a better chance to have been on target.
Guest Jodie Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 If buckshot pierces the skin it should bleed even if the hide is thick enough that the buckshot did not penetrate.
Bonehead74 Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Except for severe bleeding like a scalp wound or an arterial bleed, hair or fur can soak up a good bit of blood before it starts to leave spoor.
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 If buckshot pierces the skin it should bleed even if the hide is thick enough that the buckshot did not penetrate. If the BF was hit in the upper body, the arms, or if it was just a flesh wound, it could have covered some ground before it bled enough for the blood to hit the ground. This happens fairly often with buckshot. I have, in my younger years before I ever had a rifle, shot many deer with buckshot, and I have had a number of them run 40 or 50 yards and fall over dead without leaving any blood trail at all because of where they were hit.
Guest Jodie Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Ok, I'll take your word for it about the deer. But I would think dogs could smell the smallest drop of blood that you or I might miss. Running, heart rate accelerated, you can't tell me something traceable didn't hit the ground or bushes.
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 No doubt, dogs could easily pick up the trail. Also, if the BF was running, there would be sign left in the woods, such as disturbed leaves on the ground, broken branches, etc. If it went through thicker areas, blood would get on leaves and branches.
Guest Jodie Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Well did anyone get dogs out there? It would have been my first thought...
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) Also, if the BF was running, there would be sign left in the woods, such as disturbed leaves on the ground, broken branches, etc. There was a discernable trail on the ground. Members of the team could see where it's feet had disturbed the ground clutter as well as where it had apparently stepped on a branch and crushed it. The trail ended at the edge of the woods where it met the creek bed. Edited October 28, 2011 by bipto
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Well did anyone get dogs out there? It would have been my first thought... We didn't have access to dogs. Would have been very helpful, I agree.
Guest Jodie Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 Jesus, I would have called somebody and found something,you need a couple of nurses on your research team. We get things done.
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) You have to remember at that point we were dealing with the family. Our immediate concern was for them. We didn't reenter the area until after all that had been cleared up. About a week later. Edited October 28, 2011 by bipto
Guest Jodie Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 MMMM, MMM, MMM, well did you perchance sit down with everyone after the fact and discus what went wrong with this scenario so it wouldn't happen again?
Guest TooRisky Posted October 28, 2011 Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) I maybe wrong but if I read the incident right the shooter took the shot at 75 yards with what i am assuming a mixed load of 3" high base 12 gauge 00 Buck and slugs in combination... The probable reason for missing the target is the distance involved... The buckshot load at 00 or #1 is a big heavy load of larger pellets in which the bigger the gauge the less the number of pellets there are, like 7 or 8... As the round is fired the spread on the buckshot increases as the second aspect of gravity takes place... So at 75 yards the pattern is so great as to minimize the effect of maybe just 1 pellet hitting what is shot at... Add gravity pulling the pellets down you have almost a guaranteed miss if not adjusted for elevation and for windage if the target is moving... A slug is the same as the Buckshot but much heavier and if used in a smooth bore all the above come into factor even more with the lack of rifling... So with the distance and movement of the subject and the round used in this incident the odds of hitting the subject by a common shooter is very unlikely... And in getting a kill shot is astronomical with the variables that were present... Shotguns are a terrible weapon when used with in its limits, the mixed load is devastating... The shotgun is a close quarters weapon when loaded this way, home defense, camp defense, and personal defense is the role it is intended for... Edited October 28, 2011 by TooRisky
Recommended Posts