The shot: Elk Anatomy

[Sytes]

Saw this on Muley Freak. Pretty decent layout though curious your thoughts? I'm a bit surprised they did not present a neck shot. Maybe it's not as valued a shot as I had thought...

https://muleyfreak.com/2017/10/20/elk-anatomy-where-does-it-count/

Aim small, miss small

Truth beyond truth - no matter the target.

 

[406LIFE]

In Hunter Ed, we teach no meck shots becuase thetagret is much smaller than chest vitals. The risk vs reward makes the chest shot much more ethical.

 

[Koryb50970]

This seems fairly accurate, but I would like to see that diagram in different positions. It’s one thing to know the anatomy for a perfect broadside shot, but if all you have is it quartering away shot, I would like to know what I’m looking at from that angle. I’ve dissected enough Whitetail to have a good idea, but nevertheless.

 

[TheNorthStar]

Man, those lungs take up so much real estate, it's a wonder how guys end up lodging so many broadheads in shoulderblades.

 

[WapitiBob]

Looks like they stole BB's anatomy picture that he created many years ago. It's Moose vitals placed on an Elk if I remember correctly. Vitals are too large and the leg is wrong but a decent reference.

 

[JohnCushman]

That's a whole lotta chicken fried liver...yummmm

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm a bit surprised they did not present a neck shot.

Next time you skin an elk consider the vital area of the neck where a shot will be effective. It's a small window, especially vertically.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Next time you skin an elk consider the vital area of the neck where a shot will be effective. It's a small window, especially vertically.

Yep, as there's not much there on that big old neck for an ethical shot. Oops, there's that word again!

 

[Ben Long]

OK. I'll stick my neck out. I've killed two elk with neck shots with a rifle (once a 30-06 and once a 308). I think both were ethical because they were at very close range (inside 30 yards and inside 10.) Both offhand, but I thought to my self, I can hit a beer can from here, I can hit an elk vertebra. Both kills were instantaneous. Don't get me wrong: I'm a double-lung or nothing kind of shooter 99.9 percent of the time. But that .1 percent of the time, elk can be killed ethically with a neck shot.

Regarding the image I think the scapula is a bit too small and a bit too far forward.

 

[JohnCushman]

I shot my cow, plus several doe deer and antelope with a shot to the base of the skull. All dropped and died immediately. But, all shots were within 200 yards and off of a bipod.

 

[Doublecluck]

If you shoot the right bullet neck shots can be completely ethical, hydrostatic shock kills ..

 

[Cerebral Stalker]

Neck shots are more ethical than people think. You have the esophagus, main arteries, and the spinal cord all in one location. If you connect, there is 0% chance of survival. The only downside is the short width of the neck. The long length of the neck on the other hand provides a lot of room for vertical error. Also, if you do miss, there's a good chance it will be a clean miss. There's always the possibility of just hitting muscle without hitting any vitals, but I would argue that area is smaller than the vitals. That being said, necks shots are definitely a close range shot and should only be attempted with a rifle and when the crosshairs are rock solid. Lung shots are a "safer" option, but neck shots can get addicting because the animal is DRT with no tracking required and there is minimal meat loss/damage. I've successfully taken a lot of deer with neck shots, but never an elk. I would be a little more hesitant to take a neck shot on an elk because the lung area is such a larger/more forgiving target on an elk. However, if a neck shot was all I had on an elk, it was <100yds, and I was steady, I wouldn't even hesitate to shoot.

 

[mtmuley]

If you shoot the right bullet neck shots can be completely ethical, hydrostatic shock kills ..

"Hydrostatic." No offense, but right there with "knock down power". Never had a critter run away from holes in the lungs. mtmuley

 

[Doublecluck]

"Hydrostatic." No offense, but right there with "knock down power". Never had a critter run away from holes in the lungs. mtmuley

Never had a critter run away from any shot with a rifle, and while I agree with and tend to lean toward traditional hunting ethics on the subject, experience suggests that the terminal ballistics of the vld may be superior for a neck shot. Every one of them has dropped instantly, not a step..

 

[mtmuley]

The VLD holds no advantage to a neck shot than any other bullet. Ethics.... mtmuley

 

[tjones]

Neck shots are more ethical than people think. You have the esophagus, main arteries, and the spinal cord all in one location. If you connect, there is 0% chance of survival. The only downside is the short width of the neck. The long length of the neck on the other hand provides a lot of room for vertical error. Also, if you do miss, there's a good chance it will be a clean miss. There's always the possibility of just hitting muscle without hitting any vitals, but I would argue that area is smaller than the vitals. That being said, necks shots are definitely a close range shot and should only be attempted with a rifle and when the crosshairs are rock solid. Lung shots are a "safer" option, but neck shots can get addicting because the animal is DRT with no tracking required and there is minimal meat loss/damage. I've successfully taken a lot of deer with neck shots, but never an elk. I would be a little more hesitant to take a neck shot on an elk because the lung area is such a larger/more forgiving target on an elk. However, if a neck shot was all I had on an elk, it was <100yds, and I was steady, I wouldn't even hesitate to shoot.

Not sure about Ohio elk but a Montana bull will run miles with a hole in his esophagus.

 

[Doublecluck]

The VLD holds no advantage to a neck shot than any other bullet. Ethics.... mtmuley

Experience would lead me to disagree, ethics aside , if I walk out the door today knowing I have to make a neck shot, do I want a bullet that is potentially going to leave the same dia. hole in and out taking all of its energy with it wherever it goes and only being fatal if it hits spine or arteries? or do I want a bullet that is going to rapidly expand as soon as it hits skin, fragment wildly, and dump all of its energy in to the neck area causing massive trauma and a blood pressure increase to the brain? I think there is some advantage to that.

 

[mtmuley]

Experience would lead me to disagree, ethics aside , if I walk out the door today knowing I have to make a neck shot, do I want a bullet that is potentially going to leave the same dia. hole in and out taking all of its energy with it wherever it goes and only being fatal if it hits spine or arteries? or do I want a bullet that is going to rapidly expand as soon as it hits skin, fragment wildly, and dump all of its energy in to the neck area causing massive trauma and a blood pressure increase to the brain? I think there is some advantage to that.

I've used VLD's. Still do in a couple rifles. Heavy for caliber and sane velocities at impact have been my experience. Glad they work for your neck shots. But, experience tells me, other bullets will too. mtmuley

 

[devon deer]

Similar to me Ben, if I have a rock steady rest I will take a neck shot, at less than 75 yards with my .243 or 30-06 on our UK deer, but it's always taken when when the deer is facing me head on.
There is a growing trend in the UK to head shoot, to say I am not a fan is an understatement!
I have got into too many arguments over the ethics (sorry) of head shooting I don't bother arguing the point anymore, hitting a deer in the jaw so it starves to death, not nice is it?
Hit them in the engine room and it runs there is usually a good blood trail, blow it's jaw off and you are screwed, no blood trail.
Lung shot for me, works every time.

OK. I'll stick my neck out. I've killed two elk with neck shots with a rifle (once a 30-06 and once a 308). I think both were ethical because they were at very close range (inside 30 yards and inside 10.) Both offhand, but I thought to my self, I can hit a beer can from here, I can hit an elk vertebra. Both kills were instantaneous. Don't get me wrong: I'm a double-lung or nothing kind of shooter 99.9 percent of the time. But that .1 percent of the time, elk can be killed ethically with a neck shot.

Regarding the image I think the scapula is a bit too small and a bit too far forward.

I agree, that is not an immediate fatal shot, it will result in a slow death for the animal, the oesophagus attaches to the rear of the wind pipe, so no doubt the hunter has tried a side on neck shot rather than front on, so probably damaged the wind pipe as well.

Not sure about Ohio elk but a Montana bull will run miles with a hole in his esophagus.

Cheers

Richard

 

[Sytes]

Regarding shot placement, to include neck shots: http://www.rmef.org/TheHunt/During/ReadingTheHit.aspx

Wayne van Zwoll—journalist, scholar, sharpshooter, hunting guide—has published 10 books and more than 1,000 articles on rifles and big game hunting. Among his most recent works: Elk and Elk Hunting, Bolt Action Rifles, The Hunters Guide to Accurate Shooting and The Book of the .22.