I have a scenario that was relayed to me, two aquantainces were after cow elk, they got up on some and had to out the sneak to get the shot, the shooter was carrying a .338-he shot the cow right through the boiler house, the other hunter said "she ran off with a hole you could drive through". The shooter has legs like GI joe, they watched the cow go UP hill and over, ( I thought a wounded animal always went down) he went after her, after giving her some time- and never found her, last time he saw her she was still going.
What could have happened?
Why would a .338 put such a large hole through the sweet spot and not even make the cow go downhill?
Some of you "wound channel" guys may be able to answer this.
I have told you all I know.

What could have happened?
Simple, bad shot placement. They said it was "right in the boiler room" but it wasn't obviously and the elk was not recovered to say for sure, again shot placement. Ruin the heart-lungs and nothing goes very far.

i have to wonder how many 'tall boys' they had before telling the tall tale!
the 338 WM with the proper bullet,(250 gr.), and shot placement, from any angle, is virtually without peer as an elk and NA big game cartridge.
MarlinF tells the true story.

I've not shot game with a 338, but have been shooting a Remington 8mm mag with 220 grain Sierra Gamekings at just over 3000 fps since 1978. Performance is very similar to the 338 and though I've never lost an animal with it I have for years used a front shoulder shot instead of a "Boiler room" shot on elk. You'd be surprised how tough a big bull can be once filled with adrenalin and how far one can go that should be dead.

After chasing a few "dead" elk into the bottom of a deep, steep, blowdown, brush covered canyon I decided loosing a little meat from a front shoulder shot was better than the several times I packed several hundred pounds of meat straight up out of a canyon bottom. Remove the means of locomotion and they simply don't go far.


Three or four years ago I shot a nice whitetail buck (250 pounds 21 inch four point basket) with the 8 mag thru the lungs above the heart. That deer had a 2 inch entrance hole and a 4 inch exit hole and still ran 150 yards into a steep blowdown draw. Took half a day for to old guys to get him down to the road and that was downhill. I should have broke that ones front shoulders like I do elk.

No beer for these guys,right through the sweet spot; known them both for years.
it happened as I described.

Can't imagine any 338 bullet - even a 180 gr - blowing up and making a superficial surface wound, which could have been the 'hole' they saw? Unlikely. Maybe they got cows mixed up and the 'dead' one got away where they didn't search, and their eyes were on a healthy one? Other than that, there's a spot above the lungs, below the backbone, that will take a hit and won't kill the animal, at least not right away, and sometimes it will heal.

there's a spot above the lungs, below the backbone, that will take a hit and won't kill the animal, at least not right away, and sometimes it will heal.

Shawn beat me to it, he stated what I was thinking as I read this thread. My partner had that happen twice to him, once with a .50 muzzleloader and the other IIRC a 7mm. They went down and few seconds later up on their feet and full speed. Neither one recovered.

I have read a lot, and never knew about this "might not kill" zone, thanks.

Last fall I shot a smaller whitetail @ about 70 yards with a 300 wsm pushing a 150 gr. win supreme. I hit the deer and it went down, I reloaded, and waited for it to stop kicking, waited a little more and walked up. The bugger had a good hole in it high in the shoulder, below the spine. When I was about 5' away the bugger jumping into the thickest beech brush on the farm. Behind where the deer was standing there was a smaller hemlock with a bullet hole in it too, so the bullet made it thru, taking out a splash wound. When the deer went into the scrub, I went back for dad so we could see if we could find it, btw it was now raining, and no snow. We spent an hour looking for the deer together, and I spent the reat of the day, 6 hours looking for that deer. The next day another hunter saw the deer walk by and bed down, only to get up later without offering a shot... Three days later, the last day that I could hunt, I tagged a large (3-4 year old) doe with my 243 win at 300 yards. One shot and it dropped, never to moove again. Some things just dont make sense.

I'm sorry, I just cannot resist the obvious, what if this happened at long range?
Chances are greatly amplified that you lose the animal.
Another reason pegged.

I'm sorry, I just cannot resist the obvious, what if this happened at long range?
Chances are greatly amplified that you lose the animal.
Another reason pegged.

If so, how did they see the "hole you could drive through" at long range? Do you know that they were shooting long range, and if so, were they set up with the spotting equipment for that?

I'm sorry, I just cannot resist the obvious, what if this happened at long range?
Chances are greatly amplified that you lose the animal.
Another reason pegged.


Since the Lost Elk by your friends was at close range after a stalk, maybe we should stop close range hunting, because things happen and nothing is 100%. Wait a minute using that logic we have to stop every thing that we do, because nothing is perfect or 100 percent efficient. No more cars and/or driving, because we might have an accident, no more farming we might have a bad crop, no more flying we might have crash, etc, etc.

If so, how did they see the "hole you could drive through" at long range? Do you know that they were shooting long range, and if so, were they set up with the spotting equipment for that?

The elk scenario did not happen at long range, but the story I was commenting on specifically was the one coyote_243 was talking about, which did not happen at long range either.
If these situations happened from 500 yards instead of 200 or 100 yards it is simple math that the chances you would lose the animal at greater distances are much greater.

The math is so simple that it is beyond contestation.

The elk scenario did not happen at long range, but the story I was commenting on specifically was the one coyote_243 was talking about, which did not happen at long range either.
If these situations happened from 500 yards instead of 200 or 100 yards it is simple math that the chances you would lose the animal at greater distances are much greater.

The math is so simple that it is beyond contestation.


Ah the trolling has began in ernest. The reason for the thread in the first place it seems

This continual bickering over long range hunting has to cease, folks.

I believe by now that everyone is pretty well informed of everyone else's opinions on the matter. Let's just have friendly exchanges of information without injecting the pro and con of long range hunting. We hate to lock threads when there are stories to be recounted, but you leave us no choice when trying to backdoor the same old arguments.

Thanks for understanding. Let's get on with the hunting stories.

Well let's see.

You have a questionable story with no verifiable ending.

You weren't an eyewitness.

There is not one shred of evidence.

And we would have a long, argument-filled thread about this, because???? :confused:

Sounds like a load of B.S. Either someone was making up a story to make themselves feel better, or this was contrived to stir up the forum.

That's my opinion.

Whoa big fella!
Where did all this come from?
Argument filled thread?
I have learned since I posted this that there is a "maybe kill" zone on elk and deer, and where it is.
Pretty good stuff I would say.

So you wouldn't mind if I made up some stories about, say, how the .220 swift was a terrible short-range deer cartridge?

Did you think I am attacking the .338?
I am not, if that helps.

Apparently that's not helping, biting the tongue....

Did you think I am attacking the .338?
I am not, if that helps.

I think you are deliberately starting threads on controversial topics, and baiting people into arguments, that is what I think.

This continual bickering over long range hunting has to cease, folks.

I believe by now that everyone is pretty well informed of everyone else's opinions on the matter. Let's just have friendly exchanges of information without injecting the pro and con of long range hunting. We hate to lock threads when there are stories to be recounted, but you leave us no choice when trying to backdoor the same old arguments.

Thanks for understanding. Let's get on with the hunting stories.

I tried, I tried. I have been posting on this forum for exactly one month.
Time for me to start scouting, so I will not be visiting for a while.
I don't know if these guys that keep following me around think I am someone else or what?
Please read this top to bottom and decide who is taking who apart.
I could contrive a story like this one if I had the time that some do, They are even counting my threads, but this happened to a man that lives in Jerome and another that lives here and works for GE. If there is anyone from around here you have probably figured out who they are.

As I have said, I have to spend some time in the hills-so whatever it is I do that makes these few want to follow me, you are relieved for a while.
Hope you all have better days.
Check out that list of "contreversial" threads; if you become really bored.

Thread locked.