Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

Do you think one part of the lungs would prove more fatal than the other. For instance, broad side deer, do you think it matters much where exactly you hit the lungs, ie front of lungs, back of lungs, middle ect. To me it seems I have had shorter trails when the animal is hit more towards the front of the lungs ( you know down in the pocket ) than the back, even though it was a double lung and the animal died, he still went further due to placement hitting the rear part of the lungs. I feel that you have a better blood trail and the lungs fill up with blood quicker if the shot is closer to the heart and arteries.

Does this make any sence?

RE: Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

Yes, I believe there is. I think it's best to hit the lower portion of the lungs so they have to fill up less (quicker trail)before the blood comes out. A high hit in the lungs allows them to take on much more blood before they start leaving a trail.JMHO;)

RE: Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

I have to agree with Early in. I double lunged a buck that went for quite some time and actually bumped him once on the trail (I was dumb and started trailing soon after the shot) but I caught the very top of both lungs and took a while for him to bleed out.

RE: Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

For the most part I agree. I have had a few higher & back DL’s that died in a hurry though. One buck in particular, only went about 30 yds almost like nothing ever happened and then plop. DOWN
I will say that lower & forward DL bleed more, but in my experiences both go down in a hurry.

RE: Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

Makes perfect sense killer! The closer you are to the middle of the lungs the more damage you will do to the lungs. Thats why high lung hits, or just nicking a lung on the back side tend to go a little farther at times. You can't beat a perfect broad side shot at the lungs but a quartering away shot does give us more room for error. Slightly quartering away is my favorite shot. All in all though don't try and hug that shoulder to tight, you will not penetrate that knuckle.

RE: Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

I agree on the perfect broadside low double lunger atleast leaves a better blood trail than the high DL. I still prefer the quartering away shot even if I don't get an exit. Every deer I've put this shot on went down within sight, blood trails were excellent. I'll take that shot every time, but won't pass the DL broadside either.

RE: Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

I don't know....good question though.

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

oh my god here we go again

RE: Do you think there is degrees in the effectiveness of a double lung?
 

I don't think it matters much where in the lungs you hit them if you are slicing through both lungs, as far as deadliness. If both lungs are punctured they will collapse(not really fill up per say)and the deer will suffocate very quickly. However, very quickly can translate into 35 yards to 150 yards on the hoofdepending on the deer.

That is the main reason I tend to aim for the middle to front of the lungs and as low as possible depending on the angle of my shot, a low exit hole will work well even if the entry side is high. That way as the chest cavity fills with blood the deer is leaving a better blood trail on his/her "death run".

Here is a pic of a buck I killed with my blackpowder in 2006. The county I hunt allows rifles on the ground and I shot this guy out of a ground blind so the entry and exit wounds are on the same line. The shot "looks" good but that buck ran nearly 200 yards (not in a straight line) through the deepest, darkest, wettest, marshy pine thicket on earth(well maybe not on earth but it sure seemed like it that night). The blood trail was minimal and I literally had to go drop to drop to smudge to tracks through this thicket, on my hands and knees much of thetime, to find him. All in all it took over four hours to cover the zig zag trail no more than 150-200 yards(approx). Ever since that evening I have ben far more aware of how important it can be to hit them lower in the chest.

That is one exhausted hunter you are looking at in this pic, just glad I found him: