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:

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

I Absolutely agree. If you shoot a deer lower in the lungs, the bloods fills them much faster and can almost get an immediate blood trail. I also believe that a lower lung shot brings the deers center of gravity down therefor making it fall quicker. My lower shot lung deer have gone shorter distances than the ones I have shot higher up in the lungs. Blood trails on lower lung deer have also been like following a garden house with red water. Upper shot ones seem to not have the amount of blood expelled.

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

I don't know if there would be that much of a difference, as long as both lungs are fully penetrated. My understanding is that penetrating both lungs with a sharp object (i.e. broadhead) and opening the insides of the lungs to the outside air pressure generally causes both lungs to collapse, and the deer dies from suffocation rather than blood loss. You may get better blood trails from a lower lung shot, but I'm not sure if it's going to kill the deer much faster.

I aim for the middle of the lungs so I have some room for error in each direction. No deer that I've double-lunged with an arrow has gone more the 75 yards after the hit. Most have piled up within 40 or 50 yards.

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

The more lung tissue that your broadhead goes throughthe quicker they will bleed out, pass out, and thendie.

This doesn't necessarily mean a center punch through the lungs. It could mean a high quartering away shot that enters high in the rear of the lung, travels all the way through, cuts off the arteries in the center of thelungs and then exits through the lower front offside lung. That's a heck of a lot of lung tissue for the arrow to pass through and a tremendous ammount of bleeding that will occur.

The lower in the bodythe holethe quicker they will leave blood on the ground.

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

Another thing some don't know about lung shots is that while they do die from suffocation they actually bleed out rather fast as well. This is due to the fact that after the blood vessel rich lungs are punctured a deers body suffers a massive drop in blood pressure which the deers body compensates for by pumping it's heart harder and faster which of course leads to more bleeding, this is almost opposite of how a deers body responds to a heart shot where the body shuts down the heart and all arteries, veins, and organs retain the blood they possess which equals decreased blood circulation and less blood leaves the body.Heart shots are definitely deadly and I have never had a badblood trail from onejust thought I'd mention it.

Entry exit holes come into play because even though the actual wound on a high lung shot will bleed and smudge the chest cavity can take a long time to fill up to a high wound if it fills up that much at all, and me personally I would rather have that blood on the ground than filling in the chest cavity.

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

I shot one through both lungs low this year----she ran no more than 25 yards and was dead in less than 10 seconds. So I yes to the double lung low shot! :)

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

Any hit on a whitetail has to due with one thing and one thing only - the amount of damage you do from entry to exit or the point the arrow stops. The more arteries, veins, and tissue you cut - the faster they die. Liver, lungs, guts, etc...

This is why I use a big cut on contact broadhead. No possibility of a single lung lost deer when you're pushing 1-3/4" worth of blade through the boiler-room of a whitetail. I've seen too many fixed head hits that resorted in lost deer because they just didn't cause enough damage.

Just my opinion of-course!

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

Nope, no such thing as "more fatal" is there? That is like saying one deer is "more dead" than another...:D Couldn't resist that one.

I actually disagree with most, in that by far for me, high lunghits have brought my deer down the quickest. Regardless of opinion on the best part of the lungs, I am sure that some areas of the lungs have a higher density of vessels. I think you could make a case for a difference in effectiveness between lungs fully inflated at impact vs. deflated at impact as well.

I know for darn sure there is a difference in effectiveness on liver hits.I have had liver hits die in minutes and have some last between 8-12 hours.

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

A lung hit is a lung hit IMO. A deer wont go far when both lungs are punctured. They are dead essentially whenever you hit them, it just depends on how far they run in that period of time before they collapse. Most people that prefer the lower lung hits want the blood trails, but even you guys would agree that a double lung hit is a dead deer, is a dead deer, is a dead deer...right? All kill with the same lethality, its just how quickly and how much blood you find.

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

? I know that double lung hits are for all practical purposes always lethal, but am suprised at how many people really think hitting deer anywhere in the lungs is entirely equivalent. Disect your next kill. Lungs are NOT homogenous. If you cut larger air (bronchial?) tubes and blood vessels at the center (and slightly forward of center) of both lungs, any given deer will die faster. Closer to the edges of the lungs takes longer...sometimes much longer.

I have noticed deer falling a shorter distance from stand when hit high through both lungs, but it seems to me that is because they do not run off as fast (as a rule) when shot like that. They run (or trot or walk) 20-50 yards, stop, and tip over. A more solid lung hit (and heart) and they take off on a dead sprint covering more ground in a shorter time span.... as a very general rule.

Then there is the major arteries and veins branching off the top of the heart - cut one and that has an impact on bloodloss and eventually muscle death as well. That all being said, a double lung is still a dead deer, you just have to find it.

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

I've hit them high in the lungs,low in the lungs,forward part and rear part--all piled up within 80yds.No matter where you hit the lungs,if you punch holes in them,they can't get air

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

I am a firm believer in shooting right above the heart at 2 o'clockon a deer. You not only get both lungs you get to main arties coming into/out the heart.

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

lower lung......

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

Personally I like the lung hit to take place when the animal is breathing in. That way.. the lung is at it largest.. thus making it a even bigger target to aim at.



























Of course.. I am completely screwing around with this one and all of you.. because.. quite frankly... I'm bored.[8D]

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

If quartering away are you aiming for that spot on entrance or exit?

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

Exit, I try to get as close as I can. Qrty away more than a little it's a tough spot to hit. I just try to get asclose to the heart as I can.

When Qrt away I want the arrow to come out the arm pit of the deer. Depanding on the angle maybe a bit forwardor back.

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

I agree Germ. I could see some rookie reading what you said and aiming for that spot for an entrance on a quartering away shot. Thats why I said what I did being you would explain yourself. Thanks man!!:D

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

I agree 100%. The best blood trails and shortest recoveries I've had have been when I hit them in this spot (green circle). You get both lungs and sever major arteries at the top of the heart. If I hit them in a little higher and further back (yellow circle) they still die but they go a bit longer.

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

Thx for keeping me in line, as an added bonus with this shot it yu miss lowthere is a good chance you hit the heart;)

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

Exactly right, look at the anatomy pics of a deer's vascular system, The closer to the heart the more arteries and veins you will cut causing more bleeding and better blood trails, and this means a low hit into the boiler room. A high hit in the lungs will give you a delayed blood trail since the lungs need to fill up first, you may actually get a sneeze or cough blood before the blood comes out of the wound.

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

Oh Right, LIke I'm gonna believe you're gonna wait for him to inhale!