Was watching Michael Waddel this morning before work, he shot a buck and hit it low double lung, it went 200 yds. When they got to it they mentioned that low lung hits traveled further than high lung hits. I was thinking about my experiances and this seems to be true, never thought of it before now.

Anyone else have any experiance or opinions on this?

I was going to ask the exact same question! I too watched this and was curious about that statement!

Never thought about it either but I'd rather have the low lung hit, hoping for a better blood trail.

I'm with Arthur P on this one!

I agree with Art on this one(You don't mind if I call you Art do you?). Definately better blood on a low lung hit.

As for the question of which is more lethal? A dead deer is a dead deer. Which is easier to recover would be my concern. And a low lung hit= more blood(better blood trail)=higher % of recovery IMO.

I've never noticed much of a difference. The high lung hits of mine maybe went a little less distance, but the lower lung hits tend to have a bit more blood. I think its pretty much a moot point, high DL or low DL, you are going to find the deer.

Let me rephrase that, not more lethal but distance ran to expiration. I shot a doe in Oct., high double lung hit and she went about 40 yds and piled up. I shot a buck a week later, low shot, might have only gotten one lunch but he ran a ways before bedding down. Ended up jumping him and not finding him so I'll never know.

I agree that a low hit=better blood trail but maybe the high hit puts em down faster. I don't have the composure at the moment of truth to pick high/low lung. But I was just curious of everyones experiences.

Sounds right,sorta liks the the song Hi LEE Hi LOW HI LEE Hi low

I have heard that high is more effective due to the lung filling up faster with blood

tim

Law of gravity applies: if you hit high, blood will flow downward filling up the rest of the lungs. The deer will drown in it's own blood faster than a low hit.