# wich is better??



## berettaboys (Sep 21, 2007)

in your opinion wich works best??
a vital pass through shot, or a vital shot with the arrow still in the animal :?:
both will kill but which one will do the better / quicker job??


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I'd rather have a pass through! It's easier to track 'cause it's bleeding both sides, you can study the arrow to determine which organs it passed through, the hit animal tends to panic less, and you can usually save the lucky arrow for another day.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

I believe you will find that bowhunters who have killed numerous (30 plus) animals both species and in shear numbers will prefer a pass through shot. The key is recovery, a double lung pass through shot will provide the best blood trail day in and day out.
For me it is a leading edge and pass through every time, if my plans are followed.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I have had both events occurs on animals I harvested. I stuck a deer a little far forward than I like and it went through one shoulder blade and stopped at the other. It continued to run 300 yards with about 12" of arrow sticking out. We had to track it by its tracks since the arrow stopped any blood flow. We were lucky to find it in the terrain we were in.

I also shot a nice bull in the same manner up in the Uintas a few years back. I buried the arrow up to the fletching in the boiler through a shoulder, but it failed to completely pass through. There was good blood at first but quickly tapered off to nothing. I searched for 4 days every square inch of the mountain for that animal and ended up eating tag soup that year. Every animal that I have shot or witnessed others shoot that were complete pass throughs, were quick recoveries and left a blood trail even Helen Keller could follow. 

Complete pass through for me. I have since learned to aim a little further back on the rib cage for a double lung shot at distances of 35 - 50 yards rather than the small heart shot just behind the front shoulder. Anything under 35 I am shooting for the heart though. I have seen deer drop in there tracks with a good heart shot.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Between guiding and hunting for myself, I have been witness to 120-150 archery hit animals. I have also been directly involved in 200+ rifle/muzzy hit animals, and there isn't a situation where I would take anything over a double lung pass through archery shot. There is no need for tracking an animal that has had the air let out of both lungs with an arrow, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the animal to travel more than 100 yards. I consider myself a fair tracker, but if an animal is double lunged it isn't needed.


----------



## BIGBEAN (Apr 16, 2008)

Well put Proutdoors. Couldn't have said it better myself. 8)


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Pass thrus best, IMHO.

This small moose went 496 feet (per GPS) till it tipped over in a beaver pond. No blood after about 75 feet. It was a pass thru shot, one lung and part of liver, at 13 yards. Montec G5.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> Pass thrus best, IMHO.
> 
> This small moose went 496 feet (per GPS) till it tipped over in a beaver pond. No blood after about 75 feet. It was a pass thru shot, one lung and part of liver, at 13 yards. Montec G5.


Of course that moose died, he flipping couldn't breath under water any longer. :shock: :wink:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > Pass thrus best, IMHO.
> ...


Shhh..........if you look close his right antler is stuck in the willows. My brother claims the moose tripped and fell in the beaver pond and stuck a sharp willow in his chest......smart arse!


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

I also agree that a pass though is much better than leaving an arrow in. My last two deer kills have been pass thoughs and they didn't go further than 75 yards. 

There is some bowhunters out there though that beleive leaving the arrow in is better. I think there is a local company that is making a "Bleeder Arrow" wich is a shaft with holes drilled in to facilitate bleeding though the shaft. I remember a conversation several years ago with a bow hunter who had drilled several holes in his shafts, his reasoning was that the tail end of the arrow would break off in the animal then the arrow shaft would alow the animal to bleed out quicker. I would worry about the shaft breaking in the bow when shot.

Mark


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MarkM said:


> I also agree that a pass though is much better than leaving an arrow in. My last two deer kills have been pass thoughs and they didn't go further than 75 yards.
> 
> There is some bowhunters out there though that beleive leaving the arrow in is better. I think there is a local company that is making a "Bleeder Arrow" wich is a shaft with holes drilled in to facilitate bleeding though the shaft. I remember a conversation several years ago with a bow hunter who had drilled several holes in his shafts, his reasoning was that the tail end of the arrow would break off in the animal then the arrow shaft would alow the animal to bleed out quicker. I would worry about the shaft breaking in the bow when shot.
> 
> Mark


Arrows with holes in them? The shaft breaking could be deadly--- to the shooter, but it isn't the only worry! What about the aerodynamics, the bending, the whistling, the weight, the draw noise, the penetration? Like most of us have said, pass throughs are better!!


----------

