NO where in the article does it even hint that she planned a 2 kill shot. In fact, it sounds like she was surprised. Now I don't know about your neck of the woods, but I always try to place my shot where it will have the best chance of killing the animal, and that place is a chest shot. Besides, you are responsible for your shot and I don't really care to shoot through the animals neck, hopefully hitting an artery, and then worry about where my bullet may decide to go after that. That to me seems like a stupid thing to do. But, you hunt your way and I'll hunt mine.
A neck shot is almost always a kill. It is even better than a head shot that may or may not enter the brain cavity. On top of that very little meat is damaged.
Besides, you are responsible for your shot and I don’t really care to shoot through the animals neck, hopefully hitting an artery, and then worry about where my bullet may decide to go after that. That to me seems like a stupid thing to do. But, you hunt your way and I’ll hunt mine. -————————————————————————————
If the area downrange is not totally clear of potential accidental bullet strikes then NO Shot is a safe shot.
Matters not whether you are going for a head shot, neck short or body shot.
In other words, anyone who would take a chest shot where he would not take a neck shot is committing one of hunting’s deadly sins.
Of course long range shooting, 300 yards and beyond, is not the topic.
No, she didn't plan it that way. I've known some very successful deer hunters and none of them have ever made such a claim - not even considering the game limit aspect of the matter. And thanks for addressing the unpredictable issue of bullet deflection in your post...
Question: Have you ever gone fishing with someone and sat next to them in a boat, using similar equipment, the same bait, the same presentation in the same spot, and caught nothing while he gets his limit? I have, just speaking for myself... I suspect that there might be something else at work...
Frankly, success at fishing and especially hunting, consists of the usual observable and practical things... knowledge, experience, THE ABILITY TO SEE GAME IN THE FIELD, which is possibly the most underrated aspect of hunting. (Good boots and basic equipment, and oh, yeah, marksmanship is kinda important but rather overrated at times...)
The one thing that few people talk about, and fewer yet, including my own self, have really been able to put a finger on?
Providence. Normally just blown off or presumed to be "just plain ol' dumb luck".
This story fits with my personal suspicion that in the field, what presents to a person, sometimes having all the appearance of accident, has something to do with the person him/herself.
That's not an assertion on my part, it's a question because I have not found the answer.
Things appear, or they don't appear. You see things, or you don't see things. Sometimes the moon is out in the daytime while you're out, sometimes it isn't.
Sometimes you get a shot, sometimes you don't.
What does it all have to do with the outcome for a person?
I have no idea. But now here's a story about a most improbable thing happening to (for?) a little elderly lady.
Doesn't it give one pause to think? What do I not know, what have I missed?