|
Shot!
Nov 18, 2012 4:09:34 GMT -5
Post by lineman453 on Nov 18, 2012 4:09:34 GMT -5
What is the probability of a head on center chest 30 yd shot shooting down and to the left from a 20 ft platform? Is this a high or low probability of death shot?
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 18, 2012 6:18:32 GMT -5
Post by dbd870 on Nov 18, 2012 6:18:32 GMT -5
With a bow I'll pass, with a rifle - go get him.
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 18, 2012 9:44:55 GMT -5
Post by ridgerunner on Nov 18, 2012 9:44:55 GMT -5
Just wait for broadside why wound a deer or chance it
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 18, 2012 9:56:11 GMT -5
Post by Decatur on Nov 18, 2012 9:56:11 GMT -5
No thanks.
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 18, 2012 13:14:28 GMT -5
Post by daneowner on Nov 18, 2012 13:14:28 GMT -5
Not a shot i'd take.
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 18, 2012 18:23:59 GMT -5
Post by dadfsr on Nov 18, 2012 18:23:59 GMT -5
Did almost the exact shot last year with my 308 Encore. Had a small buck coming in directly at me that stopped about 20 yards out and looked up at me 15' in the tree. Centered the crosshairs low on the center of the chest and kissed the trigger. He didn't go but maybe 30 yards and how he did that I don't know since he had nothing left to pump any blood.
Yes I'd do it again on any size deer with that gun in the same circumstances....however I didn't have fresh deer heart to eat that night!
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 18, 2012 18:46:20 GMT -5
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 18, 2012 18:46:20 GMT -5
With a bow I'll pass, with a rifle - go get him. Ditto.....
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 0:16:20 GMT -5
Post by jajwrigh on Nov 21, 2012 0:16:20 GMT -5
The frontal chest shot has proven very lethal twice for me with a gun. Once with a .243 win Encore and once with a .7mm-08, results were the same with both. Now I just have the .450 Bushmaster, so I would gladly take a similar shot again with my rifle. With a bow, I wouldn't even think about it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 6:06:13 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2012 6:06:13 GMT -5
Your taxidermist might not like it too much. Neither will the deer. You don't have to punch both lungs to kill a deer, they have other vital organs.
|
|
|
Post by imnatree on Nov 21, 2012 8:16:29 GMT -5
Ethically speaking, it's taught not to take this shot, as is a head shot. Lethally, it depends on the weapon and ammo ur using for penetration purposes. Probably most important is the hunters marksmenship abilities to place a bullet exactly where he/she intends it to go. A frontal shot definitely shrinks the heart area as it longer on a broadside shot.
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 8:49:49 GMT -5
Post by tynimiller on Nov 21, 2012 8:49:49 GMT -5
I'd pass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 8:58:11 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2012 8:58:11 GMT -5
Not sure WHO determines when a certain shot is ethical or not??? Heck, I know of about 20 this year so far that were shot at and not recovered for one reason or the other, including clean misses. Maybe EVERY shot is unethical? ?? Here's the vitals. There are dozens of paths to get to them, maybe more whitetaildeerpassion.blogspot.com/2010/09/make-your-first-shot-count.html
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 10:17:11 GMT -5
Post by daneowner on Nov 21, 2012 10:17:11 GMT -5
Not sure WHO determines when a certain shot is ethical or not??? Heck, I know of about 20 this year so far that were shot at and not recovered for one reason or the other, including clean misses. Maybe EVERY shot is unethical? ?? Here's the vitals. There are dozens of paths to get to them, maybe more whitetaildeerpassion.blogspot.com/2010/09/make-your-first-shot-count.htmlThe person taking the shot determines whats an ethical shot. If they can answer one simple question in their own mind, Am I 99.9% sure I can make a clean kill if I take this shot. If the answer is i'm not sure, then it's an un-ethical shot.
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 10:25:00 GMT -5
Post by swilk on Nov 21, 2012 10:25:00 GMT -5
You just said it was the person making the shot who determines if it is ethical ... then you say if they are not 99.9% sure they can make a clean kill they are unethical.
What exactly is a "clean kill"?
Dead is dead. Not dead is not dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 10:37:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2012 10:37:28 GMT -5
So if a fellow shoots at a deer behind the shoulder, half way up he's ethical, even if he's can't hit what he aims at or that his gun doesn't group well or a zillion other reasons why deer don't always roll over and die on the shot.
And if it's 99.9% isn't it at least .1% unethical???
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 11:35:15 GMT -5
Post by daneowner on Nov 21, 2012 11:35:15 GMT -5
Sorry, but it seems like you gent's just want to argue, I'm sure most understand what I was tring to say. Yes Swilk, dead is dead, not dead is not dead, but there is an in-between and that is a shot that is a wounded deer that dies a slow death and maybe even not be recovered. So to me, a "clean kill" shot should be a simple answer, one that will produce a quick death. Timex, Any hunter that can't hit what he aims at due to his inability or the gun's is unethical before he even takes a shot. I think most will agree it is our responsibility to only take shots within our ability and the weapon we're using. No shot is 100% , but we can and should make a shot that is as close to 100% as possible.
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 11:52:20 GMT -5
Post by 25fthigh on Nov 21, 2012 11:52:20 GMT -5
Sorry, but it seems like you gent's just want to argue, I'm sure most understand what I was tring to say. Yes Swilk, dead is dead, not dead is not dead, but there is an in-between and that is a shot that is a wounded deer that dies a slow death and maybe even not be recovered. So to me, a "clean kill" shot should be a simple answer, one that will produce a quick death. Timex, Any hunter that can't hit what he aims at due to his inability or the gun's is unethical before he even takes a shot. I think most will agree it is our responsibility to only take shots within our ability and the weapon we're using. No shot is 100% , but we can and should make a shot that is as close to 100% as possible. I see your point and agree... The constant arguing gets old. Is there a way to hide the posts from a particular member? That would be ideal... Lol
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 12:16:28 GMT -5
Post by swilk on Nov 21, 2012 12:16:28 GMT -5
Daneowner- no argument here. Ethic is a word guys like to impose on other guys when IMO they are unique to each individual and that individual alone.
I see no reason to intentionally torture a critter but when you set out to kill one i think every hunter tries to do that in the most efficient way possible..... dont know ive ever heard of someone intentionally wounding an animal. Every released arrow or bullet sent down range starts with the same intentions..... kill whatever it is they are aiming at.
The most humane and most instant death might be a brain shot yet most dont try and most frown upon others who might. A liver shot certainly results in death most times but might not be considered clean by some. IMO dead is dead......lots of ways and angles to get there.
|
|
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 12:20:59 GMT -5
Post by Hoosier Hunter on Nov 21, 2012 12:20:59 GMT -5
My past 15 or so kills using a ML have all been neck shots. Every one has died instantly and no destroyed shoulder meat. Makes my processing so much easier and tracking is never needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Shot!
Nov 21, 2012 12:23:26 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2012 12:23:26 GMT -5
Sorry, but it seems like you gent's just want to argue, I'm sure most understand what I was tring to say. Yes Swilk, dead is dead, not dead is not dead, but there is an in-between and that is a shot that is a wounded deer that dies a slow death and maybe even not be recovered. So to me, a "clean kill" shot should be a simple answer, one that will produce a quick death. Timex, Any hunter that can't hit what he aims at due to his inability or the gun's is unethical before he even takes a shot. I think most will agree it is our responsibility to only take shots within our ability and the weapon we're using. No shot is 100% , but we can and should make a shot that is as close to 100% as possible. The issue is that your wanting to paint with a broad brush, what is ethical and what isn't. Read the study posted in the Campfire section. It tells you that 20% of the people completely miss what they shoot at. What it doesn't tell you is how many miss the vitals and hit a non-vital area. It didn't define how many of those shots were ethical in the first place? Point is, one person can not say what is ethical and what isn't without standing in the defendents shoes at the time of the shot. Outsiders simply don't have enough info to judge. Anyway, back on topic. A front on shot is ethical and will kill a deer in most cases, assuming the shooter hits the deer in a way the bullet will pass through the vitals.
|
|