Honest discussion about "Ethical Shot"

[intenseaty22]

Like most of us that are into the shooting sports I spend a lot of time watching YouTube videos, watching equipment reviews and hunting adventures. I saw a video recently by Tim Wells where he shoots a Black Bear with a Blow Gun. A while ago I saw a video out of S. America where the guy shot a deer (chest/lung/heart) with a .22 PCP. Both hunters were pretty proficient shooters. Both hit their quarry with sufficient accuracy to take them down. The deer in question jumped a few feet and then just stood there thinking a mosquito had bitten it, then it looked like it had one too many, and then just dropped dead on the spot. The black bear ran maybe 50 yards, dropped, struggled to live for 3 mins (according to Tim) and died.

I once shot a deer with a .50 Cal Muzzel loader at maybe at 40 yards, broadside, tore it up big time. That animal ran at least 60 yards before it dropped. Now, every so often we come across a discussion about how much power is enough, how far is too far, what shot placement is good enough, etc. 

These things led me to want to start an Honest and Respectful conversation here on the subject. What are your guys thoughts? 

 

[likkitysplyt]

If one living creature it going to take out another living creature, no matter how high on the food chain one is or how low the other one is. The one doing the taking out has a duty and an obligation to do the deed with as much attention to detail as possible in order to make the passing of the other one as quick and painless as possible. Badly wounding another living creature and having that unfortunate creature crawl off into the brush and die a loathsome death … or worse … being unable to move, become a meal for a natural predator, should be of paramount importance before you ever pull the trigger. Shot placement and having enough terminal energy to complete the deed must be taken into consideration. If you don't think you can make the shot, then you have a duty to not take the shot from your present location. 

Most of us spend quite a bit of money and time attempting to become proficient with our air guns. We practice and practice and practice because we know that our quarry will be small and shot placement will be critical. And because we have chosen to use less power than rim fire or powder burners, we place certain restrictions on ourselves because of our choice of weapons … those restrictions must be overcome through superior marksmanship and the quality of our weapon of choice. 

I guess I could go on and on and on about the importance of not causing undue pain to that which we are trying to kill. In a war, you may not care about clean kills, you may even hate the enemy, you may feel like the more brutal, the better, you may rationalize that they deserve it because of what they have done to your friends and this is your "payback" … but in war the first casualty is humanity. Not so with hunting, your goal should not be to inflict pain and suffering but to carry on with the high standards that have made hunting a treasured American heirloom to be passed down from one generation to another through the ethical dispatching of your quarry. All of God's creatures deserve at least that much consideration.

 

[ncrary]

I will chime in. I think it will depend on the quarry, the proficiency of the hunter, and the distance. Just because I might be able to shoot sub MOA at 100 yards with my Wildcat 22 doesn't mean I would use it to hunt at that distance. Even a "hit to the vital spot" may not be vital if the projectile does not have the energy to penetrate skin, fat, muscle, possible bone and hit the organ. One needs to know his gun and ammo's ability to do the job at the distance on the animal. I think good ethics means if you can't be 100% sure of a kill, then you don't take the shot.

As BOW HUNTER I have passed up a number of close opportunities when I could not be sure my arrow would not be deflected by brush or branches between me and my target.

 

[intenseaty22]

Are we speaking of Humans taking out other living creatures, or Any living creature taking out a living creature? I have seen some predators literally eat their quarry alive while it looks on.

My quest here is to explore what constitutes an ethical shot exactly. As in the examples above with the bear and the deer.

 

[JoeWayneRhea]

I have shot exactly 10 deer and pigs with two different.25 caliber PCP rifles . Both heavily modified for power and accuracy. None were rushed shots , all were head shots Inside 20 yards.

I watched exactly half of them take a hard head shot , stagger , shake it off , and run. While I am not an overly accomplished shooter .I am capable of hitting a deer or hogs brain at close range with a good rest . And yet 50% of the animals left with at best a headache ....At worst I'd rather not think about ....

I think we fool ourselves sometimes that our Airguns are more lethal than they are . Even a powerful 25 is about the power of a 22short . I'm not talking about the powerful big bore rifles which I am convinced can cleanly take larger animals . But There's a reason folks don't deer hunt with a 22short . It's just not reliable when the shot is less than perfect ..And often even when the shot is placed perfectly. 

For me , and I'm ONLY speaking for myself here . If an airgun is gonna be Only semi reliable as a killing tool ....I'll just grab Dad's 30-06 and KNOW when I pull the trigger behind the shoulder I don't have to worry if the animal is wounded and dying . 

Like I say it's just my personal opinion an not trying to open a can of worms 

 

[intenseaty22]

Personal thoughts, opinions, and specially experience are most welcome Joe. Thanks for sharing.

As for the can of worms , not to worry, I opened that one already. 

 

[AirNGasman]

Graphic subject; caution, graphic post!

I can't deny my strong hunting instincts, but abhor seeing anything suffer; partly why I gave up bow-hunting. I took up airgun silhouette competition largely to improve my hunting-related (and specifically, offhand) shooting skills. It did! So much so that shortly thereafter I started employing brain shots almost exclusively when hunting with airguns, rifle and pistol, typically on squirrel and rabbit with 10 -15 foot-pound .177's and .22's. 

When I got a .22 Shin Sung Career (powerful Korean PCP) I realized it fully capable of harvesting ungulates to 100 pounds with brain shots... that certainly would be no more difficult than braining squirrels and rabbits! So I successfully took hogs under 100 pounds with .22 and 9mm Careers and a .22 Sumatra, realizing when they drop in their tracks to a brain shot they never even know it, even though the body may/will kick around some. It just doesn't get any more humane than an instant lights out! 

I've now expanded brain-shooting to firearms scenarios also, since it's a rare occurrence that any animal shot with anything in the chest doesn't suffer some/several/many moments of extreme trauma.

Of course brain shots are not always possible or even sensible. For instance I usually shoot birds in the upper-chest/craw area.

As far as I'm concerned, an ethical shot is a shot that results in the least possible amount of trauma inflicted in the prey's last moments on Earth.

 

[CB]

intenseaty22, I agree with you that it is a concern, and have seen some amazing results, with equipment and power levels that i personally would not be comfortable taking the shot. Each person has to know their own equipment's capabilities as well as their own, and make shots they have confidence in, and be willing to 'live' with a less than ideal outcome.



One other factor that i would like to add to this, and I hope this isn't too far off the main topic for this discussion you are starting, is the 'Knowing what is beyond your target' aspect. I have watched probably as many pigeon, starling, ground squirrel, hunting videos as most, but based on a few instances I have heard, have grave concerns about what I would call 'skylining' the target, such as a bird on a wire, or on the ridgeline of a building or barn. I have seen videos where, from appearances anyway, even an accurate shot that hits the target perfectly still has the chance of a pass through. How much downrange energy does the projectile retain.



I heard of one instance where a group of children were out riding bikes and one of them was struck in the temple by a pellet, luckily only superficial damage, but when all the dust settled, the land owner who once allowed pigeon and starling hunting, reversed his decision and told the shooters that he could not in good conscience set the stage for a potential like that. I do not know the distances involved nor the power level, only the results as were told to me.



The newscasts in Utah recently had two stories of this in the powderburner world, one fatal to a child in a car.

So all of this to say, as individuals we need to think about our 'backstop', air power, powder, archery, etc.

 

[SDellinger]

It is amazing what game has been killed with an airgun in the past few years. Joe, what you said about a 22 short is so true. Big bore airguns can get the job done with penetration. Small bores need to penetrate to a vital organ like the brain or heart. Energy is energy. Whether with a 22 short or high power 22 or 25 caliber airgun it takes alot more energy to kill an animal bigger than a raccoon reliability. I think the incredible accuracy of modern airguns has increased the leathality of small game hunting. I would have never shot at a squirrel at 80 yards with a 22 rimfire a few years ago. An 80 yard shot at a pigeon with my FX 500 is no problem now. l can only imagine what slugs are going to accomplish. I just hope airgunning as I know it does not come to an end because high power airguns with slugs put "pellet guns" in the powder burner category. Interesting times. Keep up the good work everybody. I love this forum! Have fun, Scott

 

[airgunmike56]

I just bought a Vulcan 177 and thought of it as my sparrow gun, Its super accurate and I have found even with the tiny 8,3 gr wad cutters it will take out doves (euro) easy with a well placed shot. Now I have 22 and 25 PCPs also

But I think the big bores taking out the big game may be getting big brothers attention , When Texas passed the new air gun laws , I know a few people opened there eyes to the power and accuracy of the air guns. 

Big brother is watching us, 

Mike

 

[crittahitta]

I have some thoughts on this. Sorry if i ramble,. My dad doesnt like guns or hunting but is a big fisherman. He always asks. I dont know how you can shoot a deer or rabbit, while saying this we are fishing on his boat and he is sticking a hook through a LIVE bait fish and throwing it inthe water to be eaten alive. 

That being said if it isnt furry it must not have feelings in his eyes. Lol

But recently on this forum i have seen an increase in posts that make me cringe a little. People posting pics and telling stories of shots on animals that ( i think arent ethical) but others compliment the shot. Which is ok. Just my opinion. So i wont comment to keep the peace.

Sometimes i think we get the airguns and feel we can shoot anything small in any fashion and it is ok like it doesnt matter. 

Im not trying to point fingers or annoy anyone. I am basically saying we all have our own idea of what is ethical but maybe before posting pics, videos and stories we should scrutinize them to make sure they are being done safely, legally and leave no room for the anti gunners/hunters to use against us. Because they are watching us.

Sorry intenseaty if i went off the rails.

 

[Bob_O]

Oh gosh here I go.

On pest birds, I'm not that concerned with a perfect shot. Most hits to the flesh will bring them down, if I happen to wing one and have to locate it for a follow-up shot, I don't consider that a big deal.

Shooting pest birds in the wind and/or at long distance, both of which I do, has at least a 50% chance of not hitting where you want. If we had to be 90% confident of a "good" hit before making a shot, we'd have to pass on most long range and/or windy shots. Even Ted and Matt wing or outright miss what they're shooting at.

I've made plenty of poor shots, believe me I'm not proud of them. I'd love to have every shot on a bird be to the neck or spine but it just isn't going to happen.

Woodchucks now, I've never attempted a shot on one other than to the head. Every solid headshot has resulted in a brain death. 

Skunks? I prefer to make a head shot on them but won't hesitate to take any shot to the area of the vitals being I really don't care for those animals and neither do the farmers I "work" for. They want them gone so I do my best to get a shot on every one I see inside of 50 yds. The last skunk I shot (hasn't made into a vid yet), the first two shots went right into the vitals and barely phased him. IIRC, it took 5 shots to kill it.

Squirrels and chipmunks, I prefer head shots but won't hesitate to make a shot to the vitals.

In the end, I always try my best to make a solid hit on these pests, and try to learn from the shots that don't end up being the best. 

That's as honest as I can be.

 

[intenseaty22]

@Crittahitta No need to apologize whatsoever. Thanks for chiming in. I personally try not to be too judgmental as I know I am not perfect. There are those that seem to be holier than thou and pass judgement on everyone without knowing the whole story. 

My first squirrel ever was pretty unethical shot by my current standards. I did make it right right away. I had just gotten into Airgunning and I thought I was ready. I had practiced a lot with my newly acquired Benji 292 and felt pretty confident. Basically I feel that even though it was not a good shot, I did not intend on making this squirrel suffer, my conscience is clear on that. I ended up returning the Benji (due to dangerous malfunction), but continued buy other guns and to practice and try very hard with every shot to make it count. 

 

[Bob_O]

And thats the key right there....it's a constant learning experience. My shooting "style" has changed A LOT from when I first started, farm pest control I'm talking about mostly.

When I look at some of my early videos, I couldn't believe I took some of the shots I did. But I evolved through my own experiences and pass up sooo many shots now, mostly due to safety concerns but also due to just knowing it would be a poor attempt.

 

[markT]

I'll chime in.. and I agree with Bob.. in earlier years I took some shots on squirrels I wasn't proud of.. flipping and jerking. I despise anybody who posts this crap. YES CRAP! ..( sorry boys) Now, I will only take a head shot inside 20 yds and he has his back to me.. heart lung is the way to on squirrels..they need to be hit hard..

As far as deer go. I've shot deer and double lunged them with a .243 @ 70 yds and they have " run dead" for as far as 80 yds.. tough critters.. 

Pest birds like starlings or sparrows.. I try for mid body but sometime they fly off and I will go step on their heads if not DRT.. 

 

[Bob_O]

I'm glad I'm not the only one stepping on bird heads!

 

[Revoman]

I value not making something suffer due to poor shot placement. There are plenty of body 'maps' for most any animal, just Google your quarry body make up and it'll show where all of the vitals are located within the body cavity.

Most shoot birds in the breast/chest, while smaller birds will pretty much instantly die, larger birds, especially pigeons are a lot tougher and fly offs are common with a breast shot, at least until it catches up with them, but they suffer up to that point.

The heart and lungs of a bird are basically just below the breast, along the backbone/spine, against the ribs connecting to the spine. Opening up doves during hunting season very clearly shows that. So if a head shot is not presented, but a below the breast is, that is a good spot for instant kill. A back shot to the mid body is by far the best kill zone. Little to deter the pellet as the feathers are lightest in that area and since the vitals are up against the ribs connected to the spine, it's instant.

Take a few minutes to study the quarry 'maps' that you plan on taking out, in some cases it will help a lot to create a clean kill.

 

[Bullfrog]

The deer in question jumped a few feet and then just stood there thinking a mosquito had bitten it, then it looked like it had one too many, and then just dropped dead on the spot.

That's been my experience with shooting deer with a pellet. They take the hit and then look around like "what happened?", then they collapse into their death throws.

I wouldn't ever advocate shooting one with a .22 that way simply because the hole that is created is very small. The smaller the hole, the easier it clots. The larger the hole, the harder it is to clot. A clotted lung can reinflate and allow the animal to live for a long time and sometimes recover. Both lungs deflated will kill any animal fast. You want a big hole thru both lungs that won't clot. That's what kills.

I am a big advocate of the notion that we err when we focus on FPE as the deciding factor as to killing potential. Sure, when you're talking about a full sized firearm rifle that may be dumping 1 ton of kinetic and heat energy into a target, that's enough energy to make the energy itself the major factor in the death. Its like having a micro atomic bomb go off inside your target. But the kind of energy that bows, airguns, and firearm handguns put out just doesn't compare. Yet they kill fine. Its not the energy that does it on low FPE weapons. Its the mechanical damage from the projectile cutting or ripping the wound channel. Its the equivalent of you ramming a drill into one and drilling a hole thru it. That's what kills. FPE is only relevant to ensure you have enough energy for the drill to make its way to the other side. 

That's also why I think FPE rules on airguns for hunting are really exercises in well meaning ignorance and sometimes arrogance. Lewis and Clark's .46 airgun was about a 120fpe gun at the muzzle. It was the .46 hole that killed, not the 120fpe of energy. And if .46 kills fine at 120fpe, why do we fret over the difference between 120fpe and 215fpe, if 120fpe provides adequate penetration for our projectile?

I think a lot of what we accept as common knowledge about what is and isn't acceptable for hunting is based more on superstition that gets repeated over and over again on the internet and not real world experience. 

 

[Hookster]

Humans are many times over more humane than the animal kingdom. Do your part with shot placement and know what your gun can do is by far quicker than a death by predators. I have spent years in the woods and seen many kills by animal on animal that made a poor shot look almost painless. If anyone has ever seen a coyote kill a deer you will understand. Issue I have is one keyboard commando sees someone kill a deer with a slingshot and thinks they can do it too. No practice, no understanding of anatomy of the animal or capability of the weapon. You owe it to the game you're hunting to dispatch them as quick as possible. I have harvested over 50 deer with handguns and would never suggest it to those who don't practice, practice and practice some more. I know what myself and my guns can do. Sometimes poor shots occur but we do what we can to minimize that. If you can't, don't pull the trigger. 

 

[AirNGasman]

I neglected to mention in my earlier post that before I started taking brain shots on medium to large game species with airguns I carefully studied each species' skulls to determine proper shot placement and angles to get into the brain cavity. Which brings us to a VERY important consideration when stretching the limits of power and penetration. DON'T TAKE SHALLOW-ANGLE SHOTS AT THE SKULL; you might not break through! A good example would be a hog looking at you presents too shallow shot angle, but when it puts its head down to feed the angle approaches 90 degrees.