New here, maybe I could offer a slightly different perspective.
We often compare the options available to us, and pick subjective measures of what's humane or ethical. It's human nature, but it isn't very effective for settling debates. Yes, the shooter matters, the shot matters, the conditions matter, the critter's actions matter - IF you're trying to compare one caliber to another. But what if we back up and take a wider approach? How do most animals die in the wild? Starvation, disease, or being killed by another animal. If they're lucky, the last one lasts less than a few minutes. But most of the time, an animal is going to suffer for days, weeks, even months while in the process of dying. I would imagine if given the option between suffering for potentially minutes because of a shot that doesn't result in instant death, or weeks, the coyote would choose minutes. Let's say you wound one, that ultimately lives for weeks or months suffering before dying. His end was likely going to follow that same trajectory anyway.
This isn't an endorsement of shooting indiscriminately. Or of not practicing. Or even for trying to get away with minimum force possible. It's just simply to put things in perspective. Nature isn't cruel - that's a common misconception. She's just incredibly indifferent. It matters little what we think about the way nature takes it's course when we aren't around - it's going to take it's course. And we've lost touch with what that course is given our lack of exposure to nature. I think it's important to remember that no matter what amount of suffering we inflict on an animal by attempting to shoot it with a deadly weapon, in almost ALL cases, it likely would have suffered as much or more if we had never crossed paths.
Our effort to reduce that suffering is one of the many valid arguments for hunting. It is precisely why it is such an effective, and decent way to make groceries, not to mention it's role as a management tool. In my opinion, it is a hunter's responsibility to educate meat eaters who don't hunt on just how much suffering they inflict on animals to put that food on the table. And the only way we can make that case, is to do our best to kill animals with LESS suffering than is caused by the meat industry. That is not hard to do. From there, any increases in the efficiency of killing an animal are simply to help the hunter grapple with the fact he's ending a sentient being's life. I think it's useful to admit that the gap between a natural death and a slow one caused by an imperfect shot is so much wider than the gap between an imperfect shot and a DRT shot. This perspective will lead to a more honest assessment of hunting tactics, and probably help some folks sleep at night.
Happy Hunting. Love the forum - great information for someone new to PCP's!
. Very true not everyone is the same when it comes to ability. I grew up on powder burners and longest kill shot was at a little less than 800 yards with a 333 lapua. I shoot enough pcp especially lately I am comfortable to a 100 yards with a 22, 25 or a 30 cal.
The coyote was 35 lb male. 
