Muley69:.

You know no such thing. There is no empirical evidence one way or the other. It is pure conjecture to make such a statement, not fact. For example: Bowhunters as a rule, do not shoot at running deer or other big game. In fact, I've never heard of or seen a bowhunter shoot at a running deer. Gun hunters are known to do this quite regularly. The difference is gun hunters don't know whether they've wounded the animal or not, it usually running so fast and it just keeps running. I've seen "results" during deer gun season that I don't even want to post on a hunting message board.

And many, many gun hunters have next to zero practice before the season. They sight their gun in at 100 yards; a few rounds to get her "sighted in" and thats it. They never practice at 300 yards (and if they do is usually from a bench, almost certainly not under field conditions), but some will take a shot at up to 300 yards, and as you've accurately described there is no margin for error.

Hmmm no practice and no margin for error? Field conditions, no bench rest and add perhaps wind, rain, fatique, nerves, glare, elevation, limited time to get off a shot, what have you...all factors further reducing accuracy. Wonder what happens with regularity in those situations? Some gun hunters tend to overestimate their personal effective range under hunting conditions because of scopes and a cartridge's supposed ballistics.

My point is that a statement like muley69's cannot be proven and most certainly should not be accepted as fact. That argument can go both ways and anecdotal evidence is all you've got.

Both the gun and the bow take skill. With the bow, the animal is usually much closer and it could be argued that the chances of being winded are usually somewhat greater depending on the circumstances. But things happen that are unfortunate for both types of hunting.

I've hunted with bowhunters that make enough noise with their outdated climbers to wake up bucks that died years ago.[8D]