Unloading your quiver
#11
ORIGINAL: GMMAT
You're missing the point. Rarely (as in never.....in my circumstances) will you have an unencumbered, "sure-thing" shot at the vitals. In this case.....I feel like it's MORE ethical to throw caution to the wind and shoot anyways. A vitals follow up is "ideal" but ANY arrow hitting the deer is better than one NOT sent.
I wouldn't unload my quiver into a spine shot deer, but I would put 1 more arrow thru the lungs, thats all it would take to kill it!



I would not keep shooting arrows into the lungs, "one" arrow is enough!
#13
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 11,477
Likes: 0
From:
I don't know if I'd keep flinging arrows or "unloading my quiver" trying to just hit the deer. I'd get as close as I could to the deer and put as much importance on the follow up shot that I did on my first shot.
#14
I'm assuming that the deer has lost any movement of it's back legs and that I am in a treestand. If I could get a clean shoot at it from whereI was I would take it within my limitations. If not, I would get down and walk up to itthen take a clean shot.
#15
ORIGINAL: GMMAT
You're awesome. I've tried it on several occasions and hit the lungs on a follow up (deer was moving) ONCE.
You're awesome. I've tried it on several occasions and hit the lungs on a follow up (deer was moving) ONCE.
Did you unload your quiver into its lungs, or..... just the one arrow?
#16
I'm just having trouble, Bob, understanding why we would worry about "limitations" or whether or not we could get a sure vitals shot on a deer that is most likley mortally wounded and in need of being dispatched, quickly.
I'd throw shot selection ethics out the window if I thought there was a "chance" I could put one in the deer. OF COURSE I'd try to make the shot as lethal as possible.....but waiting for a clean shot......or even a "high percentage" shot wouldn't be in my mind.
50-70 yds? Sure. Every time.Shot facing straight away? Most definitely. Quartering to? Yep. See a pattern?
I'd throw shot selection ethics out the window if I thought there was a "chance" I could put one in the deer. OF COURSE I'd try to make the shot as lethal as possible.....but waiting for a clean shot......or even a "high percentage" shot wouldn't be in my mind.
50-70 yds? Sure. Every time.Shot facing straight away? Most definitely. Quartering to? Yep. See a pattern?
#17
BHF....If you're THAT good....this thread doesn't apply to you....as you'd never miss the vitals on a still deer in the first place.
This thread is for those who've made physical errors in their initial attempts.
This thread is for those who've made physical errors in their initial attempts.
#18
Personally I think limitations are still importantmainly because I know he is not going anywhere and it may actually be quicker for me to take him out after getting down, then flinging arrows, missing or further wounding him non-fatally, retrieving missed arrows, and then putting him down for good.
#19
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 11,477
Likes: 0
From:
I'm not Bob but I'd like to give my .02. Actually you answered it yourself...........
why we would worry about "limitations" or whether or not we could get a sure vitals shot on a deer
most likley mortally wounded and in need of being dispatched, quickly
50-70 yds? Sure. Every time.Shot facing straight away? Most definitely. Quartering to? Yep. See a pattern?
#20
ORIGINAL: GMMAT
BHF....If you're THAT good....this thread doesn't apply to you....as you'd never miss the vitals on a still deer in the first place.
This thread is for those who've made physical errors in their initial attempts.
BHF....If you're THAT good....this thread doesn't apply to you....as you'd never miss the vitals on a still deer in the first place.
This thread is for those who've made physical errors in their initial attempts.
Instead of the cheap shot you should of just answered the simple question! Your not awesome!


