That's not what I've witnessed... The first deer I ever kill was shot in the forehead (not where I was aiming) I stood and watched the small fountain of blood pump out of the wound.

I was using a new model 94 Winchester with the original sites. I didn't get the bead deep enough into the V, and shot very high... That year I got a new peep site for Christmas from my Grandfather... No more shooting high.

Exactly the point that Top, and others are trying to make... Is it worth taking the risk out of some sense of arrogance? Because you know you can make the shot?

Things (read mistakes) happen folks... But go on... Take the chance... Because yer such a damn good shot!!! Those of us of lesser ability will do the right thing!!!

A "Gunplummer" should know the terminology... They are both .22 calibers... But like I said... "Things happen".

Exactly the point that Top, and others are trying to make... Is it worth taking the risk out of some sense of arrogance? Because you know you can make the shot?


I know for me arrogance has nothing to do with it or even enters my mind. I don't think that way. A head shot is a kill shot like any other. So I guess I'm opportunistic ...If the opportunity presents it's self I take it.


Those of us of lesser ability will do the right thing!!!


I have no thoughts of how well anyone else's shooting abilities are unless I'm in the same woods. Taking a head shot is not the wrong thing it is just a different option. I have made some I have missed some never with any bad results (deer running away without jaw)

I find that deer will stand and look without moving their head for long periods of time trying to stare you down. So the theory of
them moving their head making it harder to hit holds no weight with me.

In conclusion hunting is always going to involve a certain amount of risk when it comes to shot placement. Taking one kill shot out of the equation as being too risky is the shooters decision but I believe it limits their chances of a successful kill to a certain degree. I love and respect all game animals and they deserve a quick and humane one shot kill and a head shot accomplishes that when made properly.
Thanks for all your comments and the posters on this forum are really a special group of individuals of which I'm proud to be counted as one.
Merry Christmas to All and a Safe hunting Season
Doug

An age old debate. I think if you are sure enough, take it.

WELCOME to the forum! Is your avatar Nugent's Stick man?

Thanks. I'm not sure where it came from, I just liked it.

Didn't read all 8 pages line by line, but read the title and knew where it would go, what I read confirmed it. I'll weigh in...

Experience/hunting side:

I've taken a few "meat hunt" doe by headshot. Wouldn't shoot a buck in the head since I like to have racks/skulls intact. Had a few properties where either brush or grass was thigh deep, shoulder deep on the deer, never had a "miss", but never sent a bullet after one that I didn't KNOW I was going to connect with. Then we had the CWD deal, where local resources wanted their brains intact, and spinal/cerebral tissues were no-bueno for meat contamination, so I moved away from it.

Not sure I remember the last time I took an un-supported shot on a deer. I do take unsupported shots on coons, rabbits, and lots of coyotes to keep the skill sharp, I just choose to shoot supported when possible, and it's EXCEEDINLY RARE that finding some support isn't possible for me.

High neck shot is a larger target, to Ridge Runner's point, less blood to drain on your floor, and just as likely to drop one right in the dirt. Ruins the cape, but preserves the skull and rack.

On the political side:

I'd confidently venture that many many many more deer are wounded, left to run off and die slowly by infection, by hunters that mis-judge range, didn't account for range/drop, INCORRECTLY accounted for range/drop, can't shoot for $hit offhand, can't shoot for $hit in general, didn't zero their rifle - just had it boresighted by the guy that put the Bushnell scope on it at the factory, sighted in their rifle on an 80degree day, DIDN'T account for wind, DID account for wind - incorrectly, took a shot at a running deer etc etc, aiming at the heart/lungs than are wounded by head-hunters. There are FAR more decisions that cause misses, no matter what aiming point is chosen, that hunters make (or don't make) that result in wounded deer.

How often do you hear the term "gut shot" around a group of bowhunters. "Not sure what happened, but hit him a little farther back than I wanted..." $hit happens, but it sure seems to happen a lot more when you take a shot you don't KNOW you are going to make.

Making generalizations that nobody should take headshots because the risk is too high is a waste of time. Sure, if we assign that "the average hunter", which around here I'd quantify as "johnny I-gotta-gun" that has been hunting out of the same box of ammunition for 10yrs or more, and has never checked their zero, then sure, the "average hunter" shouldn't take headshots.

I don't recommend the average hunter take 200yrd shots either, or even 100yrds frankly.

My brother-in-law, when he first started dating my sister, would sight in his rifles STANDING, OFF HAND, 1" high at 50yrds. He also complained that none of his rifles were very accurate. He gutshot a few deer, missed a few more (at least we hope he missed), went through a few rifles and scopes trying to find a "more accurate rifle", and then I taught him how to shoot.

Replace Brother-In-Law with "buddy in high school" and "roommate in college", then repeat it 4 times and it'd be accurate as well. At least 7 guys I've known that just didn't know any better.

Helped out a guy 2 yrs ago at an indoor range that was sighting in his rifle off handed, had never shot a gun until that day, and adjusted his scope every single shot. He was on his 3rd box of ammo before I noticed and offered to help him.

My college sweetheart's dad gave me his father's rifle, warning me it wasn't accurate at all (pre-64 Model 70 in 270win), he said the barrel was shot out because the accuracy really fell off back in the '80s, now he couldn't hit deer past 25yrds with it. I picked it up, heard a metallic springing sound in the scope. Looked through it, tipped it to one side, then the other, noticed the shift. The erector tube had broken free. He had no idea that could even happen. New scope, I gave it back to him with a 100yrd 5shot target my thumb would cover.

So no, making a generalization that "average hunters" shouldn't take headshots, is fair. Frankly I don't think the "average hunter" should take ANY shot, because the "average hunter" likely can't shoot for $hit in my experience.

Nomercy, well freaking said.

X2 Great Post!

then you need to investigate farther, I can assure you I am right on this, dozens of headshots have proved it.
when cleaning and cutting up the meat a headshot deer is much bloodier than a lungshot one, its a fact
RR

***I have a question for ya RR and that is, which is it? In several previous posts you stated you don't like to take head shots and now you say dozens of head shots prove your point that they are much bloodier than a lung shot!!!

PS: I have to trust you on this one since I have never and will never shoot one in the head even though I can shoot pretty good, so I have no idea if you're right or wrong.