I will say this straight up, i dont believe in head shots...

My reasoning;




AS you can see, there is a bullet hole right below the deer's right eye. I cant say for certain that the hunter was aiming for the head, but he sure did hit him there. When i shot him, the wound was semi-closed up and he was skinny as a rail (as you can see). This deer could not use his bottom jaw because it was completely broken and only hanging by skin.

You can see where i shot him down in the body (from an elevated angle). He dropped like a sack of potatoes and didn't move from the spot.

IMO if something like this can happen, then its not ethical.

and this is why i do like 'em

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll4/skybuster20/Pictures006.jpg

Well Brandon, IMO the negatives outweigh the positives.

i agree to disagree caleb

im not even gonna say anything cause i know that was a good shot and i enjoyed the hunt

if you know your gun can penetrate the skull at that distance, then it just as ethical as shooting the neck or spine/lungs/heart regions. In my opinion, good shot, and ignore the nay-sayers

im undecided if my .350 will have good penitration..........??? story of my life

My point has been made, but theres one more thing i feel i should say. Its not the "penetration" that i feel is the problem, its the low margin of error. A deer's brain is not very big, and if you miss that, thenyou better get the spine or main artery or that deer is going to suffer like the one i shot did. At least with a heart shot attempt, you can get 2 lungs a liver, a spine, an artery, ora neck.

what about the margin of error for that as well? if you shoot too high, but not high enough to get the spine then you have a wounded animal, if you shoot too low then you will have a wounded animal

HT is right. there is a dead spot w/ absolutley nothing vital at all behind the shoulder.

this one was a head shot too and it didnt go anywheres

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll4/skybuster20/Pictures108.jpg