Ethical “Time of Flight” for Shot on Game

[General RE LEE]

With modern bullet technology, cartridges, optics and ballistic solvers, long distance hunting is a possibility for many.

A lot of focus is on minimal terminal velocity, bullet construction, wind drift, but time of flight isn’t a metric often discussed.

Since we are shooting at live animals, anyone take into consideration an ethical “time of flight” for a projectile to get to the vitals? A lot can change in a full second from when the bullet leaves the muzzle.

What would everyone consider the max flight time for a projectile to reach game?

 

[Schmo]

Absolutely have thought about it. I believe it boils down to the specific situation. I don’t believe that you can just put a blanket number on it. What is the animal doing? Is it spooked at all? How long have you watched it? Has its behavior been consistent? For example, let’s say an animal at 800-1000 yards where you’ll have a significant TOF. Is it casually feeding and taking a step every 1.5-2 seconds? If behavior is erratic, then it’s probably not ethical to take the shot. Just my .02.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Half a wallop worth of ethics.

 

[wapitibob]

I shoot at standing animals, never once thought about it. Not even with a bow.

 

[Koda_]

What would everyone consider the max flight time for a projectile to reach game?

Maybe half the amount of time it would take to make 1 step?
It's a good question but to me anything after 300yds flight time is probably a factor. The problem is an animal can take a step before you finish even pulling the trigger, regardless of distance. Its really more a judgement call on if you think the animal will stay put.

 

[huntnful]

Man I think it really just depends on their mannerisms leading up to taking the shot. This bullet was in the air a while. But that buck wasn’t in a hurry to work through the terrain. Waited several minutes for him to walk just a few yards to get into a decent clearing.

 

[General RE LEE]

Man I think it really just depends on their mannerisms leading up to taking the shot. This bullet was in the air a while. But that buck wasn’t in a hurry to work through the terrain. Waited several minutes for him to walk just a few yards to get into a decent clearing.

Great shot!

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Like ducking a string?

 

[UTJL]

Yes. I think once you reach a certain level of flight time, it adds another unknown variable to the shot. You have to account for a possibly moving target. To not consider it would be unwise and unethical.

 

[huntnful]

Great shot!

I’ve missed more than I’ve hit on the first shot at long range in 100% honesty. But it’s never been because of the animal moving.

In this case, the first shot was a good one. Just a cool view on the time of flight.

 

[Predator_SD]

I’ll count next time and let ya know what i come up with.

 

[General RE LEE]

Like ducking a string?

No like an animal takes a step.

 

[hereinaz]

It’s just another consideration, like anything else.

 

[UTJL]

I’ve missed more than I’ve hit on the first shot at long range in 100% honesty. But it’s never been because of the animal moving.

In this case, the first shot was a good one. Just a cool view on the time of flight.

If you miss more than you hit, why do you continue to take shots at these ranges?

 

[General RE LEE]

If you miss more than you hit, why do you continue to take shots at these ranges?

I'm sure he is not the only one. He is being honest.

 

[UKwildcatfan]

With modern bullet technology, cartridges, optics and ballistic solvers, long distance hunting is a possibility for many.

A lot of focus is on minimal terminal velocity, bullet construction, wind drift, but time of flight isn’t a metric often discussed.

Since we are shooting at live animals, anyone take into consideration an ethical “time of flight” for a projectile to get to the vitals? A lot can change in a full second from when the bullet leaves the muzzle.

What would everyone consider the max flight time for a projectile to reach game?

Good question. IMO, too many "long range hunters" treat animals as gongs or steel plates thanks to tv shows and LR shooting schools, but those plates don't move.

 

[huntnful]

If you miss more than you hit, why do you continue to take shots at these ranges?

Personal decision is all. I don’t necessarily like to shoot long, or seek out far shots. But I will, if opportunities arise, and I can’t close the distance due to terrain.

 

[dlee56]

I dislike these ethical questions, as if there’s a magical number that applies to all scenarios. Just like shot distance, animal posture, bullet type/weight, caliber, arrow weight, broadhead, etc, it depends. Be humble about your own LOFT and use your evolved monkey brain to analyze the variables in the moment to decide if what you’re about to do is dumb or not.

 

[KyleR1985]

I'm sure he is not the only one. He is being honest.

I used to hold a high opinion of hunters and their habits.

I was young, and hadn’t had many opportunities to hunt and kill animals.

I held those opinions as I gained a lot of experience with other hunters and killed and wounded a lot of animals.

I’m a pretty good shot, I’m a thoughtful conscientious person who generally holds an ethos of “minimize the suffering of sentient beings”.

Somewhere along the way, it occurred to me that regardless of my attention to detail, and default to taking high percentage shots, both greater relative to almost everyone I know or hunt with, I was wounding more animals than most of the people I know or hunt with.

That caused some serious doubts in my habits and ability to execute. And reflection on that doubt.

What I finally realized, is that no one likes wounding animals except psychopaths. And no one likes other people knowing they’ve wounded animals. Not even psychopaths. Well, some of em.

So maybe folks don’t lie. But they may not always emphasize the misses the same as the hits. Or they may lie.

It finally dawned on me that my wounding rate is highly correlated to the number of opportunities I had to shoot at shit. And most of the people I know or hunt with weren’t getting nearly the opportunities. Their regression to the mean was taking decades, while mine might only take a season or two to show up.




We can all make better choices, and execute better. For sure.

But it’s also true that animals move. And things happen. And wounding rates are far higher than is generally believed, ESPECIALLY by hunters as a demographic.


Not sure the honesty in a public forum will have a positive impact on the perception of hunters/hunting. But it certainly will have a positive impact on anyone doubting their moral fiber because they wounded an animal that will likely die a miserable death in the wild.


I’m looking forward to being able to shoot well enough at distance for the question you posed to matter to me!

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Good question. IMO, too many "long range hunters" treat animals as gongs or steel plates thanks to tv shows and LR shooting schools, but those plates don't move.

I’ll put up a $1000 and say more animals are missed and/or wounded at traditional hunting distances than at long range.

Archery hunters, muzzleloader hunters, and rifle hunters miss and wound game all the time from 0-300 yards. This is the bulk of all shots distances for hunting.

What is the exact distance animals stop acting like steel plates and start acting like animals?

Hunters need to learn to pass on shots. It really is that simple.