Head Shooting Big Game

[KenLee]

Had a little oopsies while I was removing the brain on this euro mount, now a ruler fits in the brain cavity.

View attachment 988841View attachment 988842View attachment 988843

Also, head shot 1 deer. 15 yards, 300 win mag, Barnes 165 tsx. Deer was facing straight away, also running. Should not have shot. Bullet went in between the ears, excited left eye. Deer continued to run up the hill then turned, ran down to me, tripped in brush, somersaulted and broke both front legs. Was head up and alert looking at me from sub 10 yards. Shot again for the head, hit, and again he was still head up and alert. Walked over and put the muzzle at the base of his skull to finish him.

I won't intentionally shoot a deer in the head again, and I don't think others should consider that shot either. Most bow kills I've had were quicker and cleaner.

You need splatter bullets.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

You need splatter bullets.

I shot one more deer with Barnes after that, then switched permanently to fragmenting bullets. That incident happened in 2017

 

[KHntr]

I've never seen a grouse, but I'd bet I've noggined 30-35 deer with Stangers

Sure, but the OP has shot a lifetime total of 5 birds with head shots, and missed one. He has a 16% miss rate. You’ve shot 100’s of raccoons. You don’t see a difference there in experience level?

 

[KenLee]

Sure, but the OP has shot a lifetime total of 5 birds with head shots, and missed one. He has a 16% miss rate. You’ve shot 100’s of raccoons. You don’t see a difference there in experience level?

Yeah he needs to kill more stuff

 

[IW17]

Shooting at a 2" target that moves A LOT is a hell of a lot different than trying to hit the front half of an elk.

Not saying it isn't. What I am saying is that people should know their limits. Some people are more than capable of head shots. Some people are more than capable of putting a 77 grain bullet through the vitals of an elk at 500+ yards. Some people shoot minute of paper plate and shouldn't do either. Each person has their limitations and as long as you k ow yours and are honest with yourself about, I don't see a problem.

The people that promote small calibers are the same people that acknowledge how poor most shoot and promote practicing from field positions.

Head shots are typically a poor choice.

Most people suck at shooting.

Everyone shoots a small caliber better.

Basically what I said above, but yes, people shoot small calibers better. But many people still suck at shooting as you said. And the smaller the bullet, the smaller the margin of error.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

And the smaller the bullet, the smaller the margin of error.

Do you think a “near miss” of the brain or other vitals is more lethal with one close caliber than another? I defy you to show me a shot placement that would be fatal with a good 7.62mm bullet that would not be fatal with a good 5.56 bullet. Now, if we are comparing 5.56 FMJs with .50 BMG FMJs, it might make a meaningful difference.

 

[IW17]

Do you think a “near miss” of the brain or other vitals is more lethal with one close caliber than another? I defy you to show me a shot placement that would be fatal with a good 7.62mm bullet that would not be fatal with a good 5.56 bullet. Now, if we are comparing 5.56 FMJs with .50 BMG FMJs, it might make a meaningful difference.

Do you think a “near miss” of the brain or other vitals is more lethal with one close caliber than another? I defy you to show me a shot placement that would be fatal with a good 7.62mm bullet that would not be fatal with a good 5.56 bullet. Now, if we are comparing 5.56 FMJs with .50 BMG FMJs, it might make a meaningful difference.

If you hit the vitals, no. Because that's what a near miss is in your example. You nearly missed the vitals. But do I think that in a scenario where the vitals were missed, that a larger bullet of the same construction will make a larger wound channel and increase odds of death? Yeah, because it will. There's no guarantees in life and I'm not making the argument that larger bullets trump bullet placement. But larger holes mean a larger amount of damage.

Every single person here knows at least one jackass who thinks that because they can hit a paper plate at 50 yards they're good to go start slinging lead at deer or whatever animal you have in your region. Which is to the point of my original post about head shooting. People need to start taking accountability for their actions and accept their limitations. Just like I would never take a 1000 yard shot on a living creature with a rifle, or a 60+ yard shot with my bow. I know my limits. I am however perfectly fine with a head shot on a deer sized animal inside of 100 yards. Under the right circumstances. The odds of me injuring a deer taking a head shot at close range is significantly lower than taking a bow shot at 40-50 yards. Yet I'm certainly not going to stop hunting with a bow.

 

[KenLee]

If you hit the vitals, no. Because that's what a near miss is in your example. You nearly missed the vitals. But do I think that in a scenario where the vitals were missed, that a larger bullet of the same construction will make a larger wound channel and increase odds of death? Yeah, because it will. There's no guarantees in life and I'm not making the argument that larger bullets trump bullet placement. But larger holes mean a larger amount of damage.

Every single person here knows at least one jackass who thinks that because they can hit a paper plate at 50 yards they're good to go start slinging lead at deer or whatever animal you have in your region. Which is to the point of my original post about head shooting. People need to start taking accountability for their actions and accept their limitations. Just like I would never take a 1000 yard shot on a living creature with a rifle, or a 60+ yard shot with my bow. I know my limits. I am however perfectly fine with a head shot on a deer sized animal inside of 100 yards. Under the right circumstances. The odds of me injuring a deer taking a head shot at close range is significantly lower than taking a bow shot at 40-50 yards. Yet I'm certainly not going to stop hunting with a bow.

Bows are remarkably unethical and should be banned...now watch all the "pokers" heads explode. Shut up bout head shots, y'all bunch of felons

 

[CMP70306]

I personally don’t like headshots and will only take them under very limited circumstances mostly as a follow up shot for an animal that was either previously wounded or was hit in a way that was not killing it quickly enough.

Even then I do not aim directly at the head but prefer somewhere high on the neck due to less bone in the way potentially deflecting the shot. This year was the first time I took a first round high neck shot since 2011, that one was at 40 yards to avoid killing the deer behind mine. This year it was at 120 yards with the head and the first few inches of the neck being the only thing visible at the time of the shot.

And it wasn’t an impulsive decision, I watched the deer for 30 minutes moving around in the cover trying for a lung shot before I finally took the shot from a seated position off a tripod. In the below picture the deer’s head was in the v of the tree just to the lower left of the crosshair while the body was behind it, the tree is at 70 or so yards, the deer was 120. Without the tripod there is no way I would have taken the shot as the windowsill position wasn’t stable enough to risk it.

 

[KenLee]

I personally don’t like headshots and will only take them under very limited circumstances mostly as a follow up shot for an animal that was either previously wounded or was hit in a way that was not killing it quickly enough.

Even then I do not aim directly at the head but prefer somewhere high on the neck due to less bone in the way potentially deflecting the shot. This year was the first time I took a first round high neck shot since 2011, that one was at 40 yards to avoid killing the deer behind mine. This year it was at 120 yards with the head and the first few inches of the neck being the only thing visible at the time of the shot.

And it wasn’t an impulsive decision, I watched the deer for 30 minutes moving around in the cover trying for a lung shot before I finally took the shot from a seated position off a tripod. In the below picture the deer’s head was in the v of the tree just to the lower left of the crosshair while the body was behind it, the tree is at 70 or so yards, the deer was 120. Without the tripod there is no way I would have taken the shot as the windowsill position wasn’t stable enough to risk it.

View attachment 990238View attachment 990237

70 yards from a box? I wouldn't sit down my likka bottle.