Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting Ethical hit percentage for deer?

So you are the “loose nut” when shooting off the bench anyways. Build your loads. You want to gather statistical data… go shoot 1 round in the field, once a day at the same target. Treat the bore how you please, do that X amount of times and look at your “data”. Calculated probability doesn’t owe you $hit the day you are going to take the shot but being confident and competent helps. Want to know how you’re doing? Shoot a bunch of steel in a variety of set ups at a variety of ranges. Your summary statistics won’t build your confidence.

I didn't read this entire thread so excuse me if I missed it but I think the op is going at this whole thing bass ackwards. My criteria for shots on deer is how far a shot I can make with 100% certainty that it will be lethal.
That obviously changes depending on which caliber and the accuracy of the particular rifle. My limit with an iron sighted 30-30 is considerably shorter than with a proven accurate bolt gun with a dialable scope.

No protein goes to waste in the wild, that circle of life thing. So if you wound an animal and don't recover it, when dies it feeds other animals and whatever is left fertilizes the ground.

I don't advocate squeezing the trigger unless the shooter has a high degree of confidence that his/her first shot will be fatal, but not everyone feels the same way. I'd like to see all hunters practice enough to improve their shooting skills, but I know that a lot of hunters shoot less than 20 rounds of ammo per year from their primary hunting rifle.

And I know of several that can make a box of 20 rounds last several years.

Without making a systematic, accurate approach to the subject like you suggest I would say that I generally will take a shot when the chances of making a vital shot are 75%+.

I say generally because the specifics of each hunt can be quite different. If I am stalking deer in my lease, that meaning I can hunt there whenever I want, I will never risk a 50/50 shot, but if I am on the 5th day of a 6 day hunt, at 14,000 ft in the Karakorum mountains of Pakistan, and see the weather changing -which is a real case scenario- I will take the chance.

I did, and it worked for me.

Simple. If I'm not confident in a 100% chance at making a killing shot, I don't shoot. Easier on my peace of mind.

Above is the answer plain and simple !

100% is simply not possible. There are too many variables in field shooting that are outside our control: a gust of wind at the last second, a cramp just as you are breaking the trigger, a squib load, a scope that had its zero shift unexpectedly, etc. Having said that, I want to make sure that all variables within my control are controlled and I have a 95% chance of success.

Good assessment, Never really thought about what could happen with the things that are outside your control. That being said.

My thoughts are, if you don't have the shot needed to cleanly kill your target, don't pull the trigger.

Are you saying that chicks like to use their brains and actually put some thought into things?

I recall seeing a Federal print ad from the 1970s or 1980s that featured 2 brothers/ranchers who shared one rifle and one box of Federal ammo, telling how many elk that they have killed with that one rifle and one box of ammo over several years. I thought that since Federal was in the business of selling ammo, those guys weren't contributing much to the success of the company if they made one box of ammo last for several years.

IMHO "ethical" requires 100%. Taking a shot with anything but 100% certainty means some other factor is outweighing ethics. That may be necessary in some situations, ethical or not.

I'd get a new scope.


Seriously, it would depend on the situation, but I'd try to keep it around 90.



Someone undoubtedly already said this, but it's not confidence in the rifle that's the most important variable in this equation.

As Jordan already pointed out, even if you have 100% confidence in your ability to place the shot, 100% in the outcome is not possible.

And I know some people like to say anything less than 100% is "unethical" but think about it for a minute, you're shooting at the animal and trying to kill it. It's not painless for the animal. People talk about "a humane kill," and sometimes you get the pinnacle of that with a CNS shot that turns the lights out instantly. Sometimes you don't, and the animal might run a hundred yards and take a few minutes to expire. Is one an "ethical" and "humane" death and the other not?

Some people would say so.

I'm an ethical sonofabitch the first four weeks of the season. When it gets down to the last few days and no meat hanging...things tend to go downhill. Snork.
Although, in my defense, I haven't wounded a deer or elk in over 30 years...ethics? or luck? or Injun skills? Maybe a little of all. Experience shouldn't be discounted either, if those crosshairs don't settle in the first second and a half...the finger doesn't twitch, it's subconscious and involuntary. Perhaps, somehow, mixed up in all this is my preference for a set trigger or 2 stage...which very few American hunters prefer...it requires some self discipline of the trigger finger.
I doubt you can assign numerical values to the style of hunting where the target is may be moving, offhand position, limited visibility, steep terrain..all pointing toward snap shooting. Bean field and treehouse hunting, yes.

It’s called hunting

I think the OP was fishing. Some guys can't shoot for schidt, some guy have schidty shooting rifles. Some guys don't know how to ethically kill an animal with the first shot, some guys never practice, to know what their equipment is really capable of. I personally don't pull the trigger, unless I know the shot is going to kill the big game animal I'm after. There's 100% chance of that happening on a deer or elk. A measly prairie dog, or yote, who gives a schidt?

I was at the range right before deer season over here, a guy staples up a target:


Fires of those 5 shots (about a 6" group at 100 yards) and proclaims, "that's good enough for the girls I go out with", or something to that effect. Sorry, not good enough for me. Especially when he was shooting off a bench. Makes me wonder how many deer he wounded last year..

I think your guy is/was a former resident of California...normal conditions here would be, rifle rested on the pickup mirror out the window, headlights on high beam illuminating the buck...all without spilling his beer. Some damn fine shootin' by California standards. Only thing I question about the veracity of your post...normally here, sight-in is done on the standard 55 mph limit sign.

GRF;
Top of the morning, BC time its still technically morning, regardless I trust you and your fine family are well.

Once more I find myself agreeing with your methodology sir.

Since you and I have both met and conversed a number of times, I'll leave it to your good discretion as to the amount that should concern you.

Speaking of shooting milk jugs and plates, this video showed up in my feed this morning and whether or not one likes the channel, I thought there were lessons to be learned from it.




Regarding your testing of the first shot out of a cold, clean bore, besides a hearty "Amen" from me, I'll give credit to Mike Venturino for an article on that subject way, way back in dinosaur times for my moment of epiphany.

At the time I had a BBR '06 that shot it's best when the barrel was hot enough to barely be able to touch it.

Also in that time period I had rebarreled a Liberty Model 77 to .308 Norma that refused to settle down until about the 3rd shot. Oh and I'd rebarreled it from a .338 factory barrel that would just toss a flyer at random with seemingly no pattern at all, so I'd quit hunting with it because I never knew when that one would show up.

Years, well truly decades later now, that same .308 Norma has stayed sighted in for the past 12 or 13 seasons and as long as the pre season couple of shots land where they need to, I know I'm good to go for another year.

Many roads to Mecca as always and this is merely the horse path that this semi-ancient BC redneck is currently trodding upon.

All the best to you all, have to run now and work on a project at the kids' place.

Dwayne

A 6" group from any of my rifle's, scoped, open sighted, wouldn't matter, would not be near acceptable. That said, the vital outlay on that deer is not accurate IMO. Needs to be down, and moved forward. Also can't speak to the actual size in that picture, but the lungs look a tad small to me. Completely deflated & collapsed lungs pulled out on a killed deer are not to be confused with the size of fully inflated lungs.