Ethical shot placement

[Mossonarock]

Please don't respond to my story. I don't want this thread locked. But... My dad was a Capt. stationed at Ft. Campbell and yes that place can be crawling with deer. We took the Hunter Ed course together as a father/son thing. Then, we went out on a deer hunt (thankfully only one). We took our only gun, a 20gauge shotgun with slugs, and no previous range time. I had no idea how to shoot that thing and my dad didn't have much more experience than me either. Thankfully we didn't see any deer on our one and only hunt. Yeah, my dad wasn't the most ethical hunter and being an officer you'd think he'd know better about the need to familiarize oneself with their hunting tool particularly after taking a Hunter Ed course.... It definitely happens.... I enjoyed marksmanship sports and would beg my dad to take me to the Family Range but he never would. So, instead my friend and I would take our bb guns and his .22 down to the creek by the quarry next to the golf course (if you know the place you know where I'm talking about) and shoot our hearts out and hope the MPs would never catch us.

Back on topic! I'm totally down with the concept of "effective" shot placement and really like it when other people describe why and how they took the shot they did. I really like learning from other's experience. Looking at cleaned up skulls to see where the impact was and all that doesn't gross me out at all. So, please keep sharing your stories and experience. Personally, I'd like to see this thread title changed to "Effective shot placement."

[Hayfoot]

Paraphrasing here:

Well this thread took all sorts of twists, turns,  bends, kinks, loops and ricochets.
FWIW, IMHO, and I could be wrong about this but until I have reason to believe that I may be wrong I'll stick to my philosophy.
There is no such thing as ethical shot placement, only ethical hunting practices and people. There is however such a thing as effective or optimal shot placement, and that's what ethical hunters take into consideration when shooting an animal with the intention to kill it.

Very well put sir ! My only addition is... Sometimes the most ethical shot is the one not taken...

Very eloquently put, gentlemen...

[anti-squirrel]

I have a friend who used to be county Animal Control, and her issued 10-22 was what she was required to use to dispatch everything.  Well, some critters you gotta get up real close cuz their mass sort-of exceeds what many would consider "ethical".  She brought this up and we had a good conversation.  I asked if ethical meant it died as quicjkly and painlessly as possible- answer of course was yes.  Even if it meant the muzzle only a foot from Bambi's (or Fido's) skull.  Those experiences gave her a lot of insight into what was ethical to her- and the end result is she now works elsewhere in the county.  Ethical shots are first and foremost ethical- meaning dependent on the shooter's ethics.

I almost exclusively take headshots, and have been doing so since I started pesting for squirrels a few years ago.  With birds, it was 99.9% pigeons and they crumple like paper when hit in the upper body at short ranges with fast wadcutters... Squirrels required a different tactic since I'm aware a squirrel heart/lung zone is harder to pinpoint than a twitchy squirrel skull- and if I miss a squirrel skull I have a startled but unharmed tree-rat.  A heart-lung shot on a squirrel that misses will maim, injure, or cripple a squirrel. 

I practiced on dead squirrel carcasses and verified 6 FPE will blow through their evil little brains- so I stepped up to higher energy levels.

So my opinion of ethical shooting/shot placement meant being able to drill the head of a tree-rat with a wadcutter exceeding 8 FPE at impact.  This in turn limited my shooting to short ranges (under 30 yards with most of my airguns) but that was fine since almost all my shooting took place at 19 yards.  And- given my compulsive spinner-spinning using my various airguns, if I was unable to connect the dot on the spinner, that gun was put aside and I grabbed one that I could.  This in turn shifted my focus away from springers and back to my 392PA, along with PCP and CO2 guns.  I needed 100% reliability and I couldn't promise that even at 19 yards with my various springers.  When my shots were all 11 yards, I could, but at 19, nope.  So- ethical shot placement shifted as distance increased.  The distance I deemed ethical for a guaranteed humane kill via headshot required I invest in more powerful or more accurate airguns- and I'm content with that.  I'm also a mediocre shooter on paper though I seem to shoot notably better at quarry.

The ethical shot is the one that meets your own ethical standard and delivers the shot you require.  For me, this means leaving an un-pulled trigger more often than not; not all those who shoot display that reserved judgment but I don't have to live with their decisions.

I apologize for the rambling, but one of my closest friends is a long-time hunter and half-Ojibwe.  He only takes headshots on game- even trophy-worthy game- since he only hunts for the freezer, not for display.  His ethos in hunting felt like the most respectful manner of taking quarry, so I incorporated it as my own.  It is also one of several reasons I opt for wadcutters as my primary pesting round- wadcutters always dump all their energy upon impact and are less likely to pass through in an unintended direction.

[Blowpipe Sam]

To Anti Squirrel.  You said it all brother, with grace and style.  Thank you.  If I don't eat it I don't shoot it.  If I can't kill it quickly I don't shoot it.  If it is outside my range I don't shoot it.  I have learned a lot from this thread and my personal ethic has evolved and become much clearer and more rational.  Thanks to you guys for helping me get here!

[only1harry]

FYI, all it takes is 3.5-4 FPE on impact with a head shot to kill a squirrel. 
I took dozens of Gray's 40 years ago with a (5fpe) 760 pumper from 12 to 15 yards using wadcutters and pointed pellets.  Most were brain shots with 10 pumps.  Even took 1 with a BB at 15yds because I was plinking with them and had no time to go back inside to get pellets when one showed up a few feet from my target.  Same with rabbits. 
I took a couple with neck shots in the beggining and they fell out of the tree a few seconds later and expired, but it was because I watched one choke in its own blood for ~10 secs that I figured out I needed to take brain shots (I was only 14) for quick humane kills.

Harry

[nervoustrigger]

To Harry's point, here's an example of a gray squirrel taking a .177 wadcutter to the control room at 4.6fpe:



As stated in the video, I don't recommend it as a good general approach because although shot placement is always important, it is especially critical as we approach the lower bounds of what is adequate energy to fully penetrate.  We have at least three factors conspiring against our goal of precise shot placement and they are:

• Trajectory - slow means we're dealing with a very loopy trajectory which makes precise rangefinding and precise holdover much more sensitive to error.
• Wind - the ballistic coefficient of most pellets is quite poor in the 400-600fps region, thus it's more likely to get pushed off the POA.
• Time of flight - the longer the pellet takes to get there, the more opportunity there is for the target to move at the last instant.

[JungleShooter]

At 4.6fpe — the lower bounds of energy — we have at least three factors conspiring against our goal of precise shot placement and they are:

• Trajectory - slow means we're dealing with a very loopy trajectory which makes precise rangefinding and precise holdover much more sensitive to error.
• Wind - the ballistic coefficient of most pellets is quite poor in the 400-600fps region, thus it's more likely to get pushed off the POA.
• Time of flight - the longer the pellet takes to get there, the more opportunity there is for the target to move at the last instant.

Jason, 

Very well said!! 👍🏼

[splitbeing]

A conventional approach to the ethics of shot placement would be a simple answer: whatever the laws says in your state.

As evolving state laws for airguns are being discussed in another thread, some more nuanced questions are coming up.

And so I thought to revive this rich thread Cap started a while ago with some interesting discussion of principled approaches to the question of ethical shot placement.  In the best of cases, good principle influences convention, but good cases can be hard to come by.

What does ethical shot placement mean to you?

[Blowpipe Sam]

“Character izza whata you are inna the dark!”
                                                              Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Ethics don’t happen in a vacuum.  Our ethics are standards that we impose upon ourselves but they are based on what we consider “acceptable” behavior in the eyes of our peers.  I’m not going to brag to my buddies about some awful mess I made with a poorly judged shot.

Ideally the deed is done so quickly and efficiently that the critter never sees it coming, and never suffers any pain.

[only1harry]

Rion, that's an easy one and something we have discussed here many times over the years.

Most people agree including myself, that an ethical shot and ethical hunt in general means 1 shot 1 kill, and brings a quick end to the animal with very little to no suffering.

[splitbeing]

Rion, that's an easy one and something we have discussed here many times over the years.

Most people agree including myself, that an ethical shot and ethical hunt in general means 1 shot 1 kill, and brings a quick end to the animal with very little to no suffering.

Count me in on that too, Harry.  I think most folks would agree with that principle.

That being said, we have airguns now that weren't as available even a few years ago.  Airgun hunting contexts have changed.  What calibers, animals, kill zones, distances, projectiles, etc.

Something I've been thinking about lately are the implications of these hornet pellets for my rules of thumb regarding ethical shot placement.  They penetrate like no other pellet I've used.  I now have to think through what game at what distances I'm willing to try a headshot on if using a hornet.  The .177s in particular, but also the other calibers.

[only1harry]

I have been hunting small game with airguns since 1980 (young teen).  Not much has changed as far as ethical hunts go, other than today's AG's are more powerful and more accurate.  This means it is easier today to make an ethical shot, ie: a single shot kill.  The ethical aspect has not changed.  Even when I hunted with pumpers (rifles) in the early 80's, I still went for a headshot on squirrels and rabbits, and had many 1 shot kills with 5.5 fpe at the muzzle always trying to close the range to 15 yards or less due to the power limitation.  The same later in the 2000's using magnum springers, because of the accuracy limitation of spring guns, so that I increased my chances of a 1-shot 1-kill which was always my main goal.

During the last ~20 years that I have been using more powerful "adult airguns" for hunting I have been mindful of pass-throughs, backstop, etc all of which are part of any ethical (and safe) hunt or pesting activity.  So in my opinion not much has changed over the past few decades, and no matter what new pellets or guns come out, it is still all about shot placement.  We hunt with the pellet that shoots best/most accurately in our guns, and aim for the spot that will drop the animal in its tracks never to get back up again, and not breathe more than a few seconds.  I took raccoon, possum, and Groundhog with 14 to 20 FPE springers in the mid-late 2000's as I did with 45 to 90 FPE PCP's from 2008 until recent years using the same technique.

[splitbeing]

Having associations to Shadow's posts and pics related to raccoon skulls.  The capacity for .177s to penetrate (and overpentrate in some instances) give me reflective pause. Many new airgunners are power hungry at first it seems to me. Then they come around to accuracy as most important.  The ethics of shot placement with a focus on penetration raises interesting questions. How much penetration is too little to pierce a raccoon skull? When is pass through an issueand when is it not? Boy, what a didference between head shots and body shots when thinking about penetration.  This brings up caliber again.  I guess I'm trying to articulate for myself something like accuracy and penetration as an approach to achieving ethical headshots rather than thinking first in terms of accuracy and energy, which seems to be more the norm. If we thought first about accuracy and penetration in hunting situations, what considerations would be more salient than an accuracy/energy orientation would emphasize?

[Bayman]

The one shot one kill is a nobel thought process. Its one I strive for when asking an animal to feed me. It's the least I can do to honor it.

Pests are a different story. I'll try for a clean kill shot when possible. When not possible I'll shoot them anywhere I can with as many shots as necessary or opportunity and safety allow.

My goal when food hunting is to feed my family. We have enough food that we can afford to forgo bad shots. If something is endangering my family, livestock or property it simply has to go and I have no ethical obligation to smooth it's passing. 

I know lots of people won't agree but they've probably seen too many Disney movies and or live in places where pests and predators aren't a serious issue.  I've been on both sides of the coin. I lived my first 58 years in suburban lower NY and the last 2 in rural AR. There's a world of difference between living in the two.

[Struckat]

I agree with you Ron and Anti-squirrel.

I am as confident with my HW95 as I am with my PCPs out to 50 yards. Seldom do I have opportunity to shoot farther. 30 and less is most common and less than 10fpe.
Wadcutters rule!

The particulars depend on the quarry. I don’t use a little wadcutter gun to whack a woodchuck. The last one I shot was @ 19 yards with 33fpe.
I heard the pellet rattle through the trees down range with authority after passing through the noggin. 21 gr JTS semi domes shoot well for me.

I could have easily used my 15fpe HW95 for that shot and it would have been just as effective.

The ethics for me are matching the tool to the job and determining if I can make the shot at that range.
Due to my lack of long range practice, I am very conservative when sending pellets down range.
 If inside 50y, very confident if it’s a clear shot and a target making a nice pose.

But if a critter thinks destroying my property is the thing to do, I will take higher risk shots.

[splitbeing]

In an ideal world, if I knew a pellet would get in the skull but not pass through and get out, that would be my choice. 

I'm wrestling with whether or not there is an argument for the hw95 or the 33fpe pcp in your 19yd woodchuck situation, Kurt.  Both are fine.  Neither is a fould.  But is there an argument for one over the other?

I suppose if I somehow knew the 95 would send a pellet into the skull but not oass through, that would leave a pellet bouncing around in the brain and eliminate concern about pass through.

Splitting hairs over here [chuckling]

[Blowpipe Sam]

Hunting I have a natural inclination to get close before shooting.  I tend to close the range until I feel comfortable with the shot.  Sometimes I don’t get that shot because I spook the game.  Now the weird thing is I intuitively judge the potential range for whatever gun I’m using without thinking about it.  Spend enough time hunting and you can too.  I think judging the range to the target and knowing your abilities and your gun’s is an under appreciated aspect of ethical shooting.

[HatsanPhantom]

I prefer to shoot most things through the ears. Study anatomy and get to it.

[Struckat]

In an ideal world, if I knew a pellet would get in the skull but not pass through and get out, that would be my choice. 

I'm wrestling with whether or not there is an argument for the hw95 or the 33fpe pcp in your 19yd woodchuck situation, Kurt.  Both are fine.  Neither is a fould.  But is there an argument for one over the other?

I suppose if I somehow knew the 95 would send a pellet into the skull but not oass through, that would leave a pellet bouncing around in the brain and eliminate concern about pass through.

Splitting hairs over here [chuckling]

Well the purpose of the trip was to slay the chuck burrowing ext the foundation. So the 33fpe was the tool of choice.
I had the 95 along also, but this was sit and wait to play peekaboo.

Most times I bring the biggest gun and the HW95. Also a walk around gun like a Prod variant.
But if I see a chuck while sniping chippers I won’t hesitate to send a little FTT after it.

[kylere1104]

Headshots are for hunters that put their time in both in being accurate, learning the perfect shot, be patient and get close to the game.



Just me, I know most don't agree but that's the way I see it.

^ this!