nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
God I'm so jealous right now. If only my wife was on board with relocating half way round the world.
Bow hunting V Rifle hunting debate;
- Thread starter Uncas
- Start date
Several years ago, I bought something that was to do with shooting from someone on Ebay who was based in Ireland. I was getting a lot of Emails which seemed to be bow hunting orientated for a few years but they have stopped now. I think his Ebay username was something like 'greyss'.
Dodgyknees you guys have it made don't give it up. As they say your way Sweet as.
It's a good thing Blaser don't make Bows or this thread could go on and on and on.
Why are people that hunt saying that not on what I do is good. Ie bowhunting.bowhunting is fine i have bowhunted passthroughts at 30 yards deer dead 40 yard on ground .when I started shooting rifles I was pulling shots I have shot quite a few foxes legs hanging of held on with skin running away so we will ban that too. I seen deer with the front of there face shot off that's ok I take it ? When anyone hunts anyone with any weapon can wound it's not the intention to wound. Rant over
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
I won't claim to have shot as many deer as some on here, but my figure is well into three figures. I can count the number of deer I've lost on one hand with fingers to spare.
Most US hunters shoot maybe three or four deer per year (as I understand their systems); if a bow hunter wounds or loses say, 1 deer every other year, it doesn't seem like much, but as a percentage, it's got to be higher.
A rifle shot, even if it misses the vitals is going to be more quickly fatal in most cases than a low velocity wound from an arrow, which leads to a slow death from infection.
Cootmeurer
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but the science shows quite the opposite. On those studies that have extensive follow up (by this I mean, usually conducted on Military grounds, where hunts are conducted on certain days, then a ground sweep follows) the death from wounding rate shows that a gun wound usually becomes gangrenous. Rarely does a bullet pass through, but instead imparts its hydrostatic shock leading to tissue destruction. On a bow wound, killing by blood loss, either you nick a major artery and the deer eventually dies, or because the wound cleanly slices flesh, the wound heals.
In both cases - gut shots are their own category, with most being fatal, but unfortunately rarely rapidly fatal.
http://www.seafwa.org/pdfs/articles/Pedersen-31-34.pdf Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Modern Archery Equipment - This article claims 50% wounding rate, but only 14% fatality of the wounded unrecovered deer. This was a radio collared deer study, where the only archery equipment allowed was primitive archery (long bows, recurves, no sights, etc.....)
Many other studies, on both archery and gun, make the significant error of taking a shooters word for the event without any followup ground search. Those sort of studies (and there are a lot of them) are not hardly worth the paper they are written on. A prime example would be this one from the UK
Factors Associated with Shooting Accuracy and Wounding Rate of Four Managed Wild Deer Species in the UK, Based on Anonymous Field Records from Deer Stalkers where UK stalkers are anonymously asked about hits and misses and wounding, but the only follow up is whatever decision the stalker made.
howa243
Well-Known Member
Missing the point entirely!
howa243
Well-Known Member
For purposes of clarification, it is your view that a rifle at bow range is no more accurate and that the incidence of wounding at that range would be no greater for a bow, than it would be for a rifle?
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
A rifle at any range is far more accurate than a bow.
howa243
Well-Known Member
Blimey! Wasn't expecting honesty.
Cootmeurer
Well-Known Member
I said nothing at all about accuracy of rifle vs. bow. However, I am one to believe that rifle hunters are not nearly as accurate as one might suppose. Here is another well done study from South Carolina. All shooting was done with rifles, from high seats, often over fields/food plots. The only deer that were immediately recovered were those that dropped on the spot, all others resulted in trained tracking dogs being brought in.
SCDNR - Wildlife Information
The data suggest that 18% of the time, under very favorable conditions (high seat, downward shot angle, ability to range distance of shooting lanes, etc...) rifle hunters miss. Then there is the percentage of deer that would be considered unrecoverable (lost) without a trained tracking dog. Quite a few of these were noted as giving no sign of being hit - average stalker would call a miss, and yet was actually a wounding or death. Furthermore, the authors noted a very large and significant accuracy break point - somewhere between 125-150 yards, where accuracy crashes.
SCDNR - Wildlife Information
The data suggest that 18% of the time, under very favorable conditions (high seat, downward shot angle, ability to range distance of shooting lanes, etc...) rifle hunters miss. Then there is the percentage of deer that would be considered unrecoverable (lost) without a trained tracking dog. Quite a few of these were noted as giving no sign of being hit - average stalker would call a miss, and yet was actually a wounding or death. Furthermore, the authors noted a very large and significant accuracy break point - somewhere between 125-150 yards, where accuracy crashes.
Oi! I already posted that report! 10 pages ago! Blimey.
The bit about that dataset that I cannot get my head around is the accuracy break point the report identifies. 125-150 yards? Really? It makes me wonder what kind of optics these guys were using, what their zero distance was, just exactly what the fark they were doing. Most small bore centrefires zeroed at 50 yds will be bang on at 150 yds, maybe they were zeroed at 200yds and shooting high at 150yds? Who knows. Either way, its a damn poor effort.
150 yards is reach out and touch it kind of range. 150 yards is "select which vertebrae" range! Jeez. My 12 year old can shoot a Coke can smack in the middle with a .308 at that range. Every time! Missing from a high seat rest is not an option.
Hopeless-once-a-year-city-folk-buck-fever-itis, an uncurable condition, that must be the cause.
Jagare
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of wonna- be rural snipers out there who are really crap shots. They would be crap whether shoot a rifle or bow. I get the feeling that many think they are born with a natural shooting talent and its the only sport you don't have to practice to be good at it.
I see them down the range the weekend before the moose hunting season starts and their level of marksmanship is appalling.
Cootmeurer
Well-Known Member
That would be a whole other set of research. The club in the study is more than a bunch of weekend warriors, well established and experienced members, relatively high deer kill numbers, etc.... But from my own experience as retired military, competitive shotgunner and hunter I see lots of possibilities, and they aren't all mutually exclusive
1 - some people are just poor shots, no matter how much they train/shoot (nervous nellies, flinchers, whatever the reason)
2 - some people are decent shots on paper, but once "buck fever" grabs hold they couldn't hit the earth without gravity's assistance
3 - some are decent game shots, but cannot range a target consistently (I know we see a lot of this with shotgunners)
4 - some are good stalkers and good shots, but are poor when it comes to choosing shots on an animal (either from position or animal alertness/movement)
5 - sometimes even the best have an off day
6 - lastly, would be the gun's fault. Yes, sometimes the scope mounts work loose, the case was shorted powder, etc.....
7 - or possibly some other reason I haven't quickly thought of.
howa243
Well-Known Member
Why are we discussing **** rifle shots? We are talking about bow hinting and if a bow hunter had a rifle what the reason would be for choosing a bow. On that basis we are only talking about quarry being shot at bow hunting range. The fact that people wound deer at 500 yards with a rifle is completely irrelevant.
So at bow hunting range is a Dow as accurate as a rifle. If not, then you have chosen a weapon that is less likely to kill, for purposes of the thrill to you. Why do we not just say this, rather than hide behind other bollox.
So at bow hunting range is a Dow as accurate as a rifle. If not, then you have chosen a weapon that is less likely to kill, for purposes of the thrill to you. Why do we not just say this, rather than hide behind other bollox.
alberta boy
Well-Known Member
Actually , I hunt with a bow for one reason only . It allows me to hunt in Bow only zones where I live . I don't get a thrill out of using a bow , it's just another tool , like my muzzle loader or that other banned in the UK weapon , a shotgun using slugs . I understand your point of view , and to some extent support your logic . Bow hunting is banned in the UK for reasons that your legislators felt were compelling enough to act on , fair enough , it's a done issue . My only problem with your line of thought is that you would gladly throw millions of other hunters under the bus by condemning their preferred means of harvesting game . I hear that from anti hunting groups a lot . I'm starting to notice a trend in the hunting community , here and in the UK . Basically , it involves throwing the least popular amongst our community , in this case bow hunters , under the PC bus in a vain attempt to make their hunting methods seem more palatable to the non hunting community , a foolish tactic at best . People who don't like hunting usually don't differenciate between weapons used . In fact , there is a strong movement in my country among the Anti's , they're disgusted by the fact that we use " super accurate , long range sniper rifles " to hunt deer with . This isn't a subject that I get worked up over , I've been fighting against both ends of the spectrum for over 40 years . If you don't like bow hunting or any one that does , that's fine brother . the most important thing to remember is we are all hunters , we all kill animals for many different reasons and with different weapons . That is how the anti hunting crowd views us all , like it or not . Basically , I support your hunting methods in the UK , it works for you . A surprising number of your accepted hunting policies would get you jail time here and condemnation by a large part of the Canadian hunting community . I think that judging hunting practices of other countries is narrow minded and wrong . Everyone has a different way of doing things , I don't try and force my opinion on others . We have enough problems with anti hunting groups as it is , stand together or hang one by one . Don't feel it's necessary to respond to this , long winded , post . It's my last on the subject , for sure this time lol .
AB
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
Well said AB
And I add that the antis dont give a stuff though if those " super accurate , long range sniper rifles " are used to knock over Isis members.
Good post @alberta boy. You'd think that @howa243 had taken his third and final standing eight count by now!
Thought provoking post, in that it makes me reappraise my pet hate, specifically my dislike of "black rifles", or should that be my perception of blokes who are into black rifles. When I left the US I had an avowed hatred of the whole black rifle culture after a couple of years surrounded by overweight southern evangelical rascists, who for the most part went "hunting" in their trucks, emptying clip after clip at hordes of running hogs in between drinking a great deal. When they were sober, they liked nothing more than going to the local range and shooting silhouettes of black people. Very, very similar to the Boers, funnily enough, back in the early 90s, and again today, under threat from Zim style land grabs as they believe they are. (Tall, pot bellied, middle aged men with big moustaches, milsurp webbing, a semi-auto and a couple of pistols, and a chronic cholesterol problem... Oom Piet's Last Stand. Think Clarkson in series 1, episode 2 of The Grand Tour.)
So I allowed my prejudice towards the "black rifles" culture I experienced to misjudge the full spectrum of black rifle owners, and I ****ed off a few on here because of that. Recent experience, after a break of a good few years from even holding an AR, has taught me that some people do actually use them in a sensible and practical manner, for hunting and in particular pest animal control. Not all that many, but a few. Of course quite a lot still only own them because it gives them a hard on. Whatever floats your boat.
So its true, what I was told on here a couple of years ago. Vilifying one group of gun owners because it doesn't gel with my tastes (more in terms of the people, rather than the guns), is short sighted in the long run. Lesson learned.
Does that help you understand, Mr Howa 243?
And to answer your question, directly, yes it is thrilling to shoot a deer with a bow. A whole lot more so than shooting it at 20 yards with a .308. That's a fact. I don't care if you don't like it. And its a whole lot easier on the ears too.
Thought provoking post, in that it makes me reappraise my pet hate, specifically my dislike of "black rifles", or should that be my perception of blokes who are into black rifles. When I left the US I had an avowed hatred of the whole black rifle culture after a couple of years surrounded by overweight southern evangelical rascists, who for the most part went "hunting" in their trucks, emptying clip after clip at hordes of running hogs in between drinking a great deal. When they were sober, they liked nothing more than going to the local range and shooting silhouettes of black people. Very, very similar to the Boers, funnily enough, back in the early 90s, and again today, under threat from Zim style land grabs as they believe they are. (Tall, pot bellied, middle aged men with big moustaches, milsurp webbing, a semi-auto and a couple of pistols, and a chronic cholesterol problem... Oom Piet's Last Stand. Think Clarkson in series 1, episode 2 of The Grand Tour.)
So I allowed my prejudice towards the "black rifles" culture I experienced to misjudge the full spectrum of black rifle owners, and I ****ed off a few on here because of that. Recent experience, after a break of a good few years from even holding an AR, has taught me that some people do actually use them in a sensible and practical manner, for hunting and in particular pest animal control. Not all that many, but a few. Of course quite a lot still only own them because it gives them a hard on. Whatever floats your boat.
So its true, what I was told on here a couple of years ago. Vilifying one group of gun owners because it doesn't gel with my tastes (more in terms of the people, rather than the guns), is short sighted in the long run. Lesson learned.
Does that help you understand, Mr Howa 243?
And to answer your question, directly, yes it is thrilling to shoot a deer with a bow. A whole lot more so than shooting it at 20 yards with a .308. That's a fact. I don't care if you don't like it. And its a whole lot easier on the ears too.
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
And to add howa 243 it is even more thrilling to be in their space with your camera to record only not kill.
Similar threads
