Head Shooting?

[RCS Deer Management]

We must be talking about two different things then as not in my experience ,though I’ve only ever seen the liver clipped as it’s not an intentional shot .
Obliterating the liver with an expanding bullet as you say would burst the gut too I guess .
I’ve seen lengthy follow ups from liver shot deer ,fallow mainly but a few roe ,not a shot I would advocate but again only my opinion

People don’t aim for the liver but it is indeed a very lethal shot. The liver holds massive amounts of blood and if you hit it well then the deer won’t go far. I agree though mate it’s not a shot you aim for but Iv seen a few hit unintentionally.

 

[deerly departed]

The head shooting of deer has been covered at length in these forums, it is not accepted as “best practise” by organisations such as BASC yet in nearly every issue of BASC’s magazine, we have an article on the field use of air guns were head shooting is advocated as the norm.

Personally, at sensible ranges an airgun will kill its quarry with a body shot. The air gunners quarry may be smaller but to take of a beak/jaw with a badly placed pellet is as undesirable as doing that to a deer. Or are air gunners better shots who never miss?

Air rifle hunters will invariably go for a head shot because it is the fastest route to.a.critical zone. Taking body shots is a riskier element due to bone structures and you are less certain as to position of organs. Air rifle pellets do not have the same impact as a centre fire.round so being 'close' is no good. You need to be on the money or you dont squeeze the shot. If your close.. the shock is going to allow the quarry to run.
The ability to MISS is as true for ANY rifle technology.
If you dont have the skills or the faith in your equipment to take a headshot then that is your call and I agree that you shouldnt take the shot.
I have done a lot of comp work and for every shot I have taken at a pulse I have put hundreds in practice.
I prefer head and neck shot to lung because I have put in the practice and I have the trust in my kit. I have also the mindset to stay calm and be ready for a 2nd shot if it ever becomes necessary and if I am not happy then the shot dont go.
This has to be balanced with the fact that despite the most dil8gent efforts of the individual... sometimes things dont go to plan.
To me it doesnt make a difference whether its a head or a body shot miss. Both are as bad as each other. Go on youtube and look at videos and you will see plenty of shots that are nowhere near wher it should be.... to far back... to low.... too far forward. And they result in runners. There is no shot in the world who has NOT been in this situation... its the frequency that matters.
You have a choice of twonroutes. Engine or noggin. Its the shooters choice and skill set... equipment... talent are all elements that help a shooter make a decision as well as many other factors such as location and conditions.
The belief that head shooters are wring is a bit ignorant as I see it. And to answer your question... yes a lot of air rifle hunters... especially if they have a background in HFT and or FT make significantly better shots than a lot of centre fire shooters I have seen. Even if you have DSC1.... I have seen groups at paper that I wouldnt let shoot ar a living animal... and thats just under exam or practice conditions.
Equipment is vastly improved than say 20 years ago. And engine room only shooters are similarly behind the times. Thats not to.say I wont engine room shoot. But there.are occassions when either are better or preferred.

 

[Dalua]

Equipment is vastly improved than say 20 years ago. And engine room only shooters are similarly behind the times.

Equipment has improved - but have the shooters?
Chest-only shooters whose competence (or confidence) does not extend be beyond a good reliable chest-shot are in no respect behind the times, and never will be.

The point remains - a chest-shot that 'doesn't go to plan' by a few inches is much more likely to prove relatively-rapidly fatal than a brain-shot that is similarly out.

And I'd repeat the point: the two main target-areas are central nervous system, and chest: not 'head' and 'body'.
CNS can be further divided into brain and cervical spine - the latter occaionally likened to shooting a hosepipe running through an overcoat sleeve wrapped in a hearthrug.
Aim small, miss small. And, of course, no-one really aims so vaguely as at the 'body' or the 'head', do they?

 

[deerly departed]

Equipment has improved - but have the shooters?
Chest-only shooters whose competence (or confidence) does not extend be beyond a good reliable chest-shot are in no respect behind the times, and never will be.

The point remains - a chest-shot that 'doesn't go to plan' by a few inches is much more likely to prove relatively-rapidly fatal than a brain-shot that is similarly out.

And I'd repeat the point: the two main target-areas are central nervous system, and chest: not 'head' and 'body'.
CNS can be further divided into brain and cervical spine - the latter occaionally likened to shooting a hosepipe running through an overcoat sleeve wrapped in a hearthrug.
Aim small, miss small. And, of course, no-one really aims so vaguely as at the 'body' or the 'head', do they?

If your not capable go engine. If you are then there are other options. There will be occassions when engine is preffered and visa versa. Personally almost every deer I have dropped has been head.
Its my preferance. My kit is capable and I know when to squeeze and when to leave.

 

[landkeeper]

I once found a sika hind that had had the bottom jaw disintergrated by a bullet it had gone through her face 1st as far as i could tell , she was still alive , able to basically crawl her whole face and throat a supturating mess of maggots and flies .it was far from pretty .
An old stalker said to me once 'why take a shot that MIGHT kill the beast when you can take one that will ' that has stuck in my mind ever since , yes a chest shot might be messy and the beast might run a ways but its dead in a relative short time frame .
A deers head is a very mobile thing their reactions are superfast in that microsecond between your brain saying 'pull' and your finger getting the message it may not be where you need it to be anylonger

 

[finnbear270]

OK OK, Head shots are there for that once in a while "Just right " situation, but, ask yourself why you haven't got a head shot target on ANY of the proprietary paper test targets.?

 

[Dexter]

OK OK, Head shots are there for that once in a while "Just right " situation, but, ask yourself why you haven't got a head shot target on ANY of the proprietary paper test targets.?

I think that the answer to that question is covered in post #20.

 

[deerly departed]

Here goes, controversial sensible debate time.

Engine room shots are "best practice" because those teaching the "craft" of deer shooting have to cater for the lowest common denominator. The engine room on a deer is the largest effective target area- look at the size of the scoring circle on a DSC target. To be considered suitably competent, a NOVICE needs to be able to score within a target area the size of a saucer.

Let's not beat about the bush. If after forty odd years of rifle shooting I was straying outside of that target area from 100 m, I'd think there was something seriously amiss with my rifle, ammo, scope or technique.

However, add in a few other factors. I can shoot pretty well. I'm not going to start a pis$ing contest, my circumstances, experience and whatever else mean I'm a confident shot at various ranges in many different sorts of conditions, but I have my achilles heel which is sticks. I know that shooting off sticks will rob me of the accuracy I can expect off bags, bonnets or bipods. Not enough to score outside of the magic saucer, but enough to tell me I won't be sure of hitting a golf ball at 100. And that is the target size of a brain shot on a deer. Yes, yes, if I were to use a frangible varmint round that sort of opens up my options, but the only head shots I've taken on deer have been on still days, at short ranges, and off a bipod. Even then I've had to be convinced the deer is relaxed and unlikely to move.

So, that's my experience and my personal mantra. Now add in the "expert" factor. Here's an example: Read any debate on Farcebook, or even to an extent on here, and you'll start to notice some serious gaps in people's knowledge and approach. One of my favourites is the old "where should I zero my rifle?" and you'll see an instant flood of "One inch high at 100" responses. So the novice swallows that whole, because all the old "experts" said so, and goes to a range where his round is striking one inch high of his aiming mark at 100 yards. He's now equipped to shoot anything between 50 and 200 yards (according to the experts). He then reads all the "head shot versus chest shot" debates and sees that "experts" can and regularly do shoot roe deer in the head at ever extending ranges. Now the last time this novice went to the range he managed a cracking "sub-moa " group at 100. He must now be approaching sniper status (in his own mind) so it's now safe to start shooting at deers' heads. After all, his rifle is perfectly set up with it's "one inch high at a hundred" zero, and 1 MOA is good enough for anything isn't it?.................... do you see where this is going? In the cold harsh light of reality we now have a rank novice, in proper field conditions, with a rifle and ammo combination that no one knows where exactly it is zeroed, because no-one thought to ask him how high his scope is, what calibre or MV his round is travelling at, and his true shooting ability is masked by the fluked inch groups he put into some paper on his second or third visit to the range. Is he going to hit a golf ball at 125 yards? At 75 yards? At 150 yards? Answers on a Doe's ear to the usual PO BOX .

That's why anybody worth their salt doesn't advocate anything other than engine room shots, no matter what the company they're in.

Skill, experience, and JUDGEMENT. Oh, and ideal conditions. Not the so-called wisdom of experts.

A lot of what you say is fair comment. I would not advocate that a novice as you describe them in this peice should be shooting deer without company and should put in a shed load more practice than a few 100 yard grouls at paper under stress free conditions. Shooting paper at a bench at a range is a totally different scenario to shooting an animal (irrespective of head or engine) and it isnt somethi g you just walk in to.
Reffering back to the OPs original reference to air rifle shooters.... then if they have done HFT and FT to a decent standard then they would be better shots than your average hunter wandering around. The reason is that you have to take shots that you would never take at live quarry.... but what it does do is escalelate your ability to take a very difficult shot at a very small target with a very pow powered bit of equipment. You really have to practice hard and get to grips with skills... conditions and understand your equipment.
The more you practice the better you get.
In addition.... the transition from airgun to powder tends to be a progressive thing..... so comp to live quarry... to rim... to centre fire and the quarry... so to speak... becomes more serious (for the want.of a better description) as does ones attitude. If your walking into a centre fire and into deer from day 1 without any experience.... well thats ok but you need to put in a shed load of range time and kill a lot of paper before you squeeze the trigger. Assistance from a knowledgable person is a good route too. I would even suggest essential.
For me competition air to air hunting and then expanding the capability with rim and centre was ideal. Before that I was a county shot bowman and if you think rifles are hard to shoot then I can assure you... plant 6 arrows into the 10 zone at 90 meters make rifle shooting look like a walk in the park.
I tbink I am saying that attitude is as much an important element as anything else.
Personally, if I cant plant it as close to a 50 pence peice on a deers head I dont slip. An engine room shot is bigger... much bigger.... and the energy dumped by a soft or BT means an error on the part of the shooter will drop even if it does run.
Air rifle teaches a hunter that near isnt good enough. Near is 2nd best.

 

[Scapegoat]

A lot of what you say is fair comment. I would not advocate that a novice as you describe them in this peice should be shooting deer without company and should put in a shed load more practice than a few 100 yard grouls at paper under stress free conditions. Shooting paper at a bench at a range is a totally different scenario to shooting an animal (irrespective of head or engine) and it isnt somethi g you just walk in to.

That’s my point though. It isn’t inconceivable for someone to gain themselves a bit of permission with deer on it, go and buy himself a rifle and kit and launch their stalking career after learning all they need to know online. Even if they’ve been persuaded to do a DMQ course beforehand, there’s theoretically nothing stopping them.

I know of one such person. They have even built up their own reputation as an expert via Social media. He has some firearms experience but nothing relevant to deer. I happen to know the guy who took him for his DMQ1 and he tells me that the level of BS this guy spouted in the classes was excruciating, and in the shooting test he took several attempts and patient coaching to pass. Yet this guy sets himself up as a font of wisdom, all based on what he’s read online.

 

[User00025]

The conclusion is " Only ever shoot at what you are confident of hitting", and as the kids say "Whatever".

 

[TomT3]

Surely this thread has gone on to long! if you want to shoot the deer in the head so be it! If you want to shoot it in the chest crack on!

I personally go for chest shots it’s not nothing to do with being scared or ‘capable’ as some have put it, im perfectly capable of shooting a deer in the head but prefer chests shots as there is more margin for error. Even the best shots in the world cock up at some point no matter how good they say they are , a deer moving , human error, a pigeon landing on your barrel! whatever! it does happen and if that means hitting deer in the snout and it running or hitting it in the chest and it running but expiring pretty quickly I know what route id pick!

 

[potshotpat]

That’s my point though. It isn’t inconceivable for someone to gain themselves a bit of permission with deer on it, go and buy himself a rifle and kit and launch their stalking career after learning all they need to know online. Even if they’ve been persuaded to do a DMQ course beforehand, there’s theoretically nothing stopping them.

I know of one such person. They have even built up their own reputation as an expert via Social media. He has some firearms experience but nothing relevant to deer. I happen to know the guy who took him for his DMQ1 and he tells me that the level of BS this guy spouted in the classes was excruciating, and in the shooting test he took several attempts and patient coaching to pass. Yet this guy sets himself up as a font of wisdom, all based on what he’s read online.

Head shooting, I'm neither for it or against as I've done both. But I think your second paragraph sums up everything that's wrong with the so called qualifications, you clearly state this guys passed the tests required and he wasn't up to the task but given multiple chances to pass them. Bet you can't do that at your driving test. In my opinion if you fail something such as DMQ1 you have failed, book again, pay again, go on the course again until you pass on merit or realise your just shite and take up something else.

 

[potshotpat]

Head shooting, I'm neither for it or against as I've done both. But I think your second paragraph sums up everything that's wrong with the so called qualifications, you clearly state this guys passed the tests required and he wasn't up to the task but given multiple chances to pass them. Bet you can't do that at your driving test. In my opinion if you fail something such as DMQ1 you have failed, book again, pay again, go on the course again until you pass on merit or realise your just shite and take up something else.

I would add that I think the assessor should maybe look in the mirror and ask themselves the question is this really the way to go. Job done.

 

[Dalua]

The conclusion is " Only ever shoot at what you are confident of hitting", and as the kids say "Whatever".

Confidence alone never hit anything. Perhaps 'justifiably confident of hitting' would do, but there are undoubtedly those out there whose confidence is based on an unrealistic assessment of their own competence.

 

[foxdropper]

Who could imagine so many posts stating exactly the same thing would go on so long lol.Head shots are there as part of our repertoire of shots to be taken when the occasion sees fit and in my opinion not the go to shot as some advocate .

 

[User00025]

Confidence alone never hit anything. Perhaps 'justifiably confident of hitting' would do, but there are undoubtedly those out there whose confidence is based on an unrealistic assessment of their own competence.

If you are wishing to appear pedantic you could have added a lot more. Some have it some don't. Confidence in yourself and your gear is enough to do the job and has resulted in one or two of us on this forum still being above ground

 

[Scapegoat]

I would add that I think the assessor should maybe look in the mirror and ask themselves the question is this really the way to go. Job done.

I asked the same question. But the test allows for several attempts. The assessor was secretly willing him to fail but unfortunately he squeaked through.

I think it says more about the way people interpret the meaning of the qualification, than the standard it requires. It gives a barest minimum required standard. In exactly the same way the driving test proves that a new driver has the minimum competence to be safely let out on the road. I remember my instructor telling me that it was now up to me to go and learn to drive properly. I honestly believe that it should say that on the DMQ1 certificate...... but instead you see repeated examples of it being lauded as the standard required to join a syndicate, help out with cull work and management etc etc etc.

 

[Scapegoat]

Confidence alone never hit anything. Perhaps 'justifiably confident of hitting' would do, but there are undoubtedly those out there whose confidence is based on an unrealistic assessment of their own competence.

That's a point I was trying to make, perhaps not as succinctly as you have.

We are so rarely able to be honest with ourselves. I read so much guff on forums and social media that I won't discuss exploits and achievements. Those are between me, the deer, foxes and varmints. Ready to be knocked off my pedestal at any time, but if I'm asked how to approach certain things I will explain what I do and why, but never become prescriptive. I'll leave that to the Walts. If I see bad advice I'll call it, but won't ever participate in arguments online. As I've told my son many times: "Don't be led into boasting of your abilities... your friends don't need to be told, and your enemies will find a way to turn it against you anyway."

 

[Dalua]

Confidence in yourself and your gear is enough to do the job

It really isn't. You actually have to be competent as well.

Although I have no particular desire to be seen as a pedant, it appears that to draw readers' attention the difference between confidence and competence, heads and brains, bodies and chests, necks and cervical spines certainly makes me one in the eyes of some.

It is not a label from which I shrink; hoping, perhaps that accuracy of terminology and of shooting are in some way related.

 

[potshotpat]

It really isn't. You actually have to be competent as well.

If you have DSC1 doe's that count and I'm being serious.