And this is why I personally don’t agree with head shots….

[It’s a girl with a gun]

Shoot this buck this evening only to find it had a massive old wound on its face with the top of its nose missing, and puss just dribbling out its nose. I can only assume that’s it’s a gone wrong head shot…. Poor sod.
I really don’t think people should be so full of them selves and be taking head shots, they’re far too easy to go wrong. However good shot you are, or experienced you are, no one can predict what sudden little movement their head is about to do. This isn’t the first time iv had one with a damaged face. I know we’re trying to control their numbers, but people shouldn’t be cruel when doing so. Is it the fact that game dealers pay less for carcasses with shoulder damage driving this, or the fact that some people are so arrogant and seem to think it’s clever to boast about doing head shots?! Personally I’d rather a damaged shoulder (where there’s limited meat anyway ) and feel pleased that I took a safe shot and didn’t put the deer at risk of being injured but not killed

 

[Rhodesianjess]

I wouldn't have thought that there would be any bone left if that was a rifle bullet. Have shot deer before that have been badly headshot and there's a half moon shaped wound, with all the fine nasal passage bones gone, almost like a scoop has been taken out.
Photo appears to show a severe cut, right down to the bone, and the effects of that.
Just my opinion, I haven't seen it and you have, perhaps "in hand" I would think different.

 

[Malxwal]

Regardless of the cause of the injury above, the OP raises again the potential issues of head shooting, and the pressures put on people to produce head shot carcasses.

 

[Sitka]

My local butcher said he would take carcasses but only if head shot. A few of his customers now get their meat free from me.

 

[VSS]

That doesn't look to me like a wound caused by a rifle bullet. And if it is, then it must have been shot out of season, so presumably by someone up to no good.

 

[sikamalc]

I also don't think this is a bullet wound, but I could be wrong. Either way it was a beast that needed to be culled out for welfare reasons. Head shooting is not to be recommended in my opinion. Unless you are less than 50yds and the target is looking straight at you or away from you. Then its more or less hit or miss. Head shooting at a distance is always a higher risk and the results of a head shot gone wrong are horrific for the animal.

Either way, well done for ending its misery and keep up the good work.

 

[Pete6.5]

I've shot quite a few over the years that have had a swinging front leg where a bullet has hit the two of the leg. As Ive said before we should set a percentage of shots we are ok with not recovering a deer( example 1 percent)and then shoot within that.

 

[Ranger22]

Don’t think that’s a bullet wound. Price shouldn’t dictate where you place a bullet though.

 

[Donkey Basher]

Another vote for not looking like a bullet wound.

To me that looks more like something caused by a slicing impact - maybe going through a tensioned wire fence or possibly a glancing blow from a car.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

Once again I would vote for not a bullet wound.
A shot at that angle across the face would leave a different wound profile, with both sides of the wound equally damaged due to the fairly brittle nature of the bones in the nose area - it would look more like a cross section if a golf-tennis ball had passed through the nose.


With respect to the ethics though, when we take a shot at a deer, regardless of chosen shot placement, we accept there is a risk something can go wrong.
For chest shots that may be the shot goes too far back, with neck shots hitting the trachea/esophagus and missing the spine, for head shots hitting the jaw or nose. We have to be aware of these risks and weigh them up accordingly.

This is to say it is not as simple as one shot placement is bad and another is good, but it's about using experience to make sound judgement on every shot we take. This is from the animals behaviour, the shooters position, the range, the climatic conditions etc. I respect those who choose not to take CNS shots as they feel it is beyond their shooting ability, however to blanket condemn those that do is a mistake, it is all an individual choice which we must hold ourselves accountable for.

What I think most can agree on is the price you will potentially receive at the game dealer should not affect your ethical decision around what is and isn't a suitable shot.


All in all, I was always taught:

"If there is any doubt, then there is no doubt,"

Something I have found holds true in many more situations than just shot placement.


Ben

 

[scoby270]

And another vote for not being a bullet, in some circumstances I think head shots are required by estates when on a cull day on Park deer etc. Maybe wrong but I think that is the norm at close distances. Someone will probably correct if I am wrong.
S

 

[VSS]

And another vote for not being a bullet, in some circumstances I think head shots are required by estates when on a cull day on Park deer etc. Maybe wrong but I think that is the norm at close distances. Someone will probably correct if I am wrong.
S

There are a number of reasons why head shots are more suitable than chest shots when park culling. It's not just about carcass quality (although that is important too).

 

[Heym SR20]

Head shots are and always will be controversial. I certainly wouldn’t recommend them for novices and vast majority of deer stalking purposes as there is very little room for error and slightly off target results in a very mobile but wounded animal.

But there are times where a head is the right choice, but only the stalker behind the rifle can make that choice.

What is unacceptable and unethical is taking a head shot where the consequences of imperfect shot placement results in a wounded animal that cannot be quickly dispatched. So for example at this time of year with lots of high cover, taking a head shot on a deer in such high cover in woodland because its the only part of the animal you can see would to me be unacceptable.

Looking at the OP’s photos it could be caused by a bullet just zipping through on the hairline. Depends on bullet construction etc. Have a look at the recreation videos of the shot on Trumps ear and you will see that bullet just touching the flesh probably doesn’t cause huge damage. But if hits square on, it cause massive damage.

 

[dunwater]

Most likely explanation is a rimfire

 

[Happy stalker]

The game dealers that only accept head shot beasts and who make deductions for legitimate humane shots like high shoulder shots should hang their heads in shame, they make plenty of money on the haunches and saddles, it’s just pure greed and forcing stalkers to ignore best practice, shame on them!

 

[VSS]

The game dealers that only accept head shot beasts and who make deductions for legitimate humane shots like high shoulder shots should hang their heads in shame, they make plenty of money on the haunches and saddles, it’s just pure greed and forcing stalkers to ignore best practice, shame on them!

I disagree.
A headshot deer is worth far more, not just because of the higher meat yield, but because of the lower waste disposal costs.
It is right that anyone buying deer carcasses should pay more for head shot deer, just as they should refuse to accept damaged or dirty carcasses.

 

[It’s a girl with a gun]

always amazes me how one conversation can create so much discussion on such a range of points, that’s why I like these forums . Really interesting to hear other peoples views.

maybe it wasn't a bullet wound then, I’m not sure now, I just assumed it was as I have seen various other injuries in the past obviously done by fences, cars, rubbish etc, but I had never seen anything quite like this before, except for only last year I had one which obviously needing culling as very poor condition and when close enough I found it didn’t have a bottom jaw. I kind of put two and two together!

 

[hendrix's rifle]

The irony that people posting on this about how headshots shouldn't be taken will shoot a rabbit at 50 yards and go for a head shot...

Time and a place.

 

[Happy stalker]

I disagree.
A headshot deer is worth far more, not just because of the higher meat yield, but because of the lower waste disposal costs.
It is right that anyone buying deer carcasses should pay more for head shot deer, just as they should refuse to accept damaged or dirty carcasses.

What do class as damaged? A beast that has been shot as per best practice? Any beast that has been chest or shoulder shot in my opinion should never be classed as damaged game dealers who do shame on them just pure greed and have no respect for the animal, Dirty carcass I full accept.

 

[Sol]

VSS has mentioned a few times now that diced shoulder is one of his best selling products, Regardless your shooting deer game dealers shouldn't be looked at via a holy grail of disposal services for carcasses, dealers are businesses they can refuse and pay premium on what they wish too.

If I'm correct VSS does all his shooting for his business himself, compared to a dealer that accepts carcasses from 20-30 stalkers the wound rate % Is going to be higher, I wouldn't be surprised if the 20-30 people shooting have a higher % wound rate for chest shots rather than headshots tbh.

Head shooting is highly dependant on person, and same time Its up to the dealer what 'clients' he wants too take carcasses from too If your accepting carcasses from the local known dafty you're not helping the issue at all.