They can pay me $100 per deer. .308 suppressed headshots, thermal or night vision scope. All meat donated to the truly needy.
Printable View
They can pay me $100 per deer. .308 suppressed headshots, thermal or night vision scope. All meat donated to the truly needy.
RonDog should get at least one deer, since the first year he put in, he didn't realize he was snagging a white tail only in a 100% private property area.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Done deal!
Now let’s talk these people into doing the right thing
I don't understand the argument against archery. Seems to me a rifle bullet is much more dangerous in an urban setting that an arrow shot at close range.
An arrow through the heart/lungs area is just as effective at killing a deer (and potentially more quickly) than a rifle.
Having read some of the comments on the articles about this, it's painfully obvious that both citizens and city council have literally no understanding of how things die and how to make them do that.
The way a bow and arrow kills is different than how a rifle bullet kills. With bow and arrow, the critter has to bleed out, with a well placed bullet the critter takes extreme shock to the body. With bow and arrow, the critter often/usually runs at least a little ways before running out of blood and falling into a heap, with a well placed bullet the critter never takes a step. In other words, a bow shot critter COULD potentially end up in the wrong spot where as that can be avoided with a well placed rifle bullet.
That's the main reason a rifle makes more sense then a bow.
This is not to argue that a stray bullet could be more dangerous, but that aside, there is a reason the rifle is the preferred kill method.
The only biological way to DRT is to hit the CNS. But in a deer, that means a head shot in all likelihood, correct? And since animals are dynamic targets, that may result in a deer running around with no skull cap or missing the front of its jaw, etc., depending on movement at the moment of the shot.
The argument puts forward the urban solution of subsonic ammo w/ suppressor, which I think would largely negate the reality of any perceived advantage on the part of a rifle and necessitates an easily expandable bullet if going for the vital zone.
What are the paid hunters using? Does the reality of their kills hold up to perception and claims? Seems to me it's like bringing in contractors in lieu of internal assets to a company. A lot of big claims, but I'm not sure the reality pans out that way.
Not necessarily. A hit into high shoulder/spine will certainly send shock throughout the bone structure and drop a deer in its tracks.Quote:
The only biological way to DRT is to hit the CNS. But in a deer, that means a head shot in all likelihood, correct?
Lots of heavy hitting rifle/bullet combos that could be used at 50 yards and closer that could be subsonic. BUT I don't think subsonic would be a requirement as simply suppressed would probably be acceptable in most areas.
Yeah, a good rifle shot and an Elk will drop instantly to the ground, instant lights out. Even the best arrow shot will allow that animal to move. They are afraid of a deer running and falling on someones back patio while they are having a backyard BBQ or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by TRnCO
The reason they use hired marksmen is for liability reasons. Lawyers have more say in these decisions than neighborhood groups.
My hero!Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving