Deer hunting subsonic

2LayZ2 said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be an a&& but... You keep insinuating taking animals/game with anything under 1000 ft/lbs. is unethical.

I can only speak for myself... I don't like being referred to, directly or indirectly, as being an unethical hunter. All three of your posts include an "ethical" component.
 
My youngest son shot two deer at under 50 yards with 300BO subs (no, I don’t know what ammo), but he only found one of them. There was no blood trail, and the bullet didn’t exit on the one we found. The 300BO and subs aren’t welcome back on my place.

This year he used an 8.6BO with subs (400 grain bullets I think), and he got a pass through and great blood trail. 250# buck died within sight.
 
No insinuation....Hornady needs to be called out for recommending a 190 grain subsonic bullet for medium game that on a good day cannot produce 500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. Its illegal for hunting in my state, and that alone precludes me (no one else mentioned) from accepting it as an ethical hunting round.
No statements whatsoever related to the actions or opinions of anyone other than myself appear in the thread.
 
Lost game happens with ALL type of calibers and bullet types. Man has lost game since the beginning of time. I'll reiterate what's most important in ethical kills... SHOT PLACEMENT.

ETA- instead of using the words ethical how about "challenging"?
 
Last edited:
Bowhntr6pt said:
Ok... so to you, anything "illegal" is unethical... got it.
Click to expand...
Not all unethical actions are illegal, but ALL illegal actions are generally considered unethical. So yeah...definitely put my name at the top of the “anything illegal is unethical” supporter list.

Obsessing over whether people who could not care less think you are an ethical hunter or not makes about as much sense as sunscreen at midnight.
 
2LayZ2 said:
Obsessing over whether people who could not care less think you are an ethical hunter or not makes about as much sense as sunscreen at midnight.
Click to expand...

Yes... as a sportsman I do care about people's opinions (concerning me or any other hunter for that matter) when they believe that because I (or anyone else) use a specific tool(s) to hunt with I'm suddenly doing so via "unethical means" because the Government said so. That's basically what your posts are saying.

I'm not obsessing... I'm defending the issue at hand (harvesting ethics), a practice as old as time, that is, hunting game animals with more challenging tools thus teaching yourself, or others if you are mentoring, to be patient, disciplined, and responsible enough to put a humane kill at the top of the list.

Some government entity, based of pure subjective opinions IMO, plucked 1000 ft. lbs. out of the air and deemed it to quasi ethical... why? I completely disagree that some cut off number suddenly makes attempting to take game "ethical". Then a guy like you comes along and spouts the same arbitrary nonsense completely ignorant to just how stupid such standards really are. Instead of using the word UNETHICAL, why not just say CHALLENGING? Why not just say in your opinion you want things stacked better in your favor for a humane kill and that's why you choose to use tools that meet a certain terminal ballistic thresholds?

You think bow hunting is "ethical"? Because as someone who has bow hunted for 45 years I know more game has been wounded and lost to sticks and arrows than small caliber firearms... yet no one calls bow hunting unethical for the most part.

My debate with you, and it's not obsessing, is people like you discount others' hunting skills and discipline that makes them effective and successful hunters even when using more challenging tools. If you don't care... then stop posting your opinions on the matter.

I've killed a lot of game with subs and handguns... I've never lost a single animal nor have I ever had to track one over 50ish yards. What's unethical about that?

Here is a video of me and my grandson stalking a big boar using just the grass, the terrain, and patience, he's the third pic down in my pics above... I used a 10mm handgun. I shot the boar at about 30 yards but my grandson went to cover his ears at the time of the shot... the boar dropped in his tracks... I could have just shot the boar from my truck at 150 yards... what's the challenge in that? What did I teach my grandson that day? How to patiently stalk game or how to be an unethical hunter because the tool I ised?

 
Bowhntr6pt said:
Yes... as a sportsman I do care about people's opinions (concerning me or any other hunter for that matter) when they believe that because I (or anyone else) use a specific tool(s) to hunt with I'm suddenly doing so via "unethical means" because the Government said so. That's basically what your posts are saying.

I'm not obsessing... I'm defending the issue at hand (harvesting ethics), a practice as old as time, that is, hunting game animals with more challenging tools thus teaching yourself, or others if you are mentoring, to be patient, disciplined, and responsible enough to put a humane kill at the top of the list.

Some government entity, based of pure subjective opinions IMO, plucked 1000 ft. lbs. out of the air and deemed it to quasi ethical... why? I completely disagree that some cut off number suddenly makes attempting to take game "ethical". Then a guy like you comes along and spouts the same arbitrary nonsense completely ignorant to just how stupid such standards really are. Instead of using the word UNETHICAL, why not just say CHALLENGING? Why not just say in your opinion you want things stacked better in your favor for a humane kill and that's why you choose to use tools that meet a certain terminal ballistic thresholds?

You think bow hunting is "ethical"? Because as someone who has bow hunted for 45 years I know more game has been wounded and lost to sticks and arrows than small caliber firearms... yet no one calls bow hunting unethical for the most part.

My debate with you, and it's not obsessing, is people like you discount others' hunting skills and discipline that makes them effective and successful hunters even when using more challenging tools. If you don't care... then stop posting your opinions on the matter.

I've killed a lot of game with subs and handguns... I've never lost a single animal nor have I ever had to track one over 50ish yards. What's unethical about that?

Here is a video of me and my grandson stalking a big boar using just the grass, the terrain, and patience, he's the third pic down in my pics above... I used a 10mm handgun. I shot the boar at about 30 yards but my grandson went to cover his ears at the time of the shot... the boar dropped in his tracks... I could have just shot the boar from my truck at 150 yards... what's the challenge in that? What did I teach my grandson that day? How to patiently stalk game or how to be an unethical hunter because the tool I ised?

Click to expand...

Not getting into the discussion, just wanted to say, that was a great shot even if I didn't see the impact, I heard it! And kudos to you with the grandson as videographer!:giggle:
 
meanwhile I'm sitting here loading .308 with 175gr SMK ,, and using a powder I've not ever tried in .308 Win... TAC... hopefully the ladder test goes well later this week.. just figured I'd say something while I dig out the popcorn....
 
Sgt_Mike said:
meanwhile I'm sitting here loading .308 with 175gr SMK ,, and using a powder I've not ever tried in .308 Win... TAC... hopefully the ladder test goes well later this week.. just figured I'd say something while I dig out the popcorn....
Click to expand...

Yep, with IMR 4895 and IMR 4064 being unobtainable, I too need to find a good substitute some day for the 168/175 SMK bullets. But with a stash of about 10K rounds, I'm in no hurry.
 
I cannot find anything in the following synopsis of my recent submission that provides evidence or supports the truth of even one of the off the wall allegations made in a what looks to me like a 439 word exercise in off topic self promotion:

Hornady needs to be called out for recommending a 190 grain subsonic bullet for medium game that on a good day cannot produce 500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. Its illegal for hunting in my state, and that alone precludes me (no one else mentioned) from accepting it as an ethical hunting round.
 
2LayZ2 said:
I cannot find anything in the following synopsis of my recent submission that provides evidence or supports the truth of even one of the off the wall allegations made in a what looks to me like a 439 word exercise in off topic self promotion:

Hornady needs to be called out for recommending a 190 grain subsonic bullet for medium game that on a good day cannot produce 500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. Its illegal for hunting in my state, and that alone precludes me (no one else mentioned) from accepting it as an ethical hunting round.
Click to expand...

You sound like a liberal Democrat... when confronted with factual evidence, you double down an a position.

How about posting some meaningful data to support your position beside your feelings. Maybe this site isn't for you.

ETA- the future blood of the dead deer I take with my .300 BO this season and 190 Sub-X bullets are on your hands mister... I'll make sure to post some effective kills this season to continue to demonstrate you have no clue as to what your talking about when it comes to terminal ballistics. In the mean time, Hornady has a R&D department that would just love to hear your input.
 
Last edited:
Excerpt what you describe as factual evidence from your diatribe that can be attributed directly to what I've posted on this forum.

No...here's what a liberal Democrat sounds like:

ETA- instead of using the words ethical how about "challenging"?

If ETA means “Excerpt Totally Asinine” your warning label in this case is spot on perfect.
 
2LayZ2 said:
Excerpt what you describe as factual evidence from your diatribe that can be attributed directly to what I've posted on this forum.
Click to expand...

The factual evidence I've posted is in the form of pics and video that demonstrates it doesn't take 1000 ft./lbs. or energy to ethically harvest game.

I've posted real proof... all you have offered is an opinion. See the difference?

ETA- (means Edit To Add) I am starting to think you're just trolling at this point. So to hit the RESET BUTTON so as to be clear... your position is as follows:

1) the 190 Sub-X fails to reach 1000 ft./lbs. therefore it's UNETHICAL to promote or use it as a hunting bullet for medium game, ie: deer/hogs.
2) thus to use the 190 Sub-X is an unethical practice.
3) by default, thus anything under 1000 ft./lbs. is also thereby an unethical means of harvesting game.

Did I get that right?
 
Last edited:
Here is some more factual evidence... I shot this doe at 25 yards with a 10mm 180gr XTP... she made it about five steps into the woods. You can see the muzzle of my pistol at the bottom left at about 0:45 as I get ready for the shot.

 
How is the "proof" you posted related to the topic of the thread? With one exception, it's all irrelevant.
So where did you get among other things, the idea that "you discount others' hunting skills and discipline that makes them effective"?
If it's from me, prove it!
You owe me an apology.
 
It can be nearly impossible for someone who has trouble judging distance in the field to rapidly determine holdover for a subsonic round that drops faster than a Congressional approval rating. Guessing before pulling the trigger isn’t ethical, and perhaps going supersonic with 100 grain bullets that fly flatter farther might mitigate the need for it.
 
Back
Top