buckshot for deer, ethics.

D

dahermit

New member
Started this elsewhere, moved it here as a better place for this discussion:

It would seem that there are many people who consider using buckshot on deer as being an unethical practice. In that light, if you be so inclined, would you mind explaining the difference between shooting a pheasant (or a duck) with #6 - #4 bird shot and shooting a deer with #4 buck shot - 00 buck shot when buckshot is nothing more than bird shot scaled-up for the size of the game? What makes one practice ethical and the other, unethical ("...should be outlawed...")?
 
I wouldn't call buckshot unethical, just the last resort if nothing else is available. In relation to body size #6 shot on a 1 lb duck is much larger than 00 buck on a 150 lb deer. Especially when 10-15 pellets are striking the duck vs 2-3 buckshot pellets on a deer. And I'd be using something quite a bit larger than #6 on duck especially with steel shot. I typically use #2 shot.

Used within its limitations buckshot can be effective. It also has a higher percentage of wounded animals than rifle or slug loads.
 
Originally posted by jmr40:

Used within its limitations buckshot can be effective. It also has a higher percentage of wounded animals than rifle or slug load
Click to expand...

^^^This. IMHO, buckshot is a method who's day is past. There are just too many better options out there nowdays for virtually every scenario. Buckshot works well for SD/HD because of it's limited range and penetration. This is what limits it when it comes to deer hunting. Still, I have no problem with folks that use it humanely and ethically, where it is legal. Since many times buckshot is used when hunting deer with dogs, wounded animals are generally not the same issue as when hunting without.
 
even though I do not think buck shot is unethical, I will take this.
birds a very frail creatures. they have very light bone and muscular structures to allow for flight, even birds like turkeys with limited flight capability. all it really takes is one or two pellets to hit a bird to kill it and if the pellet doesn't the hard fall will.

deer are a different story. a pellet in the rear, another in the leg and one through a lung won't necessarily kill it, even over a prolonged period of time. it will weaken the animal and force it to live with a handicap for the rest of it's life or it could just force the animal to die a slow death. this is why I do not hunt with buckshot. not because I think it's unethical but because I don't like the idea of having to track a wounded deer for miles because none of the shot hit a vital organ.
 
As long as it's legal, it's acceptable.

In part, you are asking for us to pass judgment on someone else's "ethical" hunting methods. I have done so in the past and now, follow the rules and laws of the state as they are in a better position to do so. .... ;)

My last example was when I started hunting deer, in Alabama. I became aware that it was legal to use dogs to hunt deer. Being from the Midwest, I measured this as being unethical. That is until I sat in a deer stand down there. Did a complete 180 and had a better understanding and appreciation... ;)

There are thing that I would not do even if it's legal but really can't measure or fault others, for doing so. ... ;)
Now then, before most of our Iowa Pheasants moved to South Dakota, I would never consider using #4's but ethics had nothing to do it. Just not practical ... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
I wouldn't call buckshot unethical, just the last resort if nothing else is available. In relation to body size #6 shot on a 1 lb duck is much larger than 00 buck on a 150 lb deer. Especially when 10-15 pellets are striking the duck vs 2-3 buckshot pellets on a deer.
Click to expand...
There are 41 #4 buckshot in a 3 inch 12 gauge, 27 in a 2-3/4 12 gauge....What happens if only 2-3 pellets are striking the duck and 10-15 buckshot are striking the deer?

Used within its limitations buckshot can be effective. It also has a higher percentage of wounded animals than rifle or slug loads.
Click to expand...
And, your data on more woundings for buckshot comes from where?
 
In part, you are asking for us to pass judgment on someone else's "ethical" hunting methods.
Click to expand...
Read my post carefully...in no part, did I ask anyone to pass judgment on using buckshot, only to explain how one thing (shotgun/birds) is considered (by some/many), as ethical, and another thing (deer/buckshot), is considered unethical. Explanation yes, judgement no.
 
...In relation to body size #6 shot on a 1 lb duck is much larger than 00 buck on a 150 lb deer...
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, number 4 shot will sometimes pass through a duck, sometimes I have found it still in the duck (inside balled-up feathers). Likewise, I have found #4 buckshot (which I have used on several/many), sometimes passes through the deer, sometimes is found under the off-side hide. So, what is the difference, both have the size and mass to produce relatively the same results.
 
deer are a different story. a pellet in the rear, another in the leg and one through a lung won't necessarily kill it, even over a prolonged period of time. it will weaken the animal and force it to live with a handicap for the rest of it's life or it could just force the animal to die a slow death. this is why I do not hunt with buckshot. not because I think it's unethical but because I don't like the idea of having to track a wounded deer for miles because none of the shot hit a vital organ.
Click to expand...
Are ducks different? Does a pellet in a leg, other non-vital area where the duck flies off or ends up swimming away any different than with deer? Are there not many ducks and pheasants that suffer such wounds and are not recovered? What is the difference?
 
...birds a very frail creatures. they have very light bone and muscular structures to allow for flight, even birds like turkeys with limited flight capability. all it really takes is one or two pellets to hit a bird to kill it and if the pellet doesn't the hard fall will.
Click to expand...
Deer are not heavily built creatures. I have seen a deer with broken large bone (Humerus) in the front left leg and died in less than 40 yards from a charge of #4 shot (not buckshot, some went between the ribs into the heart lungs). "Frail" is a relative term. Especially when trying to kill a wounded teal on the water before it dives. I have seen several pheasants drop out of the sky with a broken wing, only to escape in the tall grass...none were killed by the fall. Many game birds are wounded and lost each season.
 
Last edited:
Wound statistics on game animals come from the persons opinion on the implement. I have never seen any sort of official statistic on caliber effectiveness and I would fully expect and such number to be flawed beyond usefulness.

You don't have to hang around the forums long before you'll figure out that if every restrictive opinion were actually enforced virtually all hunting would be illegal.

Somebody here thinks just about every possible weapon, cartridge, distance, method and style of hunting is unfair, cheating, unethical, unskilled, too easy, cruel, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

A rifle too weak (under a certain arbitrary number created to exclude said cartridge) is unethical, one too strong (see 50BMG discussion) is stupid, unethical, etc, pick your word. Stand hunting is for sissies. Long range shots are for people who can't hunt.

I was just having a discussion today about why, for example, wounding a deer and having it take 5 or 10 minutes to die is unethical but poisoning a mouse and letting it suffer for hours is perfectly fine.

It all reminds me if the old saying, Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
 
Just like everything else, if used correctly within it's effective range buckshot will kill a deer just as dead as a .50 BMG.
 
I've taken just one deer with buckshot which certainly does not qualify me as an expert. But I'll share my experience. My folks lived near Calcutta, Ohio at the time and Dad knew a guy who let us hunt the edges of his apple orchard. The deer followed a heavily used trail to travel from a woodlot into the orchard. I hunted from a tree about 50 feet inside of the woodlot with an old single shot 16 gauge loaded with #1 buckshot. About half hour before dark, a line of deer came down the trail headed toward the orchard. I waited until a nice 6 point buck was practically beneath me. I aimed for the neck/back and cut loose with the 16. The animal fell right over and it was dead.

During skinning I was not impressed with penetration of those lead balls. The buckshot was stopped by the neckbone/backbone. Yes, the bones were broken apart but none passed through into the body cavity.

Jack
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by dahermit:

Are ducks different? Does a pellet in a leg, other non-vital area where the duck flies off or ends up swimming away any different than with deer? Are there not many ducks and pheasants that suffer such wounds and are not recovered? What is the difference?
Click to expand...

One big difference comes down to the fact that while shooting at a deer standing or running on level ground with woods or other terrain behind it to stop the bullet, makes for a safe shot, while shooting at a bird in the air with a center-fire or even a rimfire rifle is not. Not only is it not safe to shoot at flying birds with a solid projectile, it is also illegal in most areas. So...safety and legality makes for a easy decision to use shot on birds. Nuttin' to do with ethics. Grouse, woodcock, dove and ducks are small targets to hit with a single projectile when the are flying. Deer with their large bodies and kill zone, even when running are much easier to hit with a single projectile. Wounded deer can cover long distances when wounded and can be hard to follow for the average hunter without a heavy blood trail. Wounded game birds(other than turkeys) tend to squat down and stay put once they find cover. Most folks hunting them are using a dog, which makes retrieval of the wounded bird easier. Game birds are thin skinned and their bodies are easily penetrated by pellets to the vital organs. Deer have tougher skin and their boiler room is covered by sternum/shoulder bones from most angles makin penetration by shot pellets difficult. Most of us, as responsible hunters strive to make clean, quick kills and tend to use what works best for us for this purpose. To me, yhat means shot pellets for game birds and solid projectiles for deer. Other folks may think differently and that's perfectly fine with me as long as they abide by the laws of their state.
 
I waited until a nice 6 point buck was practically beneath me. I aimed for the neck/back and cut loose with the 16. The animal fell right over and it was dead.

During skinning I was not impressed with penetration of those 30 caliber balls. The buckshot was stopped by the neckbone/backbone. Yes, the bones were broken apart but none passed through into the body cavity.
Click to expand...
Your anecdote does not address the OP question. However, it does beg the question: Why would you shoot the deer there and expect a good result? Lets see if I have the logic correct: Bad aiming point, not ideal results. Good aiming point (behind the shoulder), good results? Where was the "failure"...in the buckshot, or the aiming point?
 
I go with Jack on this one. Years back I was up at my Brother-in-laws place and the neighbor stopped and said they wanted to drive the swamp as it was the last day of doe. I had a 12 Gauge in the truck and some odd shells. I grabbed some slugs and OO Buckshot. It was thick where I was standing so I loaded up with OO. A big doe came sneaking through at about 20 yards and I shot. She did not even jump. She turned her head and saw me and jumped right into the brush. The next year my Brother-in-law killed a doe there with a bow. The front half of the deer had spread out pellets in it. (Keep in mind this was in the mountains where nobody uses a shotgun). When they skinned the deer, they did not even know what the pellets were. The pellets went through the hide and stuck in the meat. The hide grew back over the pellets. Do what you want if it is legal, just be aware of the capabilities of what you are using.
 
I go with Jack on this one. Years back I was up at my Brother-in-laws place and the neighbor stopped and said they wanted to drive the swamp as it was the last day of doe. I had a 12 Gauge in the truck and some odd shells. I grabbed some slugs and OO Buckshot. It was thick where I was standing so I loaded up with OO. A big doe came sneaking through at about 20 yards and I shot. She did not even jump. She turned her head and saw me and jumped right into the brush. The next year my Brother-in-law killed a doe there with a bow. The front half of the deer had spread out pellets in it. (Keep in mind this was in the mountains where nobody uses a shotgun). When they skinned the deer, they did not even know what the pellets were. The pellets went through the hide and stuck in the meat. The hide grew back over the pellets. Do what you want if it is legal, just be aware of the capabilities of what you are using.
Click to expand...
If you had shot the deer behind the shoulder, would the pellets have penetrated to the vitals? Also, there seems to be several considerations/choices that could have been better. For instance, you said, "...years back...". Was that before 3 inch magnums were available (2-3/4, 00 buck, nine pellets)? Would your results have been better with a 3 inch magnum with 12 pellets and shooting behind the shoulder resulted in a down deer? Seems like you are blaming buckshot for your poor choices of ammo and aim.
 
I dont consider it unethical in itself. However, one must take the situation into account.

I have taken two deer with buckshot. Both were close range, inside 30 yards. I was a last minute addition to the hunt and had only a shotgun available.

I was shooting speer lawman 8 pellet OO buck. I was very familiar with this load in the shotgun I was using. I knew I could keep all 8 pellets in a 4" circle at 25 yards based on my experience. Both deer were DRT.

Now, had the situation been different. Had I not been familiar with the gun, the load, and at a greater distance...now way I would have taken a shot. Too many variables to be certain of a clean, humane kill.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, just gotta be smart about it.
 
Like anything else, use it at ranges where it is likely to make a clean kill. It is illegal to use for deer in Ohio, and has been at least since the early 70's. In 1990 it was REQUIRED in a few populous areas of eastern PA. I think its more popularly used in some southern states where deer are hunted like rabbits, shot at short range, and the deer are German shepherd sized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top