He not saying they can't be taken with body shots but that you will lose more game with a body shot.

 

He not saying they can't be taken with body shots but that you will lose more game with a body shot.

Where does he say that? His words were exactly that you "can't take them [squirrels] with body shots".

 

Well the hunting rule books say you can't take deer with a 22 rifle it don't mean you can't because there's many that have fallen to a well placed shot from a 22 it means it's not wise hunting ethics what he is meaning.

 

Well the hunting rule books say you can't take deer with a 22 rifle it don't mean you can't because there's many that have fallen to a well placed shot from a 22 it means it's not wise hunting ethics what he is meaning.

Too be able to shoot a deer with a 22 cal ..you have to shoot in the ear cannel..for a brain kill..I seen a video many many years ago

OM

 

He not saying they can't be taken with body shots but that you will lose more game with a body shot.

I agree with you on that..as the squirrel could run off..plus there is so much lose of what meat there is...Always try for a clean Head Shot

OM

 

How do you like that aluminum cane sling shot, supposed to be one of the best ?

wll

 

Well the hunting rule books say you can't take deer with a 22 rifle it don't mean you can't because there's many that have fallen to a well placed shot from a 22 it means it's not wise hunting ethics what he is meaning.

I think you're confusing the fact of killing with a body shot with aiming to kill with a body shot. Everyone, including that hunter, I'm sure, aims for a head shot. But missing by an inch or two is a common occurence. And so wise hunting ethics would be knowing that the shot will be nevertheless lethal at whatever distance you decide to shoot.

 

The fact that you think I am confused about hunting is in fact showing that your confused your self there are many small game animals taken with body shot but there are many more lost head shot is not even a sure thing but will most likely be more effective than the body shot the fact that the hospice starship is junk turned into a low grade sling shot able to take bird feeder squirrels that's hunting at its best don't you think.

 

The fact that you think I am confused about hunting is in fact showing that your confused your self there are many small game animals taken with body shot but there are many more lost head shot is not even a sure thing but will most likely be more effective than the body shot the fact that the hospice starship is junk turned into a low grade slingshot able to take bird feeder squirrels that's hunting at its best don't you think.

Not confused about hunting, but about what I said about it.

No one is disagreeing that head shots are more effective and what one should be aiming for. Don't know anything about the quality of that starship in particular, but I do know that starships can generally generate more energy.

 

What ever.

 

Can you kill a squirrel with a body shot? Yes.

Are you as likely to cause no suffering with a body shot as you are with a head shot? Absolutely not.

If you're one of those unethical people that don't care about the animal suffering you can shoot him where ever you want. If you are an ethical hunter you will aim for the clean kill, the head.

 

In general, slingshots are somewhat marginal for small game ... IN GENERAL. A well placed head shot is what you should aim for. I have shot squirrels in the body with a .22 rifle and had them run off, and a slingshot is not nearly as powerful. Trying to take a squirrel with a body shot is, in my opinion, cruel and not likely to be successful.

Cheers .... Charles

 

Can you kill a squirrel with a body shot? Yes.

Are you as likely to cause no suffering with a body shot as you are with a head shot? Absolutely not.

If you're one of those unethical people that don't care about the animal suffering you can shoot him where ever you want. If you are an ethical hunter you will aim for the clean kill, the head.

I thought Nathan's video was pretty good. But those jerks in the other video need a good spanking.

Cheers ..... Charles

 

If you are an ethical hunter you will aim for the clean kill, the head.

Sure, but if one knows that it is a common occurence for even good slingshot hunters to miss by 1 or 2 inches, then wouldn't it be superior ethics to know how close one needs to be so that even if that happens the shot will be nevertheless lethal?

I have shot squirrels in the body with a .22 rifle and had them run off

I'm amazed that a starship slingshot could do what a .22 couldn't. Looking at the wound, it does seem like it was shot by a firearm

 

Crutchship ALERT!!!!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

This is going to get good. A free education.

 

View attachment 89421

 

Here we go again, the return of the starship saga !

wll

 

post-11868-0-90668900-1412963567.jpg

Yes he asked for a review and got it did not like it got kicked off and now pops in and out to try and get even for a good honest review that did not go his way.

 

Sure, but if one knows that it is a common occurence for even good slingshot hunters to miss by 1 or 2 inches, then wouldn't it be superior ethics to know how close one needs to be so that even if that happens the shot will be nevertheless lethal?

Did you not watch Nathans video in it's entirety? As he said, the range you should be hunting at is the range you can hit a ping pong ball sized target 80% of the time. If you aren't at least that confident in your shot you have no right to take it. If you do miss its more likely to whiff completely or graze than to get a direct impact at all.

 

I didn't think Nathan hunted.

 

Sure, but if one knows that it is a common occurence for even good slingshot hunters to miss by 1 or 2 inches, then wouldn't it be superior ethics to know how close one needs to be so that even if that happens the shot will be nevertheless lethal?

Did you not watch Nathans video in it's entirety? As he said, the range you should be hunting at is the range you can hit a ping pong ball sized target 80% of the time. If you aren't at least that confident in your shot you have no right to take it. If you do miss its more likely to whiff completely or graze than to get a direct impact at all.

Remember that even if you follow that 80% rule, a squirrel is not as stationary and predictable as a ping pong ball target. So that 80% number will likely come down a certain % -- let's say to 70%. That means that you will miss the head area you're aiming at 3 out of 10 times even if you're that good a shooter.

When you practice with targets, the shots you miss are often just a few inches away from the bullseye. Similarly, that 30% of missed hunting shots will often hit just a few inches away in another part of the body -- rather than miss the animal altogether.

Hence the ethical importance of knowing that the distance you choose to shoot from can deliver a lethal body blow to the animal -- rather than just leaving it injured for days, weeks, or even a lifetime. My original comment would simply imply that due to the increased ft/lbs of energy, the kid with the starship needs to get less close to the target to achieve such ethical lethality.

 

What is hunting with out any risk? The grocery store. So you either get in gear and take the right shot or admit your skills are subpar and that you simple are trying to push an agenda... You simply can't rely on power for everything and you can't rely on something that has to be epoxied with jb weld... Heh just work on the accuracy and don't try saying power is everything. Look up Sinclair county slingshots... Not once a starship being used by him and he's killed more squirrels than you've ever seen. Cheers-CO

 

What is hunting with out any risk? The grocery store. So you either get in gear and take the right shot or admit your skills are subpar and that you simple are trying to push an agenda... You simply can't rely on power for everything and you can't rely on something that has to be epoxied with jb weld... Heh just work on the accuracy and don't try saying power is everything. Look up Sinclair county slingshots... Not once a starship being used by him and he's killed more squirrels than you've ever seen. Cheers-CO

I wasn't describing any less accuracy/more power scenario at all. In fact, as I wrote in my last post, I was assuming precisely Nathan Master's 80% ping pong ball accuracy standard before taking a shot -- and then talking about how the missed shots hitting the body could end up being lethal or not.

St Claire County can't be considered in this discussion for a simple reason: He is kind of a rare slingshot-virtuoso: more accurate than 99.99% of good shooters out there. Plus he uses a hard-to-master active style of shooting that adds extra power to each shot. You can't use an exception to prove the rule: you can't point to an exceptional shooter to explain what most decent shooters out there can do. But I'm sure even he misses shots sometimes.

 

Sure, but if one knows that it is a common occurence for even good slingshot hunters to miss by 1 or 2 inches, then wouldn't it be superior ethics to know how close one needs to be so that even if that happens the shot will be nevertheless lethal?

Did you not watch Nathans video in it's entirety? As he said, the range you should be hunting at is the range you can hit a ping pong ball sized target 80% of the time. If you aren't at least that confident in your shot you have no right to take it. If you do miss its more likely to whiff completely or graze than to get a direct impact at all.

Remember that even if you follow that 80% rule, a squirrel is not as stationary and predictable as a ping pong ball target. So that 80% number will likely come down a certain % -- let's say to 70%. That means that you will miss the head area you're aiming at 3 out of 10 times even if you're that good a shooter.

When you practice with targets, the shots you miss are often just a few inches away from the bullseye. Similarly, that 30% of missed hunting shots will often hit just a few inches away in another part of the body -- rather than miss the animal altogether.

Hence the ethical importance of knowing that the distance you choose to shoot from can deliver a lethal body blow to the animal -- rather than just leaving it injured for days, weeks, or even a lifetime. My original comment would simply imply that due to the increased ft/lbs of energy, the kid with the starship needs to get less close to the target to achieve such ethical lethality.

If the squirrel is moving you shouldn't be shooting. 80% = 80%. If you can't figure out how to take a shot when the animal is less likely to move don't hunt.

Yes, when you miss you obviously miss the bullseye. The bullseye being the head. If you think of it like a pie with the head in the center your "miss" has a higher chance to go into a slice with no body than body. It's not like a squirrels head is in the center of its body mass.

As to figuring out how hard you have to hit the body to kill a squirrel you are talking about getting a full on hit, on a rodent, in the body, by luck because you missed the head. It's a pointless calculation because there is far too much luck involved.

Plus the idea that a starship gets more power than a regular slingshot is fundamentally flawed. Yes, he gets to pull his bands farther, thus increasing elongation factor, thus increasing fps. But you could just as easily shorten the bands on your slingshot for the same increased elongation factor. On top of that I have never seen anyone as accurate with a starship as I have seen with a regular slingshot. Hunting is about accuracy more than power.

On that note, you seem like you just want to argue this topic back and forth. I am not interested. If you already have an answer stuck in your head why did you ask the question when you're just going to think you're right and everyone else is wrong? I don't understand that at all.