To 007, I accept your explanation.
What I hope you understand in explanation of my response is that for me it's not the success of the individual shot but ultimately the ethical decision of taking a questionable shot in the first place...specifically how that represents each of us and a larger community of hunters.
The internet abounds with examples of guys taking 1,500-yard shots using high power optics and massive powder loads to achieve hyper muzzle velocities. I have no doubt there are some who are skilled enough to accomplish such a long range shot - the very fact that there are videos are testimony to this. Nevertheless, most hunters could never make this shot. The uncertainties and inconsistencies of wind direction and wind velocity over such a distance exceed the ability of most marksmen. Most who are capable of these shots rely on tables of ballistic data or ballistic computers (there are even watches sold now to perform these function). But in true one-up-manship fashion, folks with higher opinion of their skill than they deserve take these shots. Their overcharged rifles put them at risk of a rupture in the chamber from excessively hot loads. And how do these pseudo-marksman-hunters go about tracking a gut-hit game animal from 1-mile away anyway?
There are quite a few internet postings of head-shots to deer as well using the (clearly demonstrated in several postings here) clearly misapplied theory that because shooting a human in the head is an effective one-shot stop method that such a shot is effective for a game animal.
The problem again comes from mistakes that are often uncontrollable. Margin of error is critical for a successful shot. Again, there are marksmen of such skill to hit a target about the size of a candy bar but the margin of error is small. Add to that margin of error by what a game animal almost always moves first when curious, startled, or spooked; its head.
High percentage shots result in tracking ability for a wounded animal. Low percentage shots impose near certain death sentences upon animals who will suffer. What do you hit if you miss a head shot? Eyes, nose, jaw, ears (auditory canal), throat (not neck). What do you hit if you miss a vitals shot? Other vitals are nearby - heart, lungs, liver, major arteries all abound within a dinner-plate sized target. Broken limbs also make overtaking a wounded animal easier. A coup-de-grace to the neck or heart is a better use of a "double-tap" (Rule #2 - I didn't forget, nice "Zombieland" reference).
In closing I want it to be clear. I hunt. I won't take a shot if I don't think it's ethical. It means I take fewer shots to be sure. I am trying to pass along a method of hunting to my daughter that is sustainable in our ever changing culture - it is hard to dispute that perceptions drive rules, regulations, and laws sometimes without merit. We do have the right to bear arms in the Constitution but such protection has not disuaded the imposition of restrictions on those who ordinarily follow the rules. When there are too many rules to make the process enjoyable, the practice of enjoyment evaporates. I see the dismissive treatment of a low-percentage shot as more dangerous than a discussion of muscle-twitching or meat harvesting techniques..."Do you cut all the way around the anus or use a butt-out tool?...Do you cut around a milk-sac or through it?"
Thank you for your more appropriate description and a less combative response. I apologize for my all too public disagreement and disagreeableness.
Hope to meet you on the trails someday. And maybe we can share stories of our respective experiences either in agreement or disagreement without these harumph, harumphs.