This is why you don't shoot a moose in front of you

[chango]

It's amazing how there are so many insane people being filmed in the world






BTW I would wager that bowhunters as a whole are the most ethical of the hunting crowd. No trophy is worth your life though, and its amazing that guy isn't dead.

[uphill]

tnegiet previously said:

I forgot to address the lethality of the arrow.

Most non-shooters/hunters have a biased view of the lethality of bow/arrows. ...this is not your 19th century native american arrow! Some may ask why it is prefered to go completely through the body? Simply put, it is more lethal that way, two holes are better than one. It also makes tracking easier if necessary. Graphic but impressive.

X2

Even historically the Mongolian recurve/compound bow would send a shaft through a Chinese soldier's laquered armor (front and rear) at 50 Meters. At Agincourt the English longbowmen literally wiped out the crowned heads of France as they charged across a bog. (the last of the great charges against massed archers in the West) They all wore armor, and some of the Milanese armor they used was the best ever made up to that date. Not much use against archery. Present-day archery uses a penetrating core (like a bodkin tip) with razor blades that spin as they fly and as they penetrate.

Arrows create lethal wounds and this archer knew what he was doing, waiting for the right shot. That Moose didn't go anywhere. He was dead with what looked to me to be a heart shot. His brain hadn't died yet when he charged, but he was finished.

Firearms (absent significant hydrostatic shock) usually do not create the sort of massive wounds that archery is capable of on a shot-for-shot basis.

Today modern body armor is designed to defeat firearms. An arrow will pass through it (and out the back) like a hot knife through butter.

So even though it appears as though the Moose might have had a chance, with that weapon in the hands of that archer, he didn't.