50 BMG Near Miss - "Sucked the Eyeballs Out" of the Deer

I don't know where people come up with this garbage. Watch the video...



I take it that he did not actually necropsy the deer to determine what did or did not actually anatomically happen. He had a dead deer and looked at the video in slower motion. I watched the video and the deer showed impact. I don't know what he was watching.

With that said, will the 50 BMG suck the eyeballs out of a deer? Heck, it won't even hardly move red Solo Cups around...

Well, now you’ve had a proper introduction to Keith Warren, and you know what you can expect in the future.

Interesting....I would have expected the head to be gone with even a slight graze. They weren't showing much of the dead dear though. A slight overkill regardless. SMH.

It's nice to the see the hype machine is still churning out product.

Deer are much tougher than they were 100 years ago when people used to kill them with .38-40 and .25-20 cartridges. In fact, I'm not even sure the .50 BMG is really sufficient under tough conditions. I'd go with a 20MM Vulcan, myself. You know, the six barrel Gatling design. Of course, dragging a crew around is a bit of a pain, but you can never be too careful.

That second video proved the point well, I have tried to convince many that it isn't possible to kill a deer with a passing bullet. I know guys that shoot WT with with a 300 mag (I am not knocking a 300, just the hype) and claim a miss will kill, or complete removal of the head from a neck shot. I have seen their dead deer, heads still attached, just a hole in the neck.
I like your idea syncerus, only a grenade will make them deader.

It's all about bullet construction. A varmint type rapid expansion bullet is most likely to perform a near decapitation. If that's the "goal" (sigh), a 125 grain Ballistic Tip out of a .300 WM is probably most likely to "achieve" that result.

Whatever happened to sportsmanship and respect for your quarry? I don't tell others how to hunt, but I'd have nothing to do with this idiocy, myself.

Well said. I’m still young compared to lots of folks around here (28) but it’s my generation who is starting to star in hunting shows and YouTube channels, and I don’t like most of it. I made a poor shot on a doe earlier this week. I got her, but she suffered greatly for 10 minutes or so until I could work my way around to get another shot on her. It upset me. I have lots of respect for the animals I kill, and don’t treat it like a game, or hope it will make me famous on YouTube.

With this attitude you will find yourself respected and welcome to hunt many places where others are not!!!

Regarding the Keith Warren video, let me take this through a reality load test...

Fact: the weapon and optic and ammo weigh in over 30 lbs, the projectile is 750 grains

Logic Test : FAIL : Warren states due to the weight of the weapon and muzzle brake "recoil is manageable".... Yes because I take my 600 lb shooting bench everywhere with me.

Fact: when you have such manageable recoil you should only load 1 round in your high capacity magazine

Logic Test : FAIL : how many hunters who use .30 cal cartridges load a single round in your semi-auto high capacity magazine? Yeah a I have few 25 round Pmags myself for 338 Federal - it never occurred to me that I was loading 24 too many....

Fact: he is setup in a blind with a 12" shelf and shooting off the guns bipod

Logic Test : PLAUSIBLE : I've seen some pretty fancy / creative hunting blinds, would have liked to see him use a regular Joe's hunting blind BUT if you have a 12" shelf and bipod I suppose I'd use it too.

Fact: a Doe is considered medium sized game , there are many ammo manufacturers who rate their ammo for Terminal Effect and it is realistic to think that most calibers above .223 would be appropriate.

Logic Test : Fail : most of you have hit on this already, the 50 BMG is overkill , it would probably have been just as effective to run her over with the lease vehicle but then we wouldn't have a video to view - and Barrett doesn't make a grill guard

Fact: after shooting an animal with a 50 BMG you'd assume there would be massive trauma

Logic Test : Fail : as he lined up behind the doe for the after shot photo opportunity he is convinced at that point that he hit her in the head "accuracy and shot placement is everything" and he says you'd think more damage would be evident. Right this particular doe has a head that is harder than most does which explains the lack of damage.... you'd think a guy who makes a living hunting would have suspected he grazed her but nooooo it just didn't do much damage.

Fact: bullets create "pressure and vacuum"

Logic Test : UNKNOWN : I'm convinced that 50 BMG is capable of imparting a higher degree of suck, I don't know much about bullet design but I'm sure ammo manufactures keep the vacuum properties a secret and Mr. Warren is divulging highly guarded information. I'm not sure how they do it but WOW.

"It sucked the eyeballs out of the deer's head - A VERY ETHICAL KILL".

I heard the 50 cal rumor so many time in the Army it ridiculous and usually from senior NCOs lol


If it’s within a few feet it will rip their skin right off or rip and arm off blah blah blah

So you believe Warren’s conclusion is accurate and the 2nd video is a hoax?

Something about Warrens entire demeanor, and especially in this video, creeps me out. Not someone I would hunt with if given the opportunity.

Keith Warren started out a joke and has only gotten worse.

You got that right. Bottom of the barrel.

I have a 50 and have not used it on anything yet but inanimate objects. Not what I want to shoot deer with though some day I might shoot a hog. There is a lot of energy in those big bullets but not such that it will knock over stuff by being just close to it. Now the muzzle blast kicking out the sides will blow things around a lot, like items on benches next to you will move and lighter weight items will fly off the bench next to you such as a jacket.

Negative

Agree with that Pigpopper, would say second video is legit. Haven't watched the first video and probably will not, unless I need another laugh.

They need to rename it "The Vampire". It sounds better and describes how it can suck the blood and eye balls right out of your prey without ever hitting it!

Yep .....I ain't buying it.

I watched the first video, I do not believe him that he didn't hit the deer, in one eye, out the other, Ifhe had checked that he might be a little more believable. Then again...

That amax penetrates better through stuff than one might think, have shot plenty of them.

Artistic license sells advertising.

Idiot.

$5 a shot. Way too much collateral damage from whatever that bullet hits. I won't allow it on my range. That shouldn't be shot at ANYTNING less than 1000 yards IMO.

He went in the left eye, and out the right. The pressure shoved all the air out of her sinuses, look at the exhale (involuntarily) out the nose.

WTF is wrong with that guy, a 50 for deer... really?!

so no explosion because... through both eyes?

Anybody else love Demolition Ranch? Lol
One more question: why does everybody dislike Kieth Warren? This video aside that is...

Don’t ask me how this, but a measly handgun bullet (fmj most likely as it is highly unlikely the guy got any other ammo for his hand gun in country) at close range in a self inflicted gunshot wound causes a hell of a lot more damage on the exit than that .50. BMG did in that doe.

I am not saying I buy the “sucked the eyeballs” claim at all. But I am saying even a fmj.50 would do a to. More exit wound damage to that eye socket. It is possible the shot was a complete thru and thru taking both eyeballs out, but realistically this is not very likely without other socket damage and deformation. Again, don’t need to ask how I know this just accept it and move on.

However, the claim a .50 cal can suck out eyeballs is also not plausible. I know
What it takes to remove and eye ball (again, don’t need to ask) and the vacuum force needed to do
Something like that is entirely not possible with a passing bullet. The reality is any such “vacuum removal” would leave all kinds of tissue and muscle hanging out of the eye socket that wouldn’t naturally retract back the stretch would tear the tissues and prevent the natural retractionone would expect.

So bottom line from a medical standpoint, the only “real” possibility here is the doe got shot in the eyes and hand a thru and thru taking out both eyeballs, IF the deer shown was actually the deer shot at. My guess is they shot a doe, and then did some weird faking to make it look cool. I don’t know. Whole thing is weird.

After watching the second video, I will Unequivocally say there is absolutely no way a .50 cal could “suck” out the eyeballs of a doe/deer. Just can’t happen. Physically not possible given the lack of movement with solo cups and cards. No way, no how.

There’s about 6 muscles that hold the eyeball in place (I would
Guess the deer has that many at least) plus optic nerve (nice thick quarter inch nerve) plus all
Kinda of connective tissues....just way too much force holding the eyeball in place to get sucked out by something that can’t knock down a flimsy card house.

That 50 caliber round is going to do more bad things for hunting and Hunter ethics that It ever will anything good. It seems that guys who have too much money buy them a 50 cal. Then realize they're worthless can't even shoot them many places and then They want to shoot a little deer with it that's just crazy. The 50 Cal BMG should be illegal to hunt with.i won't use 750 grains of bullet in 4 deer seasons.

I saw my cousin shoot a hill country deer with his 50 cal and it put a hole the size of a baseball in it. Keith Warren tries to make this practical but it’s clearly just for “cool factor”. So silly. Does this guy even hunt low fence places? He’s ridiculous

We've shot some pigs with .50 BMG expecting some awesome carnage even when using FMJ. It simply didnt work out that way, zipped right through them. This boar was just over 200lbs, shot at right around 70 yards.





No, its not practical and I'd personally never shoot a game animal with it and I certainly dont buy that it "sucked its eyes out"

That was my first thought.

I guess I don't care if he shot a deer with a 50. I bought a rifled barrel for my shotgun and a muzzleloader to shoot deer with just because. I don't like him in the least but couldn't care less that he shot a deer with a 50. I'm actually pretty happy he made a head shot instead of taking a chest shot like I thought he was going to do... that would have been ugly.

While I agree this is massive overkill I dont understand people calling it unethical. What culd be a cleaner kill than a huge bullet to the head?

^^^ Exactly. Even the impact of the bullet on the tree behind the deer is inline with the eyes.

"That bullet sucked the eyes right out of her head!!!" That's funny right there! Yeah, the 50 is so bad [censored] that if you shoot close enough it will suck your eyes out!

50 cal for deer, why not. Just make damn sure you know your back stop. That bullet will still go a LONG ways before coming to rest.

I cant watch the video of Keith or any other videos on here for that mater. But just watched it on another hunting forum... Whats going with this one?

Use a different browser on your phone.

Illegal? I bet you and Keith have a lot more in common than you think.

Hint...

Wasn't 50 cal. illegal to hunt deer with a few years ago, except in muzzle loader?

Never saw any regulations about the 50 not being legal to hunt deer with. met a retired gentleman in East Texas that used one on hogs at his house. Neat setup, bulldozed out in the side of a hill 1k from his house as a backstop. Yard light over feeder for lighting up hogs at night. Shooting bench on back porch. See the hogs at the feeder, take the 50 out setup and wait for a few to line up. Said 3 at a shot is not uncommon but was still trying to get 4 on a shot.

Setup like that would be fun and safe since he owns the land and has the backstop. I would like to shoot some hogs with the 50 but having a safe shooting zone is problem most of the time.

That is why I haven't done it. Far too much to go wrong on my place and none of my landowners would even begin to entertain such a notion, LOL.

That bullet is not going to expand on flesh and bone. It goes right through and keeps on going. I agree that it went through the eyes.

I've gotten 5 pigs in 1 shot with a 7mm Rem Mag. Gotten 4 a couple of times as well. 3 is common with the 308. The key is to make a line with the corn so they line up for you. I don't need a 50 BMG, but it would be fun to have one if I had a place to safely shoot it.

That dude seems like a real obnoxious jerk.

I wouldn't allow anyone to shoot a .50BMG on my place, unless at the range with a known backstop. Shooting 1 without a developed backstop is dangerous & asking for trouble.

I am so disappointed in 50 cal now! I can still make out that is a pig shouldn't it have removed the head and all skin?lol

The kill is fine to me the hype and someone trying to video exploding game and eyeballs sucked out will only be used against ethical hunters.

I said illegal to hunt with not illegal to own or shoot. I build blk powder cannons but don't want to fire them at game .

As soon as his name was mentioned I made sure I didn't watch.

I know what you said, and I still think it’s stupid.

The last thing we need is a law saying any specific cartridge is too much for deer hunting. That is the classic slippery slope and you might surprised at how quickly your trusty old 300 Win. Mag could be the next one down. You have to remember laws like that are generally written and passed by people who have no idea which end of a gun to shoot and wouldn't go hunting if their lives depended on it. They still don't understand what an "assault rifle" is for God's sake. Nope, I'll just keep the decision of which gun to hunt with at home where it should be.

The rancher with 500 acres adjourning our lease shot a doe in the middle of his pasture with his newly acquired 50 BMG just to see it "knock the snot out of her". She ran a good 100+ yards after a double lung shot at 250 lazered yards that produced a half-inch hole in and out with not a lot of internal damage. He was bummed! QUOTE: "My damn 22-250 would have killed her faster."

You have that right .

It's a lot of fun hunting with my 45-70. It's slow, but it knocks the snot out of what it hits.

FMJ is FMJ. He got pretty much he same results as if he would have used .308 FMJ but the hole was .2" bigger. Unless you catch a big bone like the shoulder a .50 FMJ isn't going to do massive damage.

This guy did.

http://www.buckstix.com/HowitzerHunt.htm

I'd like to try that on a sounder of pigs at a feeder, but 1. I don't have a cannon, and 2. I'd have to armor plate the feeder.

https://youtu.be/6P3uwl5HzzQ

Who all has seen this and what do y'all think about it? One of the craziest kills I've ever seen but can't say I wouldn't try the exact same thing if I owned a 50.

Current thread that is a few days old on same subject
http://texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/6990407

I may be talking out of both sides of my mouth with this statement but it comes across to me as unethical.

I would be ok if 50's were outlawed for game animals.

Let me have it!

That’s a no-no around here. If it’s legal, it’s ethical. Period. And you are a traitor to the hunting community for speaking ill of our brother Keith Warren.

Haha, I could see it going both ways. Unethical for the destruction of meat when bullet impacts animal but also not due to the quick death.

many terrorists, if they could, would attest to the concussion of the .50cal round. You just gotta be close. I think this is a great illustration of the power of this firearm. Even though Keith missed, hell, we all miss.

so he didn't actually hit the deer?

He didn't miss

+1...Pure Overkill and really not necessary

http://texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/6990407

Wow, you are correct he did miss the deer.

I didn't watch the last 30 seconds until just now.

At least he took a head shot. I like to see a video on hogs

That would be something to see.....

OK, just watch the next video down on the youtube list form this one and you will see there is no way this guy missed. he hit the deer, the FMJ bullet went thru the eye sockets, and it dropped. NO way the bullet sucked the eyes out of the deer head. No way that can happen physically from a bullet whizzing by unless the bullet hits the eyes. This guy is a little weird to even think that.

Just go shoot a deer, and then use a sharp knife to cut out the deers eyes and you will see there is a lot more to it than meets the eye (pun intended).

Pure ego. Have lost respect for him a little.

He didn't miss the deer more of Keith Warren's BS. a near miss doesn't knock over a water bottle or in the first post in this now merged post a house of cards. The water bottle was one of my nephews shots at it missed by about an inch, bottle stayed standing.

The bullet he used was not a FMJ but a Hornady 750gr A-Max, I have shot at least 200 of those in reloads in my 50 the bullet is actually larger than a 308 loaded round. I suspect it was loaded by HSM as they sell factory loads with that bullet. I believe the bullet went in one eye and out the other and if he had put his finger in the eye socket he would have felt a large hole, The mist is from sinuses, mouth and eye balls blowing apart.

I have shot a golf ball from 50 yards that was set on top of the black particle board for pinning targets to, the only thing we could find was a white half circle of small powder size pieces imbedded in the board.

I can’t wrap my mind around the hate for hunting with a .50 BMG. What’s the max size round that should be legal? What about other .50 caliber rounds? Muzzleloaders? And why should any round be illegal to hunt with? Because YOU don’t like it? Should everything you don’t like be illegal?

Absolute bunk.



That is basically what it is coming down to. It is more of the "If you don't hunt the way I hunt for the reasons I hunt you are doing it wrong" sort of mentality.

Shooting a deer with a .50 BMG is about like shooting a coyote with a .308, but you won't hear people talk about that being unethical or that it should be illegal, though you will hear that it is probably overkill.

Can't suck the eyes out of a coyote with a .308 near miss on a head shot. That I know from experience, LOL.

No, I personally don't like it at all.

I guess the key word in this is ethical. Which to me it doesn't seem ethical but that's a slippery slope to argue so I will leave it at that.

I think in time the State will draw the line on maximum caliber

Again, I said on Game Animals.

What about in 5 years and Barrett introduces their new 75 BMG??? Their moto can be "guaranteed to fully incinerate a deer from a mile".

What is not ethical? Will it cause too much suffering to the animal to be killed by more tissue damage?

Why do ethics change between game animals and non-game animals? That doesn't sound like an ethical decision at all. Ethics only apply to animals you like or care about based on an arbitrary determination of being a "game animal"?

Barrett came out with their .416 to thumb their nose at the states that have banned the .50. It’s not much smaller. Similar ballistics. Is that one okay? Where do we draw the line?

Well, as you can see I drew the line and said a 50 seemed unethical

Where do you draw the line?

I have decided to make no further comments about this post I do believe that commonsense will prevail.

So, any .50? Or just the BMG?

I don’t draw a line.

No lines will drawn by Sneaky!

I don’t think it should be illegal.

OTOH, I think hunters have every right to speak their mind about how we present ourselves to the rest of the non-hunting world.
No different than when folks express their disgust at all the TV idiots yelling “Boo-Yah!!”/giggling while a deer is still in its death throes, blowing up hogs with tannerite to laughter, and a bunch of other stuff. Heck, I could make a montage video from YouTube clips that would make even hunters blanche.
This one is a relatively mild example - yet most see it for the stupid exercise it is.

Nothing wrong with hunters expressing their opinions on fringe/goofy/stupid stuff and applying peer pressure.

It’s really not the fact that people kill stuff in lots of different ways that’s the problem - it’s putting it on video and laughing/celebrating/talking about “sucking out eyeballs”, etc. that’s the problem.

I don’t have a problem with expressing opinions about it. I did the same. I have an issue with people wanting to ban something just because they don’t like it.

I think this video produces negative PR for our sport. Absolute rubbish.

I think a lot of his TV shows and videos do exactly that.

Keith Warren is a tool. And a fool.

I personally think it's an attention grab and maybe a poor choice to put it on film and on YouTube, but I don't see it as being unethical.

I shot a deer in the head with a 130 grain interlock launched from my .270 and it blew the side out of her head eyeballs and all. A lot messier than what you see in the video.

That said I don't see need to use a Barrett .50 cal to shoot a deer for a film


But as far as being unethical or wrong, I don't think so

To me, “ethics” is not only about a particular action (though some actions are clearly unethical on their face), but also the motive(s) behind the action. I agree with you that the act in and of itself is not unethical (a shot deer is a shot deer - it doesn’t know it was shot with a .270 or a .50 Cal). IMO it’s the doing it for attention-grabbing purposes that drags this into the realm of unethical. I feel the same about many otherwise legal and even ethical acts.

Given that all hunting shows compete for attention and attempt to garner it by producing what they hope will be interesting content, pretty much all hunting shows become unethical under such considerations.

IMO most of them these days are. Their “interesting content” sucks.

If we are going to get into a discussion about ethics, you have to include in there a discussion about intent. Many "legal" things (shooting guns in legal places and in a safe manner) become murky when the intent of the process is investigated. Had this guy made this video with the intent to show a .50BMG could suck the eyeballs out of a deer, then I think we can all say he did it in an unethical manner as that introduces an unnecessary possibility for injuring a deer without a lethal shot.

Had he made the video with the intent to kill a deer, I think we all could agree a .50BMG is more than a reasonable killing machine, but the choice of ammo (FMJ) is less than desirable but should work no less than .243 or 22-250 in a hunting round.

In this case, it appears the video was made for a kill shot, which it did. After reviewing or editing, or whatever post-production efforts are done to video these days, he thinks he sucked the eyeballs out of the deer. This is ridiculous. The fact he makes the claim without further research to verify such a claim is even possible shows a level of ethics in the production world that would get most people fired from their job. However, since he is seemingly self employed, his viewership may suffer, but he will continue on in his quest to garner more viewers with outlandish statements and (?) poor hunting judgment calls. I say that last statement based on the reviews most give him on this thread as I have never heard of him until this post.

I got it. You don't like it, therefore it is unethical.

This is the BS I was talking about. I bet half the guys in the Army believe this trash bc some E7 told them it was true.

I could agree with that line of thinking about the attention grab

KW is all about attention grabbing since he fell off the face of the outdoor world earth. That CWD social media bs he pulled was pretty indicative of that and so was that last 5 minute segment on his old show that hand picked dumb viewer questions to produce fake outrage. It’s very similar to Hollywood/athletes. Their purpose is to entertain for the duration of a time slot, nothing more, nothing less.

Sad to hear that about Keith's show.

I haven't watched a hunting show in a long time, because the ones I have seen as of late have been atrocious, but in the mid 90's I love his show.

I think this is exactly what Keith Warren exhibited.

I've shot a 50 bmg a few times and I'm not impressed with it. It may be awesome at 1200 yards but it was about as much fun shooting it as shooting a 12 gauge with reduced recoil slugs

I'm thinking the .460 Weatherby should be the minimum for jackrabbits, turkey, hogs, and cull whitetails.

From what all I have read, I would rather shoot the .50 BMG than the .460 Wby. I’ll never shoot either though.

I did too. Not sure what happened, but he went off the reservation. Seemed to be about the time he got ahold of that ranch outside of New Braunfels.

First thing I said when he shot it was eyeball shot. I've shot a Barrett 50 about 25 times or so. Used to work with a guy that bought one. It's an amazing firearm but suck the eyes out of a deer? No. It wouldn't even knock over a half quart milk jug setting a foot away beside the one I shot. It does some damage to a watermelon though. Fun gun but to expensive to own and shoot alot.

I dun dilly dilly sucked them eyes balls straight out this here deer...stupid bubba. Senseless overkill with absolutely zero respect for the animal he was firing at. Sigh, this dude gives decent hunters a bad name.

Killing a deer is killing a deer, its the same amount dead with a 50BMG as it is with a .270. Plus he wasted no meat.

He looked to be no less than 150 yards out. Had he hit vitals (which was probably what he was aiming at) he would have absolutely obliterated that deer. Probably would have wasted a lot of meat. 50BMG isn't the right tool for the job, it's reckless.

I can’t agree with any of that.

Me, either.

Any of y'all dove hunt w a 10 gauge?

Doubt it but it's like some of y'all can't understand why some think it's wrong.

It's legal, let it rip son.

It goes beyond that.

Now I can't wait for some ding dong to remind me that they see nothing wrong with a 50 BMG blasting a 90 lb doe, wait maybe 75 soaking wet

Dead is dead!

I can see why some would think it’s impractical, but why is it wrong? I’ve yet to hear an acceptable explanation of that.

I don't look at it as wrong if you can consistently DRT the animal. I look at it as stupid, impractical and nothing more than an attention grab on video. When he trolls it on video, he's trolling for likes and comments, so now I've made my comments and I personally don't like it. To each their own if it's legal.

about as wreckless as this attempted explanation

So last night I was hog hunting with the thermal shotgun combo. Shooting 300 grain slugs at a blistering 2000 FPS. Had a hog walk next to me in the woodline while sitting behind a cedar in the dark. I had to kneel down to get a shot. Anyways I missed but the vacuum created by that giant slug sucked this small boars lungs right out one of the pores in his shoulder.

What I find reckless is the lack of research to show the explanation he gave on video was just not possible. For him to go back and watch the video and come up with that explanation would get someone in media or some other outlet fired. That’s the reckless part of all this.

Shooting a deer in the vitals with a .50bmg FMJ would likely waste no more meat than the shot he took on that doe.

Looks like he barely creased the doe across the brow to me. Enough to crush the eyeballs, sinus cavities, and fracture the skull enough to fatally concuss the brain. This effect would have likely been similar with any of the commonly used high-powered deer rifles. I wish that darn log weren’t in the way so we could see more of the post-impact effects. What a coincidence.

The video still comes off as rather tasteless in my opinion.

Now, see, that’s a a fair statement.

50 shoots round hole in paper at 100 yrds would rather shoot a deer with a 50 than a bow and arrow

Killing something for the sole reason of an attention grab is wrong.

I won’t argue that.

So his motives are wrong. That’s a separate issue from the rifle, itself.

Sure. The rifle is just another prop in the “stupid” show.

That works.

The B&C Fairchase site posted this video now and wrote a whole editorial....

Link????

http://www.huntfairchase.com/as-seen-on-tv/

Shooting a deer in the head with a .50 bmg is more ethical than intentionally shooting a deer in the "high shoulder" with any caliber you choose.

Well, this thread has officially gone off the deep end.

Just trying to understand why shooting a deer that results in an instant kill and zero meat loss is considered unethical.

Yet if someone blows a 3" hole through an edible portion of a deer with a .30 caliber weapon or smaller and said deer undoubtedly feels some sort of pain for several seconds no one has a problem with it.

Never realized you could kill a deer too much.

The point is valid, but to say one is more ethical than the other is out there.

And a true high shoulder shot kills instantly, rendering no pain.

Bullsnot

Unless the animal goes unconscious with the shot, there will be pain. The animal will experience the sensation until the oxygen is starved from the brain. Fortunately, it will be a quick death.

They do go unconscious. The spinal cord is severed.

With shock I doubt they feel much pain

Unless you miss by just a little ( an inch or two) and leave the deer, wounded and faceless to suffer and starve to death. A body shot to the vitals has MUCH more room for error (5-7 inches maybe) while remaining lethal.

I can see this argument from both sides. A vitals shot offers a larger kill zone. I think sometimes people rely too much on this or just have a really poor understand of anatomy. Plenty of deer are wounded or crippled by folks relying on that extra room for error. They fail to drop the animal and have poor tracking ability or incentive and so just leave it to die injured. Plenty of folks fail to recover deer they shot "through the vitals." Plenty of gut shot deer that suffer and either starve or die of sepsis.

It is the responsibility of the hunter to know his/her capabilities and to act accordingly. Too many don't, regardless of where they are aiming.