I'm seeing pictures of deer shot through the scapula.Getting through the scapula isn't an issue but in the vast majority of cases,a hit in the scapula misses the vitals because most of the scapula sits above them.The exception would be a shot through the scapula taking out the spine or one at a very steep downward angle.It hit through the humerous is too far forward to hit vitals the majority of the time,unless the deer is quartering to you.I've had the opportunity to kill a lot of deer over the past 40 years and only ever hit a deer in the shoulder one time.I won't dispute that a heavy arrow with plenty of foc and a single bevel head will penetrate better.That's simple physics and that's what I would use if I were hunting pigs over a feeder at 15 yards.For the style of hunting I do for deer,it's not the best choice for me.
You said two things:
- there's no reason to shoot a deer in the shoulder. Since you're now trying to get specific, define shoulder, not using the statement "not the scapula".
- If you hit a deer in the "shoulder", 90% of the time you missed. Again, What evidence do you have to support this statement.
Then you're adding that getting through the scapula is easy, you want to see something getting through the humerus. There's plenty of documented cases of arrows going through deer humerus.
The shoulder is technically defined as the joint comprised of the scapula and humerus (add the collar bone for us apes). In general terms, most hunters define the shoulder as this joint, and all the accompanying soft tissue/muscle/skin attached to it. Saying that aiming and hitting one of these things is "missing" is not the same as aiming and hitting the other.
The general sense I get is that your opinion is if you're aiming far enough forward to hit either the scapula or humerus, you're not making an effective shot. In many cases, that could be true. But not all. But if you're implying that the best place to hit a deer is fully behind the entire structure of the shoulder (bone/muscle/skin), I'd like to know what evidence you have to support that statement.