When you are tracking something in long wet grass, the kind where you cannot see your feet when looking down, and it's currently raining. Would you like to see 17% more blood?
How about just seeing blood period, from a hole that is just barley big enough to provide this for you? Speaking for myself, I'll take all the blood flow I can get when looking for something this big with the potential to change your view forever on recreational sport hunting.
You're still making false arguments.
17% more blood? As a constant? No way.
I've never shot a brown bear, I'll give you that. But I've killed enough elk to know that sometimes you get blood, sometimes you don't.
I killed a cow a couple years back that ran a good 50 years without spilling a drop of blood. I know because I tracked her through the snow. Rifle was a 300 WBY, bullet was one of your beloved Barnes. Bullet hit the top of the heart and exited accordingly.
A few years before that, I knocked one over just across the drainage. Used a 7STW and got both lungs. That one left a blood trail.
But by your math, elk #1 should have bled more.
Originally Posted by shrapnel
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.