---------------------------
BuckeyeSpecial
Personally I could give a rip what others hunt with as long as they kill and retrieve the animals that they shoot..
I use to work with three guys who are stupid enough that they'll take any shot that the animal will give them..
Two shoot a 7 maggie and the other a 30-06 which would probably meet the OGW criteria depending on range and bullet..
These clowns are not friends BTW and I gave them [bleep]..
I was just talking to a friend night before last whose friend witnessed a poke by another dough head (7 maggie) at and elk at 800 yds..
The elk walked but they have no clue as to whether it was hit or not as they couldn't find blood..
Maybe I am naive but I tend to think that most of the people that come to this site are responsible hunters..
I get that you don't feel that way and there is nothing that will change your mind..
Maybe Hammerdown/Randy has you pegged..
So have at it..
[/quote]
Nrut:
You are mistaken in your belief that I think "most" of the people that come to this site (or Long Range Hunting) are not responsible hunters; the majority are likely quite responsible.
My intent is to attempt to help the ones who aren't learn more about being responsible, ethical hunters. And the ones who ARE responsible can venture into setting limits (range/energy) for the rest.
I am attaching the response I wrote Mr. Burns today over at the Hunting Rifle Forum:
Mr. Burns:
You seemed to miss my point(s)...the 105 gr. 243 bullet has approximately 600lbs. of energy left at 700 yards [presuming the 3100 FPS Maximum velocity at the muzzle: source Nosler #4 Manual].
That isn't enough energy to kill CONSISTENTLY at that range.
Yes, one can HIT the target - like a steel gong - at that range, but that's not what I am talking about. I am pointing out that killing consistently is not likely, and is more UNLIKELY, using 600 lbs of energy.
The statistics I am referring to is the probability of any shooter doing so with that respective bullet at that respective range and respective impact velocity for 10 of 10 or even 5 of 10 attempts. It's NOT discussing using the .243 at ANY i.e. shorter range(s) to kill elk; we are discussing it's use at 700 yards...
One or two kills, are case studies, and not a controlled study.
A controlled study, typically with an N=30 or more, will allow for statistical significance , or no significance. So, even 10 consecutive kills is not sufficient for subjecting data to a t-test for significance. A survey of hunters [30 or more] who have done the above, not excluding the misses and wounded eld i.e. including them, will need to be conducted and the data sujected to analysis for significance.
Do you see where we are going...? (No GPS or range finder needed.)
In other words, if you have them, post 10 more consecutive elk kill videos from the same shooter with the same range and the same bullet. Then get 20 more, or a few less. Then, we look at analysis.
And, NO, I don't speak for Mr. Rodriguez, he spoke for himself in his recent article on limits to long range hunting (and NOT with small[er] calibers such as the .243.
I would be remiss if you have access to a better protocol than the Optimum Game Weight Formula (OGW) re lbs of energy need for consistent kills, then please introduce it. The OGW is proven superior to the Taylor Knockdown formula; neither one is perfect or without exception. However, statistics is about the rule and the exception...and what happens the most typically is the rule.
