I don't know that you can ever truly know-shoot two hundred elk and maybe you can close in on a legitimate opinion but you can never get rid of all the variables..
May take 2,000 and even then not be conclusive. Statistically, the smaller the difference, the greater the sample size required to establish a credible difference. And throw in the variables of shot placement, state of the animal (at rest or in the rut), etc, etc, like you pointed out.
IMHO, this is always going to be anecdotal and subject to each shooters experiences and biases. But, that's what makes it fun and will never allow it be a "science". Besides, science can be boring...
DF
