The problem in these discussions is that people over-rely on physical intuition when dealing with populations, instead of math, specifically, statistics. At the physics level, an obvious difference in bullet drop or wind deflection or energy or cross sectional area or any other number of physical parameters often is of limited significance when discussing population effects. We see this all the time in pharmacology: some new drug has much greater receptor affinity than the old standard, or much better chemical properties, is promoted by the drug company therefore as as a dramatic advance—and in head to head population study in clinical trials there’s no significant difference in outcomes. The South Carolina Study is a good example. Out in the real world of deer populations, the different physical parameters of one caliber vs another were not statistically important because there are too many other relevant variables and confounders.
