There are plenty of studies....if you have hunted and shot any significant number of BG animals, or witnessed them being shot,with a broad variety of calibers and bullets...... guys like Mule Deer,JWP,and many others on here have seen more than the ordinary number of BG animals killed with a significant variety of combinations....including both good, bad, and indifferently or marginally placed shots.
Those aren�t studies, they�re stories. Everyone has them and they don�t rise to the level of a �study�.
I find it curious that a guy with the experience level of Mule Deer is argued with and contradicted to the point he is driven off the thread,when he posts something on the subject,simply because his answers don't correspond with the pre-conceived notions of those who want a different answer.Likely, those advancing the agenda could not polish his boots when it comes to actually killing game animals and knowing what it takes.
As experienced as Mule Deer is, he�s not the only expert who has an opinion on the subject. In fact, many of the formulas came from vary experienced hunters who didn�t have an aversion to using numbers to explain the lethality of high powered firearms. Mule Deer says they are all BS and that settles the debate for many of his followers.
Mule Deer wasn�t driven off the thread by any nasty or personal insults, but by questions an �expert� should have answers to. Truth be known it was Mule Deer who implied that MacLorry�s profession of engineer was some sort of mental defect that prevented him from understanding the importance of shot placement, when in fact it�s that technical training that found the flaw in Mule Deer�s argument. Go back and look. Mac asked how Mule Deer knew someone was undergunned, and that�s when Mule Deer decided to leave the thread. Obviously, there�s an answer to that question, but it requires admitting some means of quantifying killing power, all of which was pronounced to be BS.
My general observation in all of this is that those bemused by numbers,killing quotients,and reducing killing effectiveness to quantitative measure tend to be the least experienced when it comes to actually killing game.They are constantly in search of the mystical, the magical, combination that will guarantee(to the extent possible)anchoring hits with sloppy placement.
Sounds like you�re promoting ignorance. We only have our modern society because some among us were able to measure and quantify the physical world. And yes, they are always in search of a better bullet, a better drug, a better source of energy, etc. Lets denigrate them for that.
The more experience a guy has the less value he places on such stuff,and the more likely he is to just grab something reasonable and go hunting,his last concern being whether he has enough power or not....he will be successful regardless of what he shoots within reason.......mostly because he knows how to do it,and also knows if an animal gets away wounded,it was not for lack of power, but lack of proper shot placement....no formula will make up for sloppy shooting.
Sounds like the lazy-man�s solution to me. Just tell yourself you don�t need to carry that heavy magnum because it won�t help if your shot is a bit off.
![[Linked Image]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/jwp475/HuntingPigsWithMarco005.jpg)
