Originally Posted by BuckeyeSpecial
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.



The way I see it, you're the one making the assertions here, namely that the cartridge/bullet/shooter is inadequate to consistently kill elk at a given distance.

So the way I see it, it's up to you to provide data to support your assertion, not the other way around.

So where's your data?

Also, the way I see it, whether Burns has 10 kills to his credit or one kill to his credit, those are data points and you have zero data points. If Burns has less than a sample of 30 (10), and you want to call his data statistically insignificant, what do you call your data set with zero data points?


Besides, what are your credentials as a long-range hunting or precision shooting expert? Aren't you the one who opined on another thread that choosing the right sized bushing for a bushing die depended on the diameter of the "chamber's respective neck size??" I've only been re-loading for a few years, but even I could see the error in that.



Originally Posted by BuckeyeSpecial

Likely the most benefit withe Redding Neck Bushing Dies as they accomplish just the right amount of neck sizing once you have determined your chamber's respective neck size; this allows for longer case life, consistent neck tension, a more exact fit, thus better accuracy [in theory].


A wise man is frequently humbled.