Originally Posted by BuckeyeSpecial
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by BuckeyeSpecial
While that 105 VLD did it this time, it ain't much of a bullet statistically out of a 243 at near 800 yards to do it 10 times out of 10, or even 5 times out of 10 in a very experienced hand with those yardages and wind conditions.


I am interested in the �statistics� you speak of concerning the .243 Win/105 VLD. Could you post findings as your �statistics� are contrary to mine? I have only seen a dozen or so elk killed with the 243 Win/105 VLD so my sample is not overly large.

The 243 Win/105 VLD is a proven elk killer in the hands of a decent shooter. While this is getting out to edge of my comfort level with the combo another friend of mine killed her bull elk this year at 760yds with one shot through the shoulder.

Originally Posted by BuckeyeSpecial
Read what Greg Rodriguez of Shooting Times magazine has to say of this type of shooting, with far larger calibers than the .243. And, he never met AlabamaEd.


I was not aware you spoke for Greg or that he has a problem with my video. As he is a forum member here did you have a discussion with him over PM? cool

Originally Posted by AlabamaEd
Originally Posted by Moses
Great video. It amazes me how many people will tell you what they just saw can't be done, and the reasons why. Tim Tebow can't win in the NFL either. smile


Ya it can be done although the vid appears to be shopped.


AlabamaEd,

You sure are a peach.



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.


Who let the idiot in?