Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters How is Optimum Game Weight Calculation done?

Lee???

Number of shots fired and distance traveled are not anecdotal. Even if people didn't measure the distances exactly with a tape measure, there is a better than decent probability that with the size of the study, any errors in measurement would average each other out (some would underestimate and some would overestimate). Also, there is no reason to believe that there would be any bias in distance errors tied to what cartridge a person was using. Bottom line is, just because the study/survey doesn't support your ideas about adequate elk hunting cartridges doesn't make it invalid.

I disagree, a survey of hunters as to the range and effect on the animal are anecdotal, and it's far from a controlled study. To be a controlled study there has to be a control group or at least control over the conditions. Human nature being what it is, you could ask 8,000 sport fishermen how big their catch was and conclude fish are much larger than scientific sampling had shown. Every hunter starts out thinking their gun and load are sufficient and that carries over into their survey answers. People are skeptical of killing power formulas, but seem more than willing to believe the results of such studies.

Seems to me that you missed Mac�s point. It�s obvious that a shot in the right place is lethal. In the military it�s known as the golden BB. Problem is that the odds of getting such a shot go down with range, game movement and obstacles. I�ve personally seen a badly misplaced gut shot on an elk at 600 yards with a .370 Sako Mag that took the animal down, and while it didn�t dye immediately, it never got up. With a 30-06 there would have been a wounded animal heading for cover. I know it�s a controversial topic, but massive injury anywhere in the body can cause the onset of shock that kills even with all the vital organs intact. It�s similar to how blunt trauma kills.

More power is good as long as you can still hit the kill zone. In some real-world cases it mean the difference between an animal that goes down and stays down and one that runs off. Maybe you have to be an engineer to understand that.

There is nothing (nada, zero) subjective about how many shots were fired and how far the animal went after it was hit, and the large (vast?) majority of the animals taken in the Swedish survey were one-shot kills, further simplifying the issue. The question of how far the animal traveled after it was hit is objective, not subjective, with a one-shot kill.

you mention a badly misplaced gut shot, and then turn around and claim that more gun is better as long as the vitals are hit...

it's not that one needs to be an engineer to understand such things... maybe to believe them???

you said that with a 30-06 the elk would have escaped wounded... more likely the shot would have been better placed...

No, I completely understood MacLorry's point, and it isn't supported by the evidence. There is no requirement for a big magnum or magic bullet (or golden BB) for North American ungulates. Massive quantities of empirical evidence has proven that a big magnum is not needed for elk, contrary to what the "Optimal Game Weight" formula might indicate. You might talk to people who have been on multiple dozens of elk harvests and get their opinion on super-magnums rather than rely on an example of one (an example of one meets the definition of anecdotal). Engineers should have an open mind and view the full body of evidence objectively, not try to selectively exclude data that doesn't support their biases.

If you saw the diplomas and license on my wall, you would know that I am quite capable of understanding things that "you have to be an engineer to understand." Even if I wasn't an engineer, there wouldn't be any reason to be arrogant (because I don't know any engineers who are perfect, and I know a lot of them)

A 10 year old girl with a 223 caliber handi rifle can thumb her nose with complete impunity at the OGW formula and all the anal retentive engineers or more likely want to be engineers that believe life and death can be reduced to a mathematical formula.

Where in the OGW formula do you plug in "bullet construction" the single most (in my opinion) significant advance in the firearms industry in 50 years.

You say there�s no need for big magnum�s, but no one has cited any study were game was purposely shot in non-vital areas to measure the effect of different calibers. No doubt that would be unethical. So are you saying it makes no difference how large a caliber is used when a shot goes bad, that a 6.5x55, 30-06, or a .375 H&H will all have the same pitiful effect?

SInce I have shot Deer with a 375 H&H magnum, I can asure you that they do not make up for poor shot placement

I don�t think anyone is disputing the need for good shot placement, but in the real world, poor placement happens. Assuming poor placement, are you on the record of saying it makes no difference how large a caliber is used, that a 6.5x55, 30-06, or a .375 H&H will all have the same pitiful effect?

There are too many variables in my experience to claim that a bigger caliber is going to save the day with poor shot placement.

A liver shot animal is going to die no matter the caliber of the bullet, but not instantly. All of the bodys blood runs through the liver, so bleeding out is a certaintly

I'm working off Mule Deer's description of this study and there's no point arguing without more information. You seem to have more details. Can you provide a link to this study?

Too many variables dude a gut shot deer is a gut shot deer, a butt shot deer is a butt shot deer. Shoot your next deer square in the butt with your 30-06 and report back to us. Just don't call me to help you find it.

If you think you can count on this sort of thing to repeat reliably over any cross section of shots,or any number of animals,I'm afraid you're mistaken......

I see you turned the question around rather than making the claim that bigger calibers don�t have a greater chance of killing with a misplaced shot. There�s also a spectrum of misplaced shots including everything from being just a bit outside the kill zone to nipping the tail. I doubt anyone can backup the claim that larger caliber�s don�t increase the odds of a kill with a shot some distance outside the kill zone.

It�s not a matter of counting on it, it�s a matter of having some extra capacity when things go bad.

I doubt that anyone can back (prove) up the calim that bigger calibers increase the odds of a kill outside the kill zone. I have animals die with shots outside the kill zone (no vitails hit) and they didn't move and I have seen then run with wounds large enough to for two fists with bigger cartridges, which is the opposit of your position

No one I know would purposely make a bad shot, but it does happen and I�ve seen how a larger caliber puts the animal down even though no vitals were hit. Use too small a caliber and it will be you who�s tracking a wounded deer when the inevitable bad shot happens.

Guess it�s just a matter of opinion then. Some here believe extra power is a good idea and bring it along. I don�t see where that�s wrong.