Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 270 Win w/130 gr.

Wow. And this from a guy who wants to lecture us on the "scientific method." Tell me more, professor.



That's not what I said. I said you think you're an expert. And I also said you like to comment on things you know nothing about as if you were an expert. Which is nicely demonstrated by the first quote above.

Or by the past thread on using drones to locate game, you remember that one? The one where you opined at length that drones should be allowed for spotting game and relaying the information to hunters on the ground, because you were against any "new regulations" that infringed on our rights? Remember that? You were ignorant of the fact that using aircraft to spot game and relay the information to hunters on the ground was already illegal, had been for some time, and for good reason. It's no secret and any responsible hunter knows the regulations.

Ignorant of the facts, yet you chose to flap your gums anyway. "Ignorance in action" is a pattern with you.






Funny, I don't recall ever arguing about any of those things. Because they're not worth arguing about, just drivel, cliches you read somewhere, most likely Outdoor Life. Maybe Field & Stream?

smoke,

Tell me the difference between drones and spotters who use electronic communication to inform guides where game is.

The fact is I don't have enough info about drones to proffer a definitive opinion. Neither do you. You think you're expert. But that's what bud will do to you. It'll give you an unrealistic opinion of your abilities.

I'm through with you. Your mind has been burned out from too much of your legal bud. You're deep in a hole and digging furiously. You have contributed nothing remotely intellectual. You demand that your opinion be taken as gospel when it's nothing more that unsupported opinion.

Here's a thought: put your shovel down and try thinking.

Drones are aircraft, and aircraft are illegal for spotting game, Professor. I'd think someone so well-versed in a fact-based profession and the scientific method could easily discern that fact. Apparently not.





That much is evident, but it didn't stop you before. Why stop now?


And by the way, your continual references to marijuana are telling. Ad hominem attacks are a reliable indicator that the person making them has no arguments or logic left, so thanks for making that clear.

Congrats on the buck! I'm heading that way a week from tomorrow. Are you keeping the velvet on or stripping it? I vote on...

I have no personal experience with the .270 Winchester. Never have fired one. I've heard they're like feather boas and Cher.

A good friend of mine knows a lot about them, elk, and the 130 grain Sierra Game King. He's killed 19 Bulls with that combination.

He's married

Married to a woman or man?

Being married doesn't necessarily mean the opposite sex these days, at least in some states!

Yep, a woman.

They live and work at a facility around Ogden, UT founded by a Genius.

I think you know him

Ah, yes! I believe I do.

He hunts for a living. Pisses me off!

A learned man (such as yourself) would actually know what empirical evidence really means. You obviously don't know and you are not going to fool anyone.

Knowledge you gain from observation or experimentation (AKA: finding [bleep] out for yourself). Results can be garnered by shooting into media or game therefore they are empirical. Or do you still think people like JB just pull schitt out of their azz just to "sell" magazines...
To be "scientific", the method must be based on empirical and measurable evidence. such as shooting into media and/or big game animals, developing/testing loads, etc, etc.

Anything else you have to offer, Professor?

Rick,

Yeah, people who hunt for a living tend to generate that kind f feeling! And I have yet to meet one of those hunters who would rather be, say, a stockbroker.

Yep, congrats on the buck..And as for the elk, these ARE the good old days.

Where you headed pointer?

Pointer, the velvet is still on, but it is kind of thin and I wore some of it off while getting him out.

Roscoe, the amount of elk in S Idaho and Wyoming right now is absolutely absurd. Utah too from what I hear.Western Montana??? Not so much.

Pointer, I assume you will be hunting with our mutual friend?

Yep. I love my 270 winnys, but I shoot a magnum without issue, and shoot them often. They do work better at less-than-perfect angles on big, heavy stuff.

Hi CLB,

Well, let's take a look at where you might have lefted when you ought to righted; that way, you'll have a clue of empirical and anecdotal"

"Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.

Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid."

Taken from here.

So, before empirical data can be collected, we're gonna need a controlled environment, a criterion missing in blasting holes in media.

Then we have anecdotal evidence. Hold on. It gets better:

Anecdotal evidence has several definitions, which usually relate to how certain types of evidence cannot be used to logically conclude something. We see examples of this type of evidence all the time in commercials. A person tells us how their breath feels fresher after using a certain brand of toothpaste, or people testify to the clearing of their acne as a result of special products. This type of evidence is often used in place of clinical or scientific evidence, and may completely ignore research or harder evidence that points to an opposite conclusion.

Types of anecdotal evidence include claiming non-factual information based on the experiences of a few people, stories that would seem to contradict factual information, and word of mouth recommendations. This type of information isn�t always poorly intended or untrue, and we base a lot of decisions on anecdotes. For instance, you might want to find the best dry cleaner in town and ask a few friends to recommend someone. You usually don�t have time to perform true scientific testing on this by looking at a range of data.

We take other recommendations from non-experts all of the time. We may base our decisions about which doctors to see, who should baby-sit our kids, what travel agency we ought to use, or where we should stay on vacation solely or at least partly on advice. This advice usually doesn�t come from people who are qualified to give an expert opinion on the matter.

Taken from here.

Hence, when you tell me that chronic is better than Thai Stix, that would be anecdotal, for there is no attempt to control your smoke_bowling. See, when you find chit out on your own by comparing Chronic to Thai Stix, what you get in anecdotal. Were you able to control your smoke_bowling, you might be able to smoke up empirical data. Now were you able to develop a hypothesis and test for it with a control & text group, then you'd have cause & effect otherwise know as knowledge, which, at this time, you're suffering extreme paucity.

You mean, like word of mouth recommendations from your guide? What empirical data do you think he recorded when he made his scientific observations? Please expand on that, professor.



This quote proves that your moronity is complete. The reason people test bullets in media is precisely because all the variables can be controlled unlike in the field. Distance of the shot, velocity, consistency/density of the media, angle of impact, and so on. As someone so proficient in a "fact-based profession," you're terribly inept when confronted with actual facts.



I just realized you used the word "pus$y," I missed that the first time. Thanks for proving my point yet again, that's just one more example of you talking about something you know nothing about.

SansSouci:

Sounds like the extent of your research education is googling...

So please share with us what at what university you studied experimental design, and how many peer-reviewed scientific research studies you have had published.

I am really starting to like the 270 win as well. However, I've always had a magnum of some sort: 300 wby, 300 win, 338 win, 375 H&H etc... I get a kick out of shooting them and am utterly bored with the small stuff. Once again, for some of these guys to suggest you'll make a poor shot with a magnum and make a good shot with a small caliber rifle on game is just ludicrous. You put the crosshair on the vitals and pull the trigger. Same same regardless of what caliber of rifle you are shooting. A bullet in the guts with any pill is not good as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to hold it against anyone that can't handle a magnum caliber, but don't tell me I'm going to miss what I'm aiming at just because I pack one... Not directed at you 1deernut, but the sansucki types....

I shoot a ton of magnums, maybe not really big ones, but the 338 Win Mag and 35 Newton class rifles quite alot. There isn't much difference to me between those and my smaller bore rifles. You have to shoot them correctly and with good form. If you "limp wrist" them, they'll tear you up.

BSA,
Understood and I agree wholeheartedly. I own more rifles than one man should, and I shoot them all regularly. I've used magnums extensively to kill everything from crows and prairie dogs to bears and about everything between. I shoot magnums as well as I shoot 22 rimfires. Funny, the 3 guys I do the bulk of my hunting and shooting with do as well. I guess we are SPECIAL!