Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
300 win mag at 1000 yards for elk
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="orifdoc" data-source="post: 2042695" data-attributes="member: 115070"><p>In WWII the navy did a study to find out why their planes were so vulnerable to enemy fire. They studied the patterns of the bullet hits on returning fighters and determined that the wings, body, and tail had an enormous number of holes. They set out to reinforce these areas until someone realized that the areas that really needed reinforcing were the areas where they rarely saw bullet holes - the engine & cockpit. Planes hit there weren't available for study.</p><p></p><p>I guess my point is that, scientifically, it's easy to draw incorrect conclusions from incomplete data sets. Pretty much everything said in this thread, so far, is anecdotal evidence. That's OK, and sometimes it's the best we can do, but there isn't much room to be so sure about what we think we're seeing. Probably the truest statement is that there isn't a bullet that is perfect for all situations. The whitetail hunter in heavy timber draws different conclusions than the elk hunter hunting high, open ridges.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="orifdoc, post: 2042695, member: 115070"] In WWII the navy did a study to find out why their planes were so vulnerable to enemy fire. They studied the patterns of the bullet hits on returning fighters and determined that the wings, body, and tail had an enormous number of holes. They set out to reinforce these areas until someone realized that the areas that really needed reinforcing were the areas where they rarely saw bullet holes - the engine & cockpit. Planes hit there weren’t available for study. I guess my point is that, scientifically, it’s easy to draw incorrect conclusions from incomplete data sets. Pretty much everything said in this thread, so far, is anecdotal evidence. That’s OK, and sometimes it’s the best we can do, but there isn’t much room to be so sure about what we think we’re seeing. Probably the truest statement is that there isn’t a bullet that is perfect for all situations. The whitetail hunter in heavy timber draws different conclusions than the elk hunter hunting high, open ridges. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
300 win mag at 1000 yards for elk
Top