@The grunt well...perhaps. But I disagree. Here we have a
minimum range with the urging from organizers to "push ourself" at or beyond our "MAXIMUM effective range". And zero consequences for missing, except possibly missing out on an additional drawing entry. All the incentives are pointing toward shooting beyond where you
know you have a very high odds of a vital hit. Yet, we have people trying to take the statistical success rate from the challenge, and use that to quantify the actual hit rates of people hunting...where at least many (most??) people consider the consequences of a wound, try to get closer rather than maxmise shot distance, etc. I fully support the premise of this challenge, I think even if people miss it is eye-opening--which I think is the purpose. BUT I think it's flat-out ridiculous to try to use the results of this challenge to attempt to quantify large-scale hit-rates while actually hunting. Even given that the shoot/dont shoot decision is hard in the moment sometimes, It's just not a valid comparison enough to assign numbers to real-life wounding rates--which is exactly how a few folks have tried to use this--based on this challenge.