A Plea for Direct Experience

[twall13]

One thing that I always hate when reading through reviews is "It's the best I've ever used." with no other information, that statement is useless. Without telling us what else you've used it isn't helpful.

If you've only shot a few types of ammo, maybe Remington Core Lokt is the best you've ever used. Without qualifying your background and experience, that statement rings hollow to me.

That said, I wouldn't doubt I've probably said it myself a time or two in the past so I do appreciate this reminder.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Ucsdryder]

One thing that I always hate when reading through reviews is "It's the best I've ever used." with no other information, that statement is useless. Without telling us what else you've used it isn't helpful.

If you've only shot a few types of ammo, maybe Remington Core Lok is the best you've ever used. Without qualifying your background and experience, that statement rings hollow to me.

That said, I wouldn't doubt I've probably said it myself a time or two in the past so I do appreciate this reminder.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk

Inside 200 yards core lokts are the best I’ve ever used. Or at least as good as anything I e used.

Don’t talk crap about corelokts, I bet they’ve killed more animals than any other bullet out there. I remember my dad buying me boxes at Walmart for sub 10 bucks. I killed a lot of stuff with the things!

 

[twall13]

Inside 200 yards core lokts are the best I’ve ever used. Or at least as good as anything I e used.

Don’t talk crap about corelokts, I bet they’ve killed more animals than any other bullet out there. I remember my dad buying me boxes at Walmart for sub 10 bucks. I killed a lot of stuff with the things!

Haha, I wondered if that would get a reaction. I've killed a few animals with them myself. Your response is a good illustration though, you put a qualifier in your statement of "inside 200 yards". That's not a blanket statement. Still doesn't tell me what else you've used but it at least provides more info. and depth.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Radford]

Haha, I wondered if that would get a reaction. I've killed a few animals with them myself. Your response is a good illustration though, you put a qualifier in your statement of "inside 200 yards". That's not a blanket statement. Still doesn't tell me what else you've used but it at least provides more info. and depth.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk

Agree. Please provide a detailed description of every animal you have shot with corelok.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I appreciate the sentiment here.

I don’t think there’s much needed on the side of enforcement; this is more of a self-policing thing for sure.

One point that’s mentioned a few times and something that CAN be done is asking for those qualifiers or context, which does not have to be super confrontational. Nights in the field, shots/animals seen with X thing, catastrophes, you name it. The people automatically offering that are already a model for how to do it.

 

[bradmacmt]

If this rule could be enforced rokslide traffic would drop so much all the sponsors would have to head for 24hourcamp fire!

Only if they're selling geritol and adult diapers...

 

[twall13]

Agree. Please provide a detailed description of every animal you have shot with corelok.

First one was a raghorn elk at 45 yards frontal as it came out of the trees walking towards me. One shot and he dropped in his tracks and never moved again. Second animal was a small mule deer forky. I spent about 10 minutes with my cheap binoculars trying to make sure he actually had antlers at 150 yards before shooting him. I put two in him but one would have been enough. Last was another raghorn elk as I was still hunting through the timber, probably within 40 yards as he ran past me. He went about 20 yards more and died. All three were with 180 gr. PSP Core Lokt from a Savage 30-06 in my youth before experimenting with other ammo. It's what my dad always used and what I grew up on. Never shot an animal I didn't recover with it, but I also only shot those three animals using it. 100% success rate still doesn't make it the best I've ever used in every situation.

You probably didn't actually want a response here but I'm bored sitting next to my son while he is doing his hunters safety test so why not. I was really just using it as an example to illustrate my point in the previous post. I'm far from an expert on bullets and have killed fewer animals in my life than a lot of the guys on here. Point being, give some background if you are making a "best I've ever used" claim.

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Marbles]

There is a balance to it. Example, the person who insisted that another poster couldn't question a mountain goat being bullet proof to ELDMs due to ice and shale matted into the hair unless he had killed one.

Another example, already brought up in this thread is 223s. I hunt with a 223. So, can I tell anyone who hasn't to stop questioning the effectiveness?

Sometimes insisting on direct experience is simply a way of gate keeping and protecting group think.

The more important thing is that people honestly assess the basis of their beliefs and don't have more confidence in them than they should and don't belittle others.

The quick drop thread shows a prime example of two S2H graduates being unable to explain something, but belittling those who respectfully present a different opinion. Regardless of who is correct on the topic, that behavior is what creates group think.

Experience is also its own form of bias, it can and does teach bad habits. This is particularly true for low feedback, high risk decisions. Did you get lucky, or did you actually make a good decision.

 

[dallas.kc]

When writing about your experience with a piece of gear or to answer someone’s question just simply state some qualifiers to your response, someone who used a piece of gear on one hunt can have legitimate (but limited) experience.

Example: a new member replies to a question about a particular shelter. “It did the job for me when I used it on my ___hunt. We had better than average weather so I can’t say for sure how it would do extreme situations. This was my first floorless shelter, and I spent what I thought was a lot of time adjusting the guy lines”. To me that sounds honest, and my take away would be that their lack of experience with that type of shelter may have made it seem more cumbersome than it was.

I definitely understand what you’re saying here. I think the issue though is that when someone describes their experience, they don’t know what they don’t know. Even to say “we had better weather on average so I can’t say for sure how it was in extreme conditions” requires that the person even knows enough to know what “average” or “extreme” conditions are.

I think about guys hunting the Midwest whitetails the last couple years from out of state. Met a guy from Florida a few years ago. He comes to the Midwest and thinks “man haven’t been seeing much I wonder what the deal is, seems like the conditions are perfect”. Meanwhile my buddy and I are joking about having to learn how to hunt coues deer because it’s been way hotter on average than normal. The guy is from Florida, so the temp in the Midwest is probably mild compared to where he’s from.

Next thing you know somebody asks about hunting the Midwest from out of state and he comments “in my experience it’s a pretty tough hunt, covered a lot of ground on ridge tops and found oaks dropping acorns but no real sign of any deer, they must all be on private”. His experience is true but he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, the conditions weren’t ideal.

For the record the Midwest is extremely hard to hunt and there are no whitetail, they all live on private and you will get homesick, so probably best to stay home…I’m sure it’s the same out west lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fngTony]

I definitely understand what you’re saying here. I think the issue though is that when someone describes their experience, they don’t know what they don’t know. Even to say “we had better weather on average so I can’t say for sure how it was in extreme conditions” requires that the person even knows enough to know what “average” or “extreme” conditions are.

I think about guys hunting the Midwest whitetails the last couple years from out of state. Met a guy from Florida a few years ago. He comes to the Midwest and thinks “man haven’t been seeing much I wonder what the deal is, seems like the conditions are perfect”. Meanwhile my buddy and I are joking about having to learn how to hunt coues deer because it’s been way hotter on average than normal. The guy is from Florida, so the temp in the Midwest is probably mild compared to where he’s from.

Next thing you know somebody asks about hunting the Midwest from out of state and he comments “in my experience it’s a pretty tough hunt, covered a lot of ground on ridge tops and found oaks dropping acorns but no real sign of any deer, they must all be on private”. His experience is true but he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, the conditions weren’t ideal.

For the record the Midwest is extremely hard to hunt and there are no whitetail, they all live on private and you will get homesick, so probably best to stay home…I’m sure it’s the same out west lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good points. In my example that would’ve been a good place for follow up questions. If that person responded with, “ I have hunted this area several times, just out of a truck camp. This is my first time backpacking in and using this type of shelter.” Then that would give me the assumption that they have seen different weather in the area. Otherwise they’re just going off statistical data, or basing the weather off of what they live in as you had stated.

 

[7mm-08]

While I agree with the premise of the original post, one has to understand that Rokslide is, after all, the Internet. People like to weigh in on all kinds of stuff they read and I can guarantee that the administrators of this site (if they have real skin in the game in terms of financial interest) strongly disagree with what you are advocating, which (in practical terms) is the reduction of communication/traffic. Here's where I come down on this subject - if people are well intentioned and they post, I can live with it. Even if they are trying to relay an opinion or something they observed that their great uncle Ned had happen to him. What I can't get on board with is people who post things to stir the pot or lack other than good intentions.