Form struck someone’s nerve

[hereinaz]

Now, go listen to the previous episode where he and Seth from Hornady talk about the dozens of African animals killed with the 22 creed and arc

They even discuss how devastating the ELDx is at close range because it is highly fragmenting at high velocity—DRTing Africa game.

Not till the end does he interrupt Seth to say, but you shouldn’t use a 22 creed cause you might want to shoot the trophy through the paunch so you need to be over gunned.

I am down with people choosing what they want. There is lots of personal choice.

What Form and small caliber enthusiasts generally say “you can” shoot small caliber, 1) here is proof it kills and then 2) this is the benefit. We (I am a small caliber enthusiast too) freely admit limitations.

The issue is the status quo is focused on proving small caliber enthusiasts are categorically wrong.

JVB says categorically you can’t do xyz ethically. JVB is a true believer and clearly an industry insider. He claims evidence is cherry picked to justify preconceptions. I say that is what he is doing.

Reminds me of what Elon Musk set out to do with rocket ships. The establishment says “You can’t fire, land, and reuse a rocket within weeks” Elon said, hold my beer… SpaceX is dominating the industry.

 

[huntnful]

I just watched the EXO caribou hunt. Steve freaking pinwheels that bull at 600 yards, it goes 5 yards and loses its ability to stand on all fours within 20 seconds???

Not sure WTF JVB watched lol.

 

[Spoonbill]

I just watched the EXO caribou hunt. Steve freaking pinwheels that bull at 600 yards, it goes 5 yards and loses its ability to stand on all fours within 20 seconds???

Not sure WTF JVB watched lol.

Well if Steve had used a barnes bullet or (insert other sponsor) and a leupold scope (best warranty you will never need) that moose would have been dead in 10 seconds. Just need to apply jvb logic

 

[Pharmseller]

We all make assumptions. Sometimes it’s hard for us to question our assumptions, because it requires the ability (and willingness) to accept being wrong. Successful people don’t achieve by being wrong, so many successful people lack the flexibility to look in the mirror.

One trait of highly successful people is their ability (and willingness) to accept being wrong. This trait separates the successful from the highly successful.

Some of our assumptions are inherited. These are the hardest assumptions to question, because we are not only questioning the assumption, but also the people who gave us the assumption. Think about how hard it is to question something your dad taught you was true, but turned out not to be.

I was taught that the .30-06 with 180 grain bullets was the only rifle to hunt with. Anything less wasn’t enough and anything more was too much.

It’s hard to question, sometimes.





P

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

you might want to shoot the trophy through the paunch so you need to be over gunned.

Who cares about patience, marksmanship, restraint. BLAST’M!!!!

What a clown.

 

[WhatToHunt]

Apologies if it's already been brought up and memed, but all the pissant talk reminded me of the hit movie Corky Romano.

 

[Gynaroo]

Ok here is my opinion of the two different podcasts and their episodes regarding form. I made this after listening to all of JVB’s podcasts and rebuttals then going to listen to Steven and Marks speak with form. My opinions came listening to them in their entirety.

First both podcasts had great opinions and information that forces me as a critical thinker to evaluate each side. Both sides had personal attacks that were unnecessary and may have hurt each point.

We are looking critically at the conversations each podcast shared data. If this were the science world or academia their data sets would not pass the test because of the significant bias and no control or blinding. So we call both anecdotal or the lowest data point in the evidence. Do both have good numbers yes. But there is no blinding or anyway for them to get rid of their own biases.

Second. If we as the consumer can’t consume data that is contrary to our beliefs then we aren’t learning or becoming better.

Third. If we as a consumer can’t consume the data that is contrary to our points with out name calling the other side (ie fudd, insider, piss ant, fanboy, etc). Then this turns into a political battle of he said she said. A popularity contest. Rather then an educational opportunity to better our sport.

Ultimately form had lots of great points that I have to evaluate. Like why wouldn’t I use the weapon that is going to allow me to be more accurate and therefore deadly. JVB has many great points as well. Sadly this has turned into a name calling he said she said and not a lot of critical thinking. Passions getting in the way of critical thinking.

If we get past the hyperbole there is great information in both podcasts. Would it surprise me if they have had private conversations about this topic, absolutely not. It will be great to see them get together. I would caution them that, it shouldn’t be a political debate where emotions run high. If it does then both parties and the consumer lose. We get entertained but not enlightened.

 

[Mountainrancher]

Ok here is my opinion of the two different podcasts and their episodes regarding form. I made this after listening to all of JVB’s podcasts and rebuttals then going to listen to Steven and Marks speak with form. My opinions came listening to them in their entirety.

First both podcasts had great opinions and information that forces me as a critical thinker to evaluate each side. Both sides had personal attacks that were unnecessary and may have hurt each point.

We are looking critically at the conversations each podcast shared data. If this were the science world or academia their data sets would not pass the test because of the significant bias and no control or blinding. So we call both anecdotal or the lowest data point in the evidence. Do both have good numbers yes. But there is no blinding or anyway for them to get rid of their own biases.

Second. If we as the consumer can’t consume data that is contrary to our beliefs then we aren’t learning or becoming better.

Third. If we as a consumer can’t consume the data that is contrary to our points with out name calling the other side (ie fudd, insider, piss ant, fanboy, etc). Then this turns into a political battle of he said she said. A popularity contest. Rather then an educational opportunity to better our sport.

Ultimately form had lots of great points that I have to evaluate. Like why wouldn’t I use the weapon that is going to allow me to be more accurate and therefore deadly. JVB has many great points as well. Sadly this has turned into a name calling he said she said and not a lot of critical thinking. Passions getting in the way of critical thinking.

If we get past the hyperbole there is great information in both podcasts. Would it surprise me if they have had private conversations about this topic, absolutely not. It will be great to see them get together. I would caution them that, it shouldn’t be a political debate where emotions run high. If it does then both parties and the consumer lose. We get entertained but not enlightened.

Genuine question what were the great points that jvb made?

 

[ElPollo]

I don’t listen to JVB. His podcasts and his work with Ron Spomer tend to just recycle and repeat the same dogma that we’ve heard since the dinosaurs walked the earth without any critical evaluation.

 

[JF_Idaho]

Genuine question what were the great points that jvb made?

I would give him that when he brought up higher bc bullets giving you a better wind reading error for an accurate shot was a fair point.

 

[eric1115]

Well if Steve had used a barnes bullet or (insert other sponsor) and a leupold scope (best warranty you will never need) that moose would have been dead in 10 seconds. Just need to apply jvb logic

Nah, if he would have used a Barnes bullet out of a 7PRC and the moose died in 20-30 seconds, it would have been just another example of how tough these big animals are that it took so long to die despite using such an effective cartridge, and how they deserve better than the disrespect of shooting them with those smaller, marginal cartridges.

Exact same post shot behavior with a 22 cal bullet, and it's all of a sudden "on its feet for a long time" and clearly "not enough gun" for a clean kill.

 

[wind gypsy]

Higher BC bullets buck wind more. Bigger bullets of same construction make bigger wounds, penetrate deeper. Those are benefits. Not enough to make me want to hunt with magnums like I used to almost exclusively but they aren't imaginary either.

 

[Hnthrdr]

This has spiraled way out of control… guys we can still shoot, coyotes, bobcats, a lion if you lucky. Hell use whatever caliber you want…