The Shoot2hunt Podcast

[Billogna]

I had never heard of the term Fudd until I had seen it posted here on Rokslide last year sometime. Do people actually use it in real life speak?

110% YES!! Guys that say things like "the lords caliber" and "9mm might expand but 45 don't shrink" and "TWO WORLD WARS!!" and just about any other "gun facts" like these are Fudds. I think it mostly started as tongue in cheek all in good fun. And then the Fudd's feelings got hurt.

 

[LONE HUNTER]

I can see where JVB is coming from. He's apparently a very capable marksman and doesn't need a soft recoiling rifle to shoot well enough. And he likes having the ability to reach the vitals from any direction.

I mean I get it. But if JVB was thinking about his audience and took a trip to a public rifle range he might think deeper about recommending the latest magnum to your average shit kicker hunter.

I think most people would be best served with 30-06/.270/.308/6.5 hipster and there abouts or smaller.

Too many people suck at shooting the big boomer (referring to noise, not you old timers) cartridges to be as mainstream as they are.

But at the end of the day, I don't really care what people shoot.

 

[Wiscgunner]

I had never heard of the term Fudd until I had seen it posted here on Rokslide last year sometime. Do people actually use it in real life speak?

 

[Archer86]

 

[4th_point]

Badass. And a proofing scope will be involved also I’m assuming? Like drop one, have it pass, and then drop the other, and it is what it is type of thing?

Dude... we aren't rookies. There is always a control. LOL

Ryan “Bush League” Avery

That's a legit question about "proof" scope as I don't recall seeing a 30-round group in some scope evals, along with evidence for the drop portion, showing the proof rifle/scope system holding zero.

That's all part of the posted procedure, right?

Was it actually done for each scope evaluated?

If so, you may benefit by updating the posts for credibility purposes.

If not, an explanation should be given. It may suffice, depending on justification.

Evidence of mounting is missing in some evals. You should consider documenting the mounting used.

Bush League might be a bit harsh! But the reporting could be improved. If only to establish credibility with those that are critical of the efforts.

I appreciate the efforts, but hopefully you can see how these points raise doubts? Especially with people that do similar activities for a living. Get the basics right, first, otherwise expect criticism.

 

[littlebigtine]

Joseph von Bushleaguedikt, hows that for a pen name!

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

That's a legit question about "proof" scope as I don't recall seeing a 30-round group in some scope evals, along with evidence for the drop portion, showing the proof rifle/scope system holding zero.

That's all part of the posted procedure, right?

Was it actually done for each scope evaluated?

If so, you may benefit by updating the posts for credibility purposes.

If not, an explanation should be given. It may suffice, depending on justification.

Evidence of mounting is missing in some evals. You should consider documenting the mounting used.

Bush League might be a bit harsh! But the reporting could be improved. If only to establish credibility with those that are critical of the efforts.

I appreciate the efforts, but hopefully you can see how these points raise doubts? Especially with people that do similar activities for a living. Get the basics right, first, otherwise expect criticism.

There is a whole dedicated thread explaining the aims of the evaluation and procedure that is linked in the individual evaluation threads. Have you read it?

Some of the early individual evaluation reports had more visual details and later tests are more short hand saving the writer and us readers the redundancy of how this “standard evaluation” is being conducted.

 

[Reburn]

That's a legit question about "proof" scope as I don't recall seeing a 30-round group in some scope evals, along with evidence for the drop portion, showing the proof rifle/scope system holding zero.

That's all part of the posted procedure, right?

Was it actually done for each scope evaluated?

If so, you may benefit by updating the posts for credibility purposes.

If not, an explanation should be given. It may suffice, depending on justification.

Evidence of mounting is missing in some evals. You should consider documenting the mounting used.

Bush League might be a bit harsh! But the reporting could be improved. If only to establish credibility with those that are critical of the efforts.

I appreciate the efforts, but hopefully you can see how these points raise doubts? Especially with people that do similar activities for a living. Get the basics right, first, otherwise expect criticism.

A rifle doesn't have to be proofed before each scope if it was already proofed with that ammo lot.

Nobody wants to see a very long post with a swfa 6x drop test in every scope test post. It would make it way too complex to follow.

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

rokslide.com

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

A rifle doesn't have to be proofed before each scope if it was already proofed with that ammo lot.

Nobody wants to see a very long post with a swfa 6x drop test in every scope test post. It would make it way too complex to follow.

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

rokslide.com

And to head off the folks that don't bother to read the thread:

"If the scope losses zero, then the whole drop eval is repeated. If it loses zero again, then the proof scope is remounted, zeroed, and drop checked to ensure the rifle isn’t at fault. When the rifle and proof scope are proven again, the test scope is remounted, rezeroed and the drop eval repeated. If it fails the third time, it is noted and no further drop evals are conducted. Depending on use, either the scope is deemed a failure and removed from evaluating, or if still semi functional is zeroed and used for normal purposes noting when issues arrive."

 

[Reburn]

And to head off the folks that don't bother to read the thread:

"If the scope losses zero, then the whole drop eval is repeated. If it loses zero again, then the proof scope is remounted, zeroed, and drop checked to ensure the rifle isn’t at fault. When the rifle and proof scope are proven again, the test scope is remounted, rezeroed and the drop eval repeated. If it fails the third time, it is noted and no further drop evals are conducted. Depending on use, either the scope is deemed a failure and removed from evaluating, or if still semi functional is zeroed and used for normal purposes noting when issues arrive."

Which is what happened to the mark4 HD and why it passed with a heavy astitsk.

Also why he starts at the 18-20 or lower depending on the manufacturer specs on ring torque. Even though values below 20 it's pretty well known scopes can slip. But that way the manufacturer can't invalidate the test due to improper ring torque.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Which is what happened to the mark4 HD and why it passed with a heavy astitsk.

Right and then the subsequent riding in the vehicle testing didn't inspire confidence.

I mainly wanted to add the above because I can absolutely see someone lazy reading your statement about not having to proof the rifle before each scope and just running with that tidbit thinking that was the gotcha moment.

 

[huntnful]

There is a whole dedicated thread explaining the aims of the evaluation and procedure that is linked in the individual evaluation threads. Have you read it?

Some of the early individual evaluation reports had more visual details and later tests are more short hand saving the writer and us readers the redundancy of how this “standard evaluation” is being conducted.

A rifle doesn't have to be proofed before each scope if it was already proofed with that ammo lot.

Nobody wants to see a very long post with a swfa 6x drop test in every scope test post. It would make it way too complex to follow.

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

rokslide.com

Oh I absolutely agree. But this is a very small niche community that is even aware of the tests in general. Let alone every detail about them. A youtube video that will reach the general population of hunters/shooters will need to be very in depth to bring and prove legitimacy to the test for those seeing it for the first time for sure.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Oh I absolutely agree. But this is a very small niche community that is even aware of the tests in general. Let alone every detail about them. A youtube video that will reach the general population of hunters/shooters will need to be very in depth to bring and prove legitimacy to the test for those seeing it for the first time for sure.

A detailed video added to the general description thread seems fine. That other person wanted all that detail in each specific evaluation which is inefficient with everyone's time and only perhaps helpful to those too lazy to click the link, but would those lazy folks even read what was written if it was in the thread?

 

[huntnful]

A detailed video added to the general description thread seems fine. That other person wanted all that detail in each specific evaluation which is inefficient with everyone's time and only perhaps helpful to those too lazy to click the link, but would those lazy folks even read what was written if it was in the thread?

Ohhhh I see!

I just wanted it in the viral YouTube video to eliminate lots of questions.

I read everything on here in depth that interests me. I absolutely believe the tests are fully valid.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Only thing jvb has got going for him is he doesn't hide his voice and he puts his real name out. Why would he say a forum name on a podcast? the exo guys don't hide behind a forum name and voice cover up like form

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the voice changer but isn't the point of all this that who he is doesn't matter? Even if he's a 16 year old from England and doesn't even own guns, we live in reality. Game animals are not undiscovered creatures whose anatomy we're guessing at. We know what a bullet has to get through depending on what angle the shot comes in at and where it hits. And we know what bullets do when they hit animals. So we can figure out what cartridges/bullets are "enough gun".

 

[mother_plucker]

This is hard to listen to. He is talking about new hunters / kids and making sure they have "enough" gun. I can speak on this personally. giving a kid a rifle that has more recoil they can need will teach them how to slap the shit out of the trigger. i still fight it

But he totally contradicts himself, his daughter shot a "6mm Creedmoor" and killed the dear dead.. and good grief, we all now it is a 6 "mm" or a 7 "mm" he doesn't need to say it every damn time....

All of his examples were on dead animals, so how was the bullet not effective? Think I am done with his podcasts... (really been done for a while with them)

 

[GoatPackr]

Voice change is really no big deal.
You do realize their are people with jobs that don't allow them to have public profiles or need to keep photos or voices discreet as not to compromise their identity.

 

[Formidilosus]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the voice changer but isn't the point of all this that who he is doesn't matter? Even if he's a 16 year old from England and doesn't even own guns, we live in reality. Game animals are not undiscovered creatures whose anatomy we're guessing at. We know what a bullet has to get through depending on what angle the shot comes in at and where it hits. And we know what bullets do when they hit animals. So we can figure out what cartridges/bullets are "enough gun".

Thank you for using a logical and critical thought process.




“Who” someone is, is as useless as the “title” that someone has, or has had in the past.

A very large problem with our society is that we have went way too far into wanting to be told what is “right” by an “expert” instead of education ourselves on the subject enough to separate the factual from the belief, and the data from the opinion.

Maybe “Formidilosus” is school bus driver, maybe he is the worlds greatest sniper, maybe he is a plumber that hunts and shoots a lot, maybe he is none of those things, and maybe “he” is multiple people- none of it matters. “Who” someone is doesn’t change how wide a deers chest is, how much muscle on top of a “shoulder an elk has, how deep a bullet penetrates, how wide a wound a bullet makes in tissue, how fast an animals dies, or whether a scope holds zero- those are all factual, demonstrable reality that can and should be replicated and tested by “you”.


“Experts” who’s name you know and that love to tell you war stories all about their prior vocation that has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or technical subjects, have been factually incorrect at best, and generally outright deceiving you about factual things your whole life.

What is presented is data and information that anyone can go and replicate, perform the same experiments to the same standard and see for themselves.

“Who” someone is, is about the most uninteresting thing in the world as it has no bearing on reality except to mislead you. If “who” Formidilosus is, or what he is or what he maybe did or did not do before comes out, and then people start “believing” due to that- this entire thing will be an utter failure to me.

 

[nubraskan]

Unfortunately a lot of people (probably the vast majority of people) are either lazy, short on time, can't practically test things themselves, or just want a fast answer so they search out experts instead of vetting things out themselves. This relieves the burden of research for those people looking for an easier way out, and they can just defer every decision and feel good about it. Someone that does a well thought out experiment, posts the results, and gets enough views will be seen as an expert in a lot of eyes. Though, if the experiment goes against the grain that some other "experts" have built their reputation on, the established "experts" will obviously want to maintain their status and fight against the results in some way (especially if there's financial incentives involved). It's probably a minority of cases where they might actually re-evaluate their position publicly.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Unfortunately a lot of people (probably the vast majority of people) are either lazy, short on time, can't practically test things themselves, or just want a fast answer so they search out experts instead of vetting things out themselves. This relieves the burden of research for those people looking for an easier way out, and they can just defer every decision and feel good about it. Someone that does a well thought out experiment, posts the results, and gets enough views will be seen as an expert in a lot of eyes. Though, if the experiment goes against the grain that some other "experts" have built their reputation on, the established "experts" will obviously want to maintain their status and fight against the results in some way (especially if there's financial incentives involved). It's probably a minority of cases where they might actually re-evaluate their position publicly.

This is true across all industry. Look at the pushback new ideas and medications get in medicine and medical fields all the time. The big pharma cartels aren't about to let their cash cows get threatened by something cheaper and more effective (SWFA in this context).