The Shoot2hunt Podcast

[solarshooter]

I’m not sure how much more data you can expect to get when we’re talking about humans and human error shooting and killing wild animals in wild places where their own will to live. I would call threads like the 223 thread a peer review but don’t trust me I’m no scientist haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well what I'm getting at is there's a difference between a thread of pictures and testimonies, and an actual tabular set of quantified data that can be analyzed to make concrete, quantified statements. A good example of this is the 2024 Cold Bore challenge. There were several pages of pictures and first hand accounts (which is the necessary first step) from which it was impossible to draw a quantifiable conclusion. I went through all the posts and compiled a tabular data set, quantified lots of data, and did processing on it. I also shared the tabular data and all my processing methods for peer review. This yields actual meaningful numerical results.

So taking this back to Form and his data, when he makes precise numerical claims about differences in time to incapacitation, accuracy from different positions/scenarios, failure rates of gear, etc, and claims "hundreds of data points" to support those claims, I would expect he has a spreadsheet or notebook with lots of raw data written down that he is analyzing. But I have not actually seen this data or any real analysis of it.

 

[Axlrod]

Well what I'm getting at is there's a difference between a thread of pictures and testimonies, and an actual tabular set of quantified data that can be analyzed to make concrete, quantified statements. A good example of this is the 2024 Cold Bore challenge. There were several pages of pictures and first hand accounts (which is the necessary first step) from which it was impossible to draw a quantifiable conclusion. I went through all the posts and compiled a tabular data set, quantified lots of data, and did processing on it. I also shared the tabular data and all my processing methods for peer review. This yields actual meaningful numerical results.

So taking this back to Form and his data, when he makes precise numerical claims about differences in time to incapacitation, accuracy from different positions/scenarios, failure rates of gear, etc, and claims "hundreds of data points" to support those claims, I would expect he has a spreadsheet or notebook with lots of raw data written down that he is analyzing. But I have not actually seen this data or any real analysis of it.

Ronald Reagan said "trust but verify"
There is nothing on the internet you should blindly follow as gospel.

In science the key is "repeatable" - means that the same observations can be obtained whenever the same conditions and instruments are used—that is, any unbiased trained person can repeat the observations or procedures and obtain essentially the same results.

So you have all the information you need, to do your own testing. You don't need to see any spreadsheets or notebooks, in order to test your own stuff.

You will learn more about what happens when you pick a cat up by the tail, than reading about what happens when you pick a cat up by the tail!

All that being said, I personally do not need to see another Nightforce dropped or a picture of the insides of an animal shot with a 77 TMK to know that they work!

 

[RyanT26]

Well what I'm getting at is there's a difference between a thread of pictures and testimonies, and an actual tabular set of quantified data that can be analyzed to make concrete, quantified statements. A good example of this is the 2024 Cold Bore challenge. There were several pages of pictures and first hand accounts (which is the necessary first step) from which it was impossible to draw a quantifiable conclusion. I went through all the posts and compiled a tabular data set, quantified lots of data, and did processing on it. I also shared the tabular data and all my processing methods for peer review. This yields actual meaningful numerical results.

So taking this back to Form and his data, when he makes precise numerical claims about differences in time to incapacitation, accuracy from different positions/scenarios, failure rates of gear, etc, and claims "hundreds of data points" to support those claims, I would expect he has a spreadsheet or notebook with lots of raw data written down that he is analyzing. But I have not actually seen this data or any real analysis of it.

You’re an engineer, aren’t you?

Why don’t you go buy 20 farm raised elk.
You can line all of them up at whatever distance you would like, have them stand broadside, and then shoot them with whatever caliber and bullet selection you would prefer and you’d be able to have all the data you could work through your little spreadsheets.

 

[solarshooter]

You’re an engineer, aren’t you?

Why don’t you go buy 20 farm raised elk.
You can line all of them up at whatever distance you would like, have them stand broadside, and then shoot them with whatever caliber and bullet selection you would prefer and you’d be able to have all the data you could work through your little spreadsheets.

The difference is I'm not claiming to have a big database on terminal performance. Form is. Therefore he carries the burden of proof.

Again, the success threads are convincing and a lot of proof. But part of the impetus for people using 223s and thus populating a lot of the content was Form's repeated reference to a large data set he has. Which I have not seen.

 

[LongWayAround]

Q: For $500, something that is not interesting.

A: What is a spreadsheet.

 

[RyanT26]

The difference is I'm not claiming to have a big database on terminal performance. Form is. Therefore he carries the burden of proof.

Again, the success threads are convincing and a lot of proof. But part of the impetus for people using 223s and thus populating a lot of the content was Form's repeated reference to a large data set he has. Which I have not seen.

Are you an engineer? Never mind you are.
What is it about you people that you have to over complicate every thing you do? To compile the type of data you would need to make a spread sheet full of your near useless info. You would need a significant number of elk or other game of the same weight, body structure, temperament. All shot at near identical distances, shot angle, and conditions.

Or you can listen personal experiences and not overthink it. But no, you will choose to ignore the necropsies that have been done and all the other data that is out there because it is not on spreadsheet form.

If you disagree on ammo and bullets, go load up some ammo with some different bullets and go shoot a couple handfuls of deer. It’s not making a spreadsheet, but you will learn far more then you would by setting behind a computer making a useless spreadsheets.

 

[solarshooter]

Are you a engineer?

Yes. Relevance?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Yes. Relevance?

The relevance is about the same as the answer to your question, “who is Form?”


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Bluumoon]

The difference is I'm not claiming to have a big database on terminal performance. Form is. Therefore he carries the burden of proof.

Again, the success threads are convincing and a lot of proof. But part of the impetus for people using 223s and thus populating a lot of the content was Form's repeated reference to a large data set he has. Which I have not seen.

Again, data may not be available to public for any number of reasons. Data maybe some dudes personal notebook, would that be acceptable to you? Data maybe some one has exceptional memory.

The data set you seek and the methods needed to test it will literally never be approved for peer reviewed research on live animals

Retrospective analysis via the power of the Internet (or by medical Docs) is the best we can ever hope to achieve, or you can go back and find what researchers Form has identified, ie Fackler and find original research yourself.

 

[Bluumoon]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0733862705703461

Google scholar—-> Fackler

I’m stuck at my in-laws and would rather read this than go watch Seinfeld reruns

 

[Bluumoon]

This one sounds interesting, but I can’t get the full article

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wsb.311

 

[solarshooter]

The relevance is about the same as the answer to your question, “who is Form?”


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Nope. What I'm saying is valid regardless of my credentials, just as you've argued is the case with Form.

Where we differ is that when I make specific, numerical claims, I show all my data and methods to back those up.

And I am not making recommendations on products and not disclosing a conflict of interest. Not saying Form is necessarily, but saying that the conditions are certainly there where he could be. And it raises some skepticism in me and many others.

 

[Miflatlander91]

I think the missed point is this is all information in the real world not in a lab or some controlled test all form has done is show his experience in the effort to get others to try and see for them selves. This is an Internet forum after all where we all like to be about different gear and our experiences are n the field we are also all perfectly capable of taking someone else’s experiences and trying them for ourselves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Nope. What I'm saying is valid regardless of my credentials, just as you've argued is the case with Form.

Where we differ is that when I make specific, numerical claims, I show all my data and methods to back those up.

And I am not making recommendations on products and not disclosing a conflict of interest. Not saying Form is necessarily, but saying that the conditions are certainly there where he could be. And it raises some skepticism in me and many others.

Exactly. Your credentials, like Form’s, are irrelevant here.

You are just a dude on the Internet who claims to be an engineer (and my observations of your “style” seem to confirm that assertion).

The only reason he could have to ask whether you were an engineer is so he could put you in that “category.” And possibly thereby gain some understanding of why you are so obtuse, pedantic, and want to see spreadsheets, but admittedly that is an assumption on my part as to what he was thinking.

If you can’t understand why no one is going to make a huge spreadsheet of hundreds upon hundreds of post mortem pictures of deer and elk, I don’t know what to say to you.

Honestly, it’s potentially a bad enough “look” to have a giant thread full of such pictures that are available to anyone on the Internet.

It just isn’t that hard to accept that there is enough evidence to support the hypothesis that a bullet which makes a wound channel that is approximately 2” in diameter and extends at least 14” is more than sufficient to kill a deer or elk in a relatively short amount of time, assuming proper shot placement.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Axlrod]

Nope. What I'm saying is valid regardless of my credentials, just as you've argued is the case with Form.

Where we differ is that when I make specific, numerical claims, I show all my data and methods to back those up.

And I am not making recommendations on products and not disclosing a conflict of interest. Not saying Form is necessarily, but saying that the conditions are certainly there where he could be. And it raises some skepticism in me and many others.

Well you could always test some bullets on the dead horse you refuse to stop beating!

 

[RyanT26]

Yes. Relevance?

I knew it. See my edited post.

 

[RyanT26]

Well you could always test some bullets on the dead horse you refuse to stop beating!

To be accurate data for the spreadsheet, he would need us statistical significant number of dead horses.

 

[solarshooter]

The data aspect is trivial and yes maybe I'm being pedantic/semantic. The potential for conflict of interest is more significant to me.

 

[RyanT26]

The data aspect is trivial and yes maybe I'm being pedantic/semantic. The potential for conflict of interest is more significant to me.

What potential conflict of interest. Do you believe he owns Hornady, Serria, and is producing 115 nose ring dtac’s?
As well as SWFA, Nightforce, trijicon, and is the designer of the one maven that passed the drop test?
He or she ( it’s 2025 we can’t assume gender) seems to recommend things he or she has found it work, and then follows it up with go do your own tests?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The data aspect is trivial and yes maybe I'm being pedantic/semantic. The potential for conflict of interest is more significant to me.

How can there be a conflict of interest if the bullets he is promoting are “the ones that are heavy for caliber and prone to upset?”


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”