The Shoot2hunt Podcast

[bmart2622]

Damn!! @solarshooter, you just got owned son!!!

 

[Dobermann]

Damn!! @solarshooter, you just got owned son!!!

Nope.

Just given friendly advice. For free, even!

 

[bmart2622]

It might not have been in spreadsheet format but that sir, was well done!!

 

[stan_wa]

I do have some pretty good spreadsheets on bullets

this guys is a speed sheet nerd. ive seen em

Just given friendly advice. For free, even!

I think you Response was friendly and respectable a good way to disagree agreeably

i Imagine there are people who do know form personal just like there are people that know Solarshooter personally. I think via the shooting schools and shoot to hunt events form attends lots of rokslide people could vouch for his character an integrity or lack there of. A the end of the day it seem @solarshooter s main concern is if there is conflict of interest. My guess is that form would have been exposed if the said conflicts were substantial.

I know @solarshooter IRL and will say im certain hes not trying to damage anyone's reputation, he is just a sceptic who is more persuaded thru data than anecdote. I don't think its so crazy to question a conflict of interest, I however don't see a lot to be gained thru forms diverse endorsements.

 

[HuntHarder]

Mount up Formies, looks like he needs some defense again..... Why even address posts insinuating Form is lying about compensation? He has addressed this, I believe multiple times. He is a big boy, if Form feels he needs to address it yet again, I bet he will...

 

[Dobermann]

Mount up Formies, looks like he needs some defense again..... Why even address posts insinuating Form is lying about compensation? He has addressed this, I believe multiple times. He is a big boy, if Form feels he needs to address it yet again, I bet he will...

Speaking for myself, my posts weren't to "defend" Form, it was to invite @solarshooter to think about what he's saying.

And it looks like he's listening.

So we all have the option of contributing to civil discussion. Or not.

 

[solarshooter]

First, Form has spoken about certain Hornady bullets performing well, but not others - including specific ELD-Ms. Would this make sense if he worked for Hornady?

And while he's said some scopes (by SWFA and Bushnell, for example) have passed an eval, he's pointed out that other models by them have not. He's pointed out that Nightforce reticles aren't great for hunting. And he's pointed out that Maven, while having made one of the best hunting scopes so far (in the RS1.2) did this partly by accident, and have treated us with disdain since. None of that would make sense if he was paid for marketing by those companies.

These are all good points.

 

[Bsnyder]

Anyone catch the latest hornday podcast?

 

[Wiscgunner]

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 may "expect" other people to keep track of everything in their lives via spreadsheet but I also expect people to clean their a$$ after dropping the kids off at the pool but in real life not everyone does things they way we "expect" ourselves to do them. Less rigidity in life will help you live longer.

With that said I am actually very pleased to see you question the "data", although I think you are, as the meme says, "grasping at straws". Questioning the result is EXACTLY what we should be doing and precisely what Form has advocated for. However, there is a big difference between questioning the data and demanding someone else do the work for you. Please question the wild claims made on this forum as well as question the status quo but then share your results that prove or disprove those positions. Just as Form as done.

Which of Form's recommendations do you think are suspect? Make a list and test one then post the results before moving down the list to the next one.

Does Form "not suggest scopes that work"? Of course he does. It has been all out in the open that scopes get tested when bought or donated. So by not having tested every exact model and version of each and every scope made since the invention of optical aiming devices, Form has by default not recommended some scopes that were or are in existence that work. See the thread recommending scopes for Form to test. Donate a scope for Form to test. Buy a scope that Form might possibly, sort of, in some way, have overlooked and test it yourself via the publicly available protocol.

At this point until you find something Form has falsely recommended you have no argument.

So for your sake and the betterment of the community, please continue to question just as Form has but then please do share the results, just as Form has. In fact, if you think it could be done better then improve upon it whether it be sample size or spreadsheet format or whatever.

I look forward to reading your results in whatever format you wish to share them.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

The only bullets he reccomends AGAINST is monos of any brand.

That isn't actually true. He has stated the limitations of them and also stated examples when/where he will personally still use them. Example being pronghorn hunts for meat, monos get the job done perfectly fine and being its in the wide open and pronghorn are fairly easy to kill it doesn't matter if they run a little ways in view (FWIW in my experience they run very little even with monos). You don't loose them, they die in a reasonable timeframe, less meat damaged. Paraphrased.

His information isn't all or nothing on things. The use case matters.

 

[solarshooter]

You may "expect" other people to keep track of everything in their lives via spreadsheet but I also expect people to clean their a$$ after dropping the kids off at the pool but in real life not everyone does things they way we "expect" ourselves to do them. Less rigidity in life will help you live longer.

With that said I am actually very pleased to see you question the "data", although I think you are, as the meme says, "grasping at straws". Questioning the result is EXACTLY what we should be doing and precisely what Form has advocated for. However, there is a big difference between questioning the data and demanding someone else do the work for you. Please question the wild claims made on this forum as well as question the status quo but then share your results that prove or disprove those positions. Just as Form as done.

Which of Form's recommendations do you think are suspect? Make a list and test one then post the results before moving down the list to the next one.

Does Form "not suggest scopes that work"? Of course he does. It has been all out in the open that scopes get tested when bought or donated. So by not having tested every exact model and version of each and every scope made since the invention of optical aiming devices, Form has by default not recommended some scopes that were or are in existence that work. See the thread recommending scopes for Form to test. Donate a scope for Form to test. Buy a scope that Form might possibly, sort of, in some way, have overlooked and test it yourself via the publicly available protocol.

At this point until you find something Form has falsely recommended you have no argument.

So for your sake and the betterment of the community, please continue to question just as Form has but then please do share the results, just as Form has. In fact, if you think it could be done better then improve upon it whether it be sample size or spreadsheet format or whatever.

I look forward to reading your results in whatever format you wish to share them.

All, despite how I may sound via pure text here, I do have a soul and a sense of humor. I don't "live my life by spreadsheet", in fact I make many decisions trusting my gut and intuition rather than raw data. But, and this is a big butt, you CANNOT make specific numerical statements about datasets without actually building and analyzing the dataset. The only way I know to do this is by querying a table of numbers. And I can't tell you how many times the conclusion of that real analysis is "counterintuitive" - that is why I bother doing it and why it's so interesting to me. I think the shooting domain really suffers from a lack of disciplined analytical methods - this is how we end up with so many myths and meaningless testing practices.

So please all understand where I'm coming from here. My comment about spreadsheets and tabular data was really specifically referencing the fact that Form has alluded to large datasets and specific numbers he has extracted from those datasets, but I have not seen those datasets. I'm not asking for anyone to do more work, I'm saying that this data he references has not been shared. That is all.

And yes the points about his praise AND criticism for various brands and how that is not indicative of typical paid marketing are fair. And yes the fact he has not tested every product in the universe does not constitute a bias or conflict of interest. I am really just saying that the way he spends his time and his experience base are so atypical that I wonder how he can do it. I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation that will make me smack my forehead and say "of course", but I haven't heard it yet.

 

[id_jon]

I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation that will make me smack my forehead and say "of course", but I haven't heard it yet.

He was the pizza boy that was paid 10,000 bitcoin in the first btc transaction and now is giving back to the community

 

[PBBananaHammock]

All, despite how I may sound via pure text here, I do have a soul and a sense of humor. I don't "live my life by spreadsheet", in fact I make many decisions trusting my gut and intuition rather than raw data. But, and this is a big butt, you CANNOT make specific numerical statements about datasets without actually building and analyzing the dataset. The only way I know to do this is by querying a table of numbers. And I can't tell you how many times the conclusion of that real analysis is "counterintuitive" - that is why I bother doing it and why it's so interesting to me. I think the shooting domain really suffers from a lack of disciplined analytical methods - this is how we end up with so many myths and meaningless testing practices.

So please all understand where I'm coming from here. My comment about spreadsheets and tabular data was really specifically referencing the fact that Form has alluded to large datasets and specific numbers he has extracted from those datasets, but I have not seen those datasets. I'm not asking for anyone to do more work, I'm saying that this data he references has not been shared. That is all.

And yes the points about his praise AND criticism for various brands and how that is not indicative of typical paid marketing are fair. And yes the fact he has not tested every product in the universe does not constitute a bias or conflict of interest. I am really just saying that the way he spends his time and his experience base are so atypical that I wonder how he can do it. I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation that will make me smack my forehead and say "of course", but I haven't heard it yet.

You don’t seem to be a bad actor, just someone who favors logic. I think text is doing you a disservice because there are so many happily indoctrinated people with an agenda looking to discredit contrarian results on this site.

I wish more people who follow the “conventional wisdom “, advocating big bores and magnums as the One True God, would follow your methodology. A little more spreadsheets/data, and a little less chest beating fuddery.

Not saying you should drink the Rokslide koolaid blindly… but I will say my favorite flavor is blue, and it’s so sweet you can eat the sugar off the bottom with a spoon.

 

[BjornF16]

Anyone catch the latest hornday podcast?

Basically: “Your group size is too small”

12 Uncomfortable Truths:

#4 - There are no velocity nodes (if you think you see velocity nodes, your sample size is too small)

#6 - Accuracy (dispersion) nodes might exist, but you can’t take advantage of them (small sample sizes lead to false nodes)

#7 - Bullet groups don’t get smaller down range (smaller groups down range are a result of small sample sizes)

#10 - The mean point of impact varies group to group based upon true dispersion (100 shot group) and the square root of shots fired. 20-30 shot group for zero recommended

#11 - True dispersion varies from group to group and there’s not much you can do about it (no replacement for sample size)

 

[Bsnyder]

Basically: “Your group size is too small”

12 Uncomfortable Truths:

#4 - There are no velocity nodes (if you think you see velocity nodes, your sample size is too small)

#6 - Accuracy (dispersion) nodes might exist, but you can’t take advantage of them (small sample sizes lead to false nodes)

#7 - Bullet groups don’t get smaller down range (smaller groups down range are a result of small sample sizes)

#10 - The mean point of impact varies group to group based upon true dispersion (100 shot group) and the square root of shots fired. 20-30 shot group for zero recommended

#11 - True dispersion varies from group to group and there’s not much you can do about it (no replacement for sample size)

Yup you got it, and the fact that the made mention of the drop test saying it’s not the scope it’s the groups being too small

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

There is a a pile of 223 bullets he said will work but just arent optimal.
The only bullets he reccomends AGAINST is monos of any brand.

He actually has recommended the Barnes LRX in some scenarios where a hunter wants to minimize blood shot and meat loss. So that means he is even willing to compromise depending on circumstances. Sure sounds like a consipracy to me. SMH...

 

[Reburn]

He actually has recommended the Barnes LRX in some scenarios where a hunter wants to minimize blood shot and meat loss. So that means he is even willing to compromise depending on circumstances. Sure sounds like a consipracy to me. SMH...

That isn't actually true. He has stated the limitations of them and also stated examples when/where he will personally still use them. Example being pronghorn hunts for meat, monos get the job done perfectly fine and being its in the wide open and pronghorn are fairly easy to kill it doesn't matter if they run a little ways in view (FWIW in my experience they run very little even with monos). You don't loose them, they die in a reasonable timeframe, less meat damaged. Paraphrased.

His information isn't all or nothing on things. The use case matters.

Yall are both right. I had forgotten he reccomended those.

 

[BjornF16]

Yup you got it, and the fact that the made mention of the drop test saying it’s not the scope it’s the groups being too small

Yes and no…

Yes from an average user perspective who is using 3/5/10 shot groups to zero.

With @Formidilosus using a 30 shot cone zero for the test mule, I don’t think their comment applies

 

[Bsnyder]

I want to see Seth back on the podcast to hash this drop test out.

 

[Dobermann]

I want to see Seth back on the podcast to hash this drop test out.

Isn't Seth the "marketeer" who usually hosts the podcast, who can't help but hype things up and name-drop Hornady at any chance, even if irrelevant, and who often doesn't seem to appear to know what he's talking about?