Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
Yeah, Brian, everything you say is true, but I have to modify or disagree somewhat.....
First, the part about the vital zone not being round - you suggest that works in your favor, which it can, but it can also work against you on the edges of the zone which are "less than round" if you will, rather than "more than round", as you seem to assume will always be the case.
Next, if one is after pronghorn or up, what you say is true - but what about African Dik-dik or Duiker? They might have an 8" wide vital zone.
Finally, most importantly - and this isn't set in stone by any means but it makes sense - the way *I* personally do things is this when it comes to PBR/MPBR, and target size: I take whatever the vital zone/ target size is actually, and reduce it by 2" (1" on all sides), to account for field conditions. There's theoretical target size at the bench; then there's actual field condition target size. I define "field conditions target size" as actual for the game sought less 2", to account for a tiny bit of human error. You still have to make an excellent / nearly perfect shot if it's long range, but this makes it at least more realistic and more ethical -it safely allows for a slight bit of parallax error due to a weird hold and/or fast shot, and slightly bad hold.
So if say, a moose / elk / deer / pronghorn target size is 16 / 14 / 12 / 10 at their smallest points on the circle (i.e. plus or minus 8 / 7 / 6 / 5), I subtract to 2" to determine my PBR/MPBR for a given rifle/load, or 14 / 12 / 10 / 8 (or plus/minus 7 / 6 / 5 / 4). So I'd find my + or - 7 for moose, down to + or - 4 for pronghorn. BWT, I am a big fan of the PBR / MPBR concept & use.
But regardless, I suppose you're right that their claims aren't actually "fibbing" - they do have a basis in fact; I was wrong. They're perhaps puffery, but well within the range of acceptable puffery for North American large game, rather than fibbery. (unlike most gun industry claims, ha ha)
First, the part about the vital zone not being round - you suggest that works in your favor, which it can, but it can also work against you on the edges of the zone which are "less than round" if you will, rather than "more than round", as you seem to assume will always be the case.
Next, if one is after pronghorn or up, what you say is true - but what about African Dik-dik or Duiker? They might have an 8" wide vital zone.
Finally, most importantly - and this isn't set in stone by any means but it makes sense - the way *I* personally do things is this when it comes to PBR/MPBR, and target size: I take whatever the vital zone/ target size is actually, and reduce it by 2" (1" on all sides), to account for field conditions. There's theoretical target size at the bench; then there's actual field condition target size. I define "field conditions target size" as actual for the game sought less 2", to account for a tiny bit of human error. You still have to make an excellent / nearly perfect shot if it's long range, but this makes it at least more realistic and more ethical -it safely allows for a slight bit of parallax error due to a weird hold and/or fast shot, and slightly bad hold.
So if say, a moose / elk / deer / pronghorn target size is 16 / 14 / 12 / 10 at their smallest points on the circle (i.e. plus or minus 8 / 7 / 6 / 5), I subtract to 2" to determine my PBR/MPBR for a given rifle/load, or 14 / 12 / 10 / 8 (or plus/minus 7 / 6 / 5 / 4). So I'd find my + or - 7 for moose, down to + or - 4 for pronghorn. BWT, I am a big fan of the PBR / MPBR concept & use.
But regardless, I suppose you're right that their claims aren't actually "fibbing" - they do have a basis in fact; I was wrong. They're perhaps puffery, but well within the range of acceptable puffery for North American large game, rather than fibbery. (unlike most gun industry claims, ha ha)
Last edited: