Originally Posted by RobF
I think Brian is probably the exception to the rule.
he seems to actually work with some data...
Now, I love a bit of data and a good chart but I could point you at at least 5 AA shooters that stand nothing like all the data in the books suggest, yet they seem to hit the targets in spite of that and with any equipment they pick up. Is that some kind of new repeatable luck?
Do you think the data would make any difference to them? My argument rests on they are objective because they don't know the data or care about it, their facts are what is the gun doing and what is the wind doing. Your facts while technical correct have no influence and seemingly aren't required, yet they just carry on winning regardless. They can still be objective, they're not influenced, I'd argue that it's actually automatic and reinforced via repetition. Another example could be driving a car, when was the last time you had to think about the actual mechanics of driving from one place to another?