That's it in a nutshell...and a good place to end this whole mess, IMO. No one asked me though, so I guess this is going to be the Thread-that-wouldn't-die-of-the-year.

Indeed.

Troll would be someone on a sock account that was purposely here to upset you. Most people are just flat out not agreeing with you and stating their reasons why, no one here (I think) really cares if you are upset or not about it since it's just shooting at some paper and you've presented your beliefs which are technically correct across the board.

Post on 4chan a bit, you'll see what a troll is.

?

Yes, it pays to practice at any range that you might shoot at. Educated guesses are just that - guesses.

I've been a subscriber of the MPBR method based on velocities published on the box of ammo and then would sight my rifle in 1.x" high at 100 (or higher if longer MPBR was desired) as suggested on said box of ammo, HOWEVER, I had no way of verifying actual elevation at ranges beyond 100...probably like most hunters. Since then, I've learned the dialing method and have changed nearly all of my scopes to FFP mil-mil and I prefer the Christmas tree type reticle for elevation/windage for holds without dialing. This is fun for me and opened up the door to longer ranges and more precision. That said, my 7mm hunting rifle still wears a Leupy with Boone & Crocket reticle but I now have confirmed where it hits in relation to the reticle elevations and have taken an elk at 373 and Aoudad at 370 with it and no plans to change. I would never have attempted these shots previously with the guestimation method.

Moral of the story is that both methods have their places and I think JG was simply trying to demonstrate the error/difference in published/estimated data vs. actual/demonstrated.

Exactly, Tim.