Gladiator
- Thread starter Rodngun
- Start date
I will make my usual preface statement before guessing. Folks are notoriously bad at providing weight estimates for 2D representations of 3D objects, especially in images where visual references points of scale are ambiguous and issues of camera angles and heights come into play. I used to have an image of 2 hogs under a feeder where there were 1' increments marked on the feeder poles. The hogs were very different sizes, but depending on where they were standing, the smaller one looked almost as large as the larger one and they appeared to not be very far apart. It was part of basically an optical illusion. The problem in guessing weights is further troubled by the fact that unless folks see hogs of known weight every day, they are apt to be poor (inaccurate) estimators of actual living hogs as well. An accurate guess/estimate in my book would be within 5%. Inaccurate would be more than 10% wrong.
Based on various visual clues in the image, it looks like it is not fully grown, is puffed way up, isn't filled out, so I would guess 140-150. I would not be surprised if you shoot this hog tonight and I am terribly wrong.
Based on various visual clues in the image, it looks like it is not fully grown, is puffed way up, isn't filled out, so I would guess 140-150. I would not be surprised if you shoot this hog tonight and I am terribly wrong.
This is when the 6" marks of the feeder legs would help.
every six inches above the ground a bit of paint or reflective tape gives a sense of scale.
Make sure it is not measured along the slanted pipe, just above the ground where the pipe intersects.
every six inches above the ground a bit of paint or reflective tape gives a sense of scale.
Make sure it is not measured along the slanted pipe, just above the ground where the pipe intersects.