I expect this level of proofreading from liberals, not from normal people. My revisions below are a little better:
Some hunters know that when facing a long downhill shot angle they are getting hitting slightly lower than normal. That’s because gravity [gravity's] pull is greatest on objects that is are [grammar fixed, but the science and math are incorrect and confusing] parallel to earth. And so what this means is that a bullet fired at an angle won’t drop as much as one fired over level ground. But surprisingly this also means that a bullet will strike fire higher [?] when shooting up hills as well. Of course how much higher a bullet will hit is a product than the distinctness [I don't know how to fix this one] of the hill and the range to the target.
I try not to be the grammar Nazi on discussion posts here, but articles should have higher standards. While covering an important point, the writing on this one was a bit much for me. The errors both distract from the main point and reduce clarity.
“Product of ‘distinctness’ and range”
LOL...pardon me, gotta go buy a new “Distinctness Meter.”
It appears that this article was created with a speech-to-text app. This sort of technology is not always friendly, especially if a “writer” totally blows off the proofreading work.
It is not being a grammar Nazi to note that much of this article is literally unreadable. It is an example of something I have noted before, you cannot actually determine whether the author even knew what he was trying to say since what he wrote is meaningless.