I've always enjoyed David's wit, but a few recent posts on his F&S blog have me wondering how much real world experience the guy really has.

First he eluded to the fact that variable scopes are just about as reliable as fixed powers.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...-suppressors-and-the-ideal-elk-caliber-1

Now I guess in David's defense, he does state that he's only broken one scope "because" it was a variable, but that still seems like a strange statement.

Then he said that the .325 WSM would not be well suited for killing elk at 500 yards. My thoughts are, if you can't hit an elk with a .450 BC bullet (Nosler Accubond) at 2900+ fps at 500 yards, the problem lies not in the cartridge.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...und-copper-bullets-and-gadgets-gone-wild

Now again, in David's defense, he points out that .338 bullets are better, which is true. And he doesn't exactly discount the .325. But he seems to be discouraging the reader from using it. I agree the .338's are better LR elk rounds, but I don't think the difference shows up at the 500 yard mark.

Has the guy spent more time at the keyboard than the trigger?


Originally Posted by shrapnel
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle.


Originally Posted by JohnBurns
I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.