This thread has become a poor showing of what I consider to be some wise, logical, and mild-mannered individuals. As a spectator, I see a guy getting gang-banged for saying he'd recommend a short-action rifle if given the choice. He made some offensive remarks, and apologized for it several times, but the recipients have responded with remarks at least as offensive, if not more-so. It's like a high school drama club in here, and Scott has capitalized on it.
We all have different preferences, and should be able to discuss and debate the different advantages/disadvantages like men, without resorting to name-calling and personal attacks over rifle preferences. Especially something as trivial as action length for a dedicated deer rifle that has no special application criteria like backpacking, extreme weather conditions, LR shooting, etc.
I've never carried or killed deer with a .243 (given an appropriate bullet) and felt like I wished I had a .280 instead. And visa versa, as well. Deer, even big deer like the ones we get up here, are just simply not that hard to kill, and don't require any special rifle to get the job done.
What I should have wished I had and really meant was while a person is going through the mental part of coming up with this "ideal" rifle...likely the one he we already have is fine...dreaming it up I can't see a reason to use a long action? Doesn't mean it's a bad choice I never entended for it to be took that way. Poor way for me to have written it(I'm not a professional). In my opinion if ordering a NULA for deer hunting I can't see a reason to opt for a long action. That's all I ever meant to imply.
