Agreed, if a hunter can't shoot a gun well because of the recoil and blast, a gun with less of both is probably a better choice.
This is a fallacy. I have a 300 Weatherby, it shoots bugholes and of course if I couldn't shoot it, it wouldn't be shooting bugholes. I can shoot it just fine, same as my .375 Ruger, .358 WSM (that one recoils fast) and a .338 I sold not too long ago.
I just don't enjoy shooting those rifles as much as rifles chambered in milder rounds or toting them in the mountains for that matter. Especially during the kind of range sessions where you shoot enough to improve your skills.
So I shoot rifles I enjoy shooting. They kill just fine.
And while it's true that I could practice with the milder rounds and switch to the magnums for the hunt, I see no need to so I don't. It's not rocket science.
Your reading comprehension isn't what it needs to be.
The ability of many people to shoot well is significantly and adversely affected by increasing recoil and blast. Although many people can manage their reaction to heavy recoil and blast and limit the effect it has on their shooting, I don't know anyone who shoots better because of it.
If recoil and blast are preventing a shooter from shooting well, more of the same isn't likely to improve their shooting. Decreasing the cause of their failure will likely have a beneficial effect.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
