First priority to me is accuracy- if you can't hit what you aim at, near and far, it really doesn't matter if you're shooting a Polaris missile or throwing a rock.
Sheister - the opposite is also true. Even when hitting the mark, inadequate bullet performance is going to ruin your day. And not on DG only either.
cmg, read my post and you will see that on-game performance is rougly equal to the first priority of accuracy....
I agree with JJ in that paying for an expensive trip like Africa (but could also include guided trip anywhere for that matter), it is only sensible to use the very best equipment. That is why I used Aframes for my African trip and I wasn't in the least disappointed to make that choice. The performance was spectacular, to say the least.
And, yes, I made a bad shot on a Wildebeest that took at least 4 long hours of tracking to find and finish off, just prior to an impending charge by the p.o'd animal. Time that could have been spent looking for the next animal in the bag. Luckily, my bad scope was easily replaced with a scope I had in QR rings and we were back hunting in no time.
In any case, I've found JJ to be as honest and analytical as can be when assessing equipment and as far as I'm concerned you can take his advice without reservation.
If I didn't already have a couple loads worked up for each of my big game rifles that have proven year in and year out to be very effective, I would jump on trying the TSX bullets in a minute just on the accuracy claims alone. Anyone who knows me realizes I don't mind spending money for an advantage of any sort. What I don't like is spending money for no real perceived value- which is why the original Barnes X bullets kind of make me wary of their bullets.
Or, maybe I'm just getting too old and cranky to change now.....
Bob
