Never insinuated newbies were dipschitts, so I don't know where that comes from.
I've introduced and mentored more than my fair share of kids to shooting/hunting over the years and have a fairly good understanding of what it takes to go from "this is a gun" to being a capable hunter.
Much of Petzal's article is true. There are many occasions where a .270 will be just as effective as a 7 Magnum.
His writing and choice of words wear the condescending tone of those in the "know", which seldom makes newbies feel at ease and often has the opposite effect in my experience.
Yet Petzal fails to mention applications where the 7 will have certain advantages.
His failure to include this makes me question his "objectivity" and commitment to help the uninformed that you mentioned in your post.
If knowing there are applications where the 7 will outshine the .270 makes me a campfire expert, all I can say is thanks and that I believe all aspects of a cartridge should be considered before passing judgement.
IME, having all the information let's the inexperienced make better decisions.
Just where does the 7 Rem Mag really excel over a 270? On big game at 800 plus yards? BFD. That's sort of like saying a 577 Nitro is better than a 458 Win Mag for shooting rhinos. Neither the 800 yard shot or killing a rhino should ethically or legally be done, so the argument is moot.
It's a better Long Range cartridge with greater bullet selection.
That may not be a BFD to you, but it is to some.
It's like saying 20 ft. of rope is just as good as 30 when you need to climb down a 30 ft. cliff.
So your comparison is moot.
No, it's not like saying 20 ft. of rope is just as good as 30 when you need to climb down a 30 ft. cliff. Terrible comparison. The difference is so slight that with comparable bullets, you're never going to see the difference in the field.
It's more like 20.277 ft. of rope vs. 20.284 ft. of rope. Both are enough for the job. If they aren't, you either need a lot more rope, or you're a poor climber.
