Well I don't personally know the fellow and I'll take you word he is a swell fella, but if he is stymied by a 400yd shot I would not consider him much of an authority on rifles nor bullets.
I don't know him either. Maybe he could be both a hunter and a rifleman?
Not if he can not reliably make a 400yd shot in good conditions. Just the way it is.
Where did he say that? The piece wasn't written for him; he wrote it for others. If you think his generalizations untrue generally then you haven't been around average hunters much.
It was right there in the OP. The part where he said "I contend no one" would be construed by any sane person familiar with the English language to include himself.
Originally Posted by RinB
This just appeared in the latest SUCCESSFUL HUNTER. Written by a very well respected and experienced African PH. Finally, someone willing to state the obvious.
2. "If something is more than 350 yards away, I contend no one has any ethical business shooting unless the game is wounded."
To call that unequivocal statement a "generalization" is a misstatement on your part to try and bolster a failing argument. If you "feel" that the average guy should not shoot past 350yds I won't argue with you, as you are entitled to your feelings.
On the other hand if somebody wants to throw out ridiculous unequivocal statements I have been known to offer up my opinion, which might be in the form of an unequivocal statement.
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Not if he can not reliably make a 400yd shot in good conditions.
Just the way it is.
So there were no riflemen before long range became all the rage?
Reach has always been "all the rage".
All the major developments in rifles have come as an effort to extend the reach of the rifleman. I suspect there were a few who felt rifling was a fad and the 75 yd reach of their smoothbore was plenty.
To be, unequivocally, stymied by a 400yd shot is the mark of a duffer.
That would be my opinion in the form of an unequivocal statement some might find ridicules or possibly somewhat inflammatory.
While I am picking on the quotes could someone explain which "modern" bullets transformed the .270 Win and what happens when we shoot "less modern" bullets in the .270 Win.
By less modern I am referring to the kinds of bullets Jack O'Connor used on plains game in Africa or when my Dad was killing elk back in the 70s with the .270 Win.
I as sort of unaware that the .270 Win was previously unable to humanly kill plains game sized critters before "modern bullets".
I think I was a tad generous with the 60%.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
