I just finished Mr.Hoots article in the latest "Rifle" magazine. He writes about his idea of the perfect mule deer round and rifle. He makes one of the most astounding statements I think I've ever read. He wrote,"The 130-grain .277 bullet is not potent enough all the time for the biggest mulie bucks at ranges beyound 200 yards. Even 150-grain .277 bullets are marginal". Everyone is welcome to his own opinions but not his own set of facts. Mr. Hoots what were you thinking? That's just plain dumb.

Yep, the 300WSM is the prefered choice for deer now days. All you guys with Bobs, 243, or even `06s are risking major harm in place of a quick death on game with your pop guns.

Was it a n April issue? As in April Fools article?

I dont' know anything about Mr Hoots.

No such luck. It's in the May issue #244. He showed up after John Barsness left.

WOW, I guess that I was Hallucinating when I saw a 130 grain 270 bullet exit an Elk I guess they are not as tough as Mule Deer

It will be a couple of weeks before my issue arrives up here, but one can generally always remember that not all gun writers or editors have lots of experience actually hunting or shooting stuff.

Some that I have met and visited with, like John Barsness and Phil Shoemaker, turned out to have actual experience and knowledge. Others are possibly quite good at wordsmithing...

Having shot a few mule deer with cartridges smaller than the .270 (were I an actual gun writer, I would have inserted "venerable" in front of ".270" here. ) I find the notion that the .270 with 130 gr and 150 gr bullets is "marginal" to be pretty suspect.

YMMV...

Dennis

Hoots wrote for Western Outdoor News for a short while in Southern Cal., never really had any outdoor Savy just came out of school, I see he still hasn't learned anything, no surprise as it takes a special person to be a Gunwriter, time afield,understanding guns and how they work and so on, we have seen enough imposter's and wanna be's,, where will the next JB's come from?, don't throw away your works from Bob Hagel, Ken Waters, Finn Aagarrd and our JB, and the other Good ones,cause I'm afraid it ain't gonna get better.

That's some funny stuff. It's a freakin' deer!

This could be about the funniest hunting/shooting article I never read................this guy for real?

What a hoots. Some one should have told that to the mule deer I have seen have a confrontation with this exact bullet. I had no idea that a deer could die of fright so quickly.

Hoots is simply awful. Sorry if that offends anyone. This isn't the only devestatingly dumb article he's written, by the way.

I don't know about the funniest, but it sure reveals a lack of intelligence, common sense and experience. In light of the excellent selection of bullets and loadings available today, perhaps it is just plain old stupidity.

One more good reason to have let my Handloader and Rifle magazine subscriptions expire. That's kind of sad because I had subscribed to both since their inceptions.

M Bell

Or maybe not so good.

I would hope they would have at least one ability...

Dennis

Poor old Hoots...we already did 5 pages on that article last month. I didn't realize the online version came out so far ahead....But still, the article is pretty good humor and worth revisiting.
Lee J is a Hoot!

i read somewhere of an often used tactic by writers - which is to "stir the pot" by writing something unusual or out of the ordinary in order to draw attention to themselves. i seem to remember it increases "readership" for a while. true or not i don't know, but mr. hoots might be just pulling our legs.

I'm sure he has a good explanation...
Won't pay to find out.

Glad he doesn't scribble in Handloader.

Whew, I'm glad I am not the only one who hated that article. I did not want to keep reading it but I had to. Kinda like looking at a wreck. It's funny, last month John Haviland said you could kill an elk with a 257 Roberts and this month you need a 300 WSM for "big" mule deer.

Lately I have been reading some old Rifle and Handloader magazines. I saw in Rifle No. 223, January 2006 there was a poll of Rifle readers. It states the average number of firearms the average Rifle reader owns is 66. If Dave Scovill know us Rifle readers are gun nuts, why does he let articles like Mr. Hoots get published?? I sure miss reading Barsness articles where I could learn something.

I thik Mr. Hoots is smokin something. I've been shooting a 7MM-08 for everying but elk the past few years. I never knew how wrong or under gunned I was.

That's it!--Hoots is JB's alter ego!



Casey

It must be some pretty good stuff.....Better than anything I can find anyway..............(grin)

Holy cow!!! You mean all those mulies I've taken with 130's/150's with my .270 Win. fell over from a heart attack or just plain fright?! Best get me a damn bigger caliber! I'll keep my .270 for , uhh what?!

Call me a narrow-minded bigot, but I've never read his stuff simply because I've had a subconscious notion that someone named Lee J. Hoots can't be have much knowledge worth printing. Turns out my subconscious was correct I guess.....

After JB left Wolfe, I let my subscription to Successful Hunter lapse. I kept Handloader and Rifle because of Pearce, Shoemaker, Haviland, etc.-but one more bit of tripe like Hoots' article and I'm going to drop them and I've been reading those magazines for a long, long time.

This month's G&A was about as good as this latest Rifle.

I'm sure glad I keep all my old issues.

http://www.google.com/search?source...z=1T4RNWN_enUS270US270&q=Lee+J+Hoots

That pretty much sums everything up I need to know about the new editor and the direction those publications are taking.

Other than that line ( which is excellent BTW...) didnt we just cover this on another thread?
Deja vu'...or was I smokin' somethin??
Don't answer that Sam....
Ingwe

Most questions on the Campfire have already been widely answered--including whether the .270 is adequate for elk.

If we did I'm sorry. I just got my May copy of Rifle today.

I won't...(grin)

surely this dolt is just trying to get a rise out of the reading public.....I mean, if there was ever a classic mule deer cartridge, it's the .270.

Steve NO: You have said it perfectly.

I couldn't finish reading the article....

Hopeful that those exposed without field experience also read Pearce's article on the 7-08.

muledeer,

Speaking of the word "venerable," I am reading some old John Jobson, from either the 60s or the 70s, I don't recall. He used "venerable" to describe the .30-06. Could this have been the first, or nearly so, use of the now-required .30-06 adjective? I've read a fair amount, though certainly not as much as some here, of the older gun writings, and this is the earliest use of "venerable" that I recall seeing.

It even works on whitetails when you're looking for mulies...(grin)

Sam, That's a very nice Deer.

He's a pretty good one JWP. We all get lucky once in awhile, especially when slumming the old 270 Winchester.

Karma rules...(grin)

While I have never owned a .270 myself, I've seen an awful lot of deer whacked successfully with them by my padnahs. Can't think of a single lost deer, and some shot at a fur piece in west Texas and NM. Maybe they were all just wimpy deer, but I kind of doubt it. Wimpy deer wouldn't live to grow horns like that in the Davis Mountains or the New Mexico badlands.

Also saw the deadest elk I've ever seen get whacked by my compadre up the Salmon River, in the Fourth of July Creek drainage. I topped a ridge riding my horse and leading my partners', one snowy opening morning, to the spot where he had been sitting since before sunup. A five by five and his small herd of cows was crossing an open park spooked by shots up the valley...at a pretty good tilt, when my partner drilled him through both shoulders at about a hundred and fifty yards. the most dramatic DRT elk kill I ever saw.....the bull plowed up twenty feet of prarie with his nose as he crashed. Ain't no flies on the .270....gonna have to buy one one of these day.

Even if the writer obviously has no clue.....what does this say about the editorial staff ? Presumably more than one "upper level" person had to read this before it got published.

The 270 is a Sweety.
Can't comment on elk but don't doubt it one bit.

Quiet enough for the pony and flat zaps deer.

Fred still likes to jerk the rein outta my hand. Grouchy old bastid anyway.

I'm liking Fred better all the time. He can't be too bad if you're running him with a broken snaffle, which I think you are. Nice to see you do get out once in a while, Sam.

Good eye Griz.

Yep, it's a copper plated D-ring snaffle.

He'd be fine with a reasonably stiff hackamore as well.

Every once in awhile we get out, just not nearly enough...


Freddy's about 15 or 18 now and we've known each other since he was 3. It's about time to find another 3 year old with some go.

Those old horses get cranky and hard to catch....(grin)

Now that's a hoot, pun intended.

No wonder Mule Deer decided to leave Wolfe, if that kind of garbage is going to be their fare.

I don't mind dumb once in a while, but ignorance is another matter.

"Lee 24" under another ghost writer's name?????????????????

MM

I read this and the barrel on my 270 wilted three inches.A little oil on the gun rag and a few strokes and its ready to go again.


I guess I will have to shoot my 25-06.We know thats enough gun.

After the bout the dis-belief wore off i thought the same thing, no same person could be serious that the 270 was inadequate on mule deer. Hey those big mountain bucks get up to 250 plus pounds!!! Whew

Its beacuse of stupid stuff like this that im letting my subscription run out, good pick Dave.....

I meant "sane" sorry

Yeah, latest Rifle was pretty lame. First we got a guy using too many adjectives to tell us the .270 ain't big enough for deer. Even if Spomer, Shumaker, and Haviland weren't quoted on a facing page contradicting that notion I'd know better (and I only own one .270.) Then we got the rest of the magazine pretty much filled with catalog copy carefully disguised as writing. Looking at the cover I was hot to read the article that was supposedly about the .25 calibers. What a disappointment when it turned out to be nothing but catalog copy about a few rifles. Brian Pearce's .22 mag article was nothing but Marlin ad copy. It's like they're trying to turn him into the next Stan Trzoniec. Then there was Mike Venturino's attempt at identity establishment... Things better pick up before it's renewal time.

I think most people will agree with me that Rifle/Handloader has been in a steady decline in quality of content for some time now. In my opinion, if Rifle and Handloader are to continue they need to dump Scoville and get an editor in there that knows enough about guns to weed out BS articles such as Hoots.
Doc

+1 to the vast majority of gun mags.
I haven't purchased an "off the rack" kind of gun mag or opened a gun magazine for that exact reason in 5 years. Thats not entirely true, I will stand at the magazine rack and a cover will catch my eye about something, I flip to the page and the first paragraph sounds like it was written by a company spokesman.
Double Gun Journal is one of the few I routinely read.


CWG

I just read them off the rack and if I ever find something that is valuable and savable or even enjoyable reading thenI buy the magazine. Phil's article on the ruger 375 was worthwhile in this magazine, I did not even glance at Hoot's. I figured anyone with that as a stage name was a moron anyway.

Contoversey sells magazines. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a deliberate ploy to drum up reader interest. That article has generated 5 pages of free advertisement for Rifle/Handloader magazine on this site alone. Plots like this work because, beleive it or not, a lot of people will go and buy the next issue to see what else will be criticised next month.

Thank you very much.

Not me, I am bored with the same old BS in the rags.. Rifle was a great publication when Ken Waters, Ross Seyfried and JB were their, it isn't worth the price of admission any more IMHO

Yeah--but apparently not by Lee J Hoots!

Hoots has gotta' be doing this just to stir the pot some.......



Casey

Stir the pot and look like a fool

I still buy mags with articles from JB.

I wouldnt give Hoots that much credit for stirring the pot, There hasnt been much value in anything he has drummed up in the past, just way out of his league to be writing about anything but maybe air rifles, paint ball or Hoola Hoops.

It would seem to me that advertising revenue would be driven by circulation, and circulation would be driven by the quality of editorial content. Instead, it seems like the (quality?) of editorial content is being driven by the whims of the advertisers or by some mis-guided attempt on the part of the editors to suck up to the advertisers by giving them more ad copy in the guise of editorial content. This is insulting to us, as customers, because it makes a clear statement that we will buy anything they print. Kind of like Republicans feeling like they have to be more liberal to get elected.

Bingo!

I have no doubt the circulation and editorial boards are quite happy for the time being......



Casey

Casey

If that's true they've misjudged the market and Hoots, IMO. I think there's a good chance the magazine will try to leverage this stuff (not just the negative .270 but the .300WSM positive) but it has to have a better point person than Hoots, who makes Clair Rees look like a ground breaker.

Nothing personal to either gentleman. They are what they are.

I haven't found any of the post Boddington/Barsness generation of writers all that interesting.
Well, I take that back, I do like Brian Pearce's and Phil Shoemaker's work.

Then a bow and arrow wont kill an elk?
dang!!

That right there is funny...

Maybe they'll hire Bryce Towsley next... .

Dennis

I just read this whole thread and I've got to say it's got more entertainment value than alot of them! What a riot --- let's all quit doing the dishes, throw off our aprons and go protest Wolfe! Laffin here!

"darn good coyote rifle" Elmer Keith... (grin)

Yeah, I just took all the deer meat out of the freezer and shot it with my 338-06 just to be sure it didn't run off, might of just stunned it with my 270.

Oh my God, I have a pair of .270s I had better sell them fast before this word gets around.

I'm going to see if I can get mine rebarreled...today!

The 270 is not the ideal mule deer rifle,and I know this from personal experience. Because the statute has probably not run,let's just say that I know a guy who was hunting with his buddy and saw a big bachelor group of a dozen or more muley bucks at a lasered 250-60 yards.

The guy I know had the first shot and his buddy was the spotter. Taking a rest on an old fence post and aiming at the biggest buck,'the guy' shot once and his friend told him he had missed and he had better shoot again quickly.

'Missed again' reported the friend,'no wait he may be going down.' The bucks broke and ran and our hero and his companion went to look for blood.

They found two very dead muley bucks right where they had originally stood,and placed their two tags on them.

The 270 had killed the two mature bucks like lightening,both were big bodied alfalfa fed critters.

So clearly the 270 is too much gun,the bucks dropped so fast that the spotter failed to see them fall,and the recoil was just enough to cause the shooter to lose sight of the target.

Yep,lesson learned,I'm gonna stick with a 257 Roberts.

Afterall,why take chances?

OK GUYS and GALS - Are we ready to vote with our wallets?

I will, right now, invest $10,000.00 in a NEW magazine, edited by Mr. Barsness if another 199 of you will join me and each invest $10,000.00. With $2 million and John running the show we will all make a bundle, AND have a GREAT magazine again.

It is up to US, not the damn advertisers who have bought and sold the firearms press for too long, to take back our SHOOTING and HUNTING heritage and publications. The beenie-weenies who now run all business' have done their best to turn ALL of us into commodities, just another part of the "outdoors" market. They believe that if they just keep feeding us the BS that now passes for editorial we will swallow it, smile, and buy more unnecessary crap - say - kinda like shooting sticks and backpacks with seperate bladders for scotch and soda (Now THAT ain't such a bad idea!), or my favorite, CAMOUFLAGE TOILET PAPER!

Our heritage is disappearing fast. Rifle and Reloader were once GREAT magazines - I hope that there are enough of us left to grab the bull by the horns and save what little is left. It ain't going to be cheap, but what worthwile is? Let's draft Barsness as Editor in Chief!

Seems like Mulies are alomost as tough as Texas Whitetail seeing how you can't kill them with a .270 either. LOL

CLB

Yet in this article, A .270 on Safari he writes:

In all actuality, with a 150-grain A-Frame, even wildebeest and gemsbok can be taken cleanly with a well-placed .270 bullet.

and captioned in one of the photos:

While on safari in South Africa, the author's High-Tech .270 came in handy on smaller plains game. However, loaded with 150-grain A-Frames, it's potent enough for large animals such as gemsbok.

A few weeks ago, I read a reprint of a very old Elmer Keith article. The article was about the .300 Weatherby Mag.

In the article, I can't remember everything he said, but IIRC, he claimed that it might be adequate for deer and antelope, but nothing larger.

VERY INTERESTING IDEA !!!!!!
I wonder if that would be enough to get it started and circulated until the advertisment money begins to flow?

It could be named "Barsness Hunting Journal" or something similar. It probably wouldn't take but a few months to be #1.

there you have it....first hand proof

I read that article too. I think one of the earlier posters says it best. Saying that a 270 with 130 grain bullets is not sufficient for a large mule deer is "...just plain dumb." Matter of fact, when I read that I had to re-read it thinking that I had mis-read it. Pretty stupid.

Interesting. See what a free rifle from the speedshop will do(even one nobody else wanted to buy). I was going to give him a chance, and I did. I wonder if Wolfe would refund the balance of my subscriptions and send it to Rifles and Recipes for a credit for me.

I like them all; although Craig seems to suffer once in a while from "caliber confusion".He seems to have gotten over it ,though.There is no Hope for Hoots......he can't tag along picking up their empties.......

The funniest thing about the article is that it flies in the face of an 84 year track record,and probably over a million dead mule deer.You have to be intellectually bankrupt,or assume your readers are morons, to make such a statement.

I'll just say I don't believe I ever read any of Mr. Hoots claims etc. in a gun magazine. However, I'll bet my F-350 truck against Mr. Hoots paycheck next month, that my .270 Winchester using 130 grain Barnes bullet, will kill any mule deer buck on this planet and further more even bull elk, if I do the shooting and use my model 70 Winchester .270 caliber rifle. My elk load for that particular rifle by the way uses a 160 grn Nosler Partition bullet! My load for mule deer or antelope with that rifle is a Barnes XLC blue bullet in the 130 grn loaded up with 63 grains of RL-25 power, velocity is 3210fps. Sectonal density is .242 and B. C. is a .466.

The sad thing is that some who read his article will believe it because it was written by someone who is perceived to have "expert status".

I was thinking the same thing. That 7x6 I shot last year should have just shrugged the arrow off.
BTW I was thinking of a .260 for my next deer rifle.

Darn Mule Deer and thier ballistic platting, now I have to sell all my 270's

JOC just sat up..... and bumped his forehead!
Maybe Wolfe Publishing is starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel?

I can't wait for next months article on elk rifles. Any guesses? I'm thinking 375 H&H for cows and calves and the 458 Lott for bulls.

Amen brother, amen. A totally assinine insult to one's intelligence.

Besides, they like beer too much.......




Casey

Yeah... Well, Mr. Hoots... I can think of several dozen mule deer, several dozen antelope and a pickup truck load of elk and a couple of African antelope that would disagree with him on the suitability of the .270 for BIG DEER sized game hunting. I've always been careful about shot placement because I thought my 270 was a bit much at under 300 generally blowing the shoulders all to bits and wizzing off into the prarie at shorter ranges. I've only a handful of recovered 130gr slugs and the only 150's I've gotten were out of elk, and only a few of those!

My dear wife wondered why I saved ALL my Rifle, Handloader and Successful Hunter (from issue #1 and all the Rifle Hunting Annuals that preceeded it) Well, I told her you never know when the magazine will go to hell. I guess that "when" has come...

But it's good for them and they are supposed to share.
Reminds me of the horse that liked "that wonderful stuff" in "The Rounders." Glen Ford and Henry Fonda.

I think its strange because Hoots had written an article for RifleShooter called "A .270 on Safari" where he didn't do anything but praise the caliber. He claimed that he considered himself a "great fan" of the .270 Winchester. In the article, he describes how he took a custom .270 to Africa and shot all sorts of stuff with it.

Having never owned or shot a 270 and never shooting a muley i would tent to agree with lee J on this,but dont let the swedish moose hunters know this as they go to the woods with there 6.5mm pea shooters!!! what an ass

I haven't read the article in question by Hooters, but it was probably written to get a response from readers. If the guy actually does believe what he wrote, he has very little hunting experience.

At first I wasn't going to read the article, but having nothing else to do that evening I read it. My thought was Holy s--t how did this get published! What a joke.

Yet there will still be more than a handful of readers/inexperienced hunters who will go with his words as the gospel..........and really through no fault of their own.

They are, in fact, just ignorant. Hoots is being just plain stupid....IMHO.

Hoots should tell my nice 4X4 Muley that I shot last fall(with a 270) that it doesn't work well!

JG:

"Lee J. Hoots claims .270Win not an adequate mule deer round"

That's a Hoot... grin...

I would love to know what JB`s and other gun writers "honest" thoughts are about this article,that in its self would make some interesting reading!!!

The 270 Winchester IS inadequate for all Mule Deer that exceed 2,500 pounds in weight. It just lacks the penetration required to reach vital organs.

Of course, if your Mule Deer weighs less than 500 pounds, then it is very adequate, as it is for 1,200 pound elk.

Maybe he wrote the article to boost magazine sales. I am betting a bunch of people will buy just that issue just to read that piece of stupidity that he wrote.

I bet his next article will be touting the virtues of some new rifle and or cartridge about to be introduced by one of the magazines advertisers.

Where the heck have you been? If it hadn't been for the resurrection of Big Stick (TryMe), this place would have died!

Oh wow, if my 270 isn't adequate for mule deer, then it must only be marginal for antelope. I'd better just play it safe and use it for nothing larger than prairie dogs.

So thank you, Lee J. Hoots, for getting the word out and making sure that thousands of mule deer aren't hopelessly maimed by the terribly inadequate 270!

I think what Hoots might be refering to is the fact that due to the particular jacket thicknesses on 270 caliber bullets, they often set up a harmonic vibration that is exactly the same as the harmonic vibration of a deer rib in rutting season, thereby making the rib invulnerable to that bullet. This would explain why the 270 has actually killed large elk well, often at ranges substantially longer than 200 yards, while failing on deer over 200 yards.
Or maybe he's just talking out his thumb keeper. (or maybe he didn't send his scope in to get the parallax rotated...)

Royce

I'm thinkin' it's the latter Fred....(grin)

Sam
Ya never know- That unrotated parallax can be a bad deal! LOL

This article got a lot of negative traction in the campfire, too bad for Wolfe, I quit subscribing a few months ago anyway after JB left/got pushed out.

What about the .280 Remington? I know the extra .007 could make a difference, or maybe not.

My thoughts exactly!!

I wrote Wolfe expressing my dismay about the Hoots article and some of the lame writers like Trzoniec and Rees. Here's Scovill's reply to me:

Dear Mr. Carter,

[b]Let me get this straight. You are allowed your opinion, but other folks aren�t. Interestingly, Hoots is using the same writers in Successful Hunter as John Barsness did. Those features were scheduled long before Lee arrived, by Barsness. What gives? Jack O�Connor and Elmer Keith are revered for having an opinion, and when someone else picks his choice, he�s scum.

Cheers,

Dave Scovill, Editor in Chief

Handloader, Rifle and Successful Hunter magazines

[/b]

BTW, I never referred to Hoots as scum....That's Scovill's word....

That's what gets me the most. We are all allowed our opinions but his varies with the free rifle he has at the moment. Also the old squable over big n' slow or small n' fast has died with it's proponents. His article about the perfect MD rifle was just bad and interesting only to himself. I did enjoy the added input of Spomer,Shoemaker,and Haviland.

Balltownbob, now you have one of the reason's I no longer subscribe to gun magazines. I only buy a magazine if there is a very good article and I like what I read and the facts are indeed correct. Not just some "hog wash" to take up space and sell you a damn subscription.

Now this whole thind is a bit upsetting to me because I years ago learned a lot about hunting, ballistics and shooting from gun magazines. Those writers like Jack O'Conner, Bill Jordan, Sketter Skelton and a dozen more I could name, told the truth and tried to educate the common public.

I haven't read Mr.Hoots article and really don't care to spend my money on it period. I will say, that if that article he wrote does in fact claim the .270 Winchester and 130 or 150 grain bullet is not sufficient to kill mule deer bucks, then Mr. Hoots does indeed have a problem with the real knowledge of the subject(Mule Deer Hunting) matter as a whole. You betcha he does!

Scovill is an ass.

I finally feel compelled to comment. The latest issue of SUCCESSFUL HUNTER has 5 feature articles, according to the table of contents published on the Internet. When I was the editor we usually ran 6 features, and sometimes 7. The difference is no doubt due to the current economic situation.

Four of the 5 feature articles in this issue were indeed selected by me. But originally I picked 2 other articles to run in that issue, one by me. And the back page would have been by me. So 4 out of the 7 primary articles in the current issue are as planned sometime last year, or 57%.

From the comment about Rees and Trzoniec I would guess that criticism was mostly about RIFLE, as they were not major contributors to SUCCESSFUL HUNTER.

I've read enough of Scovill's writings to give me the impression that he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The fact that his take on Hoots "opinion" that the 270 is inadequate for Deer proves my point. The 270 has been taking Mule Deer cleanly for such a long time to have proven it's self adequate, therefore to say other wise is fool hardy, not an opion.

The article in question was in Rifle-wouldn't Scovill know that? I really liked a lot of Scovill's earlier articles regarding work with cast bullets in years past, but I ain't real impressed with his editing skills, especially of late. His writing has slipped too-if it wasn't for Doug Turnbull and Barnes bullets he wouldn't have a lot to write about. I wonder if he realizes what has happened to what used to be the best gun magazines published.

Old Hoot don't handload do he? I'm hoping Handloader might be worth keeping.

Yep Scovill worked with and wrote about cast bullets, but he never impressed me with his knowledge there either. He was better than a beginner but often never reached the mark. I like for the writer to know the subject completely. Scovill on lever guns does a pretty good job. Maybe not since I am not up to par on lever guns myself.

sounds like Scovill might be keeping an eye over here hence the over reaction.

JB

The Hoots article was in RIFLE.
SH is getting mighty thin.

Shouldn't a gun writer's subjects be based on more than just opinion? A good analogy would be that of teachers and students. Writer is the teacher, reader is the student. To be the teacher, one should have an intimate knowledge of the subject, knowledge based on more than opinion. For example, while I'm not a novice shooter by any means, I acknowledge the fact that there are many, many more experienced marksmen and hunters than I in the world and when confronted with a dilema I gladly turn to those people for advice or guidance. ie; Mule Deer. If JB were to write that a 130gr bullet is marginal beyond 200 yds, he would most likely tell you WHY he suggested such, and have evidence to support such a claim. And, consequently, his writing would (and does) have much more integrity, information, and entertainment value than a guy like Hoots who appears to be a classic example of someone who knows how to play the politics of business without any real knowledge of the product being sold.

Just because he's been hunting doesn't mean he knows how to hunt.

I now see were Hoots gets his sense of humor...from Scovill. Comparing Hoots to Keith and O'Connor...now that is some good humor.

I do think Scovill missed the point...Hoots isn't really expressing an opinion - well an intelligent one anyway - he is just showing that he will write anything for a dollar.

It has been pointed out that he recently wrote a piece on his 270 gift rifle that he took to Africa - apparently the big Muleys are WAY tougher than plains game.

My other fav Hoots story is a guided sheep hunt in Alaska on which he used his 300 WSM Mossberg 4x4 Laminate...mounted up with a Swarovski scope - that was sweeeeeet.

You are forgetting the part where he's talking about shooting ALL the way to 300 yards where the .257 and .270 Roy have too much wind drift.

It's official then, he's "Clueless"

I'm suprised by Scovill's rudeness. I'ved chatted with him at a SHOT show and he seemed a pleasant, freindly person. I disagree with him on a number of issues, but thought he would be civil in his corespondence. I'm thinking he must be under some real pressure because of the way the magazines have been going lately. Nothing justifies printing such a lame article from Hoots.

I certainly don't care and/or adjust my eating desires by what Ronald McDonald thinks is best, not sure why others do.

Only need to make yourself happy.

Scovill published an article a few years ago, boasting of his having NEVER read O'Connor's stuff.....My response to his email reminded him of that fact....

He always struck me as a sarcastic sort in many of his writings and, no doubt, a bit of an egotist, to boot....

My email to Rifle was sent to the publisher who apparently referred it to Scovill for response....

I think Scovill may have been caught with his pants down by printing such drivel?

Actually, there's a method to this madness. For many years I've been doing painstaking research into the method gun writers use to rate the capability of cartridges on game. Along the way I've slogged my way through some gun magazine material that would bring anyone to tears, if he weren't engaged in serious scholarly research. But, after many years of scratching my head after reading a particularly incredible article, it took 'The Hoots article' to bring together a theory that explains it all. I've made an original discovery that will greatly advance the science of gun magazine readership. It's the identification of a peculiar affliction affecting many 'gun scribes' called the "PP Factor" (which is pronounced 'pee-pee' and stands for personal preference), measured in a relative value scale of 'BS units.'

Here's how it works: A gun writer makes a statement in an article about the effective range or killing power of a cartridge, so far out of whack with the reader's experience, that you find yourself saying "What kind of BS is that?" An example from 'The Hoots article' is "The 130-grain .277 bullet is not potent enough all the time for the biggest mulie bucks at ranges beyond 200 yards. Even 150-grain .277 bullets are marginal". Well, unknowingly you've just scored the writer's experience at 22.7 BS units on a scale of 87.45. (Editor's note: BTW, the calculation is based on the same method as the Taylor KO formula with a conversion factor of 3.7359 x centrifugal force of the projectile at 200 yards.)

As you read further along in the article you stumble into the following nugget "...for what we're trying to achieve here, even the .277-inch cartridges don't make the grade. ...but the caliber's downrange performance, even that of the .270 WSM or .270 Weatherby Magnum, is easily bested." This one brings on a "Now, that's real BS." The scoring on this one is a little tricky, because if any 270 cartridge is your favorite, it ups the PP Factor score to 59.3, but if you're not a 270 nut it only takes the score to BS = 48.56.

Finally, as you read along you find Hoots' crowning assertion, "The "perfect" mule deer rifle weighs no less than 6 pounds and no more than 8, and is chambered in .300 Winchester Short Magnum shooting 165- 168- or 180-grain bullets, and it outperforms 150-grain, .270 WSM loads and 160-grain, 7mm Remington Magnum loads." This one usually results in some variant of "This guy is full of BS!" Now the PP Factor score is close to perfection, an amazing 86.32 - close to perfect, but not quite. No correction for 270 looniness required on this one.

So next time you read an article that you'd walk away from, after flinging the magazine across the room saying, "That guy's full of s**t," you can say instead, "Wow, that scores at least 86.963 BS units" and know you've contributed to scientific progress.

BTW, additional research on PP Factor scoring is readily available in Rifle, No. 244, May 2009 pages 34-43 ( I rate this one in the high 80s BS units for the 257 Wby objectivity) and pages 80-1 (my rating in the mid-60 BS units).

Try your hand at rating PP Factor, there's a lot of original BS out there waiting to be discovered.

I really wish that my wife had NOT renewed my subscriptions on my birthday....I am not selling my .270!!
Rifle and Handloader will never be what it once was............rifle

Scovill has ran off a lot of the really good writers and only has "Elk" left one is not enough to make a magazine great.

Or maybe Clay Harvey.

Of all things that go together in this world like 'fries 'n burgers, pepperoni on pizza, eggs 'n sausage, I can't think of two that go together better than a .270 and mule deer or sheep. It is what it is but it's iconic for that which makes Hoot's point-if represented accurately-just bizarre.

Oh well, I'm going to see if the crappies are up to a bite.

What's a Lee J. Hoots?

Where am I? Last thing I remember was reading Hoots' article again, and I think I had a stroke.

I consider the .270 the PERFECT MULE DEER CALIBER..and the 300s are just as good, but I doubt that anyone could resonable make the claim that they are "better" for Mule Deer...I would venture the 300s may be a better elk rifle, but I wouldn't even argue that point. If I wanted a better elk rifle I'd opt for the .338

Has it ever occurred to any of you insulting keyboard wizards why so few legitimate, working, gun writers refuse to participate on your forum? You have managed to insult half the working writers in this thread alone.

Bryce M. Towsley

StrayDog -

Two million is more than enough. I have planned, put together, designed, and run magazines for corporate clients and you wouldn't believe how inexpensively a magazine can be put together.

The biggest problem would be that John is so damn honest and that would eliminate a LOT of advertising. On the other hand it would attract TONS of advertising from manufacturers who actually make really useful products that real hunters and shooters need.

And as an aside: I thought that some guy named "Erasmus Venerable" invented the .30-06 cartridge, thus the "venerable .30-06!"
Bluesman

Be patient, most of us were busy reloading or out hunting - we will get around to doing our best to name and shame the the "deserving" other half shortly.

I have not laughed so hard, and had so much fun reading posts EVER!

There is a good reason that there are respected gun writers and hacks - and we all know who, and what, they are!

Bluesman

Scovill and I are about the same age and he grew up within a few miles of where I grew up. What he writes about hunting/guns in this area and the ways things were is so off base I only read him for laughs. Also, every couple of months he has to tell the story of how he designed the very best cast bullet for the 45 Colt but if you use that bullet in a fixed sighted revolver, the bullet is so heavy you have to put on a higher front sight.
I get the impression that until he wangled the job of Editor for Rifle/Handloeader he only had did a little hunting and really knows nothing about firearms. It's a real shame what he has done to these once top drawer publications.
Doc

.....Hoots either doesn't give a hoot about starting a wrangle, or has a desire to mimic old Elmer's habit of painting any caliber under 30 as primarily suitable only for varmints.

.....Stack up all the deer carcases killed with the 270 or lesser caliber and make Hoots climb over them and he'd sing a different tune in his next 'expert' article.

Mr. Towsley, my comment was a simple editorial one and with a reread, maybe, you'll note I qualified it with "if his point was accurately portrayed."

"Insulting keyboard wizards?" You've just managed to insult all here. Relax man.

That said, It's nice to see you here. I read your stuff when I see and I believe you work hard at it.

I didn't feel that way before, certainly do now. Guess the renewal envelopes keep going in the recycle bin. Shame really.

Yes.
I have been a subscriber since 2000, but I let it lapse a while back.
Bummer.

W264

You've done some interesting scholarly research, but I can't take anyone seriously who calls a gun writer a gun "scribe."

Bryce

As an experienced writer, perhaps you can explain to us what part of Mr. Hoots assertion makes sense. Maybe we are missing the point.

Actually I'm a little tired of this thread but I thought it wise to ask for another point of view. I know you work hard, what do you say?

BTW, don't group Scovill with the working writers. It's not fair to the working writers. I remember that O'Connor article and to brag that he (Scovill) never read anything by O'Connor (whether you agree with him (O'Connor) or not) is to admit there's a big hole in his (Scovill's) education and judgment. Like Jack or not, it's a required part of the curriculum.

JMHO

Police your own ranks Bryce. Any country boy seems to know more than this Hooter fellow. I don't subscribe anymore, just read it and if I like it buy it. Look at the Newspapers for an example of what may happen to the gun rags and gun writers alike if they publish BS.

Exactly there are writers that I go out of my way to read their work, not only because it is a good read but it is educational. To cal the 279 with a 130 grain bullet to not always adequate for large Mule Deer is ridiculous. Scovills reply to the email was equally ridiculous

I do wonder if we are taking this too far. Maybe for Mr. Hoots, the 270 is inadequate due to a lack of shooting ability or something. Its his opinion and he's entitled to it. If we are all going to be sheep and believe the first gun writer we read, then we deserve to end up with whatever we buy.

That said, THE 280 REMINGTON IS FAR SUPERIOR TO THE 270 WINCHESTER!

Haha, just kidding. Well, sorta. I still prefer the 280.

It could also be as a result of his condescending (that's talking down to others) articles that he prints. He tries to present himself as a "thinking man's man", but he's a vintage levergun shooter who seemingly does not even understand cast bullets.

When I read the article, I tended to believe him, until I got to the part about the 160 grain 7MM magnum bullet. I can't concieve of anyone who has seen how a 7MM magnum performs on white tail deer, antelope, or Mule deer making such a statement. I have seen how the .270 performs on both mule deer and white tail, and I use those observations to justify my statements.

I am sure there are those who will disagree with me, but unless the rules have changed, disagreeing or expressing ones opinion is not grounds from being banned from the site, although I think advocating using the .270 on mule deer should be grounds for a suspension of a week or two.

I don't particularly like the .270, either, and given a choice, I wouldn't use one on either white tail or mule deer.

Also, I have no desire to own a .300 WSM. The first thing I thought about that cartridge when I first saw it was, if Winchester had made the case about 1/2" longer, then they would really have had something. Same for the 7 WSM, except even better than the .300. The same case and a .270? Well, not for me.

The 270 has been killing Mule Deer and Elk without issue for decades that to call it inadequate is ridiculous. An opinion, realy??

I believe that Boddington wrote that the bull Elk that he took with the 270 was one of the quickest kills on Elk that he has had..

I shot my first mule deer (big fat 3 point) more than forty years ago with a Winchester Model 54 chambered for 270 WCF. Like many of you I've been killing mule deer for many years with .243, 257 Roberts, 25-06, 270 etc. My subscription expired a few months ago, I think I'll probably hold of for awhile before I renew. I think this guy has done most of his hunting with his word processor?

A couple of quotes from the editors column in Successful Hunter:

"My children are once again being whisked off to school each day in early-morning protest. Seems unfair to send them aloft in the cold morning air....." Aloft ???? Do they go to school in a treehouse? or maybe they commute via helicopter or hot air balloon.

"Whether we hunt turkey gobblers, black bears, wild hogs or something really exotic like axis deer in some far away country like Hawaii....." Um, last time I checked Hawaii wasn't a country.


While Mr. Barsness may have chosen some of the articles for the Mar-Apr 2009 issue of SH, he certainly didn't edit it or pull the whole thing together. The magazine is as scattered and haphazard as Mr. Hoots editorial. JB is a very good writer, and I now realize just how good an editor he was. He made everybody better.

I do wonder, however, just how much fun he has editing his wife's work. I mean do her eyes narrow when he whips out the hi-liter to "tighten-up" a paragraph? Are there heated debates?

Actually, Craig wrote that it was the quickest kill of any elk he'd ever shot--at least to that point. And the range was a little over 400 yards, and the bullet that lousy 150 Nosler Partition. Which exited....

Exactly, yet according to Lee Hoots it is only marginal for large Mule Deer past 200 yards. 201 yards is where it starts to fall down I guess

PepeLp,

Actually we worked the editing thing out long ago, though we did have some difficulties at first. Basically I make "suggestions" and she either accepts or rejects them, or we talk about it and she makes the decision.

She is a damn good editor herself, and has helped me many times when I have run into trouble. In fact when I was editor of GAME JOURNAL almost 20 years ago, she did most of the actual copy editing. I was the big picture person, and she was the details person.

I will note I am listed as editor of her recent cookbook!

George - where are you going to look for crappies - West Lake, Spirit? Best, John

Sounds like an idiot to me.

Don't worry--all subjects on these forums are generally a "Take no prisoners" kind of thing.......and when they get heated up nothing is sacred either......

The internet is changing the print world--whether it be your local newspaper or gun/hunting rags--and it seems to require a "sharper" pen than what writers like Lee J Hoots is offering......


Casey

Is it just me or is Dave Scovill's hat size increasing?

Maybe Mr. Hoots had a "Jim Zumbo" moment. Only Hoots traded "black rifles" for the .270WCF.

**** Funny, my wife makes "suggestions" and I either follow them or incur her wrath. :0






*** So........she's your secret. Now I'm picturing you sitting in an easy chair, smoking a big cigar and sipping whiskey while your poor bride toils in the kitchen and behind a keyboard.




**** I noticed that, I was wondering what kind of "fee" you negotiated for that and for promoting it so effectively.

I can kill any mule deer with a 270 and it sounds like most of the folks on here can as well. If Mr Hoots doesn't think he can - for whatever his reason - then that is his call. I know plenty of NM elk guide who swear by their 22-250's as elk rifles and they certainly have killed a lot more than I have but it is not a round I would choose.

Off subject, but I'd like to compliment your AR article in the same issue, it made up for Hoot's lameness. We may have been in the Pleiku area about the same time: 119th AHC (Alligators and Crocs) Camp Holloway 67-68.

Phils work is also worth the price of admission IMHO

Agreed. I kept my electronic subscription for Phil, John Haviland, Brian Pearce.

Entirely the point. I don't call any gun writer I take seriously a gun scribe. Only those that rate high on the BS scale.

It's marginal on muledeer, but not elk. OK, got it.

Off subject too, but did you see the French graves off Mang Yang Pass?

Mang Yang and Pleiku deserve an entirely different thread. Meet you there.
Any of you been back? I highly recommend it.

Sure did, we flew through several times. Legend had it that they were buried sitting up facing toward France. Chilling when you see them from the air.

Phil, I wouldn't mind seeing the country again, but I don't want to give that government any money. I'm not criticizing anyone who goes back; it's just my personal choice.

But maybe Craig Boddington is a better shot? I am looking at the article he wrote "Setting The Standard" in regards to the 270, 280 and 30-06. The elk is truly impressive. Maybe its because he's a better field shot and knows what his limitations are. Maybe Hoots knows that for his shooting ability, the 270 just doesn't do it for him.

I don't know guys, I'm just stabbing in the dark.

I'm reading a book by Wayne Van Zwoll where he writes that "Saying a 270 isn't adequate for deer is like telling grandma her cookies need more sugar".

I sure do like cookies. I also like shooting my 270 for deer. Or my 7x57 or even my 30-06. I wonder what Mr. Hoots would say about me using a Ruger No. 1A in 7x57 with irons this year for mule deer?

I always stack this up to inexperience. Not that Hoots isn't experienced - for all I know he is. However, that does not mean he has shot a lot of Mule Deer with the .270 or any of the rounds he considered "inadequate". Hoots came along with all of the new ultra/short mags and probably has done most of his hunting with them. I'm guessing the deer don't always drop with the magnums and he extrapolates they will only run a bit further with the .270. If he would actually shoot some with the .270 he would see it works about as well on Mule Deer as the 30 cal magnums. If you follow Boddington, he went down a similar path. Boddington said the .270/7mm class was not really good for Elk (or really big deer) , but all of his experience was 30 cal and above. He noticed the Elk were not all that impressed at times and seemed to think the Elk would only be less impressed with 270s/7mms. The last few years he has actually killed some Elk sized game with the .270 / 270 wsm / 7x57 and lo and behold the game died just about like when he shot them with .30+ calibers and he has changed his tune.

Lou

I really don't think that anyone has insulted you, by any stretch of the imagination. Makes no difference if the thoughts of the readers are posted or not the thoughts remain the same at least if they are posted one has a chance to gage what folks are actually thinking

Mr. Towsley, that's an interesting response from someone whose livelihood is dependent on the acceptance of your work by the consumer. I would think you might be interested in the reaction of the readership to specific articles. I agree that the critique here might be more spirited and freewheeling than in a formal published piece, but I doubt it calls for an insulting response.

Interesting that you would think that there aren't some here who are authors in our own fields and fairly capable of judging technical writing on its merits. I actually follow your writings in American Rifleman and have thought of you among the better informed technical writers. It's disappointing though to see your negative response to the readers' criticism of another writers work.

If nothing else, were I a gun writer, I'd view participation in this Forum as a rare opportunity to understand what knowledgeable gun readers want to see in magazines and what we like - or don't - in its presentation. Regards.

Rather well put I'd say

Amen!

Bryce probably doesn't remember me,but I met him when I was a part time guide at Alabama's Bent Creek Lodge.

I was not his guide and we only met briefly,Bryce was very friendly and even took the time to answer some questions about some 35 caliber bullets.My impression of him was that he is a really decent guy who actually loves hunting and shooting and helping others.

I have always liked his work and never quite got it,when somebody here took a verbal potshot at him.

Hoots on the other hand,well nevermind.

What he said...Bryce just got added to my DO NOT READ list along with Clair and Hoots,right up there with NY TIMES...fish wrapper

FWIW, Mr. Hoots did lead in saying, "I can feel the rotten vegetables being hurled my way already... but the caliber's <.277> downrange performance, even that of the .270 WSM or .270 Weatherby Magnum, is easily bested."

Even so, I couldn't help but wonder what my ideal battery should be for North America? 25 WSSM for prairie dogs, 270 WSM for pronghorn, 300 WSM for mule deer, 416 Ruger for elk, caribou, and moose, and 50 BMG for brown bear? Oh... 450 Marlin guide gun for black bear?

Do ya'll think I would be somewhat undergunned though? At least I wouldn't be short on the latest the ammo/rifle companies have to offer us...

Mr Hoots speaks the truth. I saw a guy shoot a deer three times with a .338 and it ran off like nothing happened. Of ourse he couldn't have missed since he fired three rounds to confirm zero since last hunting season. Never been a big fan of Mr. Hoots, I rank him right with Bill Bynum...

Know some guys that use 50BMG on PDs.... at over 1700 yards. Been looking at 20mm cannon though, heard that they been having trouble with penetration. Think Barnes could come up with a TSX or Nosler a 20mm partition?

All gun writers have more experince than many of us and base their opinions on these experiences. But, they are opinions, based on experince (but we have experience also). This forum let's us share our experiences and while I may differ with someone else's experience/opinion, I accept it.

Bryce Towsley was of-base in his comment.

The really funny part??? Did anyone actually read what Bryce wrote?
"...so few... refuse to participate..."

Does that mean most of them are here?

It is one thing to gin up reactions with reasoned controversy, another entirely different thing to do it with juvenile and uninformed thoughts. It is most nearly akin to the difference between an argument on merit versus internet trolling.
art

I don't think that's what he meant.

If true, however, they certainly are welcome to the knowledge gained by lurking. Some need it worse than others. I learn frequently and I'm not ashamed to admit I don't know it all.

That's an interesting concept, about gun writers having more experience. Without getting into how one should draw conclusions from one's experiences, I just asked my son, who has killed exactly two mule deer with a 270, what he thought about this(Hoots') opinion. He said it was stupid.

I might analize why someone draws different conclusions than I do based on their experience, but I seldom just "accept it." Especially when they are so blatantly wrong.

This is a very funny thread....I just read the part about the 270's ballistics being "easily bested".....well hell,so is the 300WSM's...by a 338Lapua launching 300 match bullets.The dryly illogical conclusion is the 338 Lapua is the better mule deer cartridge....right?

This is the problem with crunching numbers to establish the worthiness of a cartridge,instead of shooting game with it...the "crunched"(distorted)numbers do not tell us the mule deer is quite as dead hit(properly) by the 270 as he is by the 300 (or maybe not?)and why any one with any experience actually shooting mule deer beyond 200 yards with a 270 will laugh his ass off at such nonsense.

I wrote an article about cartridges for big deer some years ago, I believe in RIFLE, and my conclusion then was that the peak of deer-killing power is somewhere around the 7mm-08 or 7x57, using a 140 grain bullets 280-2900 fps or so--which obviously would include the .270.

I have killed quite a few deer with larger cartridges, including the .30-06, several different .300 magnums and even the .338 Winchester Magnum and 9.3x62. I have also shot a lot of "deer-sized" animals in Africa with the .375 H&H. None of them killed any quicker, on average, than a 140-grain 7mm bullet at 2900 or so (and, again, a .270 bullet actually measures just about a "true" 7mm in diameter). And of course a faster 7mm cartridge would extend the distance a little, but my experience is that almost all deer are killed at under 350 yards, even big mule deer. And out to 350, a 140 started at 2900 does the job quite well.

But that is just my opinion.

The good thing about opinions is anyone can have one.

The bad part about it is we're human so we take things off the table when we're not comfortable with it. Problem is if your position is to "LEAD" (aka provide logic and reason to other) you can get in a hell of a mess fast.

never ever buy stock on a tip!

JB:Maybe your opinion...but it is, as usual,a good one. Agreed!

My copy of the magazine arrived yesterday, so I finally read the article. After reading it, I think the bulk of comments on this thread have been kind and forbearing, some extremely so. That is, without question, one of the shallowest, murkiest and out and out dumbest articles I've ever read. FWIW, I have killed mule deer with rifles chambered in .250 Savage, .257 Roberts, .260 Remington, .280 Remington, .30-'06, .338 Federal, and .35 Remington. Plus my 58 cal muzzleloader. Between family, friends and guided hunters, I have also seen mule deer taken with .243, .25-06, .270, 7x57, 7mm mags of several varieties, .300 mags of several varieties, including .300 WSM, and several other cartridges I can't bring to mind right now, along with the ones I've used.

I have killed several dozen mule deer and have seen several dozen more killed over the years. In addition, I have killed whitetails every bit the equivalent of "big Rocky Mountain" mule deer, and at least one easily bigger. I have, over the 30+ years I have been killing mule deer, reached absolutely the same conclusion My Other Brother Darrell has reached -- a 130-150 gr bullet launched between 2700-3000 fps is as perfect a mule deer prescription as has ever been handed down. I have killed the majority of my mule deer and whitetails with a .280, which has no realistic (though in my heart many imagined ) advantages over the .270.

Oddly enough, though, Hoots's queerly constructed and largely absurd article has more meat and content than Stan Trzoniec's article on .25 caliber rifles, which purported to tell us that "Quarter bores have plenty to offer!" yet failed to offer a single handload, and only discussed three cartridges -- .257 Roberts, .25-06, and .257 Wby Mag. No discussion of wildcats, nor of the first on the market -- .250-3000. His entire article read like a catalog of three new rifles, and provided no more insight than could be gained from picking up a fistful of literature at an outdoor exposition.

About the best article in the magazine was John Haviland's story on the .338 Winchester Magnum. It was interesting and well written -- and I don't even want the .338 Win Mag, nor any other belted magnum!

My final comment...Scovill is clearly responsible, as editor, for everything that appears in Rifle, so I lay the blame squarely on him. And his column on "Brass" clearly shows that he is incapable of pursuing a coherent train of thought from one end of his column to the other -- let alone assemble an entire magazine that makes sense and has some reasonable thread of construction.

The saddest part of it all is that this magazine is still more interesting than anything else on the newstand .

Dennis

I have never found MD's opinion without logical and often real experimental data to support it.

Wish there were more guy's like him writting.

I like eggs.

Have another drink, and go back to bed.

Dennis

Hoping for another pic of your 300 pound hog.

Mmmm ham and eggs sounds good.

This has been a very interesting thread, to be sure. Hoots makes a moronic statement and Towsley throws us under the bus. Just wondering if we have reached "ballistic analysis overload"?Or, "bo" for short.

That is, indeed, what he wrote, and what that means!

[quote=UMT]
Has it ever occurred to any of you insulting keyboard wizards why so few legitimate, working, gun writers refuse to participate on your forum? You have managed to insult half the working writers in this thread alone.

Bryce M. Towsley
[/quotte

Fortunatley, i come here to gain real world experience by guys who have been there and done that. Im not interested in corporate schills who usually promote some product or another for their own personal gain.

I have found out that a lot of gun writers have extremely thin skin and huge ego's. The two stand up guys are JB and PS they weather the storm and are better for it.

You make some good points, Bob.
Especially about the number crunching.
You can fiddle with numbers until you can't see the forest from the trees, which is what I think happend to Hoots in this instance.
JMO.

"Numbers" are what you use to prove things when you can't argue logic with rationality...

Or when you have an unprovable premise you want to convince others of...

Or when you don't know the difference...

Dennis

Perhaps the ideal mule deer round would be a .29 caliber...great compromise tween the .277 and .308 calibers...but what would we call it? I seem to recall an article....

I like eggs? Hmmm, sounds like something Billy Cyrstal blurted in a comedy thing. It is Sunday afternoon, maybe I will have a drink. See ya. .270's rule!

Wasn't that a proposal by JB (mule deer) named "B-29" (or something like that)?

Yep. My opinion too, as well as the few million others who have watched the big Mulies dispatched in their tracks with a 270.

Wayne

Peter Capstick wrote a book about the last elephant hunter: "Pondoro Taylor" I think. In it, a herd of elephants ran into camp and started destroying the place. The only guy in camp with a ready rifle was a .........270. As the story goes, the soft points would not penetrate so he pulled the bullets with his teeth, jammed them in backwards, and shot the elephants between the eyes. Metal base first, the elephants died. True? As true as the guy with the 4 bore who ran out of bullets, wrapped a pocket full of coins with a hankie and stuffed it down and shot a miffed buffalo between the eyes killing him too! Mule deer, I find perfectly acceptable. I shot 2 nice whitetail at 200 with a .270 and blew their front ends all apart. Lots and lots of purple meat, coagulated blood, and broken bone. They actually did more damage than I'd liked & they were Gamekings. They don't do that in my .30's.

Yes, and one of my favorites of his articles. I don't think we're supposed to bring it up, though.

I just reread another of his articles from a past Handloader, on borescopes. The introduction, recalling a tale of spaghetti and his little brother, is also a classic.

The P.R. guy at Hawkeye still mentions the spaghetti story every time I see him....

It was a good hook! The rest of the story was good reading, too. Better include it in your "best of" book.

hummm.... strange, reeeeally strange.......

the last boar I shot weighed gutted 305 pounds and it was dead right there (shoulder shot with exit) and guess what I shot it with..... ......right....270 Win., 130 grs. Nosler Partition! Probably it only simulated and wasn't really shot dead

300 savage,

Yeah, it's in there....

Frankly I thought the article completely catered to rifle mfrs since his choices were ALL the most "popular" cartridges sold.
But in defense (I cringe) of Mr Lee, according to the article,
he did seem to believe a 270 Win, shooting a 150-gr premium bullet was okay. How can the 270 Win which has collected as many
as many other cartridges NOT be suitable for mule deer?

Now without any criticism of the cartridges Mr Lee selected, I reduced his criteria to any cartridge that can launch a bullet
with a minimum .314 BC, of modest weight (SD), and a MV of at least 2910 fps, as fulfilling HIS criteria. HIS criteria, not mine, based upon his, "The Perfect Mule Deer Rifle Factory
Ballistics Comparison" chart.

I can think of a volume of cartridges (not mentioned), shooting an equal volume of bullets that easily can fill HIS requirements.
And exactly WHAT was his point?

I'll be in line for a copy, Mule Deer, and I'll put it on the shelf with O'Connor, Keith, Jobson, Skelton, and Aagaard. .458Win should do the same thing.

Chuckle...and include the one about the cartridge that sounds like a military airplane.

I had that plane in mind when writing the article. My father worked for Boeing during WWII and was always a plane fan. I was the same way; built many a model during my school years!