Yet another shallow article by Terry Wieland.

He declares the 90 grain Sierra HPBT an excellent bullet for medium game, although he doesn't claim to have ever shot anything except paper with it.

Yeah so???????????????? Most articles written by "professionals" are shallow. Not impressed by what folks write. I'd rather do it myself and see my own results. Not impressed by innuendo and hear say.

You seem upset by what I posted, if so that wasn't the intention. I think that Terry Wieland is among the most superficial of writers and based on his writing, don't have much respect for his work/opinions/etc.

Are Hollow Points even legal for deer in some states?

After Ken Waters everyone else seems to pale in comparison.

I've shot a bunch of deer with the 85 grain .243" and 90 grain .257" Sierra BTHPs, but no longer do so because I had four, two of each, fail to penetrate on easy behind the shoulder shots. Now I load Partitions, mostly, in the .243" bore rifles and Barnes and Speer in the .257" bore rifles.

Yeah, I am not a fan of them either. I can not recall where he was going to hunt, but someone told me that HP bullets were not legal for deer and he was worried about using bullets with a poly filler in the nose.

Gun writers are what they are. Some are good, some are bad and most are indifferent. Just like most other folks they work for money. Most go where the money is. Some are honest.

Definitely hard to find good ones like Skeeter Skelton, Rick Jamison, Bill Jordan, Jack O'Connor, Dick Metcalf etc. One of my favorites still writing is Mike Venturino.

Not upset about anything. I just get upset with people making money when they write something they know very little about. Almost everything you read today is superficial. As I said,,,,,,,,YOU aren't the issue. Today's writers are.

LBK, I pretty much agree with you on this, but I take what John Barsness writes to the bank. Got a couple of his books, and learn something new every time I re-read em and wonder how I missed it the first time.

I asked because you seemed agitated. Some years ago, Layne Simpson wrote a piece on the Savage 1920 in RIFLE that contained a few errors. Because Simpson is a respected gun writer, his published errors will forever live in the public venue and will cloud future 1920 collectors.

The problem with this article is that it proposed a "modern" fix to a problem most of us have known how to fix for decades, and then doesn't offer the "the proof of the pudding," which is always protein on the table.

I would only criticize that last point; rehashing the bullet/twist dilemma with the .250-3000 seems pretty old news to US. But there are "kids" out there inheriting Savages to whom it may be NEW news!

But Weiland did only half the research. Having lived with writers and writing all my life, I suspect an editorial deadline got in the way of shootin' meat. Too bad.

I also respect John B's writing and lament the loss of Ken Waters. Shooter/hunters who never would forget that the proof of a deer rifle is....dead deer.

I think one of the problems is that if any of us stick to this sport of shooting long enough we outgrow what many of the writers have to say. I certainly have seen specific issues regurgitated many times over in the last quarter century. Another problem is that there just isn't that much to write about. The magazines served their purpose for me when I first got interested in shooting and I hope they do the same for today's beginners who, eventually, will learn to separate the wheat from the chaff for themselves.

I'm guessing he took the advice of the guys at Sierra and turned that into a personal endorsement. At my start with .250's I called for advice and the ballistician put that 90gr BTHP first. Said the 117's were too tough for the lower .250 velocities, but that the 100gr would be okay, too. I shot one doe with the 90gr BTHP, in 2001, and the particular loading was only going 2780fps from my rifle--a 700 Classic. That loading shot 5 into .66" at 100 yards, way more accurate than needed for deer, and should probably have been cranked up to 3000 or more. At just over 100 yards the first shot went forward, apparently catching some of at least one lung. The doe circled to approx the same area (she had a yearling nearby) and I shot again with this one going through the heart, the new angle having the bullet exit quite close to where the first one left. One had hit a rib on the way out I presume, but the bullet through the heart obviously did the trick. I apparently didn't push things with that rifle, as only a few loadings I recorded topped 3000fps with an 87/90gr bullet. Many 99s should be able to do that or get close.

I see the author managed 2900+ with the 90gr BTHP as well as Sierra and Speer 87gr, and that last bullet seems popular for the .250Sav. The article did have something I don't recall seeing previously: 3 sources for calculating stability requirements. Proof is on the paper, and a friend who collects featherweight 99s told me one of his .250s wouldn't stabilize any 87gr bullet he'd tried. I've read on this forum of taking actual measurements of their barrels, maybe Mark's particular gun is just a bit slower than 1 in 14".