Mule Deer, I enjoy and appreciate you contributions here on the Fire, much because of the knowledge and experience behind those writings. On the other hand, it does seem odd, and even humorous, when one �gun writer� seems to find it necessary to go to such length to defend or justify what another �gun writer� publishes. You yourself said that writer does like to �stir things up� and, if that was his goal, he may have succeeded. However, such stirring often lies far from presenting solid info, data and useful insight that appeal to, and add to the knowledge of, readers who wish to grow.
I am not the least upset by his article, and particularly not because he maligned one or more of my �favorite� cartridges. None of those are my favorite, but I know some things about their effectiveness and know full well, from a practical standpoint, that the .264 WM is not at all obsolete. Not upset � but a bit disgusted by such writing for the apparent purposes of stirring things up among those who would rather learn something useful, and of getting one more article published. Who needs that?
You write that the fellow knew exactly what he was saying when he used the term �obsolete�, then cite a couple of dictionary definitions and go from there in defending him. However, that comes across as definitional hair-splitting when one considers other recognized definitions of �obsolete�, such as: �no longer in general use; fallen into disuse; of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date; replaced with something newer or better; out of use or practice; not current; unfashionable or outmoded�. Or, if one wishes to get pedantic, let�s go back to the mid 1500s for the Latin root (obsoletus) in its past participle form (obsolescere) �to fall into disuse�.
I don�t think those terms describe the subject cartridge, and think it will take more than a wordsmith defense to place that piece of writing in a good light.
