Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Boomer/Geezer/Luddite Wet Dream

I love old rifles and cartridges, and for me, if a bolt rifle isn't CRF it's not a "real" rifle. But I'm not trying to live in a long gone past. Purely as a tool, something like, say, a Tikka T3X with a suppressor and a reliable dialing scope (or BDC scope) is probably far superior to anything I currently own. That article sort of reminded me of commercial aircraft development - the Lockheed Constellation was a beautiful plane, and the apex of piston powered transport aircraft design by the 1950's. It absolutely carried passengers across the Atlantic, but development didn't stop in the 1950's, even though I think "real" airplanes have propellers. I'd always rather fly a 747 (or whatever jet) across the pond equipped with current technology.

I liked article, he was entertaining. I really care if he missed a scope number or thinks one cartridge evolved from another incorrectly. I have never read his writings before. As far as the 30-30 and deer numbers, no one knows the real facts. I would bet the 30-06 surpassed the 30-30 years ago. Just enjoying the article, and not caring if a fact was incorrect,. I can always fact check for myself.

I am guessing here, but I suspect the article was a "mission accomplished" piece. It stirred debate and got people talking about both new and old technology. In that regard, it was a success. It got the grumpy old men talking. The young were amused and likely talking about it as well

This was an op-ed. Should you wish to express your opinion of the article to SCD, scroll to the bottom and you can write it there. As of right now, nothing seems to have been sent, or been put up in response.

https://sportingclassicsdaily.com/confessions-of-a-lead-slinging-luddite/

You're no doubt right, because such articles are a long-time tradition magazine (and now Internet) publishing.

But that brings up other questions. Did he deliberately stick mistakes in the piece to get people "talking?" Or were his mistakes real? One seems extremely manipulative, while the other isn't something I'd prefer reading.

Would much rather read such an article if written by, say, Ross Seyfried--or several other firearms authors who actually know their stuff....

I believe he wrote it with mistakes because of this sentence,

"Speaking of truth, these things I tell you might stretch it, but they will never “rend it asunder,” which is Good Book lingo for “tore all to hell."

He must have known that by "stretching the truth" he was going to illicit a strong reaction. Whether you liked the piece or not, it suggests that the editor was in on it as well. I say that because most editors would have noticed the mistakes and not left them in. I am not saying that he was part of the decision making process, but Scott Mayer would be the one to ask.

Just a WAG.

Had anyone heard of this guy before you read this piece?

I hadn't.

I doubt that any writer, or anyone posting on sites like this, has a perfect score, never having made an error in something he/she wrote, but I do lose faith/respect when a "professional" writer fails to do their research of the details of their piece. Maybe this piece was written with a little tongue in cheek, maybe not.

Great read, especially for another 79 year old picture who believes that walnut and blued steel are for real people and stainless is for cookware, synthetics for making needy Kardashian's curvy, and anything Creedmoor is for man buns.

I could align myself there as well. I call it the weird tic, but I hasn’t hurt me much thus far.

My thoughts exactly.

Dangit! We were in full scolding mode there!


Hahahaha! Thanks for ruining it.


Anyway...I shoots all my deer with a 270 loaded with IMR 4350 and a Speer HotCor.


Pretty cutting edge if I do say so.

Entertaining article, made me smile

One problem with hunting using bullets and calibers that are described as superlatives is that you are left with no option to enjoy life. Example, bullet(s) with the highest BC

When I was a kid, Remington offered a 100 grain RNCL factory load in the 250 Savage, but discontinued them around 1970.

Jeff,

Am sure that happened, as I mentioned in my PM to you.

But also mentioned that I have a box (actually it turned out to be two) of original 100-grain .250 ammo from soon after it was introduced that are both spitzers. One is the Savage brand, the other Western ammunition--long before Winchester took over Western.

Charles Newton was not a ballistic dummy--and neither was Arthur Savage....

John,

I never doubted your words in that PM and my post wasn't intended to catch you posting an error. I posted my comment about the 100 grain Remington RNCL bullets so that the folks reading this post would know that the bullet that the author cited actually existed as a factory load, and probably as a component bullet, half a century ago. A lot of people on this site aren't as old as we are and have never experienced some of the things that we were exposed to before their time.

I've been shooting the 250-3000 since around 1970 and recall that Remington and Winchester cataloged 4 factory loads at that time. Remington cataloged 2 100 grain loads, the PSP and RNCL. Winchester cataloged an 87 grain PSP and a 100 grain Silvertip. I don't recall Federal offering a factory loaded ammo in 250-3000. CIL/Dominion might have, but I don't recall any of the retailers who I frequented carrying any CIL/Dominion ammo that American companies cataloged. They carried the CIL/Dominion ammo for cartridges that the American manufacturers had discontinued or never made, cartridges like the 22 HP, 6.5x54 MS, 32-40, 38-55, and 11mm/43cal Mauser.

I know that Charles Newton was a well known ballistician during the early years of the 20th Century, you may recall that I'm a fan of the 256 Newton cartridge, a cartridge that produced approximately the same ballistic performance as the 260 REM and 6.5 CM do today. I don't know if Arthur Savage was much of a ballistician, but he was a good designer and promoter of the firearms and cartridges tagged with his name. I have read that he settled on the 87 grain bullet because it was the heaviest bullet that would make 3,000 fps with the components available at that time. Naming the cartridge that Newton designed the 250-3000 instead of the 250 Savage reminded everyone who read the cartridge's name how fast it was at a time when 3,000 fps was uncommonly fast.

No disrespect intended, that's not the way I roll.

CIL loaded .250 Savage ammunition with 100 GR PSP bullet at 2820 FPS for many years, possibly right up until they closed. I actually used some of that brass to make 22-250 ammo.

I know that, Jeff. I just wanted to post on the thread about my original box of 100-grain spitzer .250 Savage factory ammo.

Apparently Savage waited a little bit before introducing the 100-grain load, to allow the publicity of the 87 @ 3000 to take hold. Western Ammunition loaded a 100-grain spitzer starting around 1914. (That was before Winchester and Western merged.)

I know that, Jeff. I just wanted to post on the thread about my original box of 100-grain spitzer .250 Savage factory ammo.

Apparently Savage waited a little bit before introducing the 100-grain load, to allow the publicity of the 87 @ 3000 to take hold. Western Ammunition also loaded a 100-grain spitzer, starting around 1914. (That was before Winchester acquired Western.)[/quote

I had read, maybe in COTW, that the 100 grain bullet wasn't introduced until sometime in the 1920s. I don't have many pre-WW2 cartridge catalogs in the library for reference.

COTW says Peters ammunition introduced their 100-grain load in 1932, but that isn't Savage ammo. One of my other references states that Western introduced their 100-grain load in 1914.

I'll take a look at others in my library and see what else I can find.

Practical engineers vs marketing wankers is what steers the wagon in my opinion. Younger generations feel a need to fix stuff that ain’t broke, and do it for all product lines.

One of my favorites is a .45 flintlock with a (OMG!) 42” barrel. Such rifles are still putting meat on the table. Don’t tell anyone it only weighs 7# 3 oz., without the bayonet of course.