Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Is there any chance of getting Ross back?

JMac
That was funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
art

Yes, it was....

Innate fear of brothers-in-law?

Yep.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Prolly not.

One thing, however, he DID raise the price on possum hides. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Steve

Ross has had some articles in a couple NRA publications in the last few months. The magazines are Americas First Freedom and Free Hunters.

Ross does write for those NRA mags as well as Double Gun Journal,he has also written an article for a new mag called Under Wild Skies,and will soon be writing conservation articles for Honda

At least when he shoots the wrong deer the big one gets to live another day. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Whats next? Shooting his guides dog when he thought it was an antelope?

I wonder what the optics company (Kahles I think) thought when they read that piece. I doubt they'll ever let him test their gear again.

IRRC it was both Swaro scope and binos used on that hunt. Heck, he spent more ink complaining about having to eat bologna sandwiches for lunch!

I do miss Ross though I am sure he was as big a pain in the ass as many have said. Guess I will just have to shoot more and read less. Probably should have been doing that all along. Really tired of reading about the latest short and fat anyway - regardless of who is doing the writing.

I remember that now. I only suffered through that piece once. I think I only read it because he was shooting a Kimber and I hoped to pick up some info on these.

So...he misses horrendously with a very fine rifle and $2500.00+ worth of optics? No wonder he babbled on and on about bologna and cocoa for the whole piece. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

He should be writing for Guns & Ammo or Outdoor Life, not Wolfe mags.

The onlything mindless is mistating his writings on the 458 win mag. He justifiably describes the 458 win mag as being a sorry excuse for the NE rounds it was designed to duplicate. The case is too small to hold sufficient powder and operate in hot climates with loaded with 500 gr bullets.

If you read his article on the 458 Lott in Rifle, he clearly states that the 458 win mag was never as bad as it's harshest critics state.

The truth is the 458 win mag should have been the 450 Watts, which predates the 458 win mag by a few years, and is full 2.85" long case, and the Lott by a few decades.

I also miss Ross's articles, covering obscure subjects, and presenting his opinions, which often ruffle the fethers of sensitive types.

I also concur with Alan about those who produce, and those who would rather critisize others rather then own up to their own shortcomings.

I'd just team him up with Doug Miller! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Now that would be comedy...

Re : 458 Lott This is getting silly !
How can I be accused of mistating Ross's article when he admits that he's 458-bashing in the first paragraph ??
Why don't you read it again....or have you ever read it ?
Maybe with the powders and bullets available when it came out, it performed poorly, but with present-day components, I think it works ok...a lot of other calibers are better now than when they came into being.
Furthermore, if it's so bad, why does Phil Shoemaker write it up in Rifle # 208....was Mr. S trying to bash Phil at the same time??
My 458 took a 750 lb. boar Silvertip 10 yrs. ago...500 gr Hornady...one shot., so it works for me, and it will handle every size cast bullet that I make for my 45-2.1 and 45-3.2.
But....the point I was trying to make when I stepped on the toes of the Seyfried fan club is this :
I don't think any writer should bad-mouth any caliber...if you work in a gun shop, you don't dare do that, otherwise you might just lose a customer, and writers aren't any different, a proper technical comparison is not the same as a plain bashing...I'd criticize any writer for doing it.
So condem me all you will...That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it....As long as writers like John B., Mike V., Phil S., and others keep up their good work, I'll keep reading Rifle / Handloader.....and I won't miss you-know- who !

I find the writers unwilling to badmout anything boring.

I also think Ross has a very valid point that had the 458 win mag been made on the full length H&H case, there never would have been the problems the win mag had, because the case would have been big enough. That doesn't mean the 458 win mag isn't fully capable despite it's limitations, just that it should have been made without those limitations.

I have a great deal of respect for the late Finn Aagard and for Phil Schoemaker, and their very well written articles on the the 458 win mag.

I just don't see why folks can't acknowledge the 458 win mags shortcomings, and the fact that it should have been made on the full length case from the git go, as the M-70 was certainly a large enough action to handle it. That is what I see as the crux of Ross' argument, and which I fully agree with.

for me seyfreid had the ability to dissect a subject that i would have had borderline curiosity about and turn it into an informative and interesting read... he broadened my horizons continually....

he had the ability to convey a blended sense of time, circumstance, and purpose that altered my perceptions and attitudes towards many things... john w

Opinions are of course at least as prevalent as certain orifices, and it's surely a fact that everyone does have them, but I find it bizarre to listen to the 458 bashers. I had thought that that had settled down a bit.

Even when the 458 was first introduced, many questioned why it was designed with the short case when the action would clearly handle the 375 length case. One more than suspects it was part of the sales pitch of the recently introduced family of short magnums--something we're repeating today and apparently buying into with even shorter and fatter rounds. Still, one can only keep making the short case point so many times before it's just boring and pointless....the 458 Mag is what 'tis.

It undeniably had some problems early on with powders used, presumably as an economy measure and with some atrocious bullets. However, the problems were largely solved long before Internet Bwana Simbas leaped onto the 458-is-barely-more-effective-than-a- popgun-hobby horse based mostly on a couple of articles by Jacques Lott which set the stage for a stampede of the herd of individualists.

Would it have been a more versatile cartridge with a full length case? Undeniably---but it wasn't made that way. As it is, it's still more gun than most shooters can handle effectively.

Of course, when the 458 came out, folks treated it like it was little short of a shoulder fired field piece with as much damage to the shooter's shoulder as down range. Only the gods know how folks in mid-1950's would have responded to a 458 on the full length 375 case. Certainly the wildcat 45's had their following but it was surely too small for a major company to make a profit on. I reckon we were all weaker souls back then given all the folks today who shoot the Lotts, G&A's, and even the big 500 bores on 460 Wby cases and even larger bores with precision and speed.

It also really shouldn't need pointing out that most folks were taking the 458 Win to task for it's lack of velocity compared to the old 450-470 Nitro rounds using chronographed results from the 458 compared to the paper ballistic figures of the old Kynoch rounds without bothering to observe the blue sky in those latter figures.

Simple fact is, whatever folks have to say about it, the 458 Win carved out a major niche in the big bore field. It certainly helped the 458's progress that Kynoch discontinued production of the NE rounds for a while and 458 magazine rifles were readily and inexpensively available as was the ammuntion. As far as it's power, though, and most folks ability to use it effectively, one has to put a fair bit of credence in the professional hunters -- Finn Aagaard being one of the most notable--who preferred hunters to use a 375 for larger game since they figgered it was about the max calibre that their average hunter could learn to shoot decently with.

I certainly don't see folks on the ranges I frequent who handle recoil well even with service weight handguns and 30 calibre rifles, much less serious heavy bore rifles. Don't get me wrong, I like plus-40 bore handguns and rifles, but an awful lot of us kid ourselves about being able to use them effectively. It's all the more interesting with African game, since most sport hunters can't afford to shoot what was originally meant by Big Game and will use essentially stopping rifles for elephant in the bush to kill buffalo and lesser critters.

Personally, I wouldn't carry one of my 416's, 458's, or my one 470NE to Alaska---certainly not anything larger, but I'd surely be happy on a serious bear hunt in the alders to have the likes of Phil Shoemaker with his pragmatic, ugly 458 standing ready to handle an unexpected emergency. Somehow, I don't think any sane person would find him or his rifle wanting.

Cheers,

imho,
You said a mouthful.

Nice to see you here by the way...(grin)

Regards, Matt.

Ross was the first, that I recall, to write a detailed article on barrel break-in. Went through the procedure step by step. Had to recant a couple of months later in the magazines letters to the editor from the readers section as it was such a full of sh*t article and many of those knowledgable on the subject pinned him down to admit that he had no evidence to back up his break-in claim.
So many shooters still attempt to break in their barrels today based on pure horse manure. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Ross lost my confidence then and never gained it back. May he RIP.
GeoW

GeoW, when you said, "So many shooters still attempt to break in their barrels today based on pure horse manure," you made a very valid statement far beyond your intended context in relation to Seyfried's article. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> (Would someone please explain to a computer illiterate {your obedient servant} just how I go about moving a quote from a post into my reply? Probably won't understand it, but thanks in advance for trying. John)