Avery vs. JvB - Podcast Back and Forths

[RyanT26]

So now you're a "pansy boy and weakling" if you shoot a 6mm. New episode was just as infuriating as the rest of them. They love to pick at the fringes of the debate and make a bunch of straw man arguments. Real annoying.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

I wasn’t going to listen, but you’re talking me into it. Lol

 

[Swampcruiser]

So now you're a "pansy boy and weakling" if you shoot a 6mm. New episode was just as infuriating as the rest of them. They love to pick at the fringes of the debate and make a bunch of straw man arguments. Real annoying.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Yes, just like your called a fudd here if you use a 30-06.

 

[eric1115]

Yes, just like your called a fudd here if you use a 30-06.

Can you show an example of this?

You might get called a Fudd if you claim that the .30-06 is needed for reliable killing, or that less than a .30-06 is unethical, but simply using or preferring it is not something I've seen called out (other than just some good natured ball-busting).

 

[mitchellmountain]

It was a verbal septic tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I listened to it, it wasn't good. Nathan Foster is a ballistic expert , I guess, but I've read some articles and a couple books too. That's about as much expertise I garnered from the podcast. Men now are soft, they don't enjoy carrying 10 pound rifles and heavy recoil, like men should. Any shooter with enough practice and determination should come to love the 338 win mag and heavy bullets, which is what is needed for Sambar stag( cow elk sized game). Heck he witnessed a goat( farm variety) take a 223 60gr soft point in the ham, and the animal didn't seem to notice , so it's too small. That's my criticism with a good dose of sarcasm.
Now for the part that makes me scratch my head. JVB is a good writer, I don't mind and even enjoy his articles, but the podcast is not comparable in quality. There is a point I this episode where he talks about editors adding to the accuracy of his articles, but the point is completely lost on him. He's obviously intelligent, but man he's got some blind spots. I think he's holding onto what he's always aspired to as a standard of performance. It's hard to change course, admit that what you know might not be the end all of knowledge.
A part of me wants to ridicule him for it, because it is actually annoying, but I've got some blind spots too that I hope to become aware of in the future.

My 2 cents