Reburn
Mayhem Contributor
I mean. Come on guys.
The OP has 0.2 posts a month or 2.4 posts a year.
Dont let other people get you spun out.
The OP has 0.2 posts a month or 2.4 posts a year.
Dont let other people get you spun out.
In all fairness, it was falsely stated early in this thread a wound channel from a bigger cartridge was no bigger than one from a .223.
Absolutely. My point is, civility can and should be part of the equation.There is no reason at all for opinions about terminal ballistics. No one, I would bet including you would say it’s ok for someone to repeatedly state their opinion without being challenged that- “bullets tumble through air the whole way to the target, and you never can know what or where they will go” My supposition is that you and everyone else would call them out for stating erroneous things that are objectively false, no?
Stating incorrect and false things about how bullets kill, then using that as a basis to build an opinion is “ignorance”.
Taken in full context when I said it's just as likely that the .243 is making wound channels just as big...it depends on the bullet. You're right about the ELD, but what about a 180 Partition or TSX?You are wrong . A 3006 with 178eldm will make wound channel substantially larger than a 108eldm from a 243. If you belive otherwise you should invest time and money into ordinance gel as I have to see for yourself.
Opinions are all fine until people start comparing them and particularly if someone infers having a given opinion is a bad idea. For example when someone starts a discussion by arguing that their opinion is somehow more ethical than the opinions of others people have have a tendency to have a bit more chilly discourse. And if the original person makes those same assertions without supporting data, the receiver of those assertions may either respond more strongly or they may immediately categorize the speaker as someone who is not worth responding to at all.We don’t all have to have the same opinions. The OP clearly stated it was his opinion and did not try to parlay it as fact.
It used to be, people could have differing opinions and agree to disagree while being civil about things.
Ethics are pretty much an opinion in and of themselves, no? Everything I’ve written is just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.For example when someone starts a discussion by arguing that their opinion is somehow more ethical than the opinions of others people have have a tendency to have a bit more chilly discourse.
Ethics are pretty much an opinion in and of themselves, no?
Didn’t intend that as anything negative towards you. Ethics may be based on opinions and change over time. But if the OP makes an argument that anyone is less than ethical, they should be ready to defend that opinion with hard data or prepare for less than friendly discourse.Ethics are pretty much an opinion in and of themselves, no? Everything I’ve written is just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Each of us make our own decisions on how to act.
I certainly didn’t take it as anything negative.Didn’t intend that as anything negative towards you. Ethics may be based on opinions and change over time. But if the OP makes an argument that anyone is less than ethical, they should be ready to defend that opinion with hard data or prepare for less than friendly discourse.
Once the formies start its over......Good lord. This thread is out of hand
Didn’t intend that as anything negative towards you. Ethics may be based on opinions and change over time. But if the OP makes an argument that anyone is less than ethical, they should be ready to defend that opinion with hard data or prepare for less than friendly discourse.
Was not intending to be a dick or support the behavior in others.I certainly didn’t take it as anything negative.
Please don’t take this as anything negative towards yourself, but it’s pretty easy for humans to justify being a dick to someone because they didn’t like how the other person came across. I do it myself. We all do, but it doesn’t make it okay, in my humble opinion.
ehhh...a dig coated in honey is still a dig.
Hopefully that didn’t come as specifically directed towards you, because it was t meant to be. Apologies if it did.Was not intending to be a dick or support the behavior in others.
Yeah, he clearly ties using more gun than necessary ("insurance") to ethics, which by implication calls into question the ethics of those who don't. All the while providing no justification other than personal anecdotes as to why that is the case.No, its the same thing we get weekly, in different packaging. It addresses part of the topic and completely ignores the meat of the issue, while insinuating that others have an ethical failing for not having “enough insurance”, in this case equal to 1500 ft lb. Its so much the same as normal as to be yawn-worthy, in this case it's just hiding behind sort of flowery-sounding but condescending verbiage (“Maybe I have these opinions because I’m older than you and the odds are high I am. Been around a long time.…As time passed and rifles came and went, I learned a few things. Like you folks are now…”). I didnt respond because it gets old and frankly I have better things to argue over than a self-professed old mans inability to see positive change for what it is. My response now is only because Im surprised a few folks are defending it as “only stating his personal opinion”—the judgement was dripping, I hardly think it took much reading into it to see that. I apologize if I completely misread it, but the original post actually struck me as a particularly underhanded approach to go out if his way to call the folks using smaller cartridges unethical hunters. Still reads that way to me. And no, I dont think there’s a shred of truth to it.