Enough gun?

[JohnJohnson]

OP speaking...

To those who disagreed with me respectfully - with construtive criticisms - we can just agree to disagree. Thank you for your comments. I respect your opinions and learned a few things.

To those who chose to vent and rudely criticize my respectful post - consider being thankful that you have a forum where you can share your thoughts without getting ugly.

Over & Out.

 

[EvanG17]

Good lord. This thread is out of hand

 

[Macintosh]

Can we have a sub forum called “scope reliability/small cartridge sufficiency arguments”, and immediately move all such threads there? Then we can visit any time we’re feeling cantankerous or ornery, and maybe the OP’s will see how frequently (and often) this has all been hashed out?

 

[roadrunner]

Good lord. This thread is out of hand

...and it's the same crowd too...

 

[JohnJohnson]

...and it's the same crowd too...

The OP said he didn't feel the smaller cartridges are as ethical as larger ones (so people who use them aren't as ethical as him), got corrected by the people he was saying that about, and now those who agree with him want to play victim to service their persecution complex. It's called crybullying and it often seems to come from the crowd who confuse their age with actual knowledge.

 

[WCB]

Hmmmm.

Is this based off of cartridge length, or diameter?

What about the most important, foot-pounds at the muzzle?

I thought it was neither and based of the motion?

 

[Jason Snyder]

The OP said he didn't feel the smaller cartridges are as ethical as larger ones (so people who use them aren't as ethical as him), got corrected by the people he was saying that about, and now those who agree with him want to play victim to service their persecution complex. It's called crybullying and it often seems to come from the crowd who confuse their age with actual knowledge.

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.

 

[Flyjunky]

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.

fact

 

[Caseknife]

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.

That was before the internet

 

[Flyjunky]

The OP said he didn't feel the smaller cartridges are as ethical as larger ones (so people who use them aren't as ethical as him), got corrected by the people he was saying that about, and now those who agree with him want to play victim to service their persecution complex. It's called crybullying and it often seems to come from the crowd who confuse their age with actual knowledge.

Agree but you can also see those who take the small cartridge mantra and turn it into a superiority complex.

 

[LongWayAround]

it often seems to come from the crowd who confuse their age with actual knowledge.

This is the part the grinds my gears.

Some people completely dismiss the observations and experience of others based solely on "I have been doing something for some number of years."

They might share their opinion, but have no interest in yours.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Can we have a sub forum called “scope reliability/small cartridge sufficiency arguments”, and immediately move all such threads there? Then we can visit any time we’re feeling cantankerous or ornery, and maybe the OP’s will see how frequently (and often) this has all been hashed out?

 

[fwafwow]

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.

I appreciate this post, and that opinions vary. I personally wish that those with opinions (on any side) would provide some basis for same so that maybe people (myself included) can reevaluate those opinions to see if they are wrong. Maybe I’m delusional to hope for that.

 

[JohnJohnson]

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.

Sure. Here are the relevant sections below. We've got someone who believes the 1500 ft/lbs energy myth, who also wants to tell us his thoughts on ethics based on that foundation. Many of the replies he got disputing that concentrated on the faulty basis for his opinion, not the opinion itself.

If I start out an ethics argument about archery by demonstrating I don't really understand how arrows kill things, I feel like I'd get called out. Telling someone the basis for their opinion is unfounded doesn't seem like a huge leap here. Using larger cartridges is perfectly fine even if it's just a vibes-based thing, I really don't care.

Last I heard – 1,000 ft lbs was a good “minimal” number for deer out yonder. Elk? 1,500 ft lbs – not at the muzzle – but down range at impact.

I’m NOT putting down anyone’s choice of cartridge. I am saying, there are cartridges that meet (& exceed) those numbers, downrange where it really counts. Insurance. We owe that to the game we hunt. It’s called Ethics – said respectfully.

 

[KenLee]

The OP said he didn't feel the smaller cartridges are as ethical as larger ones (so people who use them aren't as ethical as him), got corrected by the people he was saying that about, and now those who agree with him want to play victim to service their persecution complex. It's called crybullying and it often seems to come from the crowd who confuse their age with actual knowledge.

I'm not the OP, but No confusion here. I KNOW that I'm a half ass old shooter .
I'm still going hunting and still sending it!!!

 

[Jason Snyder]

Sure. Here are the relevant sections below. We've got someone who believes the 1500 ft/lbs energy myth, who also wants to tell us his thoughts on ethics based on that foundation. Many of the replies he got disputing that concentrated on the faulty basis for his opinion, not the opinion itself.

If I start out an ethics argument about archery by demonstrating I don't really understand how arrows kill things, I feel like I'd get called out. Telling someone the basis for their opinion is unfounded doesn't seem like a huge leap here. Using larger cartridges is perfectly fine even if it's just a vibes-based thing, I really don't care.

Yes, some people did a very polite and diplomatic job at explaining the lack of scientific merit to the kinetic energy argument. And, you are correct in that KE is deeply and illogically rooted into hunting, even the archery world.

Some people were rather rude and patronizing, and threw out pejorative labels There is no need to for that.

Like you, I don’t care one iota what people use. I can’t legally use a .223 for big game, but recognize there is plenty of data supporting the efficacy of such.

Plenty of folks might think I’m nuts for owning a .300 Win Mag and shooting copper bullets. Again, I don’t care. I know my limits and work within them, and would hope all others do as well. I spend time practicing to better myself, and would hope others do as well.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

It used to be, people could have differing opinions and agree to disagree while being civil about things.

Agreed, but it does get annoying when their “personal opinion” is just regurgitated garbage from gun writers who would lose their job if they stated half a company’s gun/ammunition sales are unnecessary. I don’t know who came up with the original ft/lb threshold but it’s outdated and irrelevant to apply across a variety of bullet designs. It’s an easy trap to look at the selection of cartridges small to large and line those up mentally to game animals small to large (which is what the OP did). It doesn’t take much medical or anatomical knowledge to disprove that requirement pretty quickly. The OP talked about insurance with larger cartridges but did not show a single reason or scenario that backs up the opinion. I enjoy discussing honest opinions when they actually have a reason to believe it besides “because I read it on the toilet”.

not attacking your comment Jason, just highlighting the fact that some people come on here to stand up on their stack of magazines to preach what they think is knowledge to folks actually having an honest conversation.

 

[Jason Snyder]

This is the part the grinds my gears.

Some people completely dismiss the observations and experience of others based solely on "I have been doing something for some number of years."

They might share their opinion, but have no interest in yours.

Close mindedness is not an age specific trait. People do a wonderful job or seeing it in others but not so much themselves.

 

[roadrunner]

The OP said he didn't feel the smaller cartridges are as ethical as larger ones (so people who use them aren't as ethical as him), got corrected by the people he was saying that about, and now those who agree with him want to play victim to service their persecution complex. It's called crybullying and it often seems to come from the crowd who confuse their age with actual knowledge.

No. He really never said any of that. Y'all read into it what you wanted to...just like always...

He clearly stated it was his observation and why he does what he does.

Try reading with intent for context next time. The discussion will go better.

FYI - a few inaccuracies stated by those "calling" the OP out. And please, don't bore people with the ignorance and no experience mantra...

 

[Jason Snyder]

The OP talked about insurance with larger cartridges but did not show a single reason or scenario that backs up the opinion. I enjoy discussing honest opinions when they actually have a reason to believe it besides “because I read it on the toilet”.

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.

In fact, this is one of foundational premises I’ve read on here in support of the .223/TMK combination is other cartridges make a wound channel that is TOO big.

I think if we are being intellectually honest, a bigger cartridge what makes a bigger wound channel does in fact provide a margin of error for placement. If wound channel A is 4” in diameter and wound channel B is 7” in diameter, it stands to reason B can be a couple inches off the intended POA and still damage the intended vital area.

I will grant you the high likelihood this is not what folks are referring to with “insurance”. But the point remains it’s not a black and white issue and a bigger wound channel is still a bigger wound channel.

All this said it is my opinion, based on anecdotal observations, more game is lost/wounded because people 1) shoot poorly, 2) don’t truly understand anatomy/proper shot placement, 3) choose a bullet that isn’t best for their application, and 4) are poor trackers. Choose of cartridge ranks pretty low in order of importance IMO.

Edited to add 1 and 3 can be tied into cartridge choice, but the level of significance can be highly variable.