Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
.270 vs 6.5x55
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HARPERC" data-source="post: 1609350" data-attributes="member: 30671"><p>One can't discount the situation Bell found in his most productive period, uneducated critters at moderate range. His contemporaries point to a later period, when conditions had changed that weren't as "smooth" for him.</p><p></p><p>Reportedly a good athlete with physical attributes he had to utilize more than once. </p><p></p><p>The 6.5's can make it on merit in the modern world, and really don't require the the hyperbole of digging up Bell. The .270's don't need Jack O'Connor, nor the .338's Elmer Keith.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HARPERC, post: 1609350, member: 30671"] One can't discount the situation Bell found in his most productive period, uneducated critters at moderate range. His contemporaries point to a later period, when conditions had changed that weren't as "smooth" for him. Reportedly a good athlete with physical attributes he had to utilize more than once. The 6.5's can make it on merit in the modern world, and really don't require the the hyperbole of digging up Bell. The .270's don't need Jack O'Connor, nor the .338's Elmer Keith. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
.270 vs 6.5x55
Top