[Jeff Higgins]

Paul, what's funny about all of this is that when all is said and done, our "big club" handguns have less "power" than the lowly .30-30, your favorite .257 Roberts, or one of my favorites, the old 6.5 x 55 Swede. No one would recommend any of those for protection in bear country. Yes, these hand cannons are the most we can carry somewhat conveniently, out of the way on our hip, but they are what they are - powerful handguns that don't even measure up to what many would consider "inadequate" rifles (although some of us would challenge their notions on "inadequate").

Funny, too, how that whole thing has worked. I shot my first several deer with a sporterized Mauser in .257 Roberts. They seemed to think it was "adequate". The .30-30 was considered quite adequate for everything except grizzlies and moose, and the 6.5 Swede was very sought after. I don't know, but it seems as if game must have changed; if one believes the pundits of today, any of these "inadequate" rounds won't stop a charging jack rabbit. One needs the latest .300 "Remchester Short Fat Ultra Light Magnum" (I can't tell anymore if it's ammo or Starbucks...) to kill a lowly Columbia Blacktail.

But yet, somehow, the mighty .454 Casull will completely up-end a charging grizzly, sending him ass over teakettle, turning him inside out like a praire dog hit with the .220 Swift. Hmmm... That said, I have demonstrated to myself, to my own satisfaction, just how well a big bore revolver kills, regardless of its "on-paper" ballistics. Likewise with those "inadequate" rifle rounds. I think things have become ever more so like Elmer Keith used to say - most gunwriters shoot more with their typewriters than anything else. Lots of pure and utter b.s. permeating the shooting world these days.