[Jeff Higgins]

Hey FOG, to be completely honest, your writing is a bit hard to follow. You remind me of my friend Oddjob Uno, one of our long lost, favorite contributors to PPOT. I do believe, however, from what I can gather, we agree on most points.

Shooting games are the best way to hold interest while kids learn to shoot. Paper targets are boring and lose their interest rather quickly. Yes, shooting rifles they like is paramount to maintaining their interest. And yes, I love my "springers" - RWS 34, RWS 48, HW 80 for rifles, and Webley Tempest and HW 45 for pistols. They are all very demanding, yet also rewarding, to shoot.

As far as hunting any sort of "dangerous" game in heavy cover, I agree whole heartedly. There are only a couple of guys I have ever hunted with with whom I will do so today. This game really, definitively, separates the "men from the boys". 10-14 year old girls with AR's don't get to play...

I have never considered shooting animals over bait as "hunting". It is merely shooting animals to fill the larder. There are no "hunting" skills displayed in this pursuit. Only shooting, and not very challenging shooting at that.

I have seen far too many animals hit very well with the "classic" heart/lung shot run on for far too long. This is a decidedly North American shot. It is widely derided around the world for just that reason - animals can run far too far when hit that way. I learned long ago, when presented with that broadside shot, to go for the more "African" method of aiming for the high shoulder shot instead. This breaks the shoulder and puts them down, and damages the big arteries going into the top of the heart to keep them down. Pipsqueak .22 centerfires lack the power to break the big shoulder joint and continue to penetrate, eliminating this shot from consideration.

I, too, prefer to be over gunned rather than under gunned. On that we agree, as well as the need to practice to ensure a humane, killing shot regardless of caliber chosen. Where we disagree is on where we choose to hedge.

Funny that you cite muzzle blast as a bigger factor than recoil. I could not agree more. Yet, as I'm sure anyone with any experience with the things will agree, the muzzle blast of your short barreled .223's and such is about as nasty as they get. Those things have a very, very serious "bark" to them. Yet they are suitable for 10-14 year old girls, who are just getting comfortable with rifles? You contradict yourself.

And, finally, yes, I agree - far too many who would call themselves "hunters" buy some gawdawful, ear splitting, shoulder crushing cannon and then never practice with it enough to ever become proficient with it. I wish there were something we could do about that. Does that mean they should resort to some ineffective, sub caliber rifle instead? They still would not practice with it, so that is rather moot.

Anyway, this has been a great discussion. It has served to highlight one of the .220 Swift's legacies - the debate concerning the suitability of .22 centerfires in general for hunting "big" game. There are obviously two camps. I adhere to the "unsuitable under any circumstances" camp. It's clear we disagree, which is fine. In the end, I'm just glad to hear that you are promoting our sport by introducing it to some undoubtedly fine young ladies. Hat's off, again.