[Jeff Higgins]

I would keep it, just because I've never won anything in my life.

That said, I would never buy a T/C Venture with my own money. I would never buy a .300 Winchester mag with my own money. I would never buy a Bushnell anything with my own money.

T/C makes great products, and I own several of them. The Venture, however, represents everything wrong with modern sporting rifles that I covered at length in the bolt action rifle thread. They are simply not for me. Too many compromises to hit a price point.

The .300 mag won't kill anything that an '06 won't. To me, the mid bore magnums (.264 Win, 7mm Rem, 300 Win. & Weatherby, etc.) are the most useless, over rated rounds in existence. They shoot marginally flatter than their non-magnum counterparts (6.5 Swede, 7mm Mauser, .30-'06, etc) at the cost of significantly increased blast, recoil, and rifle weight. In the field, the advantages are so slight that absent the blast and recoil I would challenge anyone to tell me which is which, between the standards and magnums, based purely on the performance on game.

To me, "magnum" has always meant bigger bores and heavier bullets. The .338 Winchester Magnum is on the right track, but the .375 H&H is where we really start talking "magnums". Believe me, there is a notable difference in observable performance in the field between it and the gaggle of medium bore standards and magnums. Until I need its level of performance, I'll stick to standard calibers, thank you very much.

As far as the various short magnums, take everything I just said about the medium bore magnums and add what George has to say about the short magnums. Anyone remember the 8mm Remington Magnum? .307 Winchester (a lever gun round for the beefed up '94)? .356 Winchester (bigger version of the .307)? How about Remington's short magnums, and Short Action Ultra Mags (SAUM's)? They've all gone the way of the Dodo bird...