Boddington on the 9.3s

12 January 2003, 05:58

R-WEST

The way I see it, Boddington has hunted more places and killed more critters by a ratio of about 100/1 than I have, so, his opinion is respected by me.

His military title is irrelevant to either his hunting or shooting ability, but, the fact that he's advanced to Colonel in the USMC, with General on promise, means that he's got a lot more drive and determination than any of his detractors here. How many of the Boddington haters here are officers above the rank of, say, Captain, in the military?

{aforementioned crickets}

ANY rank at all

{more crickets}

I thought so.

R-WEST

12 January 2003, 06:39

Orion 1

quote:
Originally posted by GSF1200:
You only get to be General by being a very good ASS kisser!!!

It is better to remain silent and let others think you're a fool, than speak and remove all doubt.

12 January 2003, 08:43

D Humbarger

Boddington wouldn't make a pimple on a REAL Marines ass.

12 January 2003, 11:51

Major Caliber

quote:
Originally posted by ksduckhunter:

quote:
Originally posted by GSF1200:
You only get to be General by being a very good ASS kisser!!!
It is better to remain silent and let others think you're a fool, than speak and remove all doubt.

Then why did you say anything?

12 January 2003, 23:56

Rusty Gunn

quote:
Originally posted by R-WEST:
The way I see it, Boddington has hunted more places and killed more critters by a ratio of about 100/1 than I have, so, his opinion is respected by me.

His military title is irrelevant to either his hunting or shooting ability, but, the fact that he's advanced to Colonel in the USMC, with General on promise, means that he's got a lot more drive and determination than any of his detractors here. How many of the Boddington haters here are officers above the rank of, say, Captain, in the military?

{aforementioned crickets}

ANY rank at all

{more crickets}

I thought so.

R-WEST

With regards to Wismon's post, I figured sometime back that some folks here don't like truth spoken at them. It slaps them off their high horses, and they don't like to fall in public. ~~~Suluuq

13 January 2003, 12:35

<JOHAN>

quote:
Originally posted by Jameister:
While I dont disagree with you regarding titles, isnt there some foolish titles in sweden regarding king and queen or some such? silly, silly, silly,

Nice try

Well, not all countires have a history that is longer than 300 years, rootless bastards [Big Grin]

Instead of having a silly president,we have King and Queen. The title is nothing that you buy or run election campains for, like in other countries [Big Grin]

The King in Sweden has no real constitutional power. The prime minister "stats minister" is the one who are most influential. The Royal titles are a historic heritage from the past, nothing more.

Jameister, I suggest you are trying to piss off the british roayalists instead. You will be happy to be alive and well [Wink]

/ JOHAN

13 January 2003, 16:54

smallfry

I just read the Boddington actical. Listen to this quote It is not almost the equal of the 375 and should not be considered a suitable substitute for Cape buffalo and such. and also... Recoil is moderate, and while the 9.3X74R is extremely marginal for the very largest game, the only thing that handicaps its versatility on medium game is its practical range limitation. "extremely marginal" is alittle extreme for me.

[ 01-13-2003, 07:58: Message edited by: smallfry ]

14 January 2003, 05:27

JohnTheGreek

Saeed,

You are spot on with respect to titles. It seems very foolish to publish under a military title when talking about hunting. By the rationale of some posters on this thread, perhaps I should post under the name Dr.JohnTheGreek since, I have heightened mathematical skills that enable me to better calculate ballistics and their impact on game. Utter foolishness! I expect to be addressed by my title in the classroom and when I see students outside of class (I feel I have earned that) but any who insist on being referenced by their title (military or otherwise) outside of that professional realm are just pretentious fools in my opinion.

Best,

JohnTheGreek

14 January 2003, 06:51

smallfry

It always seems to me that the people who insist on being called by there titles in public, are not happy with their own name. Kinda pathetic.

14 January 2003, 07:30

Hobie

quote:
Originally posted by smallfry:
It always seems to me that the people who insist on being called by there titles in public, are not happy with their own name. Kinda pathetic.

I agree with this. I've met people who, outside their professional circles, insist on references to their title. Heck, I don't even require that you call me by my given name!

But the point is, in this instance, it just doesn't matter. Perhaps somebody here actually knows Boddington well and so knows better, but I suspect, it is something his editor(s) started and continued. You either agree or disagree with what he writes, you either learn or don't, you either enjoy it or you don't. That's my take.

In any case, I'm off to get a copy. There's so little in G&A usually that I don't subscribe but I think I'll pop for this one issue.

16 January 2003, 13:03

Gatehouse

I don't like Boddingtons writing style that much, but I respect his opinions. If I ever get to hunt half of what he has, I'll die happy.

With respect to using his military rank in hunting magazines:

Boddington himself has said that some editors use it, some don't, and it's up to them. He doesn't care one way or another. It's not his choice either way. I think he said this on 24HR Campfire.

21 January 2003, 03:59

<OTTO>

I read that article. I am unfamiliar with these rounds so I found the article to be informative. To me it's not the author, It's the subject matter. All these guys seem to take turns running the same topics over and over. How many times can they print how great the 30-06 is or isn't? Or how good their .270 or 7mm rem mag kills stuff? How about the "best 10 rifles, pistols, shotguns, slingshots, blowguns ever made article? Then don't forget the "these guys sent me a new gun look how great it is article". Truth be told, They have been printing the same crap for 60 years. Think I'm kidding? Look at any 1948 issue of American Rifleman or any 1980 G&A. They never really say anything is bad or crap. Or anything new either. Even the "new short magnums" is old hat(284 Win). Face it, the gun authors have become stagnant. Every year, over and over, the same topics, over and over.

21 January 2003, 09:39

<Safarischorsch>

RWS marketed a 225 for a short time but dropped it, at least in the USA.

In Germany you still can buy the 225grain DK-bullet...

21 January 2003, 13:15

<Pre64>

Safarischorsch,

Thanks for the update. How popular is the 225 DK for roe deer and other light game?

21 January 2003, 13:35

TGetzen

I like the article. It wasn't trying to sell anything like so many articles, was informative, and best of all, may generate more interest in the 9.3 bore for American shooters, and make bullets & brass cheaper and easier to find, when I finally get mine going.

I wish they had included some SAAMI drawings with the case dimensions. And if I hadn't known better, I would have gotten the impression that the 9.3 wasn't legal for dangerous game.

Todd