Thanks much for your comments on Steve Timm's article on 17 calibers, as well as your other well directed remarks. Input from the members is always very much appreciated, and in fact guides the direction of the club's magazine and services.

Clearly you wish for me to reply to you regarding Steve's work. I am not really sure what to say to you, however. I can tell you that all those years ago when Steve wrote the piece you refer to, he was telling it based on his experience at that time. He was directed to do a piece, and took a relatively small amount of time and dedicated it to 17s. After the article he continued shooting the 17s. Had he been asked two years later to do another similar or follow-up piece, his growing experiences would have rendered something akin to what you read. Be that as it may be, however, you clearly disagree with his take on 17s - as do many others. I, for example, love to shoot 17s. The lack of recoil and the screaming velocities possible are what get me happy. I had one 17 built that weighs 21 pounds with scope, and it barely even moves when I release the trigger brake. Super for observing downrange action.

The magazine's position is NOT to agree with or disagree with the personal perspectives of the writers - so long as they are not immoral or dangerous. If I only allowed articles I agreed with, then the magazine would be filled with just my thoughts - nothing new. And believe me, I do not, personally, agree with much of what is in the magazine. When we run articles stating that the .22-250 will do basically everything the 220 Swift will, I get negative mail from some, positive from others. This phenomenon never stops, no matter what the topic or writer's position. It happens with optics, bullets, powders, reloading matters, etc. Some people want more hunting articles, while some want more technical articles. Some want more gun reviews, others hate them. I work very hard to get the balance the member mail expresses a desire for. But it's not always possible.

Steve's article did indeed stir the pot, per se. And in the next issue we're running an article that is VERY pro 17. Since I got a lot of mail about Steve's piece that basically said: it's about time someone declared the shortcomings of the 17s, I am sure I will get some negative input about the next piece, and the piece we've projected to run in July - which is also pro-17s. Who's right? Everyone! This isn't tennis. Members of the serious shooting fraternity do not sit around and casually or lightly discuss the pros and cons of Wilson balls versus Spalding balls. Serious shooters take hard stands and are willing to argue their positions to the death. And there are so many argumentative positions to take. Frankly, I like that facet of our sport and support its continuation.