So, what Field & Stream is trying to say is that these old cartridges are much like they are, once well regarded but no longer relevant in modern times.
Honestly, they post an article on obsolete cartridges, yet actual obsolete cartridges like Volcanic Rocket Balls or Gyrojet Cartridges are excluded, because then the article wouldn't be total click-bait which generates ad revenue by making deliberately outrageous statements to get people talking about it.
Field&Stream said:
My grandfather told me that back during prohibition when he was running shine, he watched a man empty a magazine of .25 Auto ammo into another man’s torso. That other man then went to his truck, got a shovel, and used that shovel to beat his attacker to death.
A prime example of a Grandfather Story... I've heard several variations of this story before. The names, occupations of the characters, setting, and cartridges change, but it always involves someone emptying a firearm into something with no effect, then inexplicably sticking around after the shooting while their attacker goes away to retrieve a more effective weapon then comes back and proceeds to murder the shooter.
One would presume that in such a case the shooter would have either fled the scene or continued attacking in a typical display of the instinctive fight or flight response to danger, but no, the folks in these stories attack someone, then patiently await retaliation after their attack fails to yield the desired result.
By the same token, one would presume that being shot would more likely result in someone fleeing the scene or immediately retaliating so as to prevent their attacker from reloading their weapon or continuing their attack until the desired results have been achieved, but nope, they always walk (never run) somewhere to retrieve a weapon, then come back and proceed to murder someone with impunity who was previously angry enough to attempt to murder them.
Great story, Grandpa Abe. Kudos for never allowing trifles like plausibility to get in the way of telling a good story. In fact, the more questions it raises the better because it leaves the listener wanting a sequel, like an explanation or what happened next, exactly. But being the magician of storytelling that you are, you never follow up on the tale, not even when the characters are allegedly friends of yours and therefore you ought to know what happened to them next.
Also, good thinking, openly admitting to being a moonshiner right at the beginning like that, because while it certainly hurts the credibility of your testimony at face value, it also provides you with a convenient out in the event in which somebody cares enough to call your story into question by pointing out it's many flaws/inconsistencies as I have.
