Over the years as handgun huting became popular, there were articles in all the gun mags. with one common thread to them. This being the subject of hunting with a handgun verses rifle. In all of them I noticed that the theme was bragging about calibers such as the .44 mag.,.30-.30 Win. etc. being such devastating and accurate rounds when fired in a handgun. Then you would read sometimes in the same issue about the ineffectiveness of these same rounds when fired in a rifle. Sometimes the articles would be written by the same author. They would tell of the far ranging hits with the handguns, and then say how terribly inaccurate these calibers would be in a rifle, an exsample would be the 94 Winchester's inability to put 3 rounds in a pie plate at 100 yrds, but on the other hand they would take for instance a Thompson- Center Contender chambered in .30 WCF, and talk a lot about shooting deer at 200 + yrds. And then say how in the ol' 94, that the .30 WCF was useless not much past 100 yrds. These articles were written by fellows who were supposed to be making their living by hunting and shooting, and then writing about their expereince. What are ya'lls thoughts on this?