- Dec 26, 2016
My emphasis was on clean kill.Songdog":o40dpzfe said:I’ll respectfully, but whole-heartedly, disagree.... it DOESN’T “hold true”..... a bullet in the grass bag is a bullet in the grass bag.... it matters little if it’s .243 or .338. There is no “enough gun” to reliably kill stuff with poor shot placement... period. Bigger guns don’t seem to make much difference on bad hits.... big guns just seem to make more bad hits (recoil and potential shooter error go hand in hand).
Furthermore..... starting bullets in a bad place, intending for them to end up in a good place.... is a recipe for long tracking jobs and hellish pack outs. For example: if you’re aiming at the lift hip, trying to drive it through all the clockwork and into the right shoulder... that starts the bullet out a long ways from where it needs to do the bulk of its destruction. I don’t need a rifle that will run a bullet through an elk lengthwise..... because I’m not going to try to shoot through one lengthwise. BUT... I do need one that can handle breaking an elk humerus bone and keep on truck in’.... because I am likely to encounter an elk humerus, whether intentionally or unintentionally, because I’m trying to shoot them very close to where that bone is typically located.
Finally.... bullet technology has come a LONG way.... we no longer have to rely on bullet mass.... we can hedge our bets with bullet construction. So.... the old adage of “use enough gun” is still valid... bullets and cartridges are so good now.... that a lot more rounds can be considered “enough gun”.
Shoot the biggest round you can reliable shoot, put a bullet in it that’s appropriate for the task at hand, and be judicious with shot placement.... if that’s not “enough gun”.... then hunt something else.
Some of the examples you offered are great examples of bad ideas in action.
I’m sure those happen and I’d never encourage them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk