ATH
Well-Known Member
300WM all the way.
Focusing just on energy is misleading. Which is more likely to fully penetrate if you hit the shoulder? Calling opinion vs fact...I do consider it FACT that larger calibers kill better, though there are trade-offs which may lead one to use a smaller caliber in certain situations. I don't use anything under .3 on elk because I don't get enough days in the field to pass on >300 yard shots...I know plenty of people who do fine with 270s but they don't shoot past 300. I love my 300WM on elk but it's simply a FACT my 338 edge hits them harder.
I'll go so far as to say if I was hunting dark timber and shots were likely limited to 100 yards, I'd rather be carrying a 45-70 than anything else being discussed in this thread. There is no substitute for diameter driven at sufficient velocity....and a 45-70 within 100 yards is hard to beat.
Focusing just on energy is misleading. Which is more likely to fully penetrate if you hit the shoulder? Calling opinion vs fact...I do consider it FACT that larger calibers kill better, though there are trade-offs which may lead one to use a smaller caliber in certain situations. I don't use anything under .3 on elk because I don't get enough days in the field to pass on >300 yard shots...I know plenty of people who do fine with 270s but they don't shoot past 300. I love my 300WM on elk but it's simply a FACT my 338 edge hits them harder.
I'll go so far as to say if I was hunting dark timber and shots were likely limited to 100 yards, I'd rather be carrying a 45-70 than anything else being discussed in this thread. There is no substitute for diameter driven at sufficient velocity....and a 45-70 within 100 yards is hard to beat.