JC, I appreciate you quoting the source. Nothing wrong with that. I also appreciate what DM said regarding gun rag writers. I don't take every thing they say as gospel either.
================================================== =
DD,
Gasp, what a leap!
Do you feel that a larger caliber would have helped on bad hits?
In some cases no. In other cases, absolutely.
Or is the under .30 cal class the only one capable of bad hits?
Of course not.
You know you can’t blame a bad shot on the caliber.
The shot (accuracy), no. The result (getting the job done anyway), sometimes.
[Don't fly off to extremes, I don't advocate larger cartridges to allow for sloppy shooting, rather, I advocate them as they allow more of a safety net.]
Theres no bad guns...only bad shooters...
Good shooting is always a good thing, on the other hand….
There is no God given guarantee that good shooting will always occur each time on the hunt. (except on the Internet)
It isone proud hunter who implies thatHIS bullets go absolutely to the mark every time AND that anyone on any given day that fails that standard is judged incompetent or “bad”.
In the field, "caca" sometimes happens and as the tracking joblooms, questions enter one's mind.The obvious questions beyond “how can I take that shot back?”are…. Whatkind of "coverage"did I allow myself for that kind of human error?.... What are myodds of acquiring that animal, given what I chose to carry into the woods today? IMHO, with a 270 on elk, the answer isone'scoverage is “not much.”
"A hunter should not select a caliber and bullet that will kill when everything goes right, rather, should choose ones that will kill when everything goes wrong". [CE]
IMHO the 280 would be a step towards a safer margin vs. the 270…. (30-06 with heavy for caliber bullets, even better).