I think one can get too hung up on ballistics tables. And a badly placed shot with a .300 mag. is still a bad shot. However, remember, that 1000 ft./lbs is about what a .44 mag pistol bullet will be carrying for a lot of shots. The difference is, besides a bigger frontal area, that pistol bullet is designed (hopefully) to expand at that velocity, where a rifle bullet from a .270 or .30-06 generating that amount of energy at 500 yards, may no longer expand reliably. Personally, I would pass up those shots because of distance as well as energy.

A .243 is a great deer gun, but would be down to 1000 ft./lbs. with most loads around 300 yards. But, hey, this is about 100 yds. farther than I want to shoot anyway. The good news is, most people shoot well with a .243 because it doesn't pound you.

I think that if you put priority on making a humane shot, 1000 ft./lbs is pretty much minimum and I would prefer double that. I know that a lot of deer are taken with .223's, .22-250's and the like, but I still think it's a bad idea. They are somewhat better modern bullet design, but why use such a borderine caliber?

As for the shoulder shot, I'd want a fairly heavy bullet of good quality (Nosler partition, Barnes X, etc.) if I was going to try to punch through heavy bone on purpose. Just my 2 cents.