ORIGINAL: ipscshooter
Seems to me that by making that statement, you are leaving some guesswork in the equation. The only reasonI can think of to "use more gun than necessary" is if you are concerned that you might make a bad shot AND, using more gun than necessary is more likely to lead to making a bad shot (i.e. flinching).A gut shot deer with a 7mm Remington Magnum is still a gut shot deer. I'd rather use my .243,not have to worry about shooting with my eyes closed, and know that the bullet is going to hit the deer exactly where I put the crosshairs.
a 243 is adequate as far as im concerned, but why not take a step up just to be safe because a 257 or a 270 isnt gonna cause a good shooter to start shooting poorly. Going from a 223 to a 338 mag or something could definately do it, but a 243seems to be an obvious better choice for deer shooting than a 22-250 and it wont make 99 percent of the shooters out there shoot poorly. Anything really less than a 243 seems a little on the under-gunned size to me but again, thats just my OPINION and we all know what opinions are like...
After all, if you use a 22-250 or a 223 to kill deer, why not put down the 17hmr's and the 22 hornets and start hunting groundhogs and prarie dogs with BB and pellet guns....afterall, they could kill a prarie dog just as easily if you shoot them in the head so why use the extra weight and speed in a bullet if it isnt needed?
Simple answer...people want to be better safe than sorry and the larger faster rounds are more of a garunteed kill.
Im not jumping on anybody just trying to defend my opinion (which i prolly havent done very well) which i believe everbody should be entitled to do.
