RE: 6mm Remington and elk
What's the .30-06 for? It'd be nice if it were just that simple, wouldn't it?
But it's not. I hunt a variety of terrain. Some of it very steep, some of it very open. Which rifle would you prefer carrying up a mountainside at 10,000 feet? One that weighs just shy of seven pounds with a scope? Or one that weighs over nine pounds with a scope? Would you care about that as much out on the plains?
I might also pull.375 H&H, .300 Weatherby, .308, or .44 Magnum rifles out of the safe for the same species. There are also .223s and a .22-250 resting there.Each of those rifles are purpose-built for one thing or another. It remains that the .30-06 and that short-barrelled, lightweight Remington 600 in .243 are still the most versatile of the group.
Am I selective with shots I'll take on elk? Absolutely. But, I'm selective with shots I'll take on deer and antelope, too. Trophy bull of a lifetime quartering away at 250 yards? I'm probably going to pass, whether I'm armed with the .243 orwhether I happen to be carrying the .300. Broadside? Maybe I won't pass. Would I attempt a stalk to close the range a little? Sure I would. Trophy pronghorn at 500 while carrying the .300 Wby? I've passed on that one, too. Too much wind and a fawn kept sneaking in behind him. No amount of bony structure on an animal's head is worth a potentially crippling shot, regardless of the caliber I'm carrying.
Added: So, "spine shot and flick of the head" example above.
1) You're shooting a 6mm. What's the result?
2) You're shooting a 7mm Magnum. What's the result?