ORIGINAL: Hurricanespg
rather be huntin; Perhaps I overstated my philosophy a little, but I still think it is a valid point. If you can get a rifle to penetrate deep enough to the vitals or through the animal it will get the job done, and for the most part that does not require a magnum. Again though, if you or anyone else wants to shoota magnum what do I care.
The only argument that I was trying to make in my first post on page one (pictures in the links) is that using a smaller rifle cartridge (I still can't say caliber because powder matters too)with greatshot placement will do the job. You'll be fine. But if you hit the shoulder blade or something heavy like that which is a big possibility under hunting conditions (it's not bench shooting), the bullet will fragment and not penetrate and leave you with a very long tracking job. This bull was shot in the shoulder and not found by the person that shot him. Who knows what cartridge this person was using but is a perfect example why my opinion is what it is. A shoulder shot when using a bigger cartridge should not result in this. Notice how the shoulder blade is constructed with a "ridgeline" of bone that makes certain parts of the bone very thick and heavy.
Arrows kill differently and work differently so I'm still having a hard time drawing a line between the two. Beside like someone else said if a bear is charging you then and all you have is a stick and a string, your middle name just became "lunch".