The last elk I shot had a broadhead lodged in its spine. The wound had healed over and was more likely than not a year or more old. That grizzled old bull had done quite well in spite of being less than 1/4" of being paralyzed.

I doubt we'll ever see a thread on arrows being "inhumane" or "insufficient" for elk. Yet, the .243 is accused of that almost constantly.

As I've posted here before, I've killed three elk with a .243. All three fell to single heart/lung shots. No tracking was necessary to "recover" any of them. Interestingly, the elk that I had to trail the farthest (maybe 100 yards) was hit through the heart and both lungs at less than 50 yards with a 300 gr SGK from a .375 H&H.

During deer season, we often drive past or end up nearby other deer camps. Lately, I've been amazed at how many animals I see hanging from a pole with huge holes blasted through their backstraps, hams and guts. It's not always possible to tell what caliber or bullet was used without actively engaging in conversation with someone, but it's quite apparent to me that we don't, as a community, stress marksmanship as much as we should. How many of these guys do you suppose are in the ".223 is too small for deer/.243 is too small for elk" camps? I'm pretty confident that none of those were .243 holes.

Oh, we'll argue 'til the campfire's down to coals about how one caliber is better than another, but we're loathe to make any kind of expectation of our own or someone else's shooting abilities.

Given today's demographic, I wouldn't recommend the .243 to anyone who couldn't reasonably hunt elk with a bow. A .243 demands more skill than most rifle hunters that I see today have at their disposal. Even I prefer a .30-06, now that I have a choice. Someday, a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range will become available and the crowd who are shooters more than they are hunters will have the end-all to their elk woes.