Dirt2

I've got to jump into this one. I'm really not trying to start something, but it seems to me there is a major big gun bias going on in the elk hunting world.

I think hunting writers start this. First, they want to sell new gear (i.e. bigger rifles) so the advertising revenues keep pouring in. Second, your typical outdoor writer has 5 elk tags in 5 different states, and he only gets paid for his article if he knocks down that big bull. Consequently, his priority is to kill that sucker dead at whatever angle the shot is presented, and if he has to blow the two front quarters to pieces to do that, hey no problem. He's still gonna put four more elk in the freezer before the season's over anyhow, so what's another front quarter more or less. Thus, it seems to me outdoor writers are nuts for 300s and 338s.

Now, those priorities are far different from most of us. We get our one elk per year IF we're lucky, and we need to save all the yummy meat we can, because that's what it's all about, right? So for you or me, a 270 with 130 grain bullets (my personal poison) will do just fine, if we discipline ourselves to take only the right shots, not unlike what a bowhunter does.

Finally, most hunters I know are a lot more recoil-conscious than they like to let on. I mean, we're macho hunter-guys, right? We can handle that 300 Win Mag shoulder cannon, heh heh, even if some lesser men can't! Well I'll just say that on the rifle range, I see some absolutely dreadful displays of shooting by macho men with their 300s and 338s, and I'll bet if they took the bitter pill of trying a 270 or a 280 their shooting would improve dramatically.

P.S. My dad stoned a 353 net bull back in '78 with a 243.