This reminds me of the ongoing debate between Elmer and Jack years ago. P.O. Ackely chimed in his views as well in a number of publications. O'Connor and Ackely always contended that it was the mark of an unethical slob hunter who wouldnt wait for a game animal to "pose" for them in the clear. Elmer's view was that any killing shot was a good one. Hence the argument over bullet size and design. Some of the requirements are dictated by the terrain a person hunts in. People who sit in little houses on open cut corn fields are faced with entirely different shot possiblilties than the guys who have to hunt in thick cover like clearcuts or swamps. Where I personally hunt, you wouldnt shoot very many deer if you waited for a broadside shot at the ribcage. Often times, the neck, back, or some other segment of a deer is all you will get a clear shot at. Seldom a view of the whole animal. If you can wait for a deer to pose in the wide open, then there is no chance that any style of bullet made wouldnt kill well on broadside lung shots. If you are faced with having to make shots from other angles where you might have to break a shoulder or the spine, or make a head on neck shot, then a bigger and tougher bullet makes sense. I use ballistic tips in my 338 for deer hunting because the 200 gr will penetrate enough even though it usually turns inside out. I have seen smaller ballistic tips fail to reach the vitals though on shots of angles such that a tougher bullet would have dropped that deer in its tracks. So, its true enough, that if you will always wait for that perfect broadside shot, the ballistic tip will kill every time. If you think you might have to shoot through some bone or lots of meat to get to the vitals, then I say use a heavier or tougher bullet.