bigbulls

If you think a 300 mag or any other cartridge for that matter will just "bowl" over an elk or a deer then I got some air I'd like to sell you. I shot a Florida whitetail (140 pounds live) with a 50 caliber ML at less than 50 yards and it just stood there. Long enough for me to reload and put another 50 caliber slug in his chest again.

I'll tell you exactly how much error factor a 300 mag gives you over a .270.............. A whopping 31 thousandths of an inch.[] So I guess that technically you are right that it gives you a bigger margin for error. I laugh at that "error factor" hog wash when talking about shooting at live animals. There is no "error factor" when I am out hunting nor should there be with any one else either. I can either make the shot or I can't. There aint no "well I got a bullet that's .031 inches bigger and an extra 200 or 300 foot pounds so I'll go ahead and shoot even though this is a bad shot."[:'(]

The way I feel about it is if you can't kill an elk with a 150 grain partition fired from a .270 then you may as well hang up your hunting career cause IMHO you aint got no business hunting.

bearklr

I have to agree that it is the cartrige and shot placement that play a larger role than the caliber. I have shot a doe three times through both lungs with a 300 win and she still ran at least 100 yards. Why? Because at the time I was young and thought hey, a bigger gun means they'll go down faster but I used too much and the rounds went through before they ever really expanded. On the other hand I shot a 450 pound black bear with my .270 using winchester cxp2's and he didn't even take a step. I had the proper cartridge and hit him in exactly the correct location and he was dead before he hit the ground. I would feel completely confident in my .270 hunting elk or other large game. I don't know too many animals that would live too long with a 2" hole ripped through their hearts.