I understand and appreciate how the industry has continued to develop and make better bullets, powders, products in general. I have noticed the new Frind is to try and use the smallest caliber to kill the biggest game. Example the 6.5 prc shooting elk or moose. Does it work, sure it works and in the hands of a professional it works well. But I wonder if we forget the hunters of old. Basically it's a 270 that you try and stretch out a little more. It for many years bigger magnums were the standard, and they took a lot of game. I wonder if we should still consider this in caliber choice. The reason I have in mind is, we may not always have made the perfect heart and lung shot, maybe there was an unexpected gust of wind, and you hit it too far forward or too far back. The magnum would shoot through both shoulders or hind quarters, or really spill in a gut shot. This breaks them down and allows a much better chance of retrieving the animal. Face it we don't all always make perfect shots and harvest the perfect way, but losing some meat versus losing all the meat is a concern. So while I love the 6.5 creedmoor, lapua, prc, saum I have also seen them not preform as well with a bad shot as a 7 mag, 300 win, any of the bigger bullets. I am sure there will be some disagreement but then I am probably not talking to the creedmoor shooter that can constantly hit 5 inch groups at 1 k I am talking to the guy who wants to hunt long range and doesn't have practice time and spends thousands of hard earned money to come west and hunt.
