The more you kill the less you rely on power and the more you rely on placement, I think. Commonly, the folks gunning the most powerful armament don't have many kills under their belt. Of course that is an oversimplification but confidence comes with experience.
Tripe and yet another 'fire generalization...
I agree, Ed. I personally have no problems with recoil and I've posed the same question to the shot-placement-uber-alles folks (which in my book rates a "DUH"! and so intuitively obvious it's irritating)' Given all other things equal, i.e., exact shot placement, range and type of bullet used (let's stick with a Partition, lest the Nosler Police chastises), would it not be more prudent and efficacious to shoot said bear with a 375 and a 300 grain pill or a 3006 with a 180? (completely rhetorical post)
I have to admit I've never quite understood the "shot placement first" argument in the context of most of these discussions. Why isn't shot placement implied? If you aren't hitting where you're aiming we haven't even gotten TO the caliber question, have we? (serious question)
For big and dangerous game I'm inclined to want the most gun that puts bullets where intended. If that's a 7mm or .505 Gibbs so be it.
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.
