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 good shot placement is implied and can be counted on what difference does it make if you put a .308 hole or a .375 hole through a bear's heart. The shot placement issue is why guides like Phil recommend bringing your deer or elk rifle and good bullets instead of going and buying some cannon that you may or may not shoot well. If everyone could shoot a 505 Gibbs with guilt edged accuracy from field positions I'm sure bear guides would love to have everyone show up with one. But most guys, even some who claim otherwise, heck most who claim otherwise if my very short guiding career is any indication, cannot shoot much of anything with any great degree of accuracy. And accuracy gets worse as recoil increases generally speaking.
