What stuff does he know? He cites losing a deer as a young guy with an unspecified cartridge and bullet. If he lost the deer, how does he know what happened? Did he make a bad shot, or was it the fault of the cartridge and bullet? If it was the fault of the bullet, was it due to its caliber, weight or construction?
Similarly, how does he know any of a number of other cartridges won't work on deer won't work as well as the .270 at closer ranges?
I'm a big fan of the .270, in fact at one point about 20 years ago had used it on more big game animals than any other round--and had also watched my wife use it on plenty of big game from pronghorns to bull moose, at ranges from up close to 450 yards. In the 1990's, in fact, Eileen had string of 10 one-shot kills in a row with the .270 on not just antelope and moose but elk and big buck deer, both whitetails and muleys. It works great.
But I have since gotten plenty of experience with several 6.5's that won't match the .270's muzzle velocities. Yet they somehow work great as well--if the hunter puts the right bullet in the right place. Which in my experience is far more important than a few grains of bullet weight and minor differences in retained velocity, especially close up where the 6.5x55 has always worked very well.
I always love how these threads devolve into BOTH theoretical ballistic numbers AND field examples of one.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
