Another note: I am also still under the influence of one of my other "elder" mentors, the late Finn Aagaard. He more than once wrote of asking somebody who put forth an opinion on rifles, bullets, scopes, etc: "And how do you know that to be true?"
We had some interesting discussions, both in person and correspondence, along those lines--which if course fit right in with my other mentor's rule that I had to try everything, or at least as much as possible within one lifetime.
Gun writers are not (or should not be) in the same place as their readers. They cannot just take somebody's word that something works, and then write about it. Thus while I have shot a number of animals with 250-grain bullets from the .338 (and probably will with the .340), I will also try the lighter bullets, just as I did in the .338, and see what happens. Partly this will be because many people insist that a .340 with 210's (whether Partition or TSX) is noticeably more rifle than a .300 magnum (whether Win. or Wby. or whatever) with 200's.
All of this is why I have killed moose with cartridges from the .270 and 7x57 to the .338 and 9.3x62; used cartridges from the .22-250 to the .416 in Africa; tried both lighter-than-standard and heavier-than-standard bullets in many cartridges; tried new bullets every year for at least the last 10; etc. etc. etc.
Back when I was a youth of 35 I wrote that all anybody needs to hunt big game anywhere is a .257 Roberts, a .30-06 and a .375 H&H. Nothing I've done in the 20 years since has really changed that--though I might eliminate the .257 and just go with the '06, or split the difference and go with a 7x57 or .270. In some ways life would be much simpler if I could--but not as much fun.
So you see, I cannot just take Elmer's word for it.
JB
