No one said BC or any of those ever killed anything. BC was down the list of my preferences for bullets.
But it's interesting that you left accuracy and shot placement off your list and tout "energy" as the one thing that matters. Because you can have all the energy you want but if you shoot an elk in the ass you won't likely recover it. Which is the objective of everything else that goes into it. Shot placement trumps energy but it's nowhere on your list. No surprise there either.
And it's telling that you believe the most important thing about BC is that it helps retain energy. Ask any knowledgeable shooter why BC is important and that's not the answer you'll get.
I'v never said "the one thing that matters". What I've said repeatedly is that destruction of vital function is what kills, that such destruction requires energy and that a bullet's energy determines the maximum amount of work (destruction) that it can do.
For a bullet to destroy vital function obviously requires adequate placement, so I have not left accuracy out. If vital function to be destroyed, accuracy must be adequate.
Higher B.C. values help bullets shoot flatter because they help the bullets retain more velocity and therefore energy. Reduced wind drift is a result of the higher retained velocity and energy. For most of my hunting I've used relatively low B.C. bullets and they have worked very well because they retained adequate energy in spite of their relatively low B.C. value. B.C. alone never killed anything. If it did, a high B.C. bullet in your pocket would be as effective killing game as one with 1500fpe.
