Started out using a .22-250 on whitetails. 1970, IIRC. No trouble killing them to a bit over 200 yds. A loony even then, had to try Ed Harris' reduced loads using Unique in an '06. 170 FNs barely supersonic. Worked, too, despite zero expansion. Foregoing were taken in open fields, not dense cedar swamps.
So I'm the last person to claim you can't kill deer with a .22CF, 243, or even a BP .32-40 load. I know better.
Used various .300 Wins and Roys for most years. Last two years a .375 Ruger. Overkill, obviously.
The choice had zero to do with killing power. The choice reflects terrain/surrounding cover. I need to find them after killing them. Larger leaky holes - preferably two - make that simpler. Alot.
The relationship between marginal placement vs power gets debated endlessly. If folks would stipulate circumstances before posting - ie., shooting elk grazing in wide open pastures behind your barn on whatever day you choose vs being in nasty thick cover on the last day/last hour of what will be your only elk hunt in this life - justification for these debates kinda disappears. Finn Aagard wrote a great piece covering this very issue.
Then there's the distance traveled vs cartridge debate. I've read the SC DNR study. While I don't entirely buy their stated conclusions, if you believe bullet diameter makes no difference fine with me. But it is still fact that a deer with a wrecked boiler room can cover up to 200 yds. .22CF, .32-20, .375 Ruger, .300 Roy. In the event of long runs there's nothing like a blood trail. The .300s and .375 reliably give that. The .22CFs (and .243) do not. BTW, those slow 170 gr .308" bullets gave modest blood trails, 100% exits, but travel distance was greater vs the .22-250.
Bottom line: overkill is fine with me because there's no such thing as over-retrieval.
