shhhhhhh.... I'm sitting in my 'tree stand' waiting and watching this thread for someone to spout off some garbage post about ethics and what is and is not moraly right and wrong so I can wack them![]()
shhhhhhh.... I'm sitting in my 'tree stand' waiting and watching this thread for someone to spout off some garbage post about ethics and what is and is not moraly right and wrong so I can wack them![]()
the short version of this was use the largest caliber round that your are comfortably able to use accurately and quickly the dispatch a animal .
the person using the rifle is more important in cleanly taking a animal than anything else .
Hope you don't mind, I shortened your post down to the important parts.![]()
Nothing smaller than .264. I hunt where you can't watch your deer run into the next province, and I like to eat what I shoot at.
I've probably killed more whitetails than some of you've had hot meals!
Were I you, I'd be careful about making generalizations like that here. There are an awful lot of guys with an awful lot of dead whitetails under their belts. ...
Nothing smaller than .264. I hunt where you can't watch your deer run into the next province, and I like to eat what I shoot at.
I've probably killed more whitetails than some of you've had hot meals![/QUOTE]
If you want to spout off like that I have probably killed more animals in one 28 day hunt than you have whitetails in your life...........what does that have to do with the OP's question? Have you taken every WT with a different caliber/cartridge and done a yardage to penetration per grain weight of bullet, factoring in impact velocities and sectional densities and comparing tissue damage?
You sir are of course entitled to your opinion as asked by the OP, but the second line was not only superfluous, it is downright offensive...........