It would seem that author never shot much game at LR....
The best thing I have seen in educating hunters is bullet makers putting pics of bullets at different impact velocities in their catalogs
What you quickly see is that ALL go through the same expansion characteristics but at vastly different velocities. Some will expand at 2800fps the same way another will at 2000fps. And from what I have seen on game, expansion with adequate penetration is what kills animals. If the bullet does the same thing internally, really doesn't matter how or what you used to get it to the rib cage.
I now favor lower muzzle velocities and "soft" bullets. I end up with the same on game effect AND way less meat bruising. Up side is I never have to worry about a bullet blowing up on impact. For longer shots, I know how to dial and/or use my scope reticle so that is moot.
Ironically, huge effort, recoil and costs usually don't extend the same bullet impact more then 100 to 200yds. And that is usually many hundred yards further then the vast majority will ever engage game.
The emphasis on cartridge numbers has sold alot of product over the year and created quite a few problems (which of course need new solutions). Give those catalogs a study and you might find that there are wonderful options today that will do pretty much anything on this continent with standard "small" chamberings.
Jerry
These are exactly the sentiments I posted a while ago in another thread. IMO the impact of a 30 cal, 180 grain bullet on big game around 2000 fps or around 3000 fps has never made any difference whatsoever to how effectively those bullets have killed said game. As long as the bullet arrives fast enough to deform properly and penetrate enough to destroy vital organs it has done it's job, and blowing out the other side and continuing way onwards adds nothing at all to the lethality of the wound. I laymans terms, at "normal" hunting ranges out to about 300 yards, no animal I've ever seen shot reacted any diffrenently to a hot handloaded 300 win mag than to a factory loaded 303 British.
And I say this as a bit of a long time magnum nut, who spent way too much time chasing velocity and energy levels, like the gun companies and the wildlife authorities flog at us.
AlexF's post is a great example of the pure silliness that many of us have unwittingly bought into, by listening to so many supposed "experts", some of whom are actually in positions of authority in govermnent making hunting policy. 270 effective to 200 yards and 338 lapua to 425+? Pure garbage, period.
Just like the energy charts that show that a 30-06 is only marginally effective on moose to something like 200 yards and a 30-30 apparently can't kill moose at all. I guess everyone had been doing it wrong for 100+ years, before these armchair experts arrived.
If someone wants to look at effective killing range of cartridge, then look at all the long range hunting videos around. Forget about the likelihood of misses for a minute (That's not what we are talking about.), and concentrate only on the effect on game of well placed shots, since that's the issue here. Suddenly you'll see deer, elk, moose and even big bears being flattended by non-magnums out to 1,000 yards or more, and magnums, (...like the 425 yard 338 lapua...) having virtually unlimited effective range. You'll also not see very many 338 lapua's being used either, btw.
So is a 7mm or a 30 cal better, well, that argument will last forever.
But for gosh sake, lets get rid of this "200 yards for a .270" stuff, along with the "you need 2000 ft/lbs impact energy to kill a moose" garbage, for those statements are simple "black and white", provable or disprovable, statements, and they have wholeheartedly been disproven even
before they were ever flogged to the unsuspecting public.
