100% Marksmanship beats paper stats in the real world.
A 7mm RUM has more capability than a .308, but I can shoot .308 accurately from field expedient positions more reliably than I can 7mm RUM.
I think firearms forums tend to get excessively caught-up in paper stats, and forget that sitting at a bench on the range is not like shooting from the standing position in the real world. Even prone with a sandbag/backpack is vastly different from a bench.
I have an Eberlestock packback with a scabbard that I use instead of a bipod for practice and hunting. I practice getting the pack off my back and into a good prone or seated position, using the pack's structure for shooting support. Not just one time. Over and over again. Sometimes with a shot timer.
Shooting from a bench/sled to sight in your rifle isn't the same as practicing getting into a "field position."
I know a few hunters who are fine when shooting from a bench, but when it comes to shooting from a practical/field position, they just haven't practiced. At all.
To be an ethical hunter, you should understand your capabilities. And to be ethical, don't exceed them when attempting to harvest an animal.
20 rounds a year - the maximum number some of my hunting buddies use to verify their zero and put a few extra rounds into targets to "confirm" is not "practice".
As I posed here before, I helped a buddy of mine who was going on an African safari. He's not a hunter by any real definition of the word, but was going with a bunch of guys who were.
The hunts in Africa are mostly (entirely?) guided. And before they let you hunt, you have to pass a proficiency test. Engage a static target from 100m and have to place the rounds within a specified measurement - I think less than 4" to qualify.
Anyway, I had my buddy engage AR500 targets at ranges from 50-200m. Standing, kneeling, sitting and prone. The exercise was to drop from both "high ready" and "low ready" into whatever position was required for the distance. (Note: my buddy is in his late 50's and in pretty good shape, but years of backcountry skiing have taken their toll on his knees, so he didn't enjoy dropping into the kneeling, sitting, and prone positions... I told him to stop being a little bi+(h... that shut him up... a bit). When he had to undertake the African "hunt test", he put 2 rounds into the target in a 2" group. The guides conducting the test said, "You're good - no more shooting required." His compatriots on the trip weren't as successful. He loved the fact that a "non-hunter" was able to complete the qualification/verification in far fewer rounds than the "experienced" hunters he travelled with. 100 rounds of practice was sufficient for a non-hunter (and a bit of instruction) to establish the basic skill set to pass the African hunt test. And none of that was from a bench or sled. The rifle in question was already zeroed at 200m.
Hunting isn't marksmanship, and marksmanship isn't hunting. I'm not much of a hunter, but I'd say I'm a fair marksman (I won the "Silver Eagle" at my Gunsite 270 Scout Rifle course in 2010, so I have some proper "credentials" to support that claim.) Understanding your ability to hit a target at any distance is critical to success.
Additional support for that position: Dalrymple Maitland Bell—better known as ‘Karamoja ’-killed something like a thousand elephants in the early 20th century using a 7x57mm Mauser cartridge. Inferior to the .308 in most respects, but he had a great understanding of elephant anatomy and shot most of them in the head/brain. He got results with a "small" calibre rifle because he was good at shot placement. Most of his contemporaries were using something like a .416 Rigby.
IMHO, skills are more important than equipment.
