Do you think that anyone would disagree with you or that this is a revelation to anyone?
I don't believe it's that simple. We can bracket the problem with the extremes of a 40gr .22 LR bullet through the heart of an elk or a 750gr .50 BMG bullet. The effects on the heart and the animal wouldn't be the same so shot placement is one important part of the equation but you can't disregard the other variables that also play a big part. If we move closer towards the middle of the road and away from the extreme examples above, we see less obvious differences and plenty of overlap. However, if an individual shoots a larger, faster and effective bullet well enough then what possible reason would that person have to choose something smaller?
For many of us it's a time consuming, physically demanding and expensive proposition to go elk or deer hunting. Stacking the odds in our favor by practicing with what we use, bringing enough ammunition, having good optics, using a cartridge that offers a wider range or performance over a wider range of situations, choosing a suitable bullet, being in decent shape and so on are all good things. I would never fault a hunter for bringing "too much gun" if they're competent with what they bring. Many on these and similar forums assume that no one can shoot a magnum rifle well or that a good shooter has no need of a magnum cartridge. I don't agree with either.
Ugh. I just wrote a detailed response to your post, then my browser quit as I tried to send it, and it was lost. So, here's the abbreviated version:
I think we both realize that the extremes aren't ideal. Neither of us would recommend shooting an elk with a .22LR, and neither of us believe you need a .50 BMG to anchor one of these animals.
But, shot placement really does matter, because a bad shot from a big rifle is going to be a lot less effective than a great shot from a marginal rifle. An animal shot through the heart is going to go down, and it's going to go down relatively soon. That doesn't mean that the animal might not run 100 yards (or maybe more) on sheer adrenaline, but whether you placed a bullet from a .375 H&H Mag through its heart, or I placed a 140 grain bullet from my .260 Remington through its heart, it's going to go down very soon.
Now, I realize that there are plenty of competent big bore shooters out there. I have friends that are quite competent with their rifles, and some of them carry the big magnums. But, I've also seen a lot of anecdotal conjecture on gun forums over the years, talking about how "inadequate" any given cartridge was following some kind of lost game situation. Many of these instances involved cases where an animal was gut shot, or otherwise not shot in an immediately vital area. And, unfortunately, some hunters who really should be working on honing their shooting skills are instead using the big magnums as a crutch in the field (a false sense of security, in my mind). Hell, I've heard these discussions at the gun store counters around here before... some good ol' boy will be standing there asking for a bigger caliber rifle for this year's hunt because he wants something that will have 'knock down power' even if he delivers a bad shot like he did during the previous season. Unfortunately that's just not how it works, and close isn't good enough when it comes to anchoring an animal quickly and humanely.
There's also an issue of terminal ballistics over distance. While there's no denying that your .375H&H Mag has more energy at the muzzle than my .260 Remington (one of those "little" 6.5mm class rifles, similar to the 6.5 Creedmoor), that equation drastically changes the further we go down range. Without being able to directly compare and contrast our two loads, I can't give you an exact figure here, as the different loadings from both guns can move the point on the power curve forward or back a bit. But, the reality is this: somewhere between about 300 and 500 yards my .260 Remington begins to have more energy than your .375H&H Magnum. At 500 yards my bullet is still arriving at nearly 2,200 fps, and it gets there about 1/4 second faster than your bullet.
My point in all of this is to highlight the fact that those of us who hunt with 6.5's aren't being reckless, or wantonly disregarding sound hunting techniques. To the point of the original thread, I also don't think it changes anything with regard to how much spare ammo any of us should carry. I always carry enough ammo to get the job done and then some. I probably have 10+ rounds on me on any given hunt, and I always plan to get the job done in one shot. If one shot won't get the job done, I've got a second round that almost certainly will.
