|
My take on it, fabsorman, is relatively simple because I do not shoot at anything approaching the long ranges of 500 yards and beyond, and I'm not sure if you are determined to do so. Distances like that require bench rest steady holding, exact distance measurement, wind doping, and actual shooting not just calculations to determine the trajectory of your rounds. I can't and don't do those things when I'm hunting. I also see myself as more of a hunter than a sniper. Therefore, my longest shots are less than 400 yards; 95% < 300; probably 80% <150.
For me the Swift would always get used for varmints; the .25-06 (with heavy bullets for calliber) would be my deer round; and the .300 would be for game larger than deer. I would take any shot that presented itself with them within my hunting ranges.
I know energy is not a truly reliable indicator of killing potential, but energy levels must be there for reliable, humane dispatching of big game. For many years many people have simply accepted the idea that 1000 foot pounds would provide that power for deer sized game. While there are many times when somewhat less will work, I accept that number as the basis for my own calculations on the suitability of a cartridge/rifle combination.
Have a look at the charts. If you can deliver that level of energy AT THE TARGET, I don't think anyone would debate whether the round was suitable at that range. Varmint hunting does not require those levels at all, and the relatively small targets make things like low recoil, accuracy, and flat trajectory become very important. For game bigger than deer, less accuracy is needed, but deep penetration and even more pure energy become crucial. They are all judgment calls.
I really dislike suffering whether it is my own or some other animal's. So I tend to err on the side of being certain I am using enough gun, and that I can put the bullet where it needs to go.
|