Shot a cow elk at 340 yards last fall with a 150 gr 270 Win. Right in the boiler plate. Sucker dropped, then rolled down the hill landing in a creek.
Bullet went in, destroyed the lungs and exited.
If I would have use a '06, 150 gr bullet, and put it in the same spot, pass through and it would have dropped and rolled down the hill into a creek.
If I used a 300 WM, using a 150 gr bullet, put it in the same spot, it would have passed through, the critter would have dropped, rolled down hill and landed in the creek.
Which of the three bullets is the most deadly? (at 340 yards hitting the boiler plate, going through and destroying the lungs). Maybe it wouldn't have rolled into the creek though, no way of knowing. But it wasn't really that big of a creek.
The real difference is the rifle shooting the bullets. My 270 is a Winchester Featherweight. I was hunting in the mountains at 9500 ft, which didn't help my COPD. Plus do to the recoil I can shoot it better.
I have a 300 WM, and several '06s, there is no doubt if I'd been packing those rifles in the Big Horns, at the same time and same place, I would have been worn out, it would have taken me more time to catch my breath so I could shoot, and then I'm not sure I could have put the bullet in the same place.
Maybe some of you young folks don't mind carrying a 10 lb rifle in the mountains, but not me.
