A topic I see a lot of bad, outdated advice for online is smaller calibers for big game. In this debate, what annoys me even more than Fudds saying they don’t work is converts claiming that they’re only effective now due to advancements in bullet technology. It seems like every time we have a weekly caliber debate thread and someone will say something along the lines of “I’d never have considered using [insert caliber] for [game animal], but with newer bullets designs it can be done”.
That’s just flat wrong. Newer bullet designs (which largely means “sleeker, higher B.C bullets” or “copper monos” depending on the conversation) can extend the effective range of smaller calibers in some cases, but those calibers were always effective at normal hunting ranges.
I grew up in what you might call a small caliber family. My dad and uncle used 6mm Remington’s for most hunting, and for a while a .243 was my only hunting rifle. I’ve seen a pile of deer killed with those calibers, using core-lokts, ballistic tips, partitions, and everything in between. The partition in particular stands out in my mind for tons of damage, quick kills, and reliable exits. That bullet came out in the late 1940s! There has never been anything marginal about the .243 for deer. Sure, the 6mm creedmoor is now a legit 500+ yard deer gun thanks to modern bullets, but the .243 was already a 300+ yard deer gun.
Guys will say the same stuff about the creedmoor for elk, despite the fact that the 6.5x55 was a gun-writers’s darling ever since milsurp Swedes began to show up in America, and it’s been killing moose in Scandinavia for over 100 years. 140 grain partitions and 156 grain Megas and Oryx have proven themselves reliable big game killers for generations. Heck even the humble 140 BTSP at Swede velocities will penetrate through just about anything.
TLDR: I go on a rant about how small calibers have always been effective, and it’s not just because of new bullets.