Well, yeah, although there's nothing wrong with debating those two underlying questions, that's what I really didn't want in this particular thread. I just wanted to know which everyone thought was closer or further away to being a slam-dunk than the other, and why would you say that? But I suppose there's really no way to get that without igniting and discussing the underlying opinions/debates.
Your answer to the underlying questions might be
-heck yes, heck yes
-Yes, yes
-Yes, no
-No, yes
-No, no
-heck no, heck no
or any one of several other combinations not listed above (with hecks thrown in here or there). I just wanted to see which was the more legit debate, on the whole, if that could be ascertained... Which a few answered (thanks). But then again, "neither - and they're equal" and "both - and they're equal" are legitimate answers too, I guess.
But ok, why not - I think they're both ok - fine even - but not ideal (like most people) - with the usual caveats - match bullet construction to speed at the point of impact, and limit your shots to those that make sense (i.e. no quartering toward or texas heart shots).
Looks like they're both marginally- to moderately-legit debates, roughly equal in intensity and need for the debate, with a possible slight skewing of more people coming down on the ".243 for elk is more of a stretch / not a good idea / more debatable." Such as my own opinion. And of course, these will never be resolved.
I'll be happy if man just conserves nature enough that we can continue to HAVE the debates!
Then again, I guess if, in one's mind, the answer to either is "hell no", then that would make it "NOT debatable" rather than "debatable". In other words, the more of a "stretch" it is, the more debatable it is, up to a point, at which time it suddenly becomes less debatable, if that makes sense. Hmmm. I just confused myself.