I know that this topic has been beaten to death many times over, but there's one side of the "magnum vs. .223/6mm" conversation that I haven't seen discussed much.
To start, I'm a magnum cartridge shooter (primarily 300 win and 7 Rem mag with monolithics) that has fallen into the smaller is better rabbit hole on this forum. While I would consider myself very proficient with my current setups and probably shoot more magnum rounds every year than most, I absolutely see and agree with the appeal of making a substantial step down in cartridge size for hunting. I've all but committed to building a new Tikka in one of the smaller wonder cartridges, except for one thought that's stuck in my head.
I live in Alaska, and 99% of my hunting is for moose, black bear, and caribou. While I agree that a .243" bullet would be more than adequate for taking controlled shots on all of these, my hesitation lies in the fact that where we hunt, there is always a significant chance of running into a pissed off and/or wounded moose or brown bear. If such situation arises I would really appreciate the ability to break/punch through skeletal parts and find vitals, regardless of shot angle. I feel like the majority of those on the "smaller is better" side of these discussions are primarily hunting in the lower 48 or areas with low chance of such encounters.
My question is, if you were in my position and needed to account for the possibility of using your rifle to quickly stop an adrenaline filled moose or bear. would you still be confident in bringing a 6mm rifle along on all of your hunts? I don't ask this to be argumentative, I would really love to try out a rifle setup that is cheaper and inherently easier to shoot. I just can't wrap my head around being comfortable in the field without that extra "horsepower" in my back pocket for when things get western.
