“Because it is a .303, it has the stopping power,” Rittwage says.
The only rifle I've ever owned was a .30-06. My understanding was that it wasn't a first choice for hunting something the size of polar bears or bull moose. And its energy is in the vicinity of 2900 ft·lbf, whereas the .303 is around 2500.
Am I missing something?
Yes the writer had no idea of what a heavy caliber really is.
The .303 British has probably taken all game there is as has the 30-06. I agree with you that they are not first choice tho.
That’s peobably in comparison to the “common” .223.
Am I missing something?
Bullet type, shot placement and marketing.
A ball .303 round at 200 yards will enter one side of any North American big game animal, punch through any bone in its way and exit the other side.
As long as the shooter is good enough to hit the heart/lungs, the animal will go down pretty quickly.
Stopping a charging animal is not much different. At non-acute angles of impact, a ball .303 will punch through the skull bone and scramble the brains thereby causing the animal to drop in its tracks. A chest shot will create a very looong wound channel that may exit the rear. I don't know if a .303 will break a leg bone or just punch a hole though it but I doubt the end result of facing a charging moose with a .303 will be much different from say a .300 Winchester Magnum.
Marketing also plays a role in that gun and ammo makers would prefer that hunters believe they need something more than WWII surplus rifles.