The problem with the thread seems to be from a poor premise...stemming from reductio ad absurdum, reducing an argument to an absurd extreme; then criticizing that extreme.
Wattsy, the "do your part" means (from what I have always understood) all of the objections that you alluded..., the hunter must gain all of the skills to place himself into the position to properly place a shot while using the proper weapon.
You seem to assume that phrase refers to mere marksmanship, and that folks were not only stating but advocating using improper weapons for harvesting big game..., which was where the argument was reduced to absurdity.
I have no idea what is the quality of the hunters out where you hunt, but all too often I have seen on the East Coast, folks who go "hunting" who react opposite to your criteria, they think, or have been taught, any shot is good so long as the caliber is large enough. I have encountered so called "experienced" hunters telling folks that some very venerable, proven, and potent cartridges are inadequate, and a person with less than "X" cartridge "can't take deer".
They base this on the number of deer that they, or members of their hunting party, have wounded that also eluded them and got away. The idea that they made a crappy shot doesn't enter their minds. Their solution is not to increase their skills to get closer to their quarry, and to better their marksmanship; perhaps to use a more accurate load, but to go to a much more powerful cartridge. They are in fact, lazy hunters, for it only takes a short time to buy a large caliber rifle with a scope, and to sight it in. Perhaps it takes about a full day to complete that task.
I can tell from your objections that you know full well that it takes much much longer than that to learn the woods, and the game animal, and then hone the skills to get close enough for a proper shot.
Sometimes out here the folks who have been told this erroneous caliber information transition into black powder, and the question starts again. I mean if you have been told a .270 Winchester won't take an eastern whitetail and ya should be using at least a .338 Winchester or a .35 Whelen, then it's natural that when looking at a .45 - .50 caliber round ball rifle you might ask the question "is this big enough?".
Hence the answer, "It will do it's part if you do yours"..., which means as I wrote above, developing the knowledge and skills and judgement to get close enough to the animal, and then to place a lethal, humane shot into the animal.
A close coworker recently experienced this several weeks ago in a muzzleloading season. It was his first time with a traditional rifle. However, he went out with a group, who literally laughed at him for using a Lyman GPR in .54 flintlock, a patched round ball, and 90 grains of 2Fg. He wasn't using a scoped rifle, launching a sabot slug with 150 grains of Pyrodex, so he was told he couldn't possibly expect to down a deer, and..., if he did manage to hit one he was on his own tracking it down for a second shot, and perhaps more, were bound to be needed.
At sixty yards he downed a nice fat doe which went about 20 yards in the snow before falling over. His hunting friends were astounded. Did they change their tune? NOPE, they simply think him lucky.
Anecdotal as the last two paragraphs are, I provided them as an illustration of a situation out here that is all too common. So you hear the phrase that started the thread. A longer version of it might be clearer, "The rifle with an accurate load of proper power will humanely harvest a deer, but you will have to do more than simply shoot it a few times to sight it in, to ensure when you fire you hit the animal in a humanely lethal spot."
I hope this clears up the confusion.
LD
