I must again beg to differ. My .308 throws 168 grain match bullets out to 800 meters quite well on the Known-Distance (KD) range. Oh, and might I add - it (an M1A) is patterned after the very military rifle that was intended to replace the M1 Garand. What matters more at extreme range is the bullet's ballistic coefficient. Get Ridge Runner into this discussion, he's forgotten more about long-range shooting than I'll ever know. "Marginal"? Really now ...

But we're not talking sbout black bear at 300 yards, are we? We're talking about eastern deer and black bear, and shots at less than 300 yards (from your prior post). Chances are that you're not going to realize what your .308 will do at long range while you're hunting unless you head out west.

People lately, possibly because there's so much information out there and even more marketing hype, tend to overthink ammunition selection. Black bear are not as "hardy" as grizzlies. Generally, any deer rifle and soft-point (not FMJ, not match) deer bullet will do the trick. Neither deer or bear hunting are anything new, and both animals have fallen regularly to calibers that are ballistically inferior to the .308 for ages. 75 years ago, hunters were in the field chasing these two animals with things like .30-30s and .44-40s. "Premium" bullets were jacketed, rather than cast lead. You'd think that deer and bear have evolved since then - it takes a .378 Weatherby now to take down a bear (by some people's logic).

You'd probably want to use 180s for moose or elk should they one day become a possibility, but you're going to be fine using 150-165s for deer or bear. If you find that your rifle shoots cheap green-box CoreLokts better than it does "premium" bullets, you're better off with the cheap stuff. Take what your rifle shoots best to the field, not necessarily what costs the most or comes in the prettiest box.