This has been an on going back and fourth arguement since O' Conner first started writing about the .270. Does it kill them any more dead then any other caliber? Probably not. But when talking of an "all around rifle" the .308 has to take the cake. Especially with bullet choices now days. The .30 caliber is definitly alot more veristile. If I were headed for a coyote I would load some 125 gr TNT HP's, up for elk I would take 165 gr Hornaday SST. If I were heading to Missouri on a timber whitetail hunt I would use Sierra 180 gr RN. That couldn't be done with most of the other calibers out there.
As far as name brands go, there are DAWGS in every manufacturers line. I have owned Rugers, Remington, HOWA, Browning, etc. Pretty simple some of them shot great, some were ok "hunting rifles", and some were just flat out DAWGS. I have owned a couple Remingtons that wouldn't shot 3 times in the some sheet of paper. An Interarms Mark X .270 that would burn your hand off if you touched the barrel after 3 shots. A Savage 30.06 that the bolt was so stiff after the shot that you had to put the butt between your kness and pull up on it. While I have others like my (crap) Ruger SS 22 250 that will put 10 shots that I can cover with a nickel and a 673 in 350 Remington Mag that will out shoot me everday of the week. What it all boils down too is what you like in a rifle. I have always had good luck with my Marlin lever guns, my HOWA rifles, my Brownings, and my Rugers.
Let's face it if there was a "perfect" hunting rifle for every situation then it would be a no brainer. We all would own it and we would have nothing to talk about on the forums. But unfortunatly, there is not so thats what keeps us going in the gun shops every chance we get. For me the one that fits most situations the best for me is the .308.

Just my 2 penny's worth....

Yeah, they even have a 12-gauge full-auto, pretty cool.


Pretty stupid that the military isn't allowed to use expanding bullets, people would die much faster is they did, instead of only dying from hemmorige, unless, of course, they get shot in the head or heart.

I believe the Geneva convention prohibits it, not really sure why though. Also keep in mind war is not like hunting, they are not trying for the fastest kill or to be humane really. One of the reasons they switched to the 5.56 was because ammo was cheaper smaller and lighter, so they could carry more and it WOUNDED just as well. If you kill someone they fall and someone takes their place. If you wound them you take them out, plus a few others to take care of them.

Also FMJ's penetrate barriers and armor better.

Paul

Ok, I just spent some time reading the Geneva Convention and really couldn't find anything about it. I got this off from wikipedia though.

History

Full metal jacket ammunition is acceptable for military use by the countries that signed the Hague Convention of 1899, which prohibits the use of hollow point or expanding bullets in war between the countries which signed that agreement. It is often incorrectly stated that the prohibition is part of the Geneva Conventions, and that full metal jacket bullets are specifically required. Although the actual language is rather vague, full metal jacket bullets remain the best option available to stay within the letter and the spirit of the Hague convention. The bullet itself is still highly lethal when fired at close range.

Advantages [ul][*]Because the bullet does not expand as do hunting bullets, FMJ bullets are more effective at piercing armor. Similarly, they better penetrate moderate cover to reach an enemy behind moderate cover, e.g. sheet metal portions of a vehicle.[*]They are more durable and withstand rough handling on the battlefield.[*]Their rounded tips permit proper transit up the feed ramp of a semi-automatic pistol, whereas hollow-point bullets can present greater occasions for jamming; (this risk is reduced by using high-quality firearms and ammunition, and by conscientious gunsmithing).[/ul]So I'm not really sure that they are against international law, just pretty much accepted as a standard is all. Plus it works well for the intended purpose.

Paul

Just jumpinback a little bit here... but I've never heard of any high-caliber rifle bullet have velocities so fast that they "zip right through a deer." I'm not sure on the ballistics of the .308 and 7mm mag... I'm a .270 person. I've heard that the .308 and .270 are similar in ballistics.

And plus, bullets will expand/penetrate differently with different types of bullet and "matter." Example: a .270 winchester ballistic tip will penetrate/expand differently in dirt than on an actual deer.

I have read every reply and appreciate all of your thoughts. I did look at a
Ruger .308 but the wooden stock around the barrel looked like it was touching the barrel in several places, so I ruled that one out. I am heading to Michigan tomorrow and there just happens to be a Cabelas about 20 minutes from my mother-in-laws place, so I am going to look at every rifle that they have. I have also looked at the new Marlin 30-30 XLR with laminate stock and stainless steel, that is one sweet looking gun, so that maybe the next addition to the collection. I also want to look at a Marlin .308. Does anyone out there own either of these, if so what is your opion of them?

If you want info on Marlins, the best place to get it is http://www.marlinowners.com/board/.

After six pages of debate/discussionregarding 270 vs. 308 andthe whole works may be tossed aside for a 30-30?

What was the point in the first place?
Something isn't right.

I don't see what is not right. The original poster came here looking for information, which he received, and based on that information has decided to look at other options that may or may not suit his needs just as well. To my way of thinking, this is what it is all about, sharing info and experiences with fellow hunters and shooters.

Delete.