I guess I have to put the elk back I shot growing up. I didn't use a big enough gun. It fell down dead, minimal trailing, I shot through the heart and lungs on all of them. I live in Michigan now but was raised in Utah. I hunted with a .264 win mag but my brother had a .270 win. I had to have enough shells before we left home, he could get shells any where. Neither of us ever thought we were under gunned shooting what we had at elk. I know it's an article of faith pontificated by gun writers today one needs at leat a .30 06 to kill elk, but I didn't find this to be so. A .270 with 140 grain Fail Safes or 150 grain Partions or my favorite bullet, an Triple Shock in 140 grains would send the largest bull to the great beyond with no problem. If I hit it right with my 6.5 x 55 or my 7.62x54 the elk will fall down. If I don't hit it in the same place with a .338 win mag, I get to trail. What's the difference?

Dr Fatguy

Dr, I agree with you 100%. I shoot 6.5mmSwede>Norma 156gr "Alaska"
and don't need nothing more for deer to bull moose.

My first deer gun was a Savage 110 .243 but I sold it and got a remington 700 ADL synthetic .300 win mag

If I were you I would buy the Savage chambered in 270-winchester. Use the scope that it comes with until you have more money to spend.
If you do hunt larger game years down the road? You can buy another rifle then.
IHMO the 270-winchester is perfect for deer. The 270 will even work on elk.

Go with the 270 great round for any North American Big Game!!

So many on here would beg to differ

In my opinon, in your case, there isn't a reason i can think of to not buy the 30.06. The ammo is as cheap or cheaper, epsecailly for range shooting. It doesn't kick much harder than the .270. And you can use it for more game than the .270.