There is no doubt that the .300 magnums are more gun than the .270 Win. However, at what point do we begin to confront diminishing returns, when the next grain of powder produce 10% velocity increase above the previous grain? How much velocity will we need to get a bullet into necessary life-sustain apparatus?
The new world record Yukon moose, the largest deer species in North America, was killed a couple years ago with a .303 British.
What my older friend taught me was that there's hunting and there's shooting. While there are times when closing distance is impossible, in which case hunters have to make crucial decisions, I'd prefer to close distance if possible.
I own a Belgian Browning .338 Win Mag. I've owned it for at least 3 decades. I've never hunted with it. It's a beautiful gun, but it's far too powerful for everything in North America. Now were I to hunt brown bear exclusively, it'd be an obvious first choice...maybe. The 175 grain .284 caliber bullet is legendary for penetration. There no doubt in my mind that one would break the largest bear's shoulders.
So, the rhetorical or possibly philosophical question would be whether more gun necessarily means better gun. Well, what's a better gun? It becomes subjective pretty darn quickly.
Hunting is supposed to be fun, and it's often a display of a hunter's personality. I've never cared what cartridge a hunter uses. I would never suppose to know what's right for him. My synapses misfire, though, when a hunter tries to tell me that an '06 won't kill a species of big game, that I'd need at minimum a .300 RUM. Nope. I'm good with a lightweight rifle chambered for .270 Win.
You can have your opinion but it's yours. Cartridge choice is an individual choice based on ones observations, experience, and anticipated future circumstances.
