"Better" is something that needs to be defined. And you are the one that needs to define it.
A 300 mag is far more gun than you need to kill deer with and it buys you a LOT of leeway for killing deer. In other words, when using a big gun on deer, you can have a bullet come apart 75% and still get dramatic kills and never have a problem loosing any of them.
I never knock a big gun for hunting. I have done it a lot myself and I still do. I like guns, so I use what I feel like and I don't care if it's more powerful than I need. Neither do the deer or elk. I have killed a lot of deer and elk with 375H&H, 458s and 50-140 Sharps in the past, so I am not knocking the choice of guns. Heck, lots of hunters go to the field every year with 69-72 calibers (called 12 gauges) and no one seems to think it's bad for them to kill deer with such "cannons".
Neither do I knock the man that uses a 223 for deer if he has the correct bullets in his loads.
If your bullet will expand and exit, it matters very little what you kill the game with. A large hole that goes clear through works, no mater how you put it there. it's the man, not the tool, that is the important part.
If by "better' you mean less meat damage, I'd say yes, there are many that would be "better" for meat hunting.
Any of the expanding solids will do less meat damage and the heavier bullets do less damage then the light ones. If you get a narrower wound channel the deer may run 10-25 yards. But is that "worse'?
So let's define "Better" before we try to answer the question.