Garrett,

What's ridiculous - Obama's voting record concerning gun legislation in Illinois and in the Senate?  His comments about the 2nd Amendment?  The record and stated positons of his apointee for Attorney General?  His seeking support from such animal rights organizations as HSUS (Humane Society of the United States)?  Frankly when you consider Obama's stated positions and his various actions our continued rights as gun owners and hunters are not in sound hands.

And, if you look objectively at history our last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, was no friend of the 2nd amendment either.  Some of the highjinx his administration tried to pull with instant background checks, assault weapons bans, and other back doors to gun registration might have been successful had we not had a republican-controlled congress.  In fact, legislation to reintroduce the Assault Weapons ban Clinton signed has already been introduced, and from what I understand Obama said he will sign it if given to him to do so.

If you want to discuss let's stay with facts, not rhetoric.  If I understand what you said correctly history does not support your statement.

No doubt I'd go with a Remington.  Great gun, especially for the price.  My Sendero is the most accurate out-of-the-box gun I've ever owned at well under 1" groups with factory ammunition.  Don't skimp here or on the optics - you get what you pay for.  A good rifle-scope combination, if taken care of, will last you for decades.

You're also going to find that there are a wide number of opinions here on caliber selections.  I'll try to be as unbiased as I can:

The .270 definitely has its merits: its realtively flat shooting up to 130 grains, ammunition is easy to find, and it doesn't kick nearly as hard as a .30-06.  The .30-06 is a great round too, not anywhere as flat as the .270, but you can take just about any game animal in the U.S. with it (except big bears).   It has a wide bullet weight range of 150 to 180 grain (some load a round nose 200 grain too).  The .30-06 I owned was a tack driver but it also had a pretty good kick to it. 

Frankly, if you're going to think in the .270 or .30-06 range I'd recommend a 7mm Remington Mag.  It shoots flatter than a .270, is a great whitetail round with 140 grain bullets (available from several manufacturers) or even 150 grain if your rifle won't shoot a 140 grain well (different rifles like different bullet weights).  It doesn't kick like the .30-06 either in my opinion.  Ammunition is as easy to find as a .270 too.

A lot of folks will say the 7mm Mag is too big for whitetail...hogwash.  We're talking about the difference in bullet diameter of 0.277" for a .270 versus 0.284" for a 7mm.  That's 0.007".  To compare, most .270 hunters I know of use a 130 grain for whitetails so that's 10 grains difference in bullet weight.  The key to the 7mm is that it'll sling an equivalent bullet about 10% faster than a .270 due to the case construction.  Also, with the 7mm you have a pretty wide available bullet weight range of 140 grain to 165 grain (175 grain for handloads) so the round will handle all the way from pronhorn to elk.

Fact of the matter is that the best cartridge depends on your hunting conditions.  Since you don't know exactly what that will be for the next 20 or so years you want to get a round that'll handle about anything.  To me the .270, .30-06, .308, 7mm-08, .264 Win Mag, and several others will handle your situation well.  But, if you're looking for a combination of flat trajectory, ease of purchasing, less kick (as compared to a .30-06), and versatility the 7mm Mag is the way to go.

Dylan,

You might want to put a question like this under 'General Hunting' so you don't get questioned by someone.

Your question though is a good one, and among hunters is a pretty subjective topic.  The answers you get will depend on the hunting situation, the range, to some degree your skill, the rifle you're using, and often just a hunter's preference. 

Many hunters when they're hunting doe will shoot them in the neck to ruin as little meat as possible.  Sometimes a neck shot is the only one you have, especially if you're still hunting in heavy cover or rattling.  Most of the neck shooters I know are good shots that practice a lot, and several of those will limit their effective range to suit what they feel is their level of competentcy.  Some hunters will neck shoot when using small caliber rifles like a .220 Swift, .223, .22-250 or even a .243.  I sure don't recommend that, but I know several good hunters that do.

I've always been a heart/lungs shooter.  Its a quick, humane kill that leaves the most room for any shooter error.  And even in the best  of situations things can and do happen.  Lung shots also leave a great blood trail and when properly done don't ruin a lot of meat.  Sometimes I'll take a shoulder shot if a lung shot for some reason is not available, like when an animal is quartering towards you.  It'll  immobilize the shoulder, hit the upper lungs and, depending on the angle, keep away from the stomach/intestines.  If all other options are not available, and if I feel comfortable enough, I'll take a neck shot.

I've been studying HSUS for years and agree - they've done a brilliant job of remaking themselves from there radical animal rights past (and here too) as well as hiding their real intents.  They pick their battles as well and have the media's ear, even though their agenda is not main stream...yet.  I think they raised over $212 million last year in 2006.