Well, let's see. I have two rifles in .270 and 8 in .308. Nuff said?
Seriously, any shot that you can reasonably take with a .270 can be done with a .308. Personally, I prefer to see the whites of my deer's eyes, if possible, and most of the time I can do just that. I have had to take only three really long range shots at game in 55 years of hunting, one, an elk at 530 yards laser measured, and two Mule Deer one at 250 yards laser measured and the other deer at 427 paces. Both deer were taken with the .308 cartridge, the shorter distanced deer with a Ruger 77 RSI and a handloaded 165 gr. Speer hot-core at 2550 FPS and the 427 paced deer with a Remington 660 and a 150 gr. Siera pro-hunter, velocity unknown. No chronographs way back then.
Would any shots have been easier with a .270? I don't think so.
For the record, the elk was shot with a handloaded 200 gr. Speer hot-core at 2950 FPS from a .300 Win. mag. I would not have tried that shot with either the .308 or the .270, and mine spits a 150 gr. Nosler from it's 24" barrel at 3000 FPS chronographed.
The .308 does have the advantage of being able to handle heavier bullets up to 220 gr., even if most of the "egg-spurts" say it can't be done. It can, because I have done it. No, the 220s don't go very fast, but considering that the 30-40 Krag was considered a good killer in it's day with a 220 gr. bullet at 2000 FPS, why can't the .308 at an easy 22pp FPS not be just as good? I worked up to 2300 FPS in a 22" barreled Winchester M70 with 220 gr. Sierra round nosed bullets on a summer day with the temp at 105 degrees. Three of those bullets printed a .375" group. I'm thinking that would make a good elk buster in close range shooting to say, about 150 yards, maybe a bit more.
Paul B.