Big questions, but let me offer some advice. First, I am a Winchester man through and through. However, the Remington model 700s are quality rifles. Although Winchester got real cheap with the looks of their model 70s for a few years, the new ones are absolutely gorgeous. The pre-64/post-64 thing is overrated in my humble opinion. Although collectors want a pre-64 rifle, remember that a pre-64 is close to 40 years old at this point, and getting one that is not beat up or shot out is not going to be easy. Plus, the biggest difference in a pre-64 to a post-64 involves the cartride extractor. This is not a big deal unless you are trying to cycle rounds while lying flat on your back. Last, we must remember that gun manufacturers have made significant leaps in understanding metals and harmonics since 1964.
I would advise that you seriously look at a Winchester model 70 or a Remington model 700 BDL. If you have a little more cash, I would look at a Sako. However, I like rifles that feel "small", meaning I don't like heavy rifles with big, clunky stocks. I am not impressed with the Browning A-Bolt actions, but some people like them. Plus, the Browning BOSS system, if used properly, can really make a difference in shooting tight groups. I wouldn't use a Ruger or a Savage even for a canoe paddle (sorry to the Ruger and Savage fans).
For deer and elk, a .270 is more than capable. Contrary to what the magnum freaks propose, you don't need a .300 magnum for whitetail, mule deer, or elk. There must be something right about .30-06s too, because there are lots of them out there. I have owned a .270 and a .30-06, and I think I like the .270 ballistics better. If you are looking for a cartridge strickly for deer (and not elk), I would recommend that you look seriously at a .25-06. I like shooting smaller calibers simply because I hate lugging a heavy rifle up and down hills. Plus, I like to shoot a lot, and shooting groups with a .300 magnum is not a pleasant experience.
For varmints, it depends on how you like to play things. Personally, I hunt coyotes with a .222, but I like the idea of getting close. Plus, the low recoil makes shooting the cartridge a dream. Likewise, a .223 is a nice cartridge. For longer shots 250 yards+), a .22-250 may be a better choice.
Optics? You get what you pay for, plain and simple. I was pricing out optics last summer when I bought my .270, and was impressed at the number of quality scopes on the market today. You don't need a 20x scope for most species. I have a 3X9X40 on most of my rifles,and I have never felt that I needed more. In the $200-$300 range, I recommend checking out the Leupold Vari-X II series, the Nikon Monarch series, the Bausch & Lomb 3200 series, and Burris. If you want to jump up one price range $300-$425, I recommend the Bausch & Lomb Elite 4200 series, the Leupold Vari-X III, and the higher end Nikon and Burris scopes. If you can afford to pay over $500, you don't need my advice. Just go to the store and whip out the Visa card. Bottom line... don't buy a cheap scope (low-end Bushnell, Simmons, Tasco, ect) and expect to have a quality killing machine.
Last, match the scope with a high-quality set of bases and rings. This will make a huge difference on accuracy.
BigDaddy
I would advise that you seriously look at a Winchester model 70 or a Remington model 700 BDL. If you have a little more cash, I would look at a Sako. However, I like rifles that feel "small", meaning I don't like heavy rifles with big, clunky stocks. I am not impressed with the Browning A-Bolt actions, but some people like them. Plus, the Browning BOSS system, if used properly, can really make a difference in shooting tight groups. I wouldn't use a Ruger or a Savage even for a canoe paddle (sorry to the Ruger and Savage fans).
For deer and elk, a .270 is more than capable. Contrary to what the magnum freaks propose, you don't need a .300 magnum for whitetail, mule deer, or elk. There must be something right about .30-06s too, because there are lots of them out there. I have owned a .270 and a .30-06, and I think I like the .270 ballistics better. If you are looking for a cartridge strickly for deer (and not elk), I would recommend that you look seriously at a .25-06. I like shooting smaller calibers simply because I hate lugging a heavy rifle up and down hills. Plus, I like to shoot a lot, and shooting groups with a .300 magnum is not a pleasant experience.
For varmints, it depends on how you like to play things. Personally, I hunt coyotes with a .222, but I like the idea of getting close. Plus, the low recoil makes shooting the cartridge a dream. Likewise, a .223 is a nice cartridge. For longer shots 250 yards+), a .22-250 may be a better choice.
Optics? You get what you pay for, plain and simple. I was pricing out optics last summer when I bought my .270, and was impressed at the number of quality scopes on the market today. You don't need a 20x scope for most species. I have a 3X9X40 on most of my rifles,and I have never felt that I needed more. In the $200-$300 range, I recommend checking out the Leupold Vari-X II series, the Nikon Monarch series, the Bausch & Lomb 3200 series, and Burris. If you want to jump up one price range $300-$425, I recommend the Bausch & Lomb Elite 4200 series, the Leupold Vari-X III, and the higher end Nikon and Burris scopes. If you can afford to pay over $500, you don't need my advice. Just go to the store and whip out the Visa card. Bottom line... don't buy a cheap scope (low-end Bushnell, Simmons, Tasco, ect) and expect to have a quality killing machine.
Last, match the scope with a high-quality set of bases and rings. This will make a huge difference on accuracy.
BigDaddy