Because I don't own either a .270 or a 7mm. But I certainly have no problem allowing my clients to use them and as I have stated earlier in this discussion, the shooters using them used less bullets and killed theirs just a quickly as ANY client using a .338, .340 Wby or .375. Simply because they could shoot them. I would say that they were unusual hunter thought because they were experienced enough to know and admit that they shot them better because they kicked less. Even you, who claims to shoot your 340 better from the bench due to ample padding, says that the 7mm is more pleasant to shoot. It sounds like it could be simply that your 340 is a more accurate rifle from the bench. I have heard a lot of claims but have yet to meet a person who could shoot a heavy rifle "better" from a field position CONSISTENTLY than a rifle with less recoil.
And while I may not own a 270 or 7mm, I have and do hunt brown bears with my 30-06.
�Even you � says that the 7mm is more pleasant to shoot. It sounds like it could be simply that your 340 is a more accurate rifle from the bench.�
I actually didn�t say that. My 7mm Wby, .340 Wby, and .375 Wby all recoil about the same. My 7mm is lighter than my .340, which is lighter than my .375. They all feel about the same. It�s just that my .340 is, so far, a tack driver that I can shoot really well, even better than my smaller-caliber rifles. That being said, I get better groups out of it than I do my .243 Win, and .308s etc� When I said I would love to bring my 7mm on a BB hunt, I meant because it�s really light, not because it recoils less. But, in my case, the weight difference is not enough to make me bring a .243 or a 7mm on a brown bear hunt. I can carry the .340 Wby. The difference between that and a lighter rife is less than 1% of my weight+ the gear I carry. That < 1% is worth it to me even if it is not, or should not be, to others. Just my perspective.
