Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What's Petzals beef with the 7mm RM?

If threads didn't go off on tangents, this would be a pretty boring place.

Azar,

Yeah, for the moment it is proprietary information.

My 7 lb.270 seems to fit the bill!!!

Ive never liked the 7mm mags, although I have owned a few. Always thought if I wanted to step up to a magnum I would go with a 300 win mag and if I didnt a 270 or 280 would suffice.

John,todays powders do make a difference.3300 fps is smoking and even backed off to 3250 is a lot of speed.

We used MRP when it came out back "when". That was one of the powders that taught me I did not necessarily have to throat long to get good velocities from the 7RM, and by that I mean about 3050-3080 or so with a 160.

The hijackers officially rolled in.

Our Lindsey Graham calls them "Tear..Rists"

Bob,

In the same rifle the maximum listed charge of Retumbo pushes 175 Hornadys to just under 3100, with zero signs of excessive pressure. I suspect, however, that 175 Partitions might up the pressure a little much, but they should certainly hit 3000.

It's better?

John sounds like it would. Darcy and Rick tell me the 175 NPT is a killing load. They both used it in Africa and both said good things about that bullet.They did not mention recovering any from anything. I have never used the 175 on an animal.

I ran into this working with the Mashburn and Retumbo with the 160 gr Accubond.A friend and I used 7mm Weatherby data,and the max charge in the Nosler manual calls for 79.5 gr Retumbo This gave about 3250 in his rifle.

To be prudent, I backed off to 78 gr and 160 AB; it gave 3330 in my rifle I had some primer cratering but that was all, but that was just too high.

Interesting thing is these are both Krieger 24" barrels with chambers cut with the same reamer. Goes to show that barrels can vary a good bit.

If Petzal were to read this, I'm sure he'd be smiling. Judging by the length, he hit his mark.

Somewhere well past the distance where I will choose to shoot an animal. "A man's got to know his limitations", and mine are far inside of the capabilities of most cartridges. Oh well.

Of course, it took me a a while to learn this, so I suppose I might have been swayed by the "experts" back when I first started. Once I quit reading gun rags & discounted the vast majority of what I read on the interweb, I found clarity pretty quickly. For me, anyway.

FC

Is the general concensus then that there is no advantage in using a 7 Rem. mag. over say, a .270 for normal hunting ranges? I'm just asking as I've never shot a big game animal with a magnum cartridge but I know a lot of guys who believe their magnums bring a lot more thump and knockdown even at short range.

I wouldn't deem that a general consensus at all.

Tanner

Sporting Rifle Match, I bet a guy shooting a 7RM with 162/168s would beat the pants off an equally skilled shooter running all but the 150 LRAB outta the .270. All else being the same...

That would mean a lot to me, as I'm convinced no better quantifiable test exists. 12" plates are BG kill size.... and drift rules.

I'll even grant the .270 equal in 'killing ability'... it just requires more skill to shoot well under a broad base of wind conditions. So congrats to you .270 guys.... you're obviously far better shooters, given your antiquated ballistics and CRFs.... it's amazing you manage to kill anything outside of Wrist-Rocket range.

Better for me and thats all that counts!!!

That geezer is fulla schit... who cares what he writes?

It would be a pretty big stretch to call the Sporting Rifle Match a good indicator of what makes a capable hunting rifle or cartridge. That match's layout simply isn't how most of us hunt.

Billy, what makes you say that? I haven't shot the course but the website reports that there are shots from 175 to 875 yards, and I believe they're all 6" to 12" plates. There are shots required off of sticks and other "field" positions to prone. That sounds like a pretty legitimate test of a hunting rifle and cartridge. I know I'd sure like to get a chance to go out and try my skills.

Tanner

It certainly simulates how 90% of my shots have gone down in the field. In fact, it's shot in wonderful elk/bear/deer/pronghorn/coyote/cat country.... into/across the Canadian River, and up into the meadows/draws/hillsides above.

I agree it's not how most shots would go in West Virginia or Maine.... but I'd say when half the available big game species in the lower 48 reside permanently on the range.... it's a pretty good simulator.