You are right - it is not logical. My calculator defaulted ....
How come you didn't pick up on the resulting error?
It would only take a reasonably competent ballistic tinkerer with rudimentary grasp of the science
to recognize or identify such a glaring error in results.
Why didn't I pick up on it? Probably because I had far more important things on my mind, like Daughter #1 giving me a new grandson and then being rushed back to the hospital with a life threatening condition - and nothing I could do but wait. A rather distressing and distracting couple of days, hope you never have to go through something like that.
So the 7mm RM /168g LRAB DOES have the advantage in drop at 600 yards, by a whopping 0.3"
The glaring error in favor of .270cal you make and we're not able to identify, is more my point.
I made no blind dumb ass claims about 7mm ballistics like you did for .270win
I got the drop wrong. Big whoop.
That said, the only number that changes is the drop.
If you used that wrong drop figure when taking a shot on elk 600 yds, compounded with some human error
movement from the operator behind the rifle butt,..how would you fair?
We don't rely on drop calculations, we actually shoot at 600 to verify. And 500, and under.
My point about the .270 Win is that a 150g LRAB @ 2910fps will do everything Daughter #1 wants it to do, will do it well past 600 yards and her 400 yard comfort range (even though she shoots out to 600) and will do it with under 18 ft-lbs recoil, That's not a "blind dumb ass claim", it's a fact.
It is also a fact that a 7mm RM can't beat the.270/150g LRAB/2910fps load at 600 without significantly more recoil - at least not with any load I've found using bullets we would actually use.
