Greater case capacity wins every time it is tried. That�s why the .280 Rem cannot keep up with the 7mm RM.
.......Not true on the lighter weight bullets. 7mm tends to waste powder there......
Coyote's post is as usual, spot on IME.
I've had multiples of both;but my 280's all had 22-23" barrels,andthe 7 mags have had 24".Day in and day out the 7mag sends 160 gr bullets out at about the same velocities as a 280 does the 140's,ie at or about 3050-3100 fps. I have had barrels in both that exceed these velocities for each cartridge,but these seem to be reasonable, real world averages.
It would appear ay first glance that pushing 140 gr bullets from a 7 RM at 3250 or better is "wasted",but this is mostly internet chat and crunching numbers from manuals.I prefer to see how they do on game,in the field,with bullets;and if you start a 140 gr Nosler AB at these velocities and zero it properly,you will have a "hold on hair" load to 400 yards; for situations when you do not or cannot precisely determine distances, this load can be a trip-saver.I know of one 200+ mule deer buck that was wounded by a companion,and did not escape because I knew that load intimately at the 500 yard distance at which I had to shoot him.
Something else little mentioned is that the higher velocities will expand some of our tougher 140 gr bullets more thoroughly at the 300-400 yards distances than the standard cartridges.
And when it comes to elk,those long 160-175 gr bullets driven at high velocity (faster than can be managed from a 280) provide the long range performance to easily handle elk sized stuff at distance without the punishing recoil of a 300 magnum,in lighter rifles...and about as well.Smart people figured this out 50+ years ago....
We don't seem to have this same prejudice about light bullet velocity being "wasted" (whatever the hell that is..)when talking about the 270,257 Weatherby's,etc....but for some reason people like to carp and snipe at the 7RM when similarly used.....I think they read too much "Craig Boddington".....
