Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting .270 Win or 7mm RM

Sure I do. Doesn't everyone?

Killing elk ain’t hard.

It’s finding them that’s hard.






P

There Ya go right there!!!

I feel qualified to make the statement since I am a recognized expert at not finding elk.





P

LOL. That's a quotable quote right there and hits pretty close to home.

Although I don't quite have that problem. I think every elk hunting season I've eventually found elk (unless my memory is bad). However, I have often not found the correct sex of elk that matched my tag more times than I care to count.

I have had cow elk less than 15 yards broadside with a spike bull tag in my pocket. I've been less than 100 yards from bachelor herds of beautiful bulls in multiple seasons with a cow tag in my pocket. I've been within 75 yards of a huge herd bull and all his cows with a spike bull tag in my pocket. I've gone home empty handed far more than I have with meat in the freezer.

But I would agree that if you are hunting with a suitable bullet, finding the right elk is a lot harder than killing them.

Buy the .270 and load up with Nosler Partitions ( your choice in bullet weight) and go kill an elk.

Elk don't read ballistic tables or cartridge head stamps.

well I ran the numbers again at your specified 7000ft alt.

http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=c320f2e4

result was:
150 LRAB @600yd 2224/1647
168 LRAB @600yd 2367/2090

175 LRAB 2800mv @600yd 2184/1854 (7000ft alt.)
(posted for folks who have faster twist than a factory 7mag)




Nosler use 9.0" twist for their test rifle and 175 LRAB.
Barnes recommend minimum 8.0" for their mono-metal 175

Didn't you say you spent $500 on a lightweight mc.Edge stock?

$500 splurge to increase that dreaded bane of a thing called recoil...WTF?

that kind of money can get a person a new barrel for 7Mag that will handle 175 LRABs ...
or put it toward a factory rifle 280 A.I. 9.0 "twist and one is on their way for using 175..




I recall my 1980s M70 featherweight, Leup. 2.5-8x, steel rings, 7-3/4 lb empty.
then the MkV .270 Wby ,Brown Prec. stock , same scope and rings, 8-1/4 lb empty

The decision was easy, weight and recoil penalty didn't seem much, so the FW was effectively out of a job.
magazine capacity?... I usually don't put anymore than one-Up -- two-down in any medium bore rifle.
Ive even hunted with one up the spout, and only one or nothing in the stack.

... 6- 3/4 lb MkV ultra-LW was not available back then, otherwise I would have got one, topping out at
the same weight as M70 fw.

What B.C. values are you using? The Nosler web site has corrected values of .546 and .616 respectively for the 150g and 168g LRAB. I used the corrected values.

In a word, "No."



Given that I've never spent more than $125 for a stock, your question is irrelevant. And the 175g LRAB won't provide me with any useful advantage over the 150g LRAB in my 7mm RM, so no need to buy a new rifle or barrel to use it.

The B.C. values I indicated when I first responded to your .270win 150 LRAB vs 7 -mag 168 LRAB ballistic comparison....
eg;
[quoteStarman=]
your 150 LRAB (.591 BC ) and 168 LRAB (.616 BC) velocity-energy figures for 600yd, seem out of whack.
[quote]



B.C. .546 is for 7mm 150 LRAB, ...270 cal 150 LRAB, BC = .591

your downrange comparison was based on .270cal 150 LRAB vs 7mm 168 LRAB.




Oops my mistake ,you said you could potentially spend $500 on a Mc Edge




***
***


How much does recoil really bother you considering you would relish a 6 lb 280 AI...?

Would 7-Mag at 7.5 lb, bother you anymore than a 6lb .280 A.I......?

Selecting middle of the road max.velocity and powder charge(Nosler data) for .280 AI - 168 LRAB( ie; 58grains , 2850mv)
recoil for a 6lb rifle is nearly 27 ft/lb.


7-Mag (at 7.5lbs) 168 LRAB (68 grains powder) at a more moderate 2900mv (than your orig. 3047 mv),
gives 24.35 ft/lb recoil
and still delivers better figures downrange than your .270win 150 LRAB.

If one chooses a different 7 -mag powder, 2900mv can be done with only about 62 grains,(Nosler data) and recoil under 23 ft/lb.

What is so hard to under stand Brad.. Bowman a famous elk guide like the .270.. But he played with the 264 necked up to 7mm.. He saw enough value to urge Mike Walker of Rem to bring the round out commercially.. Mike did and the result was the 7mm mag... If Bowman thought there was a difference it was valid enough for Walker to act on it.. Now go play with your .308 and be happy..

OK. My bad – the velocity energy and drift numbers I used line up with 8000 feet altitude, not 7000 feet. I reran the numbers for 7000 feet and came up with this:
.270 Win, 150g LRAB @ .591 BC, 7000 ft altitude MPBR zero for 6” target:

.270 Win/150 LRAB @ 2910fps,
253 yds = zero point
299 yds = MPBR
47.1" = drop
2209fps - velocity
1626fpe = energy
16.2" = drift
17.7 ft-lbs recoil




What I was talking about was options to spending $3500 to $4800 for a lighter weight rifle. Yeah, I’d rather buy a McMillan Edge for $500. But I haven’t done so for a variety of reasons, the most important being that doing so doesn’t have sufficient ROI.



Here’s what I said about recoil earlier in this thread. I don’t see any need to retype when I can just copy/paste:

“Who cares about recoil? I do. And my daughters do. We see no reason to put up with more recoil than necessary to reliably achieve the goal, which is why the big boomers rarely go to the range. I've hit clay pigeons on the 600-yard berm using my .338WM, .300WM, a .30-06, 6.5-06AI and .257 Roberts. And maybe my .243. The light kickers are definitely more fun to shoot and easier to shoot accurately. Especially so for my daughters.”

The key phrase in that is “We see no reason to put up with more recoil than necessary to reliably achieve the goal…”. If I had a rifle that was 6 pounds all up it would be a great carry rifle. I’d put up with the increased recoil for some purposes and choose a different rifle for others.

Not that I need a .280AI as I already have a 7mm RM and .280 Rem.



Nope, because the recoil of the 7.5-pound rifles would be less for many loads.



First, I come up with a different recoil figure for a 168g bullet, 68g powder, 2900fps and 7.5lb rifle – 27.5 ft-lbs vs your 24.35 ft-lbs. Your number seems to line up better with a rifle/scope combo just under 8.5 pounds.

Comparing the .270/150g LRAB to the 7mm RM/168g LRAB load:

.270 Win, 150g LRAB @ .591 BC, 7000 ft altitude MPBR zero for 6” target, 600 yards, 2910fps MV:
253 yds = zero point
299 yds = MPBR
47.1" = drop
2209fps - velocity
1626fpe = energy
16.2" = drift
17.7 ft-lbs recoil (8.3lb rifle and scope = Ruger Hawkeye and Burris 3-9x40 FulField II))

7mm RM, 168g LRAB @ .616 B.C., 7000 ft altitude MPBR zero for 6” target, 600 yards, 2900fps MV:
253 yds = zero point
299 yds = MPBR
53.1" = drop
2227fps - velocity
1850fpe = energy
15.5" = drift
24.9 ft-lbs recoil (8.3lb rifle and scope)
27.5 ft-lbs recoil (7.5lb rifle and scope)


???

Zero and MPBR ranges are identical. The .270 has a 6” advantage in drop while the 7mm RM has a 0.7” advantage in drift. Given the closeness in the drift, I’d say the advantage goes to the .270 Win. The 7mm RM has an insignificant 18fps advantage in retained velocity and a 224fpe advantage. Advantage 7mm RM, but given that the .270’s 2209fps and 1626fpe @ 600 is adequate for anything Daughter #1 is going to be doing in the foreseeable future, the extra 18fps and 224fpe are pretty much a “don’t care”.

Which brings us to recoil and the fact that the .270 is for Daughter #1. At 17.7 ft-lbs recoil it is 1.9 ft-lbs (11%) more than the .308 Win load she has been using. The 7mm RM 168g load is 41% more than the .270 load with similar weight (8.3lb) rifle/scope combos and 55% more than the .270 with a 7.5lb rifle/scope.

Based on the figures, the advantage easily goes to the .270 and 150g LRAB for Daughter #1’s purposes.

since 168 LRAB 2900mv already has either equal or excess of what you require in certain values,

why did you ramp up 168 LRAB to 3047mv in you first 600yd ballistic comparison?..why push it that hard?



Ive tried a number of ballistic calculators and cannot find one that gives 150 LRAB( .591)2910mv anything like a 6" drop advantage over 168 LRAB(.616)2900mv
7000ft alt. / 253 yd zero:

no matter which program I use, both results come out very close to each other.

150 LRAB - 53.07" 600yd
168 LRAB -52.91" 600yd

Its illogical in physics that a lower B.C. projectile would have (6") less drop than a higher B.C. projectile, when launched at virtually
the same MV and with same zero point.

You are right - it is not logical. My calculator defaulted to 300 yard zero when I recalculated for the .270 and I forgot to change it to 253 yards. Once again, my bad.

That said, the only number that changes is the drop. The corrected drop value of 53.4" is used below.


.270 Win, 150g LRAB @ .591 BC, 7000 ft altitude MPBR zero for 6” target, 600 yards, 2910fps MV:
253 yds = zero point
299 yds = MPBR
53.4" = drop
2209fps - velocity
1626fpe = energy
16.2" = drift
17.7 ft-lbs recoil (8.3lb rifle and scope = Ruger Hawkeye and Burris 3-9x40 FulField II))

7mm RM, 168g LRAB @ .616 B.C., 7000 ft altitude MPBR zero for 6” target, 600 yards, 2900fps MV:
253 yds = zero point
299 yds = MPBR
53.1" = drop
2227fps - velocity
1850fpe = energy
15.5" = drift
24.9 ft-lbs recoil (8.3lb rifle and scope)
27.5 ft-lbs recoil (7.5lb rifle and scope)


So the 7mm RM /168g LRAB DOES have the advantage in drop at 600 yards, by a whopping 0.3". And it wins in drift by 0.7" drift, as I stated before.

But my point remains the same - if both loads are more than adequate for our purposes at 700 yards - using 2000fps and 1500fpe as the benchmark - but our personal limits due to practice restrictions is 600 yards, the additional 23fps and 224fpe at 600 yards is a big "don't care".

For Daughter #1, the disadvantage of the additional 41% recoil of the 7mm load at 2900fps far outweighs its advantages at 600.

For my purposes, the 150g LRAB in my 7mm RM beats the 168g LRAB.

7mm RM, 150g LRAB @ .546 B.C., 7000 ft altitude MPBR zero for 6” target, 600 yards, 3150fps MV:
272 yds = zero point
321 yds = MPBR
543.7" = drop
2357fps - velocity
1851fpe = energy
15.7" = drift
22.5 ft-lbs recoil (8.3lb rifle and scope, 63.0g powder)


I'd go with the 150g LRAB for my 22" .280 Rem as well:

280 Rem, 150g LRAB @ .546 B.C., 7000 ft altitude MPBR zero for 6” target, 600 yards, 2850fps MV:
247 yds = zero point
292 yds = MPBR
58.2" = drop
2106fps - velocity
1478fpe = energy
18.3" = drift
18.5 ft-lbs recoil (8.3lb rifle and scope, 57.0g powder)

Does this mean I'll never hunt with my .338WM or .300WM again? No. It just means that the job I want done can be accomplished with a lot less recoil. Same reason I switched from 160g bullets to 140g bullets in my 7mm RM over a decade ago.

Wow, epic.

Never made much sense to me to hamstring a cartridge with a mediocre bullet, only to deal with 40% more recoil than you’d get with another cartridge shooting a better bullet.

Nothing like the battle of the ballistic tables. My head hurts.

Jordan,

Don't know about Canada, but in the USA pushing mediocre-BC bullets as fast as possible is an old tradition....

Haha I agree... just wow....