24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,476
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,476
I know that wasn’t directed at me, but enough to expand the bullet and penetrate to the vitals wink

Doesn’t take much...

GB1

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,733
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,733
1200/1500 is 80 percent. Probably not really designated as " significant ".

The way I understand mono lithics it is more velocity at point of impact more important than fpe. I am not sure on the fps required for a Barnes to open up, so I would just be guessing. I would guess 1600 fps or greater?

They kind of behave like a broad head, ( arrow).

Last edited by Angus1895; 01/30/19.

"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills












Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,653
Q
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
Q
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,653
Originally Posted by bsa1917hunter
Originally Posted by Bocajnala
The 7mm mag will out perform the .270.

I own a .270 (my wife's) and not a 7mm mag.

Either will work just fine

-Jake



My math must be all fu cked up. That doesn't add up. 1 "outperforms" the other when they both produce dead elk? How many times do we need to say this. It's all about the bullet, not the headstamp...


I agree with this. Ive killed many animals with both and there is zero difference. Honestly id think you would be hard pressed to find two more similar rounds especially if you're not hand loading. You can safely get 3000 fps out of a 150 in the 270 and do about the same in the 7 mag with a 160. Pretty close no?

Id prefer the 270 for the lesser recoil, but the 7mag is a damn fine round and my favorite of the belted mags.

Its odd that an earlier poster mentioned that the 270 is not common in the camps he's been in. When it comes to the western US, i don't think ive ever been in a camp that didn't have a couple. Its THE quintessential western round in my opinion.


GOD Bless America
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,653
Q
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
Q
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,653
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by GF1
The .270 with 150 grain Nosler Partitions and the 7mm RM with 160 grain Partitions are so close in performance that the difference is hardly worth a discussion. A bore diameter difference of .007”, ballistic coefficients of .465 vs. .475, velocity difference of less than 100 fps. I too have killed elk and deer with both and honestly can’t see a difference in effect. The only big difference is the weight of the rifle; that’s why I no longer own a 7mm RM and own three .270s. But that’s just preference. You can easily work a 7mm RM into an 8 to 8 1/4# rifle, and there are lots of happy campers who use them. Angels dancing on the head of a pin.

If I want a significant step up in power, I reach for one of the 300s (my particular pet is a custom pre-war Model 70 in 300 Win Mag), shooting a slippery 200 grain bullet at 2950 fps. Increasingly, I’m doubting the extra power is necessary, but I’m just fond of the rifle and take it along anyhow.


Kind of funny that the difference in “power” between the .270 and 7RM isn’t worth discussing, but the .300 is a significant step up, despite that the same logic you just applied to the .270 vs 7RM also applies to the 7RM vs .300WM. The 7RM can launch a 195 EOL at 2875 fps; less than 100 fps difference between that and the .300/200gr, 5gr of bullet weight, and the BC favours the 195.

Your last sentence makes complete sense. Nothing wrong with personal preference!


PUBLISHED data barely has Remington's big 7 (big in name only mind you) pushing 175s at that speed let along 195s. Chronographing those published loads yields even less in my experience. I don't see the need to compare (likely) grossly over pressure 7 mag loads against the .270. I will agree with you though on the point that the 300s don't offer a big step up in power. I honestly believe that next big step up in power over the .264, .277s. and .284s are the .338s.

The 7RM is a fine round, but it won't do anything a 270 won't in the real world of big game hunting except bark louder, kick harder, and eat more powder. But nobody is going to change your mind.

The best advice on this thread is to work on locating elk, bullet selection and marksmanship.

This is the .30-06 .308 debate


GOD Bless America
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,476
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,476
Berger’s data shows ~2850 for that exact bullet.

You’re right, nobody will change my mind because I‘ve actually used both a bunch at distance, and know which is easier to hit with when the wind blows. I’m not saying the terminal performance of one is better than the other, but putting the bullet where it belongs in adverse conditions is another matter.

IC B2

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by Starman
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Case in point,
we spotted elk at 1100 yards this year. Neither Daughter #1 or her hubby had ever taken an elk and none of use were prepared for a shot that long.
We closed to 476 yards, at an altitude (~8500 feet) and wind conditions (essentially none) where Daughter's .308 Win/130g TTSX @ 3045fps MV
would have been adequate. While would have been quite happy to take the shot, Daughter #1 was not comfortable shooting at that range. By the
time we closed to her comfort range the elk were gone.

Granted, I used this event as an excuse to get her a .270 Win and develop a 150g LRAB load that delivers elk-killing velocity and energy
(2000fps and 1500fpe is my rule of thumb)


Your rule of thumb is 1500 fpe.... 130 ttsx 3045mv would not deliver that at 476 yds...,yet you say you would be happy to take the shot.


Yup, I would have been quite happy to take the shot, as I was carrying my .300WM loaded with 175g LRX at about 3000fps MV.

And no, the .308/130g TTSX would not deliver 1500fpe at 476 yards, even at the nearly 8500 feet altitude where the opportunity presented itself. Had Daughter been comfortable taking the shot at 476, however, I would have been comfortable with her doing so. There was no wind to speak of and it was a full broadside opportunity - pretty much perfect conditions.

Quote
If manufacturer claimed BC for 130ttsx can be relied on, you would have about 1360 fpe./ 476 yd
However tests on Barnes bullets show real world BC can be below published numbers in some cases by well over 5%
which could potentially bring energy down to around 1300 fpe / 476 yd. (8500 Alt..)...or 1243 fpe / 476 yd. ( 7000 Alt.)


2000fps and 1500fpe are my rule of thumb number as I consider them more than adequate with a good bullet. As in "more than adequate", not "minimum".

Quote
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter

Daughter #1 has done her elk hunting with a .308 Win and 130g TTSX @ 3045fps. I figure that would have worked out
to about 500 yards at 7000 feet and above.


130 ttsx /500yd (7000ft) would give about 1250 fpe , if claimed BC .350 is correct.
with a possible B.C. error of up to 5% , it could be more like 1195 fpe / 500 yd.

That is significantly below 1500 fpe, so Im left wondering what the actual real world minimum energy level is that you would
be prepared to shoot elk with?


Depends on the specifics of the shot opportunity. I've hunted elk with my .44 Mag carbine, 240g @ 1880fps. Always figured 100-150 yards max for that rifle and load, which retains 1572fps/1318fpe at 100 and 1435fps/1097fpe at 150. The one shot I had with that rifle I passed on - not because the bull was at 100 yards but because my hunting buddy already had one down and I figured we already had enough work ahead of us.

I don't know how you evaluate opportunities but give me 1000fpe and a fat bullet - or enough velocity to expand one - and things will die. Give me 2000fps and 1500fpe and, while they may or may not die faster, I'll be more comfortable taking the shot. The .300WM/175g LRX load I was using delivers about 2361fps/2167fpe at 476 yards and 7000 feet, more at the almost 8500 where we were hunting. Even better.

Daughter's .308/130g TTSX load? Not my first choice for 500 yards but capable nevertheless. Her new-to-her .270 Win with a 150g LRAB should deliver 2339fps/1823fpe @ 500 at 7000 feet. Better.



Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 01/31/19. Reason: fixed quote start/stop

Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 771
T
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
T
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 771
The .270 is perfectly useable with good billets. I’d go with the 7 mag just because I prefer more power whenever I can get it.


“One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning.” - James Russell Lowell
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

618 members (1234, 12344mag, 10Glocks, 17CalFan, 10gaugemag, 007FJ, 73 invisible), 2,598 guests, and 1,263 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,190,667
Posts18,455,887
Members73,909
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 


Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.121s Queries: 14 (0.008s) Memory: 0.8389 MB (Peak: 0.9236 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-04-19 19:37:18 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS