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

Given equal barrel lengths this is pretty darn close. I don't see anyone having a beef with the 7mm RM, just telling the truth and upsetting some folks.

Not a huge 270 fan either, never owned one. I have owned a few 7 mags, until I bought a chronograph. Not a huge Petzel fan either, but this time he is right.

With factory loads, in an 8.5-9 lb. all up rifle, the 7 mag is not that bad. Yet even then it's at the limit of most guy's recoil tolerance. Start loading it to potential, or drop the rifle weight down to something a guy actually wants to pack, and the 7 Rem Mag boots ya pretty hard.

A quick route to name recognition is to challenge conventional wisdom. I've known professional people that became quite famous by challenging convention. They were quite wrong, but one always has to cite the opposing thought train.

I have a 7 mag, and I like it. I have 270, and I like it too. No one really seems to care.

I know Petzal pretty well, having first met him when I was 25 or so, which was a while back. Dave used to hunt with one of my mentors, Norm Strung, who was a part-time outfitter for many yeas when he first started writing for hunting and fishing magazines.

When Dave first started hunting out west he was firm believer in .33 caliber magnums, mostly because he was an Elmer Keith believer. He had some success with both the .338 Winchester and .340 Weatherby, mostly because he made some good shots (he is a very good shot), but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have killed the same animals with lesser cartridges.

Have hunted with him a number of times, and on one occasion he asked me if a .270 Winchester would really kill an elk. I said yes. Eventually he did kill a bull elk with the .270, and it worked fine. I believe it worked with one shot, too, though couldn't swear to that.

Was on a mule deer hunt with him in eastern Montana. He brought a .30-06 with 180-grain Nosler Partitions. The outfitter's wife had killed umpteen mule deer with the .243 Winchester, and Dave asked me whether the .243 was enough.

In other words, he started out as a firm believer in the theory that being over-gunned is better than being under-gunned, partly because he had little experience with smaller rounds. However, I do believe what is often called "real life" has convinced him that smaller cartridges will indeed kill big game, especially after he realized that not everybody is recoil-proof.

Will also comment that whether or not any individual who's posted here considers the recoil of the 7mm Remington Magnum relatively mild is irrelevant. The job of a gun writer should be to observe a BUNCH of shooters, as well as the result from a BUNCH of cartridges, instead of only reporting their personal feelings about recoil, or their personal prejudices about cartridges.

It's hard to do that, since most of us are convinced our personal experience applies to every other human, but it was the great failing of Elmer Keith. He was a great shot and hunter, and a far better writer than many give him credit for, but he never could see much beyond his own experience.

Jack O'Connor became a far more well-known and popular gun writer not just because of his slicker writing style, but because he could empathize more with the average hunter, and thus provide more realistic advice. Which is what Petzal was doing in this particular instance.

No matter how many people on the Campfire believe the 7mm Remington Magnum kicks rather mildly, or how many long-range hunters say it's a lot more cartridge than the .270 Winchester beyond X range, the average shooter just might flinch from a 7mm RM's recoil, and isn't going to be shooting beyond 300 or 500 or 800 yards or whatever anyway. And within those realistic limits the .270 is the equal of the 7mm Remington Magnum, especially with some of today's bullets.

A sporter-weight 7mag is brutal to me in the prone. A 7mag Sendero is okay but a LOT more recoil than I care to shoot 50rds in an afternoon from prone. Put that same Sendero in a 5# AI stock and its much more mangageable.

Yeah, we tend to lose sight of "the average shooter" quite a bit around here, being a bunch of loonies and all!

And we'll all argue either side of something depending on which side of the bed we woke up on (or maybe more importantly in alot of cases, who is arguing the other side )!

That's nice and all.

But when buying a firearm, get what suits you and don't worry about what the general public or a gun writer who claims to represent them thinks.

Every application and requirement is different. There are many situations where a .270 will be just as effective.

However, A 7 Magnum certainly has an advantage over a .270 if it's used for LR work and the shooter stuffs his own cases.

That's just a fact and one that Mr. Petzal fails to mention.

He attempts to marginalize a good cartridge and uses generalities to do so, failing to mention the cartridges better attributes.

So excuse me if I don't believe that gun writers personal opinions don't bleed through and into their writing.

I see it all the time.

All a man can knowledgeably write about are his experiences and they will form his opinions.

Well, I guess it still narrows down to bullet placement . Cartridge size, and bullet diameter are only important to the shooter of said cartridge.JMHO,Huntz

Personal choices in rifle cartridges is kind of like politics and religion....people form very firm opinions based on their personal experiences and exposure,get entrenched, and it's hard to change their minds.

Gun writers are people,too,and prone to the same tendencies,although in many cases based on wider experience.But sometimes things fly over even their heads. I learned, for example,that JOC was dead wrong about the 300 H&H,likely because he hated 26" barrels, lopped off a 300 H&H from 26 to 23",loaded it moderately, and found it no faster than a 30/06.

OTOH, I got one, loaded it to potential,and found it much like a 300 Win Mag,on the range and while out hunting. I figured we couldn't both be right,and decided JOC was "wrong"....at least about the 300 H&H.

JOC wrote some good things about the 7 Rem Mag when it first came out(somewhere I have those original OL articles). He took one to Africa,Angola IIRC,and knocked the snot out of a bunch of animals.He seems to have liked it but this changed over the years for some reason.

So, with due regard for Dave Petzal's views on the 7 Rem Mag, I think at least for now, I will have to pretty much ignore it.

I've been shooting and hunting with both the 270 and 7 Rem Mag since the late 60's or early 70's. Every time I have tried either one, they always worked as advertised. I don't know what else I could ask of a rifle cartridge.

BobinNH, we think pretty much the same on this. I've been reading this thread from start to stop. Lotta opinions on it and it seems some folks just plain hate belted magnums period and trot out their samples of one, wailing away at it. Couple of weeks ago I was given a part box of Remington 7 mm Magnums factory loaded with 150 gr PTD Core-lokts according to the 1963 Rem catalog I have they should be moving 3250 at the muzzle. The ammo is from the 1964-66 era,no corrosion on it and the box looks 95%, in other words well stored. So it is somewhere to 46-48 years old. Been overcast most of the day but a half hr ago the sun came out and so did my chronograph. Used my 50 yd butt for the target and chrono at 10' 4 shots in one ragged oblong hole .414" avg vel at 3086 fps. Current factory Rem loads are supposed to be 3110 fps with the same 2 dia bullet. I shoot the 270 also and the only 270 loads with 150's I ever saw hit that kind of spd came from my 270 Weatherby. Haters allways gonna hate. BobinNH take care not many of us guys who like magnums for what they are left around here. Magnum Man

JM,

Your post is reasonable--except that it ignores the role gun writers play in forming the opinions of people who haven't hunted much. Without much (or even any) experience, how is somebody going to get a reasonably informed opinion? And the answer is, of course, advice from more experienced hunters.

These can be your dad and his brother Uncle Ed, or Elmer Keith or Dave Petzal, or the unlimited number of gun writers now appearing every day on 24hourcampfire.com. And the advice will vary considerably. Unfortunately, most such advice is shortened these days (just as it probably was from dad and Uncle Ed), for whatever reason anybody wants to blame.

One thing I do know from working in the hunting/gun writing business for many years is that the readership of different magazines varies considerably. The readership of Field & Stream, for instance, is very different from that of smaller, more specialized "vertical" magazines, or many members of the Campfire. The average F&S reader isn't as experienced, and doesn't handload, and that's who Petzal writes for. His opinions have changed through his own personal experience, but that personal experience has also included seeing a lot of average hunters at the range and in the field.

Most Campfire members aren't as exposed to nearly as many other shooters and hunters, and don't pay as much attention to them when they are. The big exception might be members of their own family, though I have seen a LOT of shooters who apparently still think everyone in their family should be able to handle recoil (or even enjoy it) in the same way they do, whether the family member is a kid or their wife.

I always find it both astonishing and amusing that so many Campfire posters think not only think anybody asking advice on hunting rifles should somehow ALREADY know all the answers, but is a dipschitt for asking the questions. One of the reasons humans made any sort of "progress" is they passed knowledge along from person to person, and thus generation to generation, rather than every one of us starting out at square one, like a fresh-hatched duckling.

There are some people who learn from the experience of others. That doesn't mean the other people are always right, and in fact the people whose opinions are most valuable are those who revise their opinions, to whatever degree, as their experience and education continues.

I have frequently gone hunting with large groups of people. This wouldn't be my choice if I were just hunting for myself, but it happens often with gun writers. Even after I've taken my game I usually go along with other people, if they'll let me, to gain more experience in not just other rifles, bullets, cartridges, etc. but other people.

From 2000-2010, in fact, I went on so many cull or control hunts for big game, with a lot of other people, I frankly grew a little weary of seeing so many animals killed, and then evaluating exactly how the bullets worked on as many animals as possible. But it provided a lot of information, partly because I also got to talk to people who did the same thing, expanding my "personal" experience even further.

As a result I've been able to expand my experience considerably, unlike many hunters who head home or lounge around camp after they get their game. In some years I've seen dozens of different hunters in action, whether at the range or in the field, and seen them shooting game--with the exact results of the bullets and cartridge used right there, where I can observe the details. These have all formed my "personal" experience far more than my own shooting.

Does my opinion count more? No, but like some other gun writers (not all) it is based on considerable observation of other shooters both at ranges and in the field--along with a pile of different cartridges and bullets. I do try to present this "personal" experience objectively, though have also been around long enough to know nobody is totally objective.

However, one thing I have noticed the longer I hunt is that the differences in the results of various bullets and cartridges aren't as vast as many hunters believe--though I've often found my own experiences agree with others whose experiences go beyond a dozen animals a year, or even those who shoot dozens of whitetail or pigs. Though I've often learned stuff from those who do, and usually learn something new about shooting and hunting every day, whether doing it myself or reading or talking to others, because that's what I do at least eight hours a day. Right now I'm doing it more than eight hours a day.

As a result, I agree with Petzal on this subject more than I disagree with him. His main job is to make suggestions to relatively inexperienced hunters and shooters. Apparently that's not good enough for all the experts on the Campfire, who provide lots of free advice even though they believe beginning hunters should already know everything they do--and also disagree among themselves quite a bit.

Nicely put.

I don't much care for shooting a sporter weight 7 mag either! Especially from field positions, while putting enough rounds downrange to maintain proficiency. Too much gun, for me.

But for others, it may work. Though I strongly suspect many of the "tough guys" who supposedly aren't bothered by recoil don't shoot enough to know any better.

MD - I have always been a bit skeptical I guess. Consequently, while I enjoy reading what various people have written, I like to see if it's really factual in my own experience; to prove it to myself, or whatever. So when Barsness or Haviland or someone else says bullet A or powder Q are the best thing since sliced bread in some way, guess what? Yep, I buy a pound of Q or a box of A and head off to the range to try them.

My conclusion? You guys are plain evil and work for the component manufacturers

I'd like to have my ego stroked by having gun writers validate the things that I think I know and my experiences regarding hunting and handloading.
The reality is that I see through only one set of eyes and the rifle/cartridge that I see as perfect for my needs may not apply to other people and their needs.. Such is life, I'm not shook at all when I find there is more to learn.

MD- thanks for your perspective!

Klik,

You caught us! Nothing has improved since IMR4350 appeared in 1940, which does everything anybody ever would need in the 7x57 and .375 H&H, the only cartridges any hunter would ever need for any sort of big game.

Never insinuated newbies were dipschitts, so I don't know where that comes from.

I've introduced and mentored more than my fair share of kids to shooting/hunting over the years and have a fairly good understanding of what it takes to go from "this is a gun" to being a capable hunter.

Much of Petzal's article is true. There are many occasions where a .270 will be just as effective as a 7 Magnum.

His writing and choice of words wear the condescending tone of those in the "know", which seldom makes newbies feel at ease and often has the opposite effect in my experience.

Yet Petzal fails to mention applications where the 7 will have certain advantages.

His failure to include this makes me question his "objectivity" and commitment to help the uninformed that you mentioned in your post.

If knowing there are applications where the 7 will outshine the .270 makes me a campfire expert, all I can say is thanks and that I believe all aspects of a cartridge should be considered before passing judgement.

IME, having all the information let's the inexperienced make better decisions.

THIS!

you girls want to shoot my 416 Rem Mag?

I'll shoot most anything ONCE!