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

I have other secrets I might still share, a hint would be the viability of fixed powered scopes...

A guy would have a very hard time finding a better all around rifle than an 8ish pound 7 Rem Mag.

An "all around" rifle can be fired 300-400 times over a three-day course by its user, from mostly field positions, but at least a hundred times from prone, slung up.

Most who've attempted this arrive at a compact 308 loaded with 150's, with a stock considerably shorter than what most possess

There may be men who can do this with an 8# fast seven but I'd bet you ain't one of 'em.

Interesting point, and I've done exactly that with a light .308. Wouldn't want to with anything that kicked much harder--and even the .270 kicks a little harder than the .308.

My point about all this really doesn't just pit the .270 against the 7mm RM. The more I've hunted the less difference I've seen in the results with ALL cartridges. Not that there aren't differences in the "killing power" of, say, a .243 Winchester and a .375 H&H, though even there some overlap can occur. But there are probably 100+ cartridges in the same general category as the .270 Winchester and 7mm Remington Magnum, from 6.5mm to .30 caliber. I've seen a bunch in action, and have pretty much concluded that bullet placement and construction make more difference in killing power than anything else, certainly more than relatively small differences in bullet weight, caliber and velocity. This isn't exactly a new insight, but then very little about hunting rifles is.

I might also mention that I acquired my first 7mm Remington Magnum in the 1980's. Haven't been without one very long since, and have hunted with the cartridge considerably, along with guiding and accompanying other hunters who used it. Have also hunted with several other 7mm magnums, including the 7mm SAUM, 7mm Weatherby and 7mm STW, as well as the noted "just about as good as the 7mm Remington" .280 Ackley Improved. Have been with companions when they took big game with all those rounds as well, along with the 7mm Dakota and some other 7mm's I've probably forgotten. The game has ranged from pronghorn, pigs, various deer, caribou, black bears, elk and moose in North America to the same size of plains game in Africa, including the tougher ones like gemsbok, zebra and wildebeest. Have seen the .270 used on all the same game, so am not exactly unacquainted with the question at hand.

There is, of course, always some disagreement among about killing power. It's just that the longer I hunt the less difference I see in cartridges of the same class. John Burns uses the .243 on elk at 600 yards or more, with bullets many on this forum refuse to use for deer at any range.

I also find it interesting that two of the 7mm RM's defenders on this thread (John Burns and Bobinh) use long-throated rifles. I sure don't disagree with that, but it is interesting both guys have done it, apparently in order to gain more zip over the typical velocities attainable in the 7mm Remington Magnum.

My 7 RM was a Winchester 70 push feed with a Leupy VXIII 3-9X. It was about a 9 pound rifle. It was nice to shoot though.

Funny, I thought we were talking about hunting rifles.

Tanner

Apparently you are supposed to shoot hunting rifles 300-400 times over a 3 day stretch. No wonder Boxer makes fun of me about my 20 round "range sessions".

Yeah and I'd bet that you don't truly own a Kifaru rigged up with Hill People gear, but I guess we'll both never know since you don't own a camera.

7-08 would be a better mousetrap for the uses you cited than a 308.

I like the 7 [bleep].

But haters is always gonna hate.



Travis

exactly.

"All-around rifle" has its own definition. A 22lr and a 570 Tyranosaur can both be "hunting rifles". As Socrates was wont to say, "Let us define our terms".

MD, would you please recount the "Bullwinkle-One Shot Stop" study from Sweden IIRC. I believe the gist of it was there was little difference in stopping power on their smallish moose between most of the common calibers, with their most prevalent one being the 6.5x55, a chambering few here would consider for elk-sized game.

I was thinking of that study myself last night while falling asleep:

They had moose hunters report on the cartridge they used, how many shots were fired, the range and how far the moose went before falling after the initial hit. The study included over 8000 moose, and it turned out the averages with cartridges from the 6.5x55 to .375 H&H were very similar, including how many shots were required, and the distance the moose went before falling.

Obviously there would be variations in shot placement, but the vast number of the animals in the study would even that out. I also seem to recall the .243 didn't do as well as rounds from the 6.5x55 up, but could be wrong.

Now, the ranges aren't long in most Swedish moose hunting, since it's done mostly by driving the moose past the hunters. But they are usually moving, and often fired up, because elkhounds are frequently used for the pushing. Swedish moose tend to be about the size of smaller North American moose, so a big bull can still easily weigh over 1000 pounds.

Yes John I did that intentionally years ago to a few early rifles,except for my first, a Ruger M77 that would not really allow it because the magazine was 30/06 length.

Of course back then it was recommended by Messr's Hagel and Wooters and if we dig back far enough in Rifle Magazine e can find a small chart in John Wooters article on the 7 Rem Mag showing the differences.What I found was that a lot of the little "issues" associated with the cartridge went away...I did not run into pressures as quickly with the long throat version as I did with standard throats.The cartridge was just more better behaved, and easy to load,since I was mostly using the heavy bullets anyway. And I think the effect was somewhat like what Weatherby builds into its cartridges with the freebore.What I ended up with was an"easy" 3050-3080 with those 160's.

But we have to remember that powders then were not what they are now. At some point I abandoned the practice,although one I had within the last few years had a chamber cut with a longer than standard throat and took heavier charges just to reach 3080 or so with a 160 and H4831.Today we have more slower powders and it's pretty easy to hit that same 3050 or so without the throating routine.

I have a new one here now with standard throat and 30/06-length magazine. I have not had a chance to chronograph anything yet but the load I am feeding it did 3100 with a 150 in another rifle.

One thing (IMHO) that we all need to keep in mind when discussing the advantages of cartridges is that modern bullets have improved the capability and performance of cartridges over the same cartridge of 60 years ago. Whereas the 1930 iteration of the 270 Winchester (even with 150 grain bullets) would have been a marginal cartridge for large game (say, elk), with today's premium bullets, it is considered by many to be quite adequate.

I believe that the deeper penetration of the 375 H&H (with its' heavier bullets) is one reason, Elmer Keith favored nit over lighter cartridges.

Bob,

The vast array of new powders certainly has the potential to change a lot of things. I may have mentioned this already, but was trying some handloads in my 7mm Weatherby a couple weeks ago and with a little less than the listed maximum load of Norma MRP got 3300 fps from the 160 Partition! It was, of course, a little too warm even in as 26" barrel, but even backing it off a grain resulted in 3250.

I just got word from a powder company that they're introducing three more rifle powders this year!

I suspect the 270 worked great back then as it does now, premium bullet or not. I really think Elmer was set in his ways, then got pigeon holed as the big bore guy and didnt have the will to swallow his pride ti get out of it.
I also dont believe a new wonder bullet makes a .243 into a 270 or a 270 into a 338, buts thats just me.

Wow! If I had to wager a guess on which company that would be it would be Ramshot. They don't seem to have quite the breadth of powder burning ranges (read: niches) filled as other do.

Can you mention the company or is that proprietary information?

I'm going to venture a guess as which company is introducing the new powders....Alliant.

Though maybe Hodgdon is coming out with some CFE types in slower burning varietals...

So much for the original post