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

It's a better Long Range cartridge with greater bullet selection.

That may not be a BFD to you, but it is to some.

It's like saying 20 ft. of rope is just as good as 30 when you need to climb down a 30 ft. cliff.

So your comparison is moot.

Only people in Wisconsin would be dumb enough to do that. [/quote]
You mean smart enough.We can recognize a cow turd when we see one!!!

Reminds me of my dad. He used the .30-06 only for all his life. He never hesitated to run all other "lesser" cartridges through the dirt and call the .270 a groundhog gun. But the .30-06 was good plenty for all NA big game. I always wondered how he justified his opinions? He had no basis for comparison.

I also love the way this thread keeps going--and I mean that sincerely.

As mentioned earlier, by more posters than me, Petzal's article wasn't about shooting big game at well over 500 yards, or about the differences between the .270's "normal" ballistics and 7mm Remington Magnums with longer throats, shooting various high-BC bullets to whack steel targets.

Instead it was about what difference the average (or even avid but not "long range") hunter might see between the .270 and 7mm Remington Magnum. Some of the posters mentioned factory loads, which are often disappointing in the 7mm RM, partly because the
SAAMI pressure specs for 7mm RM are lower, for reasons we won't go into here because they always create another schitstorm.

But even with handloads using 150-grain hunting bullets in the .270 and 160-grain bullets in the 7mm RM, AT THE SAME pressure, the difference in velocity in a 24" barrel is around 120 fps.

If anybody can see the difference in performance between 150-grain .270 hunting bullets (which was what Petzal was talking about) at 2900 fps and 160-grain hunting bullets (which again was what Petzal was talking about) at 3020, then you've shot hundreds of big game animals with both loads, and thus have valid statistics proving animals will drop 5.7 yards or .75 seconds sooner, on average, when shot with the 7mm Remington Magnum. Though after considerable experience with both rounds, in "average" hunting conditions, I haven't been able to quantify those differences.

If you prefer discussing 7mm RM's shooting far more specialized handloads, in rifles with extended throats and magazines, then you're right. But the article that started this whole thread wasn't about that, though it's every Campfire member's right to change the point of a thread as it goes on and on and on....

Having seen more than a few animals made into meat and trophies with 270's, I agree with this.

My apologies.

Just figured since the article was written to help the uninformed masses it might be a good idea to explain to the reader what you're getting in exchange for more recoil, extra weight and how it may or may not apply to certain applications.

If we were comparing The Ford Mustang with a Porsche 911 you would want to know in what respects they differ and I don't think seating capacity would be high on the list...

Point being they will both do a lot in common, what's important and much more interesting is what they do differently.

That was my complaint about the article-not that the .270 is any better or worse than the 7MM Rem. It was the fact that he gave an opinion without spelling out the differences that do exist.

Bob,
I would concur with both you and Mule Deer. Exactly why, as I personally aged the stuff with the belts keep getting deeper and deeper in the safe. Must be the ability to read ballistic charts and the patience getting set up for a shot.
Years ago I can remember thinking (when the only rifle I owned was a Model 70 in 270 Win) that I only needed that rifle for NA Big Game hunting. I was right and listening to that voice would have saved me a ton of money.
Applying the fun factor to all the different rifle purchases and reloading and developing loads for each and it was worth it. BTW I have a loaner in my safe too when a family member or close friend needs a rifle. Bet you cannot guess what it is. I'll give you a hint it is a Winchester. lol

Dave

I look at rifle cals like I do cattle and cattle breeds, there is a place for each and every one. Sure I could live the rest of my life happy with my govt 06 target in a sporter stock, but I love to pop a 350 yard crow with my 220 swift, same with 22-250, lived for years happy with a 218bee. On a fluke I bought a 7STW Winchester Laredo ! Why cause I can ! never met a gun I did not enjoy shooting and seeing what it 'would do'
I will say this guy is not my favorite gun writer, never has been. I still read his fodder if I need something to do while killing 5 in the rest room! very best WinPoor

Nope. Not with equal pressure loads, and same barrel lengths. That is if we are comparing 150s in the 270 to 162-168 types in the 7mm.

No, it's not like saying 20 ft. of rope is just as good as 30 when you need to climb down a 30 ft. cliff. Terrible comparison. The difference is so slight that with comparable bullets, you're never going to see the difference in the field.

It's more like 20.277 ft. of rope vs. 20.284 ft. of rope. Both are enough for the job. If they aren't, you either need a lot more rope, or you're a poor climber.

Ya ought to show up to the SRM next month with your 270

I could film your ass being handed to you and post it here

Grin

Dave: I like Big 7's because they are interesting cartridges with oodles of performance potential.After all I am a rifle nut,too.

So a lot of this stuff isn't lost on me,including the physical advantages it offers over a 270 and other "lesser" cartridges.

The real problem has been the animals themselves.

A very big percentage of the REALLY worthwhile (meant "big,old, mature",not stupid youngsters) mule deer bucks I have been able to kill with either the 270 or the 7 Rem Mag, have shown at under 250 yards or so, had to be killed very quickly,and were in or near heavy cover. So that if a guy dawdled very long for any reason, they were simply....gone....forever.

I know this because some have gotten away.NONE of them have stood around gawking long enough, or far enough away, that the performance differences between the cartridges mattered a single lick.

I am so firmly convinced this is more normal than abnormal,that if I have a 270 in my mitts instead of a 7 Rem Mag,I have never given this a second thought.In fact, a guy may be better off with the lighter, shorter, and faster handling 270 for a lot of this, inferior ballistics notwithstanding.

I think this may be, in part, what Petzal may have been saying and also in part what Mule Deer was alluding to above.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

Funny, O'Connor made much the same points when comparing the two, but I don't recall reading 'Campfire posts about it.


Petzal has more or less made a career out of strong preferences, and made it well. Because he is a wonderful writer.

Bob,

That's been my experience as well. My two biggest mule deer (which in case anybody is interested gross-scored 200 and 194 B&C) were both shot at just about 200 yards. Have killed them at longer ranges, and also seen them at MUCH longer ranges, but mule deer normally live in broken country, and the really big ones tend to show up either at moderate distances (where they're very aware of everything going on around them), or a very long way away.

By the way, I killed those two bucks with a .280 Remington and a 160 Partition loaded to around 2900 fps, and a .300 Winchester Magnum with a 168-grain Barnes TSX at around 3200.

The .280 buck (the larger) was at timberline on the Rocky Mountain Front here in Montana, and was wandering through subalpine fir, eating "goat's beard" lichen off the branches. I got very lucky and saw him before he became aware any human was around, but even then the rolling ridges and stunted trees prevented getting a shot until he was just topping the last little ridge visible. I put the Nosler in the top of the shoulders and spine, and that was it. He was also one of the two biggest-bodied bucks I've killed, at least as big as a 2-1/2-year-old cow elk my wife killed a couple weeks later.

The other was a buck in Sonora, but down there many bucks live in the valley bottoms. He was on dead-level ground with a few does, in mixed brush and cactus where 200 yards was "long range." In fact the first shot deflected on brush, but the second went just ahead of his left hip as he angled away, the bullet ending up in the front of his chest. The reason I used a .300 magnum wasn't the size of the deer, but because I already had the customs form, and I was willing to risk taking it to Mexico. He probably weighed half as much as the Montana buck.

Have killed some other good bucks from Colorado to Alberta, some at closer ranges and some further, with cartridges from the .257 Roberts to the .30-06. They all worked, but as I said in an earlier post the biggest difference I saw in performance was in bullets and shot placement, not the cartridge. Have seen the same thing on a bunch of other game, with the same range of cartridges, both in North America and Africa.

So if a 6x scoped .270 handles 90% of 'real hunting'.... and 1/2 of the SRM shots are inside that 400 yard mark (and under good shooting conditions, bipod/supported).... then you should be able to grab your Pre-64 M70 wearing a Leup 6x and shoot 27/30 on those targets. That'd be damn impressive.

It's nice to think you could handle 90% of all shots off a bipod... or from a tree stand/box blind/deer drive. But, that 90% don't look so good when conditions are less than ideal and we're trying to precisely place bullets... on small targets, steel or fur. Better equipment helps make hits, and the 7RM is certainly better equipment than the .270.

I bet a little test like the SRM would sort that out post haste...

Dogshooter,

SRM would be a hoot for sure with light hunting rigs.

I'm planning a local shoot with buddies here in OR. Going to have closerange movers like what Goat mentioned. Thinking ziplines. Would like some pop-ups too, but we haven't figure those out yet.

I like the idea of identifying targets under stress of time constraints too. We'll probably limit range to 500-600y as this seems most practical to us. None of us carry 9lb rifles, or even 8lbs rifles.

Jason

The difference in wind drift @ 10 mph, between a 270 with 140 Accubonds and a 7 Mag with 140 Accubonds, 150 Ballistic Tips, or 160 Accubonds at 400 yards is less than an inch. Hardly "better equipment".

Better seek cover. Your ignorance of Ballistics is showing.

It's all about BC.

No bullets with worthwhile BC available for the 270. Plenty available in .284