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

No.....not unless it's 6.5.

I've got them backordered at so many places, if they all hit once, I'll be able to fill a wheelbarrow.

That's about all we can do SKane. I figured since many at the 'fire have concluded how worthless the 7mag is there would be an abundance of 160's available here from the experts.

Sorry you can't find any. I didn't realize the 160 Accubond was the only bullet that is hard to come by these days.

Its because of the 7RM hoarders....

Apparently.

The same thinking must apply to .330" bullets, which are difficult to find as well. All those dastardly 318 Westley Richards shooters are hoarding them all.

When you do not use a magnum for that in which the benefits can be reaped, no benefits will be apparent. I'd say most hunters do not "need" a magnum and therefore many have never actually benefited from carrying one afield.

Petzal arguing that a 270 (with smaller bullet, smaller case, lower BC and lower velocity) is just as good is the exact kinda ridiculous $hit he is famous for and why I'd consider reading anything he wrote a waste of my time.

There are times where the 270 is perfectly adequate and all that's needed. There are other times where the extra balls of the 7RM could benefit a hunter.

Matching cartridges to needs/conditions is what really makes them shine. If you do not select the right tool for the job, don't bitch if results are less than stellar...........

You mean.....you guys don't have 160 AB's?

What's up with dat!?

.284 160 gr Accubonds for sale in the classifieds right now.

They won't fit in my 260, the hole isn't big enough.

I can't believe how many times recently I've heard someone say "wind is blowing.... better grab the .270".

Rumor has it.... the last guy to shoot a .270 at the SRM.... shot a 4.... total.

Is that bad?

Obviously, we're dealing with people of very little foresight who couldn't see the handwriting on the wall when Obama was born and didn't increase their normal purchase of ten or twelve boxes each payday. As such, they don't deserve any 160 ABs.

I know I always put my faith in a dude hitting at an .067 clip....

Wind can be a bugaboo...no question about it. Especially at full value but it gets tricky under any circumstance.

Dog shooter I am curious about how this all plays out in the field when hunting. Of the BG animals you have killed from (say)300 to 875 yards,how often have you made a wind call in excess of one MOA?

I ask because some well known celebrity type LR hunters filmed an elk hunt on my friend's Wyoming ranch this past January(for a TV episode). The bull was at 700 yards; they made a one MOA wind call(according to my friend who was there to watch it all),and gut shot it.

They corrected for two MOA and the next two 168 Bergers went where they were supposed to. They finally got the elk down.

Does much of this go on?

I am also curious to know if any of your acquaintances have shot the new 150 ABLR from the 270 (.625 BC if Nosler is to be believed) to see how it compares to a(say) 260 or 7 Rem Mag on that course?

I'm just saying... quantifiable data says the seven is better. Is it enough better for you... is the debate. I'm all for the minimalistic approach... until it costs me a shot I know I should have made.

Also.... I'm not talking about shots on big game.... that gets into a whole other 'ethics' side... I'm talking about hitting schitt. Seems we forget hitting stuff Is 95% of this game. And, I find it interesting that guys who look at accuracy, are so quick to dismiss the huge benefit to putting bullets as close to exactly where we want as possible. All of a sudden it's ok to miss by 1.5".... or 6"... or whatever? Screw that.... I wanna hit the middle of whatever I'm shooting at. I understand that's not going to happen.... wind, temp, my shooting, anything can play havoc on my bullets ride. It can be a death of a thousand cuts that leads to a miss. Why start bleeding from the get go?

I know .6253k+ is the best I've shot/seen handle wind... in a lot of shooting. I watched Rick whoop everybody's azzes.... shooting .7002800. Rick was awesome, and he showed tremendous skill. But, I also know I'd have hit at least a half dozen more plates with the 7RM.... That's 15%.... about the same as the drift percentage difference between the .270 and 7 RM at 400.

If you could up your batting average by .150.... simply by swinging a different bat... would you?

I'd love to shoot the 7 RM/162 side by side with the .270 running whatever... the 150 LRAB at 2900 would do very well.

I also think there's a huge difference between 7 RM guys and .270 guys.... the styles of hunting and rifle set-ups tend to reflect that. It's a 3/4 ton vs. 1 ton thing maybe... I don't know.

If we're only worried about numbers, why not skip right over the 7/162 and go for a 30/208? Or a 338/300? Or a 50/750? Those bigger guns put up some impressive numbers, but they aren't very shootable in a rifle somebody wants to pack around the hills.

The goal is a balance of shootability and numbers. That is going to vary person to person by their goals, where they hunt, etc.

Is this sort of reasonable thinking permitted?

I'm with you Billy.... but it takes .300 RUM+ to get the same kind of 'hitting stuff' ability with the 208..... even more with the .338s.

And.... you kind of answered your own question. Because it's the best balance of shoot ability, the numbers. (.600+ @ 3k+), killing ability (160+ @ 3k+), and availability. There's a bunch of world renowned big game slucing calibers in the 'almost' there category (160+/.600+/3k+). But, the 7 RM is the top of the heap in those that do make the cut.

But the 7 RM is.... by a long ways. And puts up numbers that rival or beat the piss out of guns that recoil a whole lot more. That's the root of my love for the caliber and cartridge.

Tanner