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

You've got it right, Bob. But I will be interested to see how the BC number of that .277" 150 LRAB pans out in field shooting...

Jordan who knows? Those are Hornady's numbers.

Thanks for checking the calculations. I like it when you are around .I bogged down quantitatively years ago.

I'm curious because we pretty much know what the 162 is at for a G7 BC- it's a known quantity. If the .277 150gr LRAB pans out like Nosler says it should, then it'll be a fantastic LR bullet for all the .270 guys. But if the number doesn't quite hold up how it is supposed to, then the .270 guys will again be left with limited options. Hopefully it's as good as they say it is

I like the way you always capitalize Green Beret, showing me and my brothers proper respect.

When I messed with them, drop was dead on at 500. I'd assume the drift would follow suit. Don't know about anything further as 500 is all the room I have to play, which is actually a good thing.

Since you're running ABLRs in the .270.... run'em in the 7 Rem. 150/.600/3200... get back to me on those numbers Bob.

Or..... compare the 150 and the 162.... one of them is still bigger, still heavier, still goin' faster, and still hittin' harder across the board (going away), AND.... it's still more likely to end up closer to where you wanted it. How many wins is that?

Look.... a .500-.535 BC at 2950 is do-able in the .270.... and that ain't a bad place to be. I know, I shoot that ALL the time. I shot that at the SRM (.260/123/2950) and like I said... target #4 I wanted .600+/3k. I know what the difference is... most folks only see it on a computer screen.

There is nothing that will hang with 162/3k. If there was, there would be a thread arguing about it. 150 ABLR/270WSM might be about as close as anyone can get.

Here's looking at it from a minimalist perspective... is there any SMALLER round than the 7 Rem/WSM, that can consistently produce the following:

160 grain bullet
.600+ BC
3000 FPS

Nope.... it's the smallest one.... AND, that's a very rare place to be. Let's think for a second about how many common rounds can really do that. Nothing 6.5 or .270 can do it.... and it takes a whole lot more boom to do that in a .30. A handful... maybe... and to do it for a little more recoil than the .270 or '06.

7 Rem is the Willy f'Mays of rifle calibers....

There are so many little variables that depend on the individual shooting location and atmospheric conditions, but I'm showing somewhere around a 2" difference in wind drift and 9" more drop at 600 yards between the two. For all intents and purposes, your numbers contrast the two loads quite well.

That's good to know, but beyond 500 is where BC values really come into their own, and discrepancies start to become apparent.

You know what time it is???





It's time for a couple thousand of Boxer's favourite words...

Someone said above, the 270 wants to be a 7mm RM when it grows up. I think it was meant as an insult.

Well hell yeah, absolutely, the 270 Win is like a little brother to the 7mm RM. I've always thought of them that way.

I think the 270 Win bears the same relationship to the 6.5 Swede or 260 Rem. Its the big brother to those rounds; slightly more powder, slightly larger bore.

Who cares? Yep I know that's the dumbest question ever given the length of thus thread. But really, can we get a grip?

Is a D-cup always better than a C-cup? Sometimes the entirety of the package determines that, in my experience. Not that I like to skite!

I don't recall disagreeing with you.And i did not learn it on a computer screen.

I know the 7 Rem Mag is faster than the 270 since I have been loading, shooting, and killing animals with both since the 60's.What I know about both cartridges I learned on the range and killing animals,not on a computer.


Other "truths" about the 7 Rem Mag are that the barrels last half as long, it kicks more, burns more powder, and comes in generally heavier rifles with longer barrels. This does not matter if most of your shooting/hunting is done flopped on your belly, but sucks for a lot of hunting in a lot of places.....even for a good deal of mule deer hunting out west.


Not that much of this matters at all in the hunting fields.Any rifleman worth his salt will kill BG animals as easily with one as he will with the other.

I know you did Bob.... that's how I know you know the difference. To some.... that difference doesn't matter..... to some, it does. But , to say that it's meaningless.... or provide slanted data to prove the .270 is equal... is just hogwash. An F250 is a more capable truck than an F150.... unless all you do is drive it.

I ask again though..... is there a smaller round than the seven, that can do what I listed above? There might be less than a half dozen common cartridges that can produce 160+/.600+/3000+.

.270? No

'06? Nada

.300 Winny? Zip

.300 Roy? Warmer

In a world where we eek last bits of accuracy and velocity.... I find it very interesting that so many folks are willing to leave 15-20% in hit-ability on the table.... because they've decided they 'don't need it'.

By the way..... what was the difference in drop/wind when we ran the ABLRs?

150/.611/2950 vs. 150/.600/3200..... nevermind, I bet it's 'meaningless'.

-1.2" drift @500 yards
-7.6" drop500 yards, 100 zero

BTW, .277" 150 LRAB is 0.625 BC, 7mm is 0.611.

Whatever..... the seven shoots 20% flatter, and drifts 10-15% less than the best possible .270 load on the f'n planet. For 15-25% more recoil, depending on the bullet you choose in the 7. Also.... I can make a 7 act like a .270...but a .270 will never be a 7.

But hey.... nobody wants a 20% increase in wages and 10-15% decrease in taxes.... that's asinine.

Still crickets on the 160/.600/3k assertion.... nobody?

I always love it when the charts and graphs come out.

Did anybody actually READ Petzal's piece, including the OP? Here's the last paragraph:

"I�m not knocking the 7mm Remington Magnum; it�s a highly effective cartridge. But if a magnum round is supposed to give loads of extra velocity, then it ain�t much. That honor belongs to Remington�s collarbone-cracking 7mm Ultra Mag and middle-ear-mangling 7mm STW. Both of them burn lots and lots of powder and deliver great gobs of velocity, and if that�s what you�re after, they will deliver in spades."

Which is exactly what I've found--if you want a 7mm Magnum that provides a real edge in velocity. I'd include the 7mm Weatherby in the list as well, if you want a 7mm on a standard-length action.