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

270WSM/150ABLR will do it, sans energy. 7RM pushes the 270 numbers 125-150 yards down range. 162's/3000+ has been the top of the heap, long before Petzal's BS and this thread.

So, that combo aside, whats going to beat .625 150's at 2950?

If we're knocking off a little bullet weight.... then the .264 Win goes 140/.600/3200+....

But you're right.... a .625 at 2900-3000 is about the best ballistic place you can be without paying RUM type cover charges. So, yeah... 150/.625/2950 is rare air also... but it's very new, and very thin as of yet. Let us not forget however, that the 7 can do that at about 53k/psi and equal recoil.

162/3k will forever be the reasonably attainable, field shoot-able benchmark for performance. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

If restricted to a .270.... the 150 LRAB would be #1 on my list.... I know what I'd be giving up by shooting any other pill.

A 160-162 ain't hay at 3200 fps...I like it there.

Yes, the OP did read read the article. And he was knocking the 7 RM.

Oh yeah... more ain't bad.

I'm just saying you can't get all three (160/.600/3k) in anything smaller than 7 RM/WSM. The SAUM/AI come close.

Fer crapping yer pants out loud, this stuff ain't freeking rocket science. For whatever diameter of bullet you decide to shoot, you pick the case capacity that will give the desired velocity, taking felt recoil, availability and a few other things into consideration. The name given to that little brass pail that holds the powder has a headstamp given to it for marketing purposes, and imparts absolutely no panache, killing power, dignity, or anything else to the bullets performance. For whatever little brass pail that one chooses to hold the powder behind his choosen bullet, there are several other little brass pails that approximate the capacity, and they approximate field performance four times better than they approximate case capacity.
No one has a little brass pail behind their bullets that is far superior to any other little brass pail of approximate capacity.
And, magnum is about the most vague term that can be applied to a cartridge. It doesn't even mean the owner has a bigger schlong than non magnum shooters.

To compare the .270 Win. to the 7mm Magnum is actually a bit unfair due to case capasity (as several have pointed out). The larger case will win almost every time. A much "fairer" comparison would be the .270 Wby. to the 7 Magnum.

However, then you introduce the "dreaded" MAGNUM label to the .270 equation. In my experience, whenever you put the Magnum name on anything.....the average shooter is beaten from the start. Suddenly recoil is stronger and accuracy goes to hell.

Not an attack on anyone, but you have to remember that "most" posters here are NOT your "average" shooters. Most here are much more experienced than the typical Jo Bleaux hunter in the field. Most are very intimidated by the "magnum" label before they fire the first round.

Yes, there is a recoil level that begins to get uncomfortable....even for experienced shooters. In my experience that is at the level of the .300 Magnums....not at the 7mm Magnum level. If one can't handle the recoil of the 7 Mag. (for whatever reason), then they will also find the .30-06 and .270 just as uncomfortable. Not a statement about "manhood", just fact.

But to claim the 7 Magnum is somehow inferior to the .270 is ignoring facts. And to claim the .270 is significantly less uncomfortable to shoot than the 7 Mag. is mostly in your mind. I still think the main reasons the 7 Mag. has a reputation as a "kicker" is more due to the noise (and the MAGNUM name) than anything real.

They are both excellent round for their intended purposes. For long range shooting on light game (deer, pronghorn) I prefer the .270. For larger game (elk) I much prefer the 7 Mag. Both can be used "out of their comfort zone" (.270 on elk or 7 Mag. on pronghorn) very effectively, but each is better when used as intended.

I "like" both rounds, but too many get caught up in the "magic" of the 7 Mag. and even more so with the .270. Niether is "perfect" for everything....but both are quite adiquite for most hunting.

Poor shooting due to recoil (at less than the .300 Magnum level) is, in my opinion, a myth. A poor shot with a 7 Magnum is just as poor a shot with a .243.....recoil is just a convenient excuse.

Rick I agree a poor shot is a poor shot; but hand them a hard kicker and they will shoot even worse.

No it's not. No more than it's unfair to compare them due to differences in caliber or case design.

If you're going to compare two cartridges, you're going to have pros and cons due to caliber, case capacity and case design.

As far as case capacity, you'll have some who like more, and some who like less, each for their own different reasons.

I don't see anything unfair about that.

Spot on Smokepole. If they weren't different, we wouldn't be comparing them would we?

Dude......easy. I was just clarifying the BC values...

I think we can all agree that the thread has gone beyond the rhetoric of Petzel's article...

The .270 is NOT magic!!! No matter how much some try to make it more than it is, the .270 is a lower end mid-bore caliber rifle at upper end velosity.

It "works" for most mid to upper end (barely) range game game if placed properly. It is NOT an all-around great rifle for all american game. It is great for deer/pronghorn class game but can work for larger game (elk/moose)....but larger game really requires a bigger round.

Do not confuse what will "work" with what is proper.

Magic? No, the .270 is not. None of this crap is magic.

Proper? How many elk have you shot with a 150 grain partition?

The whatever was simply that ... whatever you choose... it's still better, by percentages I think are significant. We see eye to eye on this... among other things.

.270s kill schitt, and do it well.... so do Sevens. I say I'll take the insignificant recoil increase for the significant down range performance increase. .270 guy says he'll take the insignificant decrease in down range performance for the significant decrease in recoil. Tough to have a valid debate, when each side minimizes and dismisses the most valid and significant point of the other side. I'm guilty....

No it doesn't.

Anyway, what do you mean by "bigger round?"

A bigger bullet? Are you telling me that a 160 grain .277" partition at 2800 fps is not a "proper round" for elk or moose?

A bigger case? Are you saying the .30-06 family of cartridges is inadequate for elk and moose?

This thread was bad enough before, but now were getting the old story that a .270 doesn't kill elk and moose very well.

Yep.

I was a full time public shooting range master in the mid 70's, probably the height of the 7 Mag craze. I was mostly bored by it. People were trading good high quality rifles in other chamberings for recently produced 7 Rem mags. They were gaining very little performance compared to the .270's and 30-06's they were trading, and were loosing some with the .300 H&H. Other interesting cartridges such as the .338 Win, .264 Win, .375 H&H and others were being largely ignored at the time.

Hah! Time for another round of popcorn