Friend is wanting to buy an elk rifle, since he's inheriting family property where elk abound..

He asked me about a 300 Win, but being older I recommend he go a little smaller with less recoil.

He's going to come over this weekend and go out and shoot my 7 Mag and a 270 to compare...

but for those with the experience with both...

what does the 7 mag with a 160 grain bullet have to offer in the real world, over a 270 running a 150 grainer...

we're probably either talking partitions or Barnes TSX bullets

thanks for the responses in advance..

best regards
seafire

The .270 is no slouch especially with 130 or 150 gràin partitions.

With those bullets he's not looking for a Long Range rig, so either one would do fine. A 270 with a 130 TTSX will put Elk in the freezer within 400 yards...a Partition or Accubond just as well.

After spending many years with rounds like 300 Win, Rum, 7mm Mag, a few of my buddies have adopted the 270 WSM as their LR Elk round. LR to them is past 800 yards.

They like it because it hits just as hard, drops the Elk just as fast and with less recoil in a lighter rifle.

They don't shoot factory rifles or factory loads...they are gay though.

I'd be looking at a Montana in 7-08, or 300 WSM, but with the 270 WSM you have a 270 AND a Magnum...now how could that go wrong?

I'm a huge 7rm fan, but the 130TTSX in the 270 will do anything the 7rm will do at short range.

For someone just starting out, I would rather see him try a 7mm-08 or a .280 as opposed to a 7mm Mag, but a .270 with Partitions or TTSXs would do the job, too.

Good advice split the difference with the 280.

.....................This is a good (either/or) toss up between these two. If your friend can handle the 7mm mag recoil ok AND if he feels that ranges might exceed 4-500 yards, then if me I'd be a little more inclined to go with the 7,,, but not by much. Cannot go wrong with either imo. More a matter of personal rifle aesthetics and recoil comfort zone rather than the ability of these two as well qualified elk rounds.

I shoot both cartridges in light rifles and can't tell much difference in recoil.

If your friend is shooting hand-loads there may not be much difference in real field performance but if he
is shooting factory I would personally go 7 RM.

Depends on how big he is. If he is a big guy , go 7 mag. If he is small framed, get a 270. Not that much difference in killing power. A 270 WSM has less recoil than a 7 mag to me. It would be a great choice also.

In my Remington 700's,I never noticed much difference in recoil between my 7mag and 270 Win.A good recoil pad makes a big difference.One thing I did notice when I first got my 7mag was,different powders change felt recoil considerably.I was testing some 160gr loads with H-870 and IMR-4350 over the chronograph.The full charge of H-870 had a rather stiff recoil with a velocity of just under 3000fps.The IMR-4350 load recoil was rather mild,but to my surprise,the velocity exceeded 3100fps.These days I shoot Reloader-22 in the 7mag and really don't see much difference in the recoil between the two calibers at all.The thing about the 7mag is,you have a wide range of bullets to pick from and you can always reduce the load a little if you need to and still perform well.The 30-06 would also be a good choice too.

Ive always been a big 270 fan. My first rifle was a 270 and thats all I had for about 10 years. I took half a dozen Elk, A few Coues deer and a few mule deer and even a few audads with it. That whole decade I used that gun, my friends would get different rifles in different calibers but I got more animals than they did.

If it was me and I was choosing between the 2, Id grab a 270. That being said, Ive never been a huge fan of the 7RM.

7 Rem mag is my absolute favorite caliber. Last one I owned was a Sako A7 , I did not like the stock on the rifle. Next in line is a Tikka T3x superlite from SW.

A 270 with 150 grain Partitions will do the job just fine as long as he
puts the shot where it should go.

The rifle that fits the best, and feels the best... TO HIM... As noted above, measurable, but negligible difference in performance. The one 7RM I owned I could shoot 160's all afternoon with no ill affects. OTOH, had one .270 that would give me a head ache after 9 rounds from the bench with green box 130's...

I own and have hunter both, performance is comparable in the short/med ranges. Longer range nod goes to the 7 as stated above. I was shooting mine the other day, both Model 70s in Brown Prec. stocks with the 7 weighing just 5oz more, with 130s in the 270 and 160s in the 7mm, I could not notice much difference in recoil. So...pick the one that fits the best and the action he likes the function of most!

If your friend does not handload, and money is a concern, my recommendation would be the .270 Win as ammo is less generally expensive.. At Midwayusa.com the price of 7mm RM ammo runs about $6 to $7 a box more for WW, Fed and Hornady. Cheaper ammo means more practice for the same cost.

If cost is not a concern, I'd lean toward the 7mm RM for longer shots. Inside 400, choose a quality bullet and it won't make much difference.

You may have your answer after this weekend after he shoots both them. As to performance, there is not a lot of difference but what little there is goes to the 7RM. IF all other things are equal. Under the heading of full disclosure, I don't currently use either round but I use a 280AI which sort of splits the difference between the two. If I have to chose it would be the 7RM. using a160gr Nosler Partition. I know this combo kills elk, because I've used this very combo many times in the past. What's more it'll do it from any reasonable angle and from any reasonable distance assuming a well placed bullet.

We're talking about two very similar cartridges. .0.007" difference in bore diameter and both long action. There are a few differences. The most notable is twist rate - 1:10" for .270 vs. 1:9.5" for 7mm mag typically. That may not seem like much, but it does mean the heaviest flat base bullet that is all-altitude/temp stable in .270 is the 150gr, whereas in the 7mm mag it's the 175gr. Elk are pretty good sized critters (400 to 750 lbs generally, up to more than 1000 for Roosevelt elk). You'd really like pass through bullet performance on side and quartering shots. That means sectional density is a good thing, and that gives a small but noticeable edge to the 7mm mag.

While both cartridges have similar velocities for similar weights when loaded to SAAMI max, .270 is generally not loaded to max in commercial ammo. That's because .270 relies on higher pressure, while 7RM relies on case capacity. Manufacturers are leery of pushing the pressure envelope in the .270 and load it down.

For your friend, my take is you would see very little difference between the 160 7mm partition and the 150 .270 partition as they have very similar sectional densities. But you might see some improvement moving up to the 175 class in 7mm. I would also look at using the A-frame instead of the partition. The partition shines in situations where impact velocity may be low - the soft lead tip will open up well below 2000 ft/s. But at higher velocities it sheds a lot of mass which reduces penetration. The A-frame is bonded and has a harder front section. It needs an impact velocity of at least 2100 ft/s, but won't shed much mass no matter how fast your drive it and pretty much guarantees an exit wound (and thus something to track if need be) on elk. For that reason I like A-Frames. I shoot the 175 A-Frame in a 7RM on elk and have had excellent results. I used to use the 175 partition, and had good results but not as good.

I haven't used the Barnes and can't speak to them, but they're well thought of. A 150gr barnes in .270 is probably not all-altitude/temp stable - too long.

Either will work, but if the 7RM doesn't beat him up I would definitely have a preference that way.

I just confirmed this - the 150 TSX is not really stable in a 1:10" twist .270. At 0 degF/0 ft elevation it's got a stability factor of about 1.2. You want to see 1.5+. It may very well start tumbling or experience a large fall-off in accuracy when the weather gets bad. Personally, I would avoid it. I would substitute the Woodleigh 150gr. The Woodleigh 150gr is almost two tenths shorter at the same weight and is solidly stable even in bad weather. It also has a much higher BC. The Woodleigh is a premium bullet and should give you pass through penetration on all but the biggest elk or possibly double shoulder shots (which are not needed for elk and waste meat).

Why not advise him to get a Tikka or Model 70 in .308 or .30/06 and simply be done with it?

.30-06 is what I was thinking but it wasn't on the list.

As is always the case, shot placement rules. Anything from a 270 Win through 375 H&H will kill an elk with a well placed, premium bullet.

donsm70

Yeah, dont overthink it just get a good ol 30-06 in a decent bolt action rifle and go kill Elk.......Hb

30-06

Drop the mic

Plus one

This is a fun threat! I remember oa guide by the name of Bowman.. probably before most of you were born.. But he an 270 O'Conner were great pals. He got O'c a huge elk on a guided hunt, the only kind O made.. Of course a 270 was the weapon used, BUT O'Conner gave Bowman a . 275 H & H mag.. Bowman loaned it to many of his hunters for elk.. He was so impressed w/ it, he got Mike Walker of Remington to develop the 7mm RM... This boy saw lots of game killed and he saw a difference between the .270 & 7mag..

If its a lighter shorter barrelled rifle that he prefers .270win, otherwise 7Rmag.

for typical comparison Nosler data 24" barrels;

.30/06 180gn (SD .271)R22 max 62.0gn = 2812mv
7mmR 175gn (SD .310)R22 max 62.5 gn = 2970mv

+1 on the .270 WSM

Here is a 270wsm, haven't had it too long. It will put 140 Accubonds damn near through the same hole. I think the 270WSM is the best of the short mags.

6.5 creedmoor. LOL.

jest get a .270. skip the belt, skip the bullschit

I'm a huge fan of the 270 and for no good reason don't like the 7mag. Seems when I was a kid everyone around me thought they needed a 7mag to kill our little white tails...I think that's where my distaste for it started.

I like the fact mentioned that factory ammo is much cheaper for the 270 Winchester.

Maybe it is just me, but my experience is that a .300WM and 7mag, punch your shoulder about as hard, but my experience is limited to just a few rifles.

The shape of the powder bottle is a LOT less important then the construction of the bullet.
I have used 270 Winchester, 270 Short Magnum, 7X57 30-06, 308 Win, 8MM Mauser, 338-06 338 Mag and 375H&H.I have also used 44 Magnum and 454 Casull as well as 62 cal flintlock. I have killed one with a wood arrow too.
In my experience the only 2 guns that I can truly see an observable difference in the impact/"shock/ killing power (or what ever name you want to call it) are the 62 cal muzzleloader and the 375H&H.

In the kills I have made from the 270 to the 338 Mag, if I use bullets that hold together, I can't tell the difference.

What I do think is very noteworthy is the fact that of the few I have killed with so-so or poor bullets, the ones that did the worst were the bigger guns. Not because there was ANYTHING WRONG WITH MY GUN, BUT BECAUSE I HAVE USED POOR BULLETS BEFORE I LEARNED MY LESSON!

I have seen bullets blow up from my 338 and from my 300 magnum. When that happens the wound you are trying to inflict often is less deep, and can even turn angles in the animal.

I have always used 150 Gr Remington Core Lock, (1970s manufacture) 150 grain Nosler partitions and 160 grain Nosler partitions in my 270s and I have never had a problem, or anything to bitch about with them. All the elk I have killed with my 270s fell within about 2-4 seconds, and many hit the ground when I was still hearing the noise.

Every single kill I have ever made on an elk in which the elk didn't drop as fast as I would like was with a more powerful gun then my 270s. You could say that the least powerful "elk guns" I have ever used have been 270 Winchesters, but they have been the most effective other then my 375 and my 62 cal flintlock.

But I have ALWAYS used good bullets in the 270s and I have made the mistake a few times of using bullets that come apart in my 30 cals, and my 338 mag.

So I can tell you faithful that the bullet is more important then the shell.

If you use a proper bullet for elk, you can shoot about anything you like. If you like the rifles a lot you will shoot it more, and if you shoot it more you gain skill. Skill is what you need more than anything else.

I find this interesting. I have had similar experience with KY WT's. A truck load of DRT's with 95gr NPT's from a .243Win. And several that have traveled 10-20 yards with holes from 7RM and .375H&H. All similar shot placement thru the ribs. No "blow ups" per se. But not the instantaneous DRT's that I am accustomed to with the .243.

When your friend shoots your two rifles, he will most likely prefer the operation of the action, trigger pull setting, stock LOP, and quality of recoil pads, between the two rifles more than the difference between these two calibers. If they are identical rifles, he may find the 7RM more exciting.

I just don't see the need for 7 mag unless you really plan on shooting heavy and long ways.
For average joe. 270 with 130 ttsx is everything and then some to 400 maybe even 500.
If you don't like mono, 140 accubond at 3000 is no slouch
But the 06 is hard to beat.

Hard not to like the 7mm, I've used one effectively for about 40 years including on elk over 300 yards a few times with the TTSX 150 grain bullets.

These days I like the 300 WSM as a dedicated elk gun, it is just a step up in performance without much increase in recoil.

Other then a 300 WSM i abhor shooting 300 win mags, they have entirely too much recoil for the casual shooter . I see no difference in results between a 7mag and a 300 win mag or 300 wby if you want to go there.

I shot a .270 mostly for about 15 years before retiring it last year for a 7mm rem mag. I haven't been able to tell any difference in the effect between the two. I would go with whichever he can find in a rifle he likes for a price he likes

Godzilla v King Kong