For the last few years Dave Petzal has been bashing the 7mm Rem. mag. in Field and Stream and in books. He wrote a piece last fall in which he said that the only reason anyone owns a 7mm Rem mag is because they don't have a chronograph, if they did they'd have a .270 Win. He also said the .270 will push a 150 at the same speed as the 7 mag will a 160. He then said you could hunt with both these cartridges for the rest of your life and never see a difference between them. Now I'm very familiar with both these cartridges as they're probably my all time favorites and I think he is talking out his ass. If I was going to use one or the other for brown bear I'd take the big 7 hands down. Is he right or does he just have an axe to grind?

He seems to have a number of axes to grind. He consistently has nothing good to say about one of my favorite gunmakers which confounds me as well.

Only guy I ever heard bash a 7mm RM!

Writers need something to write about.

For all the cartridge bashing I see on the Campfire from various people, I believe he has a right to bash away, too. Just another rifle loony with his own opinions.

He is more than just an anonymous poster on the 'Fire though. His position gives him influence and I feel he has an obligation to be honest and accurate.

So, he can't write his opinions on these things?

He has an obligation to write articles that sell magazines.

He's close, but obviously the 7RM has a bigger case.

90+% of hunting and shooting? You'd never see any difference.

A few more high BC bullets are easily available for the 7RM and coupled with the bigger case, its probably a better choice if that's your goal.

I'd point one at anything I'd point the other at.

He is an old man still trying to write and dumbazz's apparently continue to read. Of late, last five years at least, all I read is author's working to disprove what many serious in the craft have thought was chite to begin with. A revelation??? Unless a knumbrod, there is not much out there to learn really.

But ain't the 7mm mag a hundered yards better than the -08? That means what a 7-08 is at muzzle, the mag is at 100yards.

April 01, 2010
Petzal: Why I Like the 7mm/08

By David E. Petzal

In reviewing my voluminous and infallible records yesterday, I saw that I have killed a very large number of deer with the 7mm/08, never had to shoot twice at the same critter, and never had one travel more than 50 yards. This is pretty good performance from a mild-mannered, unassuming cartridge that gets less attention than it deserves.

The 7mm/08 started as a wildcat in the 1950s, and was legitimized by Remington in 1980. It is the .308 necked down to .284, and is factory loaded with 120- and 140-grain bullets at 3,000 and 2,860 fps, respectively. These velocities, from what I�ve seen, are pretty optimistic.

The virtues of the 7mm/08 include very light recoil, not much muzzle blast, plenty of bullet weight to do the job, and gilt-edged accuracy. For whatever reason, my 7mm/08s have shot rings around the three 7x57s I�ve owned, even though the cartridges are, ballistically, nearly identical. The 7mm/08 does very nicely with a short barrel; you lose very little velocity and the report won�t take your ears off.

I�ve never used the 120-grain loading. Everything I�ve shot has been with 140-grain bullets, including Winchester Fail-Safes and Ballistic Silvertips in factory ammo. I am down to my last box of Fail-Safes (which are discontinued) and am hoarding them for the Apocalypse, or something. Otherwise, I shoot handloads: 140-grain Nosler Solid Bases (also discontinued, but a very good deer bullet) and 140-grain Swift A-Frames for bigger stuff. Velocities are 2,700 fps and 2,650 fps, respectively, out of a 21-inch barrel. More than this you do not need.

"Putzal" makes positive assertions where he has no knowledge. He could just as well be promoting lawnmowers.

His axe to grind is needing to write articles to make people read and talk about in order to justify his existence. He bad mouths 30-30 which I like and 7mm mag which I don't like and I don't much care either way.

What he really should have said is that a 7mm mag is nothing more than a loud .280. I'd feel just as good (or bad) shooting a brown bear with a 270, .280 or 30-06 than I would a 7mm Mag. Not enough difference in them to amount to a hill of beans imo.

True. Except for longer range shooting/hunting, there are more than a few higher BC bullets available for the 7mm's.

I've never really gotten the 7mm Rem. Mag.. It doesn't seem to do much that a .270 won't do with lighter bullets and that a 30-06 won't do with heavier ones. All with a longer barrel and more weight in the rifle and more muzzle flash, noise, and arguably, recoil.

+1

You must not get out much.

I agree with Petzal about the 7 Mag. Kicks too hard for it's performance.

I have never understood the following of the 7mm Remington mag. It works, but with little, if any improvement over these 2 rounds. There are people that love the round, I am not one and have always thought the 30-06 was capable of anything the 7mm was trying to accomplish...

About 20 years ago, I was in a local gunshop and asked the owner why they always had numerous 7 mags on the used rack, more than any other cartridge and some sat for months.

While used 270's, 06's 308's only sat for a few days before they were sold. The owner told me that many people found the 7 mag kicked harder than they liked and didn't give much better than 270 Win performance.

pretzel shoulda been born a woman, she's about a lactating hormonal water retentive bitch.

Gunner

I'd have to echo some of the above sediments. Never saw much use for the 7RM.

Just the few replies to this thread prove Petzal right...in the sense of writing things that sell. That IS his job, after all.

Two great ways to sell schit as a writer--tell people what they want to hear and tell people what they don't want to hear...

Petzal has also spoke fondly of the .280 AI. Seems to me that if the 7 Mag doesn't give enough advantage over the .270 to be worthwhile then Ackley-izing anything should be a waste of Petzals time as well.

The 7RM is a good cartridge. They are as advertised with excellent terminal and ballistic performance, great bullet selection, wide availability of ammo, etc.

However, fact is you get the same qualities from cartridges such as the 7mm-08, 270, and 280 in a more compact package with less recoil. The older I get, the less I use my 7RM. Can�t say I disagree.

I had a Remington 7 REM Mag in a KS.It was very accurate,but very disappointing with MV.I had a 280AI at the same time and the 280AI had virtually identical MV`s up to 160 grain bullets.So I sold the 7MM Mag.I never thought the 7MM Mag as a big kicker.

Petzal writing about guns and/or hunting is like Bill Clinton writing about monogamy.
He wrote a review of a book about the Benoits once saying how the Benoits were the real deal because they never used gadgets like GPSs. If he had opened the book, he would have seen they had a chapter in the book on how they use GPS and which ones they liked best.
Another article Petzal wrote was about the ten best gunsmiths in the country. One on his "top Ten" was a fella that had butchered up several rifles of people I know and a couple of my own guns. One 35 Whelen the man rebarrelled would not shoot better than a 4inch group with handloads, factory loads, with me and others shooting it.
The same "top Ten" smith did a trigger job on two odel 70 Winchesters for a fellow I worked with, and when they came back, one of them could be made to discharge by tapping the butt of the rifle on the floor.

The same can be said of the .300 Win Mag vs. 7mm Rem Mag. The 7RM is the perfect compromise between the .30-06 and .300WM, so that's my preference

I can agree.

Well, if we are all honest, there is a ridiculous amount of overlap and redundancy in the cartridge world. Lets face it, if you own a 22 rimfire for small game, a 30-06 for big game, and an "elephant rifle" for large dangerous animals, you are pretty darn well equipped for hunting this planet. Everything else is for entertainment purposes. There are so many cartridges that can do everything the 110 year old 30-06 can do and nothing it can't that it is almost mind boggling to me that they exist. A lot of people have a lot of money to spend on guns.....not saying that is a bad thing, actually quite the opposite!

It really all boils down to whether the reader agrees with the writer, eveybody thinks they know better.

Thats the crux of this never ending caliber debate.

I'm sure by the end of the thread, it will all come down to Grizzly bears

It's all in how it's loaded.The 7mag has been loaded way down since it was originally brought out.By todays factory and manuals loadings,its quite anemic.With the powders available today,it should be rated as one of the top performing rounds out there and even better than when it was first introduced.I find it very easy to load for,very accurate,flat shooting,hard hitting and my velocities are often much higher than what I see listed in most magazines and loading manuals.I can easily achive 3200fps with 140's,3150fps with 150's and 3100fps with 160's.I'm not stuck on one cartridge for everything.I own quite a few different rifles in different calibers and I like them all,but if I had to narrow my fleet,the 7mag would surely be on my list of keepers.

I will say truer words were never spoken, and guilty in the same breath. I like guns and have a 'few' redundant calibres. But If you want to cut it to a bare bones few(disregarding 22rf and shotguns) A man could hunt everything in NA with a 22-250, 270 Win. and 338WM and IF God forbid was allowed only 1 rifle the century old 30-06 would be my choice.

I don't know who Petzal is.............but I know my 7Rem.Mag. makes more noise than my .270.

I read the article and have to agree with Petzal. If I could get near originally published velocities in the 7mm RM with comfortably safe loads, I would like the cartridge much more. Though, I have only played with a couple, they didn't get much more velocity than a .270/.280 before ejector marks and heavy bolt lift occurred with more noise and recoil. With that said, even at .270 plus P velocities, it's still a fine cartridge for big game. I did have a 7mm Weatherby, which was a different animal than the Remington; I regret selling that 7mm Bee.

When combining all thing the 7MM Rem Mag sits pretty much at the top of the pile when we look at hunting cartridges.

Many do not understand how to use the reach it offers and are just as well off with lesser round but that hardly changes the facts.

While the .270 Win is a fine cartridge, for short to moderate range, it falls short of the 7mm Rem Mag. The idea that some can't use the extra reach of the 7mm Rem Mag is really not a valid argument.

Yeah the 7mm Weatherby (and 7mm STW) are definitely more cartridge--and can safely get the velocities originally published for the 7mm Remington Magnum when it was introduced. Though those velocities were from 26" barrels, they were also at higher pressure levels than today.

Was working up some loads for my 7mm Wby. a couple weeks ago, and with listed charges of Norma powder got 3300 fps with the 160-grain Partition. But there were slight ejector-hole marks on a couple of cases, so I'm backed it down to around 3200, the max velocity listed by Norma.

That still beats any 7mm Remington Magnum I've loaded for, including the one I own right now. To tell the truth, the only reason I own a 7mm Remington is because of writing about handloading: Any handloading writer who deals with modern rifle cartridges has to own one, because every rifle manufacturer in the world includes it in their line-up. But I've never been wild about it.

Jack O'Connor pointed out that the 7mm RM's real-world ballistics didn't beat the .270 by a significant amount back in the 1960's and 70's, so what Petzal says is nothing new.

My friend John Haviland tells a funny 7mm RM story on himself. John says the csrtridge was so popular in the 1970's when he worked for a local sawmill, every worker was issued a hard-hat and a 7mm Remington Magnum. He had to have one too, and loaded it with Speer 160-grain bullets and a load the Speer manual said got over 3000 fps. And by golly it killed deer, black bears and elk really well in the steep. timbered mountains around Missoula.

A few years later John got his first chronograph, and discovered his magic 7mm RM load was getting about 2700 fps, about like a hot 7x57 handload. Apparently there's something magic about the 7x57 as well....

I won't argue against the 7RM, but a .277 150gr VLD at 3k or so ain't anything to sneeze at. Even past "moderate" range.

JohnBurns, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what facts would put a 7mm Rem Mag at the top of the pile over other 7mm cartridges with similar performance? Let's say as compared to .280 AI or 7mm WM or 7mm WSM? Thank you.

Mule deer, why the significant difference in muzzle velocity between the 7WBY and the 7RM? Does the WBY hold that much more powder?

The 7mm Weatherby I played with shot 160 Trophy bonded Tipped factory loads into 3/4" or better at 3200 fps out of a well balanced Weatherby rifle that went 7.75 pounds scoped. That is a rifle you could hunt the world with and that I should have kept, though the 7mm-08, 7x57, 7x64 and .280 are great cartridges also.

I have always been a little puzzled by the performance difference between the Remington and Weatherby cartridges; the capacity is about the same. The longer throat found on the 7mm Weatherby does effectively increase case capacity but you can lengthen the throat on a 7 RM too and the Weatherby still outperforms it.
Most 7mm Weatherby rifles I build are throated shorter than Weatherby specifies and they still produce good velocities. I do know, if I was going to build myself a 7mm Mag (I'm not), it would be a Weatherby. GD

Facts are stubborn things.

This is more true today than it was when the 7mm mag was introduced, but it doesn't negate the fact that the 7mm mag was cutting edge redundant...

I agree and am not sneezing, but the fact remains that the 7MM Rem Mag will out reach the .270 Win. My point is the 7MM Rem Mag sit at the balance point between recoil and killing power.

A good man with a good hunting rifle can reliably hit big game at ranges that the .270 Win cannot be depended upon to deliver reliable bullet performance.



The Rem Mag comes in the best wrapper for the performance.

Brass availability for all three falls behind the Rem and the WSM needs a long action to run a proper throat for VLDs.

All three offer similar ballistic potential but bring logistical issues to the situation. It gets to splitting hairs but then that is what happens when we objectively compare cartridges. Lots of very good cartridges but few "great" or "best in class" cartridges.

Of course this is all just my opinion but it does make for an interesting Campfire discussion.

I like all the 7's including the 7 Rem. Magnum, but he do have a point.

For the hunting I do, it's certainly overkill.

The older I get, the less I like a 26" bbl. and I never liked them much to begin with.

I've never thought the cartridge was bad recoil wise.

JM

Happend to re-read that article (Handloader) a while back. Quite humorous.
The sad thing is, they all traded in, what I'm sure were some fine 06's to get the Magnums.

And a decade a bunch of Montana guys traded in their "Sevens" to get new .300 WSM's!

Geez Louise....are we flogging a very dead horse here! Tens of millions of 7mm RM are out there every hunting season. Why would they get traded off for 270 Winchesters or some over caliber unless the hunter just prefers to get a new rifle

If one can avoid the "Got to have its', there is far less regret down the Road.

Isn't it time to here from the Mashburn Magnum guys?

That's sig-line worthy right there. A 308 will do all most of us need doin', but their ain't no flies on a fast seven, if you are a good enough rifleman to take advantage of those high BC bullets. I just don't care for belts.

Two columns with bad advice out of....a thousand? Peztal is a writer, not a prophet! he's paid to be opinionated

or they have nothing to write about and are unemployed.

Petzal's MO is stirring the pot. I've seen him make the same sort of disparaging comments about 270 owners as are made here.

Now he says this. Seems pretty clear to me.

Everything I've heard about him from guys like JB says he is a lot like some of us... He enjoys making comments that get peoples' goats.

I always recall my Grandfather buying a 7mm Rem mag, and pronouncing the recoil terrible. So he traded it for a 264 mag, in a pre-64 M70. I'm not sure how much less kick the 264 has, but he kept it until he passed.

The 7mm RM to me is another one of those calibers that is good as you find it; I might not go out of my way to build one, but if I stumble across an interesting rifle in the caliber, it's not a turnoff, either.

The problem with the 90% argument is the best trophy of your life will require the extra 10%.

That extra 10% is why the 300 Weatherby Magnum will be chosen by serious hunters for a long time.

just writing so someone can pay him.

For me, the one I"d never have is a 270 ever, though I did win one...

No huge reason, just hate the round...

"serious hunters"

See, thats the kinda funny crap people spew

Almost to Grizzly bears

I look at the 7mm Remmy as a .257 Bee with heavier bullet options.

Where the .257 stops at 120 grains, the Remmy is just getting started, so if you load 110gn or 120gn Barnes bullets you get a little more speed for the same bullet weights and have heavier bullets if you want them for larger game.

Not sure how anyone could like the .257 and not like the 7mm Remington for the same reasons. The .30/06 can be built in a lighter platform with 22 inch barrel which is great for mountain hunting or long treks and the Remington is great for ridge to ridge shots or equally at home slamming 175 grainer's into big game at any reasonable distance or more, if you are into those HPBT javelins.

I have used them all and like them all.

The problem really is that the trophy of a lifetime will be 10% outside of the "range" of whatever you are carrying. So maybe a 50BMG would be the best cartridge. If the animal is outside of that range then it probably will be in a different state or country. The real best solution is to get closer. That is what HUNTING is about.

Yeah, the 300 Weatherby has that extra 10% which implants the scope into the serious hunter's forehead.

Screw that noise.

300 Weatherbys are carried by a lot of dudes.

If you ain't shootin' LR, then a 308 is fine. If you are shootin' LR, then a fast 7, like Burns said, is the most bang for the buck. Go up to 30cal and get the same B.C.'s, and you have to step up to 190's or 210's. Recoil in a field rifle is starting to get pretty damned stiff.

ANY rifle, that you can't fire prone, sling supported and return to your natural point-of-aim, without rebuilding the position, is too damn much rifle to ever get really good, WITH THAT RIFLE.

You guys sure do crack me up, Thanks!

I always saw the 7mm Rem. Mag as a near perfect compromise round.

The .30-06 will do almost anything the 7mm Mag. can do at "normal" ranges and actually out-perform the big 7 when heavier bullets are needed (admittedly a rare situation), but the 7 hits just as hard in most cases.

The .270 can beat the .30-06 at long ranges (just barely beat it), but gives up quite a bit on the power side to accomplish this feat. The 7mm Mag. can shoot just as flat and give up almost nothing to the .30-06 in power.

Thus it is a perfect "compromise" with the power of the '06 and the trajectory of the .270.

Maybe it's the 7 Mag's "in between" personality that causes it to be so little used by myself. I either choose the .270 for range (or more likely the .25-06) or I go with the .30-06 if I feel the need for more power. If I "need" both, the .300 Magnum is most often chosen. The "compromise" 7 Mag. just gets left out a lot even though it is a great round.

I never understood the reputation of the 7 Mag. as a "kicker". Other than noise, I can tell little difference between the .270, .30-06 and 7 Mag. in recoil level.

Guess that's why the .22 caliber rifles are so popular for deer with the current generation.....they keep getting their Kotex knocked loose when they fire a real rifle.

A pair of guys were going to Africa,and had come to the range for a sight in session with a pair of 7 Rem Mags. I had my chronograph and a 270 built by Dale Goens for which I was doing some load work.They asked, could they chronograph their ammo?

Sure.

The Federal 160 NPT factory stuff gave about 2840 in one rifle,about 2880 in the other.This is as much as a "normal" 280 will give with top handloads.

Both were surprised when my handloads for the 270 gave over 2900 fps with 150 Nosler Partitions.What I didn't tell them was that at that time I had a 7 Rem Mag with a long throat,longer than standard bullet seating, and 24" Krieger barrel that comfortably gave 3125 with a 160 gr bullet and almost 3300 fps with a 140 and charges of 7828 and IMR4831 that got hunted all over the continent for about 12 years,without a hint of any problem,never a blown primer and good case life until the barrel finally burned out.

No 270 or 280 will come close to those numbers.And despite more 7 mags than I can recall, and even more 270's,(with half a dozen or so 280's tossed into the mix) I have never seen a 270 or 280 that would come close to any of them.

But see enough of the example cited above and it isn't hard to conclude that a 7 Rem Mag is not much more than a fire breathing 270 or 280.I have seen a couple of 7 mag user walk away from a chronograph session scratching their heads.

But there are no mysteries with cartridges;generally everything can be explained when we bump into what we think are these velocity anomalies...whether it's a question of pressures,barrel/throat dimensions, case capacity,thin brass,free bore, bullet bearing surface, barrel length, powders used( some having more energy like double based vs single based,or being better suited, etc etc.There are a million variables,and if you only work with one or two samples of anything it's easy to come to varying conclusions.

As a general rule, though,case capacity will win out in any velocity race, and many times it will not show to a great degree except with the heaviest bullets for caliber.So we end up with these discussions concluding that a 7 Rem Mag is not that much faster than a 270 or 280,until we try to load 160's in each and discover that a 7 Rem Mag will outdistance either by 150-200 fps if all things are equal...or try loading 175's in a 280 and breaking 2900 fps sometime....Good Luck.

You can do it with a 7 Rem Mag.

None of this matters much to game animals and if you shoot them at more or less "normal" distances, but I never met a 270, 280, or 30/06 (much as I have liked and used all three)that could hang with a 7 Rem Mag at distances past 300 yards.For velocity and trajectory it is necessary to go to a 300 magnum of some sort to stay with it,and then you are going to get kicked a lot harder in the process.

But the 7 Rem Mag does exactly what Les Bowman and Mike Walker intended it to do back in 1962(after several years of testing in the field before it was introduced)...give a 160 gr bullet 3050 fps (more than the 280 could muster),provide a flatter trajectory past 300 yards than you could get with a 270,280,or a 30/06,while kicking less than any 300 magnum available at the time.Not bad trade off's considering it also kills elk and most other BG animals without a sweat at long range.

The fact that a few zunzies have gotten their hands on one since then has not bothered me in the least. I've seen that happen with lots of popular cartridges, especially the 30/06.

Good post Bob, but what is a "zunzie"?

The 7mm mag that I owned and the ones I've fired have kicked harder than my .270's and been louder. If it only performs as well as a .270 it sure has a strange way of going about it.

I spent many years hunting with a Mark V in .300 Wby before switching to a Sendero in 7mm Rem. I still have--and love--both rifles, and they've piled up a ton of game.

What finally got me to gravitate toward standard cartridges (love the 280s) was fatigue from toting a 10 lb plus rifle--even just from the truck to the stand as we tend to do here in the south. I've really learned to appreciate the qualities of a good-handling rifle of modest weight. I've also learned to scale down the objectives and magnification of my scopes, which, like many, had begun to border on the absurd.

I will say this: I cannot understand how anyone finds the recoil of the 7mm RM objectionable, even in a standard weight rifle, and I've never found the 300 Wby to be a bad kicker. BAD is a 3.5" turkey load from the patterning bench.

Petzal doesn't like the "hit 'em again 7",maybe hes got a good reason!

I seem to recall reading that the 7mm RemMag is one of those cartridges that occasionally displays erratic pressures and that is the reason the ammo makers have backed off a bit.

I definitely recall that Petzal had a really gorgeous classic-stocked 7mm Wby from the custom shop at one time, so it's not like he doesn't like big 7s. Could be that like of lot of us on the wrong side of 60, he doesn't like getting slapped around as much as he used to, or carrying a 10lb rifle when a 7 pounder will do the job.

If he gets paid to stir the pot, I'd say he earned his money this time.

Ok TexasRick, that was funny!

Mike the 7 Rem Mag kicks a bit more than a 270 because it burns 6-10 gr more powder,and uses generally heavier bullets.But compared to the 300 magnums it recoils less because its bullets are slightly lighter.

Garden variety handloads in 7 Rem Mag get 3000-3050 with a 160;about what you get with those same handloads in a 300 Win Mag with 180's.With many powders,charges are a bit lighter to get those velocities with a 160 gr bullet. In the same weight rifle,you get a bit less recoil from the 7mm.

As John Burns points out, the 7mm Rem Mag(and others in the same class)balance a lot of different things nicely.

A "zunzie" is a knucklehead.

You made my day!! Thnx.

Texas Rick,


Spot on!

This discussion doesn't talk much of rifle weight nor recoil pads.

Geez, gunwriters stepping on someone's feelers--they should be regulated!

While I handload and prefer the 7mmWB case, for non-handloaders the 7RM is a good choice as a factory round and available everywhere. More of a +P 270/280 than a mag.

The factory ammo (run thru a chrono here) gave a good account of itself, outran 270/280 factory ammo by a good margin and doesn't kick you into next week--good choice for all things hooved in the hills.

I pLayed with a couple of 7 mags in my youth. The Rem. was heavy and not any more impressive when compared to the .270 or '06.

My Wby. version was an early Weatherby built Mauser, light, trim, and wore an extra 6/10" of free bore. It could digest huge amounts of powder with no ill effect. The gun was not super accurate, but plenty accurate for deer hunting to out way out there. With a 160, it truly was an impressive killer. Alas, this was in my gun of the month period, although I hunted it for one whole season, so after the season it was traded for something else.

Jack
I no longer own any belted cartridges.

there is a pressure thing, related at long range to some funny impacts on target range. That seems to be fairly common on anything 7mm above say the 284 win or the 7wsm actually had a good 1000 yard or more record, but above those you can get some weirdness at times.

Not enough that it would bother me on average distance and game size targets though.

Actually if you have to hit em again with a 7, you should take shooting lessons before wasting time on the internet posting BS

Rost, I agree and could say the same for 30-30 or 243

Yeah that was classic!

Who needs dick enhancement surgery or boner pills when you can just buy a 7 em em or 3 hunnert magnum rifle!

You can always tell "that guy" down here when you ask him what he shoots and he says "semmm milumeter maaaaag! He kinda draws out the maaaaaag part as if it is code to tell you he is "the man" who slays deer by day, ladies by night, and terrorists in his spare time!

Best one ever was I was at my gym and I struck up a conversation about hunting with a young man. He asked me what I shot. I said 30-06 and he said "that's a nice little gun"! So of course I asked him what he shot and his answer was 300 Ultra Mag. The word "idiot" flashed across my mind but I'm polite, especially in situations where roid rage might be a factor, so I said something nice like "wow, that's a lot of gun". He said yeah, I don't really need it but my buddy has a 7mm Ultra Mag and I got sick of hearing him brag about it!

A more honest youngster I never met!

Honorable mention magnum story....

I ran across another young fella who liked hunting. I asked him what he used. He said "most fellas like them thirty aught sisses and she oh eights but I shoot a three hunnert maaaaag cause I like to put em DOWN in their tracks....nuthin worse than havin to track one!

I decided not to tell him I was shooting a thirty aught sis and on days when I was feeling particularly girlie, liked to use a 30-30! I just gave the obligatory "I hear ya man" and let it lay

Now you have to understand I live in an area where a 180 lb buck is a "monster" and 200 yards is a long shot.....in other words 30-30 country. I am so glad that there are so many calibers and cartridges.....otherwise all this fun would be missed.

I've never had a deer make it over 20 feet with the 30-30. The 270 and 30-06 with the abundance and low price of ammo, is as good as it needs to be.

Worth repeating...

I guess I could care less what a headlamp says about rifles, but I'm not a 7 RM fan, either....just think that if you're gonna use a rim, it should be a sho-nuff MAG, and not something that can be nipped at by any number of standard chamberings with less powder, blast, etc. It's also not the greatest in TCs, which I load for in addition to my bolt guns. If I need more than a 7-08/x57/280, I'm moving to a bigger bore anyway. Just my nickel.

quote:
A good man with a good hunting rifle can reliably hit big game at ranges that the .270 Win cannot be depended upon to deliver reliable bullet performance.quote.

John Burns, please correct me if I'm wrong but are you not the one who uses the .243 for long range shooting? If so, the above comment seems to suggest that the .243 outdoes the .270 in performance. Having shot both extensively I find that hard to believe.

Not trying to be argumentative but I wonder if you could clarify that point for me.

Jim

Jim,

Killing at longer range is ALL about BC and velocity. In a SAAMI .243 Win, I can send a hunting bullet of .532 BC (or .547 with the Hybrid, which many guys have success with) at 3100 fps from a 26" barrel. A .270 Win can hit about 3000 fps with a 150gr hunting VLD (.531 BC) from an equal length barrel. This translates to the .243 having less drift in the wind, and proper impact velocities for expansion at longer ranges.

What's really amazing is that gun writers are able to write as much as they do in a positive vein about so many differently named cartridges when the differences are as small as they are. The truth is that we could easily get by with half a dozen cartridges. We really are spoiled in this regard - and the 7 mags, stuff I've never really used or that I had much use for- fit as well as any into the redundant scheme of things.

Well said Jeff! Some one had to make that point. LOL!

To match the original 7mmRM velocities of 1962, with factory ammo, step up to the 7mm Weatherby. That being said...is any Elk going to know if it's hit by the Remington or the Weatherby versions?! I kinda doubt it. But YMMV

Klik,

It doesn't amaze me "that gun writers are able to write as much as they do in a positive vein about so many differently named cartridges when the differences are as small as they are."

Many of the longest threads on the Campfire are those with headings like ".270 or .280?" or "Thinking bout a different 7mm magnum."

Then there's the endless parade of "perfect" 6.5mm cartridges that would supposedly end all hunting cartridge development over the past decade or two: .260 Remington, 6.5/.284, 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5SAUM, etc. etc. etc.

A bunch of cartridges have been promoted here just as enthusiastically as in any magazines by the thousands of Campfire gun writers, though in general the gun magazines tend to be more civil, but many stretch points because of their advertisers.

I have also seen points about various cartridge stretched considerably on the Campfire! That might be hard to believe, but there it is.

That was said in jest.... there was a thread a while back on the 7RM and a PH dubbed it the "hit 'em again 7"....guess he didn't like it either

I think that was logcutter- not a PH.

I thought it was JJhack?????

Hmmmm, you might be right. It was one of the two

Anyway didn't mean to get any ones shorts in a knot!

Hah, well it appears we're both right...


http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/6818598/1

"Guess that's why the .22 caliber rifles are so popular for deer with the current generation.....they keep getting their Kotex knocked loose when they fire a real rifle."

So far this is the best point made, IMO.

The 7 Rem mag filled a niche back in the day, and it's still a great round. It gave average Joe Sixpack a nearly 7mm Weatherby at an affordable price. There wasn't the deluge of new cartridges we've recently experienced back in 1962, and the alternative to the 7 Rem mag was the 264, which had experienced bad press.

Yeah, ol' Logcutter used to bust my chops because I liked the 7mm Rem mag so much.

He also knew that I respected JJ Hack's opinion on hunting and rifles, and would throw that "hit 'em again" quote at me now and again.

Funny stuff. BTW, sold my 7mm mag and am back to hunting mostly with a .25-06 anymore, time to time a .30-06 and maybe too often with a .375 H&H. Just for fun. Variety in rifles isn't necessarily a bad thing. And I still like the 7mm Rem mag!

Jim,

I personally would not recommend the .243 Win/ 105gr VLD past 800yds, give or take, on deer or antelope. The aforementioned .270 Win / 150gr VLD would get about the same max range based on the BC and velocity.

The 7mm Rem Mag/ 180gr VLD @ 2975fps is simply a whole different animal. I would expect good bullet performance at 1100yds (in thin air) on elk sized game.

As was said before the .270 Win is nothing to "sneeze at" but it falls somewhat behind the 7mm Rem Mag when both are loaded to max performance.

Or, as Henry Ford once said, "there is no substitute for cubic inches."

Somebody after him coined a catchier phrase along the same lines: "There is no replacement for displacement"

You get right down to it, this is all just a bunch of "mine is better than yours". I've killed deer (and an occasional pig) with muzzleloaders, 30-30, 308, 30-06, 270 WSM, 7mm SAUM, 7mm Rem Mag, 300 Weatherby, 41 Mag, 44 Mag, and probably a few others that I don't remember, with ranges from 10 yards all the way up to about 550 yards (with a 7mm Rem Mag, coincidentally). Thing is, they were all just as dead, and they couldn't have told you what caliber I used. A 7mm Remington Magnum is just as good as, or as bad as, the person shooting it.

A friend and me were chrono-ing loads from my 270 Win and his 7mm RM. Both shooting 150g bullets. He'd been bragging for years how much harder the Big 7 hit than the 270.

The chrony read:
270 Win - 2960fps ave
7mm RM - 2675 fps ave

So chalk one up to me. But......


Since then he's worked up some proper handloads and now has that Big 7 shooting closer to potential. And now it craps all over the 270.

My rule of thumb is the 7RM will shoot the same weight bullets about 200 to 250fps faster, or for the same speeds the 7 will shoot bullets about 20g heavier.

The 7 is noticeably more gun, even though the 270 Win is my favourite.

Isn't the same for everybody, but he got old and it has physically caught up with him in his ability to tolerate the recoil. Some handle that with grace and some don't. He has chosen the path via his writing to bad mouth a superior performing cartridge for one of a lower velocity level that does work well too. Fact is, he must see controversity as a method to insure his readership, works for some here but not all. Never really cared one way or another what he thinks as I have my own experience to rely on. Most guys with 30+ years of hunting ,shooting and many different rifles chambered for cartridges thruout the spectrum agree with what gunwriters write when it intersects with their own experience. When it don't we quit reading them. When it does we think they are pretty smart for a guy who lives where they do. Some of them live where they can do all the hunts by themselves and shoot when they want to. They are the ones who tend to make us pay attn. to their writing unless it's BS. Magnum Man

You're right, using good handloads. For the average guy, using factory ammo in factory rifles, there's little if any actual difference, except the 7RM is generally going to be somewhat heavier and longer in most cases. Custom guns and loads let the 7 show its stuff, but the real question is whether you really need the extra power for the hunting you do. I'd be more likely to go to a big .30 for long range and a .338, .35, or 9.3 for heavier game. Since I'll likely never do either, I'll stick with what I got. These days, I'm more concerned about what rifle I use than what it eats.

I think that was Hugh Hefner.....

And don't forget about the 120 out of a 7 RM at 3,500+ fps.
A fav Coues deer load for me.

The 270/130 sucks eggs trying to keep up with that.


On the other hand, I sure like carrying my 700 Ti in 270 Win.
It sees more field time than the 7.

I was trying some loads in my 7mm Weatherby a couple weeks ago, and with published Reloder 25 data got over 3700 fps with the 120 Ballistic Tip, and accuracy was pretty darn good.

Sorry, I didn't see the smiley there.. grins.

I actually really am starting to like the 7 rem mag case.

Necked to .25 (in a wtby die....)

'Then there's the endless parade of "perfect" 6.5mm cartridges that would supposedly end all hunting cartridge development over the past decade or two: .260 Remington, 6.5/.284, 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5SAUM, etc. etc. etc. "

Then there's the 605X55mm Swede, 120 years old and still the equal of virtually any other 6.5 (except the barrel-burning, big over-bore magnums).

Controversy sells articles and magazines. Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith proved that

20 years ago Petzal was one of the biggest magnum pushers. Now he's against them. Kind of like the guy who always buys a new Ford and thinks everybody else should too. But heaven forbid if one year he happens to buy a Chevy then he thinks all the Ford drivers have eggs for brains.

Petzal isn't the only "post magnum" gunwriter. Ross Seyfried did the same thing. In their defense, today's bullets make plain vanilla rifles like a 270 or a 308 a LOT more effective on game than they were decades ago, though both have always been more than adequate for whitetails.

When did Petzal go anti magnum? He's only comparing the performance on game between just two cartridges. The 270 Winchester and the 7mm Remington Magnum. Nor is he advising 7mmRM owner to switch to the 270W. Me thinks that people are reading too much into his opinion...

This is true... I wish he'd write articles more often. Good writer!

He's come out against magnums in general over the past few years. He's started pushing the .280 a lot more even though Carmichael already tried that.

Maybe he realized that having the living schit kicked out of him wasn't much fun, and the magnums don't kill any better than standard rounds.

Most of us realize those things at some point; the controversy comes in because at any given time we are all at different points on the path.

I think Petzal has always been a 270 shooter,but I seem to recall he was also something of a 340 Weatherby and 7mm Weatherby shooter as well.I guess he liked mediums for elk.

Boddington is another gun writer who used the various magnums a lot,although he seems to have softened his stance quite a bit in recent years.

But then who among us has not played with stuff from the 7 Rem Mag on up at one time or another? You go through phases,and your opinion changes.

I've never felt the 7 was all that bad in a standard weight rifle.

Petzal still does push the .338 WM for elk. Towsley pushes bigger thumpers than that for Elk though.

Given equal barrel lengths this is pretty darn close. I don't see anyone having a beef with the 7mm RM, just telling the truth and upsetting some folks.

Not a huge 270 fan either, never owned one. I have owned a few 7 mags, until I bought a chronograph. Not a huge Petzel fan either, but this time he is right.

With factory loads, in an 8.5-9 lb. all up rifle, the 7 mag is not that bad. Yet even then it's at the limit of most guy's recoil tolerance. Start loading it to potential, or drop the rifle weight down to something a guy actually wants to pack, and the 7 Rem Mag boots ya pretty hard.

A quick route to name recognition is to challenge conventional wisdom. I've known professional people that became quite famous by challenging convention. They were quite wrong, but one always has to cite the opposing thought train.

I have a 7 mag, and I like it. I have 270, and I like it too. No one really seems to care.

I know Petzal pretty well, having first met him when I was 25 or so, which was a while back. Dave used to hunt with one of my mentors, Norm Strung, who was a part-time outfitter for many yeas when he first started writing for hunting and fishing magazines.

When Dave first started hunting out west he was firm believer in .33 caliber magnums, mostly because he was an Elmer Keith believer. He had some success with both the .338 Winchester and .340 Weatherby, mostly because he made some good shots (he is a very good shot), but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have killed the same animals with lesser cartridges.

Have hunted with him a number of times, and on one occasion he asked me if a .270 Winchester would really kill an elk. I said yes. Eventually he did kill a bull elk with the .270, and it worked fine. I believe it worked with one shot, too, though couldn't swear to that.

Was on a mule deer hunt with him in eastern Montana. He brought a .30-06 with 180-grain Nosler Partitions. The outfitter's wife had killed umpteen mule deer with the .243 Winchester, and Dave asked me whether the .243 was enough.

In other words, he started out as a firm believer in the theory that being over-gunned is better than being under-gunned, partly because he had little experience with smaller rounds. However, I do believe what is often called "real life" has convinced him that smaller cartridges will indeed kill big game, especially after he realized that not everybody is recoil-proof.

Will also comment that whether or not any individual who's posted here considers the recoil of the 7mm Remington Magnum relatively mild is irrelevant. The job of a gun writer should be to observe a BUNCH of shooters, as well as the result from a BUNCH of cartridges, instead of only reporting their personal feelings about recoil, or their personal prejudices about cartridges.

It's hard to do that, since most of us are convinced our personal experience applies to every other human, but it was the great failing of Elmer Keith. He was a great shot and hunter, and a far better writer than many give him credit for, but he never could see much beyond his own experience.

Jack O'Connor became a far more well-known and popular gun writer not just because of his slicker writing style, but because he could empathize more with the average hunter, and thus provide more realistic advice. Which is what Petzal was doing in this particular instance.

No matter how many people on the Campfire believe the 7mm Remington Magnum kicks rather mildly, or how many long-range hunters say it's a lot more cartridge than the .270 Winchester beyond X range, the average shooter just might flinch from a 7mm RM's recoil, and isn't going to be shooting beyond 300 or 500 or 800 yards or whatever anyway. And within those realistic limits the .270 is the equal of the 7mm Remington Magnum, especially with some of today's bullets.

A sporter-weight 7mag is brutal to me in the prone. A 7mag Sendero is okay but a LOT more recoil than I care to shoot 50rds in an afternoon from prone. Put that same Sendero in a 5# AI stock and its much more mangageable.

Yeah, we tend to lose sight of "the average shooter" quite a bit around here, being a bunch of loonies and all!

And we'll all argue either side of something depending on which side of the bed we woke up on (or maybe more importantly in alot of cases, who is arguing the other side )!

That's nice and all.

But when buying a firearm, get what suits you and don't worry about what the general public or a gun writer who claims to represent them thinks.

Every application and requirement is different. There are many situations where a .270 will be just as effective.

However, A 7 Magnum certainly has an advantage over a .270 if it's used for LR work and the shooter stuffs his own cases.

That's just a fact and one that Mr. Petzal fails to mention.

He attempts to marginalize a good cartridge and uses generalities to do so, failing to mention the cartridges better attributes.

So excuse me if I don't believe that gun writers personal opinions don't bleed through and into their writing.

I see it all the time.

All a man can knowledgeably write about are his experiences and they will form his opinions.

Well, I guess it still narrows down to bullet placement . Cartridge size, and bullet diameter are only important to the shooter of said cartridge.JMHO,Huntz

Personal choices in rifle cartridges is kind of like politics and religion....people form very firm opinions based on their personal experiences and exposure,get entrenched, and it's hard to change their minds.

Gun writers are people,too,and prone to the same tendencies,although in many cases based on wider experience.But sometimes things fly over even their heads. I learned, for example,that JOC was dead wrong about the 300 H&H,likely because he hated 26" barrels, lopped off a 300 H&H from 26 to 23",loaded it moderately, and found it no faster than a 30/06.

OTOH, I got one, loaded it to potential,and found it much like a 300 Win Mag,on the range and while out hunting. I figured we couldn't both be right,and decided JOC was "wrong"....at least about the 300 H&H.

JOC wrote some good things about the 7 Rem Mag when it first came out(somewhere I have those original OL articles). He took one to Africa,Angola IIRC,and knocked the snot out of a bunch of animals.He seems to have liked it but this changed over the years for some reason.

So, with due regard for Dave Petzal's views on the 7 Rem Mag, I think at least for now, I will have to pretty much ignore it.

I've been shooting and hunting with both the 270 and 7 Rem Mag since the late 60's or early 70's. Every time I have tried either one, they always worked as advertised. I don't know what else I could ask of a rifle cartridge.

BobinNH, we think pretty much the same on this. I've been reading this thread from start to stop. Lotta opinions on it and it seems some folks just plain hate belted magnums period and trot out their samples of one, wailing away at it. Couple of weeks ago I was given a part box of Remington 7 mm Magnums factory loaded with 150 gr PTD Core-lokts according to the 1963 Rem catalog I have they should be moving 3250 at the muzzle. The ammo is from the 1964-66 era,no corrosion on it and the box looks 95%, in other words well stored. So it is somewhere to 46-48 years old. Been overcast most of the day but a half hr ago the sun came out and so did my chronograph. Used my 50 yd butt for the target and chrono at 10' 4 shots in one ragged oblong hole .414" avg vel at 3086 fps. Current factory Rem loads are supposed to be 3110 fps with the same 2 dia bullet. I shoot the 270 also and the only 270 loads with 150's I ever saw hit that kind of spd came from my 270 Weatherby. Haters allways gonna hate. BobinNH take care not many of us guys who like magnums for what they are left around here. Magnum Man

JM,

Your post is reasonable--except that it ignores the role gun writers play in forming the opinions of people who haven't hunted much. Without much (or even any) experience, how is somebody going to get a reasonably informed opinion? And the answer is, of course, advice from more experienced hunters.

These can be your dad and his brother Uncle Ed, or Elmer Keith or Dave Petzal, or the unlimited number of gun writers now appearing every day on 24hourcampfire.com. And the advice will vary considerably. Unfortunately, most such advice is shortened these days (just as it probably was from dad and Uncle Ed), for whatever reason anybody wants to blame.

One thing I do know from working in the hunting/gun writing business for many years is that the readership of different magazines varies considerably. The readership of Field & Stream, for instance, is very different from that of smaller, more specialized "vertical" magazines, or many members of the Campfire. The average F&S reader isn't as experienced, and doesn't handload, and that's who Petzal writes for. His opinions have changed through his own personal experience, but that personal experience has also included seeing a lot of average hunters at the range and in the field.

Most Campfire members aren't as exposed to nearly as many other shooters and hunters, and don't pay as much attention to them when they are. The big exception might be members of their own family, though I have seen a LOT of shooters who apparently still think everyone in their family should be able to handle recoil (or even enjoy it) in the same way they do, whether the family member is a kid or their wife.

I always find it both astonishing and amusing that so many Campfire posters think not only think anybody asking advice on hunting rifles should somehow ALREADY know all the answers, but is a dipschitt for asking the questions. One of the reasons humans made any sort of "progress" is they passed knowledge along from person to person, and thus generation to generation, rather than every one of us starting out at square one, like a fresh-hatched duckling.

There are some people who learn from the experience of others. That doesn't mean the other people are always right, and in fact the people whose opinions are most valuable are those who revise their opinions, to whatever degree, as their experience and education continues.

I have frequently gone hunting with large groups of people. This wouldn't be my choice if I were just hunting for myself, but it happens often with gun writers. Even after I've taken my game I usually go along with other people, if they'll let me, to gain more experience in not just other rifles, bullets, cartridges, etc. but other people.

From 2000-2010, in fact, I went on so many cull or control hunts for big game, with a lot of other people, I frankly grew a little weary of seeing so many animals killed, and then evaluating exactly how the bullets worked on as many animals as possible. But it provided a lot of information, partly because I also got to talk to people who did the same thing, expanding my "personal" experience even further.

As a result I've been able to expand my experience considerably, unlike many hunters who head home or lounge around camp after they get their game. In some years I've seen dozens of different hunters in action, whether at the range or in the field, and seen them shooting game--with the exact results of the bullets and cartridge used right there, where I can observe the details. These have all formed my "personal" experience far more than my own shooting.

Does my opinion count more? No, but like some other gun writers (not all) it is based on considerable observation of other shooters both at ranges and in the field--along with a pile of different cartridges and bullets. I do try to present this "personal" experience objectively, though have also been around long enough to know nobody is totally objective.

However, one thing I have noticed the longer I hunt is that the differences in the results of various bullets and cartridges aren't as vast as many hunters believe--though I've often found my own experiences agree with others whose experiences go beyond a dozen animals a year, or even those who shoot dozens of whitetail or pigs. Though I've often learned stuff from those who do, and usually learn something new about shooting and hunting every day, whether doing it myself or reading or talking to others, because that's what I do at least eight hours a day. Right now I'm doing it more than eight hours a day.

As a result, I agree with Petzal on this subject more than I disagree with him. His main job is to make suggestions to relatively inexperienced hunters and shooters. Apparently that's not good enough for all the experts on the Campfire, who provide lots of free advice even though they believe beginning hunters should already know everything they do--and also disagree among themselves quite a bit.

Nicely put.

I don't much care for shooting a sporter weight 7 mag either! Especially from field positions, while putting enough rounds downrange to maintain proficiency. Too much gun, for me.

But for others, it may work. Though I strongly suspect many of the "tough guys" who supposedly aren't bothered by recoil don't shoot enough to know any better.

MD - I have always been a bit skeptical I guess. Consequently, while I enjoy reading what various people have written, I like to see if it's really factual in my own experience; to prove it to myself, or whatever. So when Barsness or Haviland or someone else says bullet A or powder Q are the best thing since sliced bread in some way, guess what? Yep, I buy a pound of Q or a box of A and head off to the range to try them.

My conclusion? You guys are plain evil and work for the component manufacturers

I'd like to have my ego stroked by having gun writers validate the things that I think I know and my experiences regarding hunting and handloading.
The reality is that I see through only one set of eyes and the rifle/cartridge that I see as perfect for my needs may not apply to other people and their needs.. Such is life, I'm not shook at all when I find there is more to learn.

MD- thanks for your perspective!

Klik,

You caught us! Nothing has improved since IMR4350 appeared in 1940, which does everything anybody ever would need in the 7x57 and .375 H&H, the only cartridges any hunter would ever need for any sort of big game.

Never insinuated newbies were dipschitts, so I don't know where that comes from.

I've introduced and mentored more than my fair share of kids to shooting/hunting over the years and have a fairly good understanding of what it takes to go from "this is a gun" to being a capable hunter.

Much of Petzal's article is true. There are many occasions where a .270 will be just as effective as a 7 Magnum.

His writing and choice of words wear the condescending tone of those in the "know", which seldom makes newbies feel at ease and often has the opposite effect in my experience.

Yet Petzal fails to mention applications where the 7 will have certain advantages.

His failure to include this makes me question his "objectivity" and commitment to help the uninformed that you mentioned in your post.

If knowing there are applications where the 7 will outshine the .270 makes me a campfire expert, all I can say is thanks and that I believe all aspects of a cartridge should be considered before passing judgement.

IME, having all the information let's the inexperienced make better decisions.

THIS!

you girls want to shoot my 416 Rem Mag?

I'll shoot most anything ONCE!

There is alot of condescension toward the magnum cartridges and those who like them within the shooting ranks. I'm a neutral observer on the subject beings that I have never hunted with a magnum cartridge before. I've owned them in .257, 7mm, .300, and .350 but my 200 yards and under hunting has never been a good fit for them. I did take my 7 along on a moose hunt but didn't take it the first morning and ended up filling my tag with my .450 Marlin, which although belted is no magnum. Still I can appreciate a magnum and don't get in on the bash fest.

JM,

You insinuated with this:

"That's nice and all. But when buying a firearm, get what suits you and don't worry about what the general public or a gun writer who claims to represent them thinks." That definitely implies that anybody who hunts should already know what "suits" them.

Many hunters don't have a clue what rifle suits them, whether in terms of recoil, stock fit, scopes, etc., all of which can be more important than the difference in ballistics between the .270 Winchester and 7mm Remington Magnum. I came to this conclusion not just by shooting a bunch of animals with both cartridges and various bullets, but by observing other hunters using both cartridges on game up to elk and moose and similar-sized African plains game. And a lot of other cartridges as well.

It pokes a nice clean hole through elk..and you don't have to worry about carrying bear spray

Bob,

Earlier you mentioned that Petzal was probably a 270 shooter, or something to that effect. I recall him writing that he's killed more with the 270 Win than the 30-06. IIRC, he prefers it, but stated that he writes more often about the 30-06 since its the more popular chambering.

I like Petzal. May not agree with everything he writes, but I still like to read his stuff. And I think the 270 Win is one heck of a cartridge with tolerable recoil.

Jason

Petzal is a wet-rag. Gimme' an 8lb 7mm Rem Mag every day of the week.

Tanner

John,

Do you think sales of the 7RM have diminished? I know its still popular in terms of reloading die sales.

I've come close to buying a rifle in 7RM several times, but when shopping I've noticed that companies like Kimber only offer it in certain configurations (i.e. not in the Montana), and places like Cabela's don't offer it at all in some of their exclusive rifles. And, I've noticed that the 300 WM is almost always an option. I've also seen a lot of locals sell their 7RM rifles and go to a 300 of some sort.

Wasn't Boddington who did a survey of PHs in Africa in the 1980's (or was it the 1990's?) and the 7RM was very popular for plains game. He did a follow-up survey a decade or two later and I think the 7RM fell off the map with the 270 Win taking its place. The 300 mags became very popular for heavy plains game. I found that interesting.

Jason

How old are you?

Just where does the 7 Rem Mag really excel over a 270? On big game at 800 plus yards? BFD. That's sort of like saying a 577 Nitro is better than a 458 Win Mag for shooting rhinos. Neither the 800 yard shot or killing a rhino should ethically or legally be done, so the argument is moot.

I was delighted when my big bull elk up in the Wind Rivers fell to a single 175 gr Nosler Partition from my 7mm Rem mag.

Later, I got to thinking about it and came to the conclusion than the elk would have been hit just as well, and expired just as quickly had I used my .30-06 or .308 Win and a good bullet.

Again, just a sample of one. And I take nothing from the 7mm Rem mag, it was and is a very good hunting cartridge!

Regards, Guy

Heck yeah! Be fun to compare it to my Rigby...

Besides Bob, everybody knows that the 7mm Rem mag is just a noisy 280 Ackley............

Let you in on a little secret�.Hunter works really well in the 30-06 with 180s�kills moose really well clear out to 300 hunnert yards too (in my most recent sample of one ). I read about that combo somewhere; thinking you might like it if you try it.

RD that extra powder will make a guy deaf

I once shot a whitetail with a 7mag behind the shoulder,through the ribs on both sides and it broke the shoulder scapula on the on side.And yes it was DRT.

One of the most accurate rifles I've ever shot was one of my hunting buddies Sako Finnbear in 7mm Remington mag. I'd dare say that most custom makers would have been thrilled if their rigs left their shop shooting like that rifle did routinely.

My LGS won't even carry the 7 mag in new guns. He says they're hard to sell because everybody who wants a belted magnum now wants a 300. He says the fad changed.

PG's response hits the nail on the head I think. There may be gains with the 7 mag but they are only relevant to a niche crowd. Most other hunters would be much better served with a lighter, milder recoiling 270. Just my .02

Klik,

Thanks for the tip on Hunter and 180's!

I wouldn't have much to write about if not for Campfire members like you and Shrapnel--who turned me on to plastic-tipped varmint bullets.

I take it that is Ramshot magnum hunter powder with the 180s? what charge?

In my part of the world the 7 mag is the most disrespected cartridge in the bush. Everyone wants a 338 or 300. Mind you the same folks who bash the 7 mag couldn't hunt their way outta a paper bag with a flashing exit sign.

I like it.

I have other secrets I might still share, a hint would be the viability of fixed powered scopes...

A guy would have a very hard time finding a better all around rifle than an 8ish pound 7 Rem Mag.

An "all around" rifle can be fired 300-400 times over a three-day course by its user, from mostly field positions, but at least a hundred times from prone, slung up.

Most who've attempted this arrive at a compact 308 loaded with 150's, with a stock considerably shorter than what most possess

There may be men who can do this with an 8# fast seven but I'd bet you ain't one of 'em.

Interesting point, and I've done exactly that with a light .308. Wouldn't want to with anything that kicked much harder--and even the .270 kicks a little harder than the .308.

My point about all this really doesn't just pit the .270 against the 7mm RM. The more I've hunted the less difference I've seen in the results with ALL cartridges. Not that there aren't differences in the "killing power" of, say, a .243 Winchester and a .375 H&H, though even there some overlap can occur. But there are probably 100+ cartridges in the same general category as the .270 Winchester and 7mm Remington Magnum, from 6.5mm to .30 caliber. I've seen a bunch in action, and have pretty much concluded that bullet placement and construction make more difference in killing power than anything else, certainly more than relatively small differences in bullet weight, caliber and velocity. This isn't exactly a new insight, but then very little about hunting rifles is.

I might also mention that I acquired my first 7mm Remington Magnum in the 1980's. Haven't been without one very long since, and have hunted with the cartridge considerably, along with guiding and accompanying other hunters who used it. Have also hunted with several other 7mm magnums, including the 7mm SAUM, 7mm Weatherby and 7mm STW, as well as the noted "just about as good as the 7mm Remington" .280 Ackley Improved. Have been with companions when they took big game with all those rounds as well, along with the 7mm Dakota and some other 7mm's I've probably forgotten. The game has ranged from pronghorn, pigs, various deer, caribou, black bears, elk and moose in North America to the same size of plains game in Africa, including the tougher ones like gemsbok, zebra and wildebeest. Have seen the .270 used on all the same game, so am not exactly unacquainted with the question at hand.

There is, of course, always some disagreement among about killing power. It's just that the longer I hunt the less difference I see in cartridges of the same class. John Burns uses the .243 on elk at 600 yards or more, with bullets many on this forum refuse to use for deer at any range.

I also find it interesting that two of the 7mm RM's defenders on this thread (John Burns and Bobinh) use long-throated rifles. I sure don't disagree with that, but it is interesting both guys have done it, apparently in order to gain more zip over the typical velocities attainable in the 7mm Remington Magnum.

My 7 RM was a Winchester 70 push feed with a Leupy VXIII 3-9X. It was about a 9 pound rifle. It was nice to shoot though.

Funny, I thought we were talking about hunting rifles.

Tanner

Apparently you are supposed to shoot hunting rifles 300-400 times over a 3 day stretch. No wonder Boxer makes fun of me about my 20 round "range sessions".

Yeah and I'd bet that you don't truly own a Kifaru rigged up with Hill People gear, but I guess we'll both never know since you don't own a camera.

7-08 would be a better mousetrap for the uses you cited than a 308.

I like the 7 [bleep].

But haters is always gonna hate.



Travis

exactly.

"All-around rifle" has its own definition. A 22lr and a 570 Tyranosaur can both be "hunting rifles". As Socrates was wont to say, "Let us define our terms".

MD, would you please recount the "Bullwinkle-One Shot Stop" study from Sweden IIRC. I believe the gist of it was there was little difference in stopping power on their smallish moose between most of the common calibers, with their most prevalent one being the 6.5x55, a chambering few here would consider for elk-sized game.

I was thinking of that study myself last night while falling asleep:

They had moose hunters report on the cartridge they used, how many shots were fired, the range and how far the moose went before falling after the initial hit. The study included over 8000 moose, and it turned out the averages with cartridges from the 6.5x55 to .375 H&H were very similar, including how many shots were required, and the distance the moose went before falling.

Obviously there would be variations in shot placement, but the vast number of the animals in the study would even that out. I also seem to recall the .243 didn't do as well as rounds from the 6.5x55 up, but could be wrong.

Now, the ranges aren't long in most Swedish moose hunting, since it's done mostly by driving the moose past the hunters. But they are usually moving, and often fired up, because elkhounds are frequently used for the pushing. Swedish moose tend to be about the size of smaller North American moose, so a big bull can still easily weigh over 1000 pounds.

Yes John I did that intentionally years ago to a few early rifles,except for my first, a Ruger M77 that would not really allow it because the magazine was 30/06 length.

Of course back then it was recommended by Messr's Hagel and Wooters and if we dig back far enough in Rifle Magazine e can find a small chart in John Wooters article on the 7 Rem Mag showing the differences.What I found was that a lot of the little "issues" associated with the cartridge went away...I did not run into pressures as quickly with the long throat version as I did with standard throats.The cartridge was just more better behaved, and easy to load,since I was mostly using the heavy bullets anyway. And I think the effect was somewhat like what Weatherby builds into its cartridges with the freebore.What I ended up with was an"easy" 3050-3080 with those 160's.

But we have to remember that powders then were not what they are now. At some point I abandoned the practice,although one I had within the last few years had a chamber cut with a longer than standard throat and took heavier charges just to reach 3080 or so with a 160 and H4831.Today we have more slower powders and it's pretty easy to hit that same 3050 or so without the throating routine.

I have a new one here now with standard throat and 30/06-length magazine. I have not had a chance to chronograph anything yet but the load I am feeding it did 3100 with a 150 in another rifle.

One thing (IMHO) that we all need to keep in mind when discussing the advantages of cartridges is that modern bullets have improved the capability and performance of cartridges over the same cartridge of 60 years ago. Whereas the 1930 iteration of the 270 Winchester (even with 150 grain bullets) would have been a marginal cartridge for large game (say, elk), with today's premium bullets, it is considered by many to be quite adequate.

I believe that the deeper penetration of the 375 H&H (with its' heavier bullets) is one reason, Elmer Keith favored nit over lighter cartridges.

Bob,

The vast array of new powders certainly has the potential to change a lot of things. I may have mentioned this already, but was trying some handloads in my 7mm Weatherby a couple weeks ago and with a little less than the listed maximum load of Norma MRP got 3300 fps from the 160 Partition! It was, of course, a little too warm even in as 26" barrel, but even backing it off a grain resulted in 3250.

I just got word from a powder company that they're introducing three more rifle powders this year!

I suspect the 270 worked great back then as it does now, premium bullet or not. I really think Elmer was set in his ways, then got pigeon holed as the big bore guy and didnt have the will to swallow his pride ti get out of it.
I also dont believe a new wonder bullet makes a .243 into a 270 or a 270 into a 338, buts thats just me.

Wow! If I had to wager a guess on which company that would be it would be Ramshot. They don't seem to have quite the breadth of powder burning ranges (read: niches) filled as other do.

Can you mention the company or is that proprietary information?

I'm going to venture a guess as which company is introducing the new powders....Alliant.

Though maybe Hodgdon is coming out with some CFE types in slower burning varietals...

So much for the original post

If threads didn't go off on tangents, this would be a pretty boring place.

Azar,

Yeah, for the moment it is proprietary information.

My 7 lb.270 seems to fit the bill!!!

Ive never liked the 7mm mags, although I have owned a few. Always thought if I wanted to step up to a magnum I would go with a 300 win mag and if I didnt a 270 or 280 would suffice.

John,todays powders do make a difference.3300 fps is smoking and even backed off to 3250 is a lot of speed.

We used MRP when it came out back "when". That was one of the powders that taught me I did not necessarily have to throat long to get good velocities from the 7RM, and by that I mean about 3050-3080 or so with a 160.

The hijackers officially rolled in.

Our Lindsey Graham calls them "Tear..Rists"

Bob,

In the same rifle the maximum listed charge of Retumbo pushes 175 Hornadys to just under 3100, with zero signs of excessive pressure. I suspect, however, that 175 Partitions might up the pressure a little much, but they should certainly hit 3000.

It's better?

John sounds like it would. Darcy and Rick tell me the 175 NPT is a killing load. They both used it in Africa and both said good things about that bullet.They did not mention recovering any from anything. I have never used the 175 on an animal.

I ran into this working with the Mashburn and Retumbo with the 160 gr Accubond.A friend and I used 7mm Weatherby data,and the max charge in the Nosler manual calls for 79.5 gr Retumbo This gave about 3250 in his rifle.

To be prudent, I backed off to 78 gr and 160 AB; it gave 3330 in my rifle I had some primer cratering but that was all, but that was just too high.

Interesting thing is these are both Krieger 24" barrels with chambers cut with the same reamer. Goes to show that barrels can vary a good bit.

If Petzal were to read this, I'm sure he'd be smiling. Judging by the length, he hit his mark.

Somewhere well past the distance where I will choose to shoot an animal. "A man's got to know his limitations", and mine are far inside of the capabilities of most cartridges. Oh well.

Of course, it took me a a while to learn this, so I suppose I might have been swayed by the "experts" back when I first started. Once I quit reading gun rags & discounted the vast majority of what I read on the interweb, I found clarity pretty quickly. For me, anyway.

FC

Is the general concensus then that there is no advantage in using a 7 Rem. mag. over say, a .270 for normal hunting ranges? I'm just asking as I've never shot a big game animal with a magnum cartridge but I know a lot of guys who believe their magnums bring a lot more thump and knockdown even at short range.

I wouldn't deem that a general consensus at all.

Tanner

Sporting Rifle Match, I bet a guy shooting a 7RM with 162/168s would beat the pants off an equally skilled shooter running all but the 150 LRAB outta the .270. All else being the same...

That would mean a lot to me, as I'm convinced no better quantifiable test exists. 12" plates are BG kill size.... and drift rules.

I'll even grant the .270 equal in 'killing ability'... it just requires more skill to shoot well under a broad base of wind conditions. So congrats to you .270 guys.... you're obviously far better shooters, given your antiquated ballistics and CRFs.... it's amazing you manage to kill anything outside of Wrist-Rocket range.

Better for me and thats all that counts!!!

That geezer is fulla schit... who cares what he writes?

It would be a pretty big stretch to call the Sporting Rifle Match a good indicator of what makes a capable hunting rifle or cartridge. That match's layout simply isn't how most of us hunt.

Billy, what makes you say that? I haven't shot the course but the website reports that there are shots from 175 to 875 yards, and I believe they're all 6" to 12" plates. There are shots required off of sticks and other "field" positions to prone. That sounds like a pretty legitimate test of a hunting rifle and cartridge. I know I'd sure like to get a chance to go out and try my skills.

Tanner

It certainly simulates how 90% of my shots have gone down in the field. In fact, it's shot in wonderful elk/bear/deer/pronghorn/coyote/cat country.... into/across the Canadian River, and up into the meadows/draws/hillsides above.

I agree it's not how most shots would go in West Virginia or Maine.... but I'd say when half the available big game species in the lower 48 reside permanently on the range.... it's a pretty good simulator.

I was just thinking the same thing. Apparently he did.

Regards, Guy

Every one of these courses I've seen except the Keneyathlon is set up for long range hunters/shooters, not your average hunter.

175 to 875 yards is not a good indicator of hunting rifle prowess, as guys must set up to be able to shoot 875 yards, which simply doesn't matter for a hunting rifle. A rifle set up for 875 yards will often have concessions made for the close range snap shots that occur while hunting.... whether in weight, balance, over magnified scopes, etc.

I'd rather see something in a 10-500 yard format. All rifles must be packed in hand or slung, as in the real world an animal can show up at any time. Set up the course in just such a manner where targets may appear at your feet with no warning. Incorporate movers, in the brush at close to medium range. Time limit of 10 seconds for some of the shots, from packed up and moving to shot.

Incorporate targets that need identification, as in "legal" animals, even targets that one must wait for the legal target to clear non-legal targets before firing. Make this wait painstakingly long from an uncomfortable firing position...forcing the issue.

Offhand,kneeling, and sitting shots, as well as the above, along with some of the already included prone/further out shots would make for a better test for hunting.

A rifle needs to be able to do these things to be really practical for general use hunting. Which means light enough to pack, balance to allow good offhand shooting, and a recoil level that allows shooting from a not perfect setup without hurting oneself.

A 308Win. will do that course just fine.It all comes down to what the guy behind the trigger is capable of.You do not need a magnum case to shoot accurately to 1,000 yds.Lots of 6.5X284s being used in long range competition.Very seldom do you see a magnum being used and if you do it is almost always a 300 Winchester.Using one caliber over another will not turn a crappy shot into a better one.Only time and practice using good form can do that.

Sounds fun, but I think that would test physical prowess more than it would test a rifles ballistic capabilities... Which is undoubtedly more important in the grand scheme of things.

It doesn't need to be a test of physical prowess. We all hunt at different intensities, and I wouldn't want any sort of rules where a team running the course would beat those walking and stalking, or doing the course from a wheelchair.

Well played.... you have no idea what your talking about.

There is no team. There is no time score. Only 4 minutes to shoot 6 targets.... which is more than enough time. Everyone is doing their best to help you make hits. But obviously, you know more about it than I do.

Go check out the web page.... look at the picks.... and the range card. I shot a sub 9lb. .260... the same gun I hunt. Running the same DTC on the SS12x that I run at home. I came away a better shooter, I bet you'd like it.

Sounds like a prime chance to set up a new type of game, since you don't like how the rest are done.

For me, and this is just me, it really takes nothing much from 10-500 just range it and shoot and favor the wind most days.

Therefore the short range stuff just doesn't do it for me for practice.

But I could certainly see that if you incorporate these ideas, you may come up with something that quite a few folks would like to play around with.

Jack O'Connor was once told by an Indian guide, "Any gun good. Shoot um good." I think he meant put the bullet in the right place and break out the skinning knives.
Paul B.

Maybe Petzal has no problem with the 7mag. He wrote an article.

And it worked.

You can game the SRM.... and pretty much everyone else did... by shooting a 17lb chassis rifle, brake/suppressed, using your blue-tooth Exbal. Or you can look at it as a pretty real simulation of shots you'd get 'out west'.

Seriously.... I shot my [bleep] coyote/deer rifle at the SRM. I made no concessions.... at all. I had no Kestral, I had no 'real time' weather data, I had no wind meter. I didn't even have a drop chart. I had a bipod, a backpack, some sticks, and a spotting scope. Sound familiar?

By the way.... I pounded the 875 target en route to a 5/6 on that stage.... shoulda made more concessions.

None of those shots would have made me nervous had I been holding a 8.5lb Seven Mag wearing appropriate optics (3-9 SSish). In fact, by target number four... I was longing for .625/3k+.... You couldn't have paid me to shoot a .270.

I couldn't agree more, and neither would Jeff Cooper or Randy Cain.

Unless you are an eastern treestand shooter, having to scoot and shoot is fundamental. It is also a test of whether you can make the shot with an elevated heart rate. If folks can't see the value in that......

Uh-oh. We got Jeff Cooper thrown into the discussion. And TAK is talking about hunting. This should get pretty funny pretty quick.


Travis

Wow nine pages. Suffice to say, in my experience a 7RM with a 160 or 175gr bullet is one hell of a killer. I have a friend with over ten safaris under his belt and all he's used are two calibers, a 7Mag and a 458.

I didn't say anything about a team or time score on the NRA Sporting Rifle Match. I was referencing the physical part of an event (any event), which may be accomplished by timed movements between targets. But this would cut out a lot of shooters, so the actual physicality involved could be limited somewhat. Though an elevated heart rate is a great test for hunting.

Plenty of western hunting involves close in shooting. To not practice for it seriously handicaps one when it comes time to make such a shot under real conditions. So a rifle that excels at a long range target event may be a poor choice for all around use.

Gunsite has been doing exactly that for about 30yrs. Randy Cain teaches a similar course about twice each year. He typically teaches it once at his place in FL in FEB or early MAR and elsewhere as clients request.

I'm well into my fourth decade of being a student of rifle-craft. After my early infantry days, I first heard of Jeff Cooper's writings and knew that his experience and perspectives were truly unique. As a young infantryman, I knew I'd hardly recieved what I considered "professional" rifle marksmanship training. Several years later in SOTIC, a fellow student from 1st Ranger BN related to us that the BN commander had personally told him that sniper training was a total waste of time. MSG Rick Boucher threatened to open SOTIC up to the 82nd Abn in 86 because SF/Rangers wouldn't fill the slots in his course, the commanders thought it was silly. The ONLY unit that was training LR rifle-craft at the time was CAG/Delta.

For a generation there has been a huge gap between what SOF units train for on the flat range, mostly 50m and closer, and the select few that get sniper training, which is typically employed from 400-800m. The white paper, "Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer" delves into the history of US Army riflecraft a century ago, and is equally applicable big-game hunting, especially western big-game hunting.

Guys gonna be using them 7 Rem.Mags for canoe paddles now that the 26 Nozler is out!!!

SRM would be a blast but agree that its outside the realm of "most" hunters.

I know alot more guys that feel 300y is a longshot, than those that actually even think about shooting farther.

For longrange hunting or SRM, the 7RM would be great but am I reading it correctly that there are qty = 61 targets at SRM? Seems that many guys are going with a lighter rifle these days, not heavier. 61 rounds from field positions might wear on a fella shooting a light magnum.

If I copied the range card correctly, these are the distances below. RED values are those above 400y which is my arbitrary range for the average dude, you may think otherwise. GREEN are those 400y or less. Doesn't seem like this course would benefit many average-joes, unless they skipped some targets which could still be a hoot. And to shoot 400y the average dude, with the average rifle/scope/load, would need to zero high at 100y and hold high at 400y or use dotz, yeah?

So taking the SRM out of the equation, and setting a 300-400y limit on range... how bad is the 270 Win vs. the 7RM? I thought that was the intent of the article and OP's question.

Jason

875
730
710
685
630
630
625
605
590
580
560
555
555
550
550
540
540
540
530
510
500
495
490
475
475
465
460
460
460
455
435
430
430
420
410
410

400
400
390
390
375
370
370
350
350
340
340
340
335
330
300
300
295
265
260
250
245
240
240
230
200

400 yards is one heck of a long field shot for most.

No one said you needed a magnum for 1000 yards.



Eh, not really.

The first 3 SRM's that I shot, I used my Coyote rifle. A 243 WSSM shooting a 70 grain Ballistic Tip at the first match and changed bullets to the 95 gr VLD for the next 2.

The Match is designed to replicate Hunting just as Sporting Clays. Hunting weight rifles do real well. In fact, we routinely use the rifles we are gonna hunt with at the last couple of shoots every year to get ready.

Last year at the last shoot in September, I used the factory rifle that I started shooting the match with, the .243 WSSM. I shot the 105 A-Max. Everyone in the squad was shooting a 5000.00 dollar rifle. The little Factory Browning topped them all...

Kicker is..... 90% of those under 400 are 6".... or shot off sticks. You have no margin for error on wind.... all day. So yeah, it's still enough better that it'd cost you. Extrapolate from that what you wish. Enough to miss a critter... maybe, depends on the critter.

I wish I had 7 Rem .625/3k performance. But, as you pointed out it is 60 rounds... and I wanted to shoot it with my main stick. The .260/123s was nice to shoot, but I was done after 60 rounds.... and my shooting on the back half reflected it. There's no way I could do it with a sub-9lb 7 Rem... 3 stages tops.

Also, there are an additional 16 from 400 to 500, which I feel is a reasonable BG cut-off for someone familiar with their rifle. I'd love to run it with a squad of guys shooting sub-9lb hunting sticks, off packs, no electronics.... just a range card and a drop chart. Under that format 45 would be impressive shooting

Rcamuglia,were these matches in the Alb. area?

The match is at the NRA's Whittington Center.

RC/Dog, what percentage of the stages can be prone bipod? All or are you required to shoot from other positions? If so, what?

Ah,the Whittington Center,that makes sense.

Maybe as posts for their wind flags!!! Better yet you can stake your tomato plants to them!!

Right now the way the course is set, there is only 6 targets (one stage of the 10) that must be shot from sticks. There is one target at 340 (6") that usually has to be shot from sticks on stage 9 when the leaves grow back on the trees.

Some of us were able to shoot it prone realizing that tree branches are mostly air...LOL

But can the 7 mag smoke the .270 or no????

Easily

That's all I was trying to find out!

Nope.

Only people in Wisconsin would be dumb enough to do that.

I shot .270ish ballistics (.525/2950) at the last SRM.... by target #4 on the first stage I was wanting the seven.

Sometimes I get the impression that high BC bullets going more faster trump low BC bullets going more slower.




Travis

Ya think? Here's your soulmate, 'cept he has a better beard:

LRAB and Matrix....

Ever shot the Matrixes? I shot a few 165s, never enough to get much of an idea on them. Kind of a tough pill to swallow at $70/100 to get them here...

I have heard a few good things about 162 A-Maxes though, and the 180 VLDs are kinda' okay in the wind...

Tanner

Still givin up 200fps

Jorge,

The immediate question that came to mind when reading your post on the guy who's used nothing but the 7mm Remington Magnum and a .458 on over 10 safaris is: If that's all he's used, how does he know how anything else would have performed? (At least those are the cartridges you mean, since you only say "7Mag and a 458.")

Do you own a .270 shooting the bullets you cite?

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

Run it again with a one sixty deuce.... or the Berg of your choosing... all bullets with excellent field reputations.

In the field, SRM style, it'd sort out pretty quick.... I'd put a little side wager on it...

Using my rifles of standard twist and 24" length for both cartridges,150's for 270 and 160's for 7mm,the difference is 80 FPS avg. on my chronograph.

I think Petzal is right on this one.

The 7mm.advantage in downrange performance comes from the long throated 26" fast twist barrels when shooting 180 VLD's.

Both are great rounds that will keep us loonies burning powder for years to come.

Towsley is the 7mm Mag. hater,not Petzal!

This makes absolutely zero sense. Factory throated, 24" 7mm Rem Mags will run the 162 A-Max and 168 Berger at 3000fps, and the 180 Berger at over 2800fps.

SAAMI throat..."standard" length barrel. Nothing fancy... just good bullets and the right size case.

Tanner

I know what the standard rifle will do Tanner,I agree but, if I were building a 7mm Mag. for the heavies,I'll go for the 1-9 on the re- barrel and cut it @ 26".

Then you have a little more juice than a 270/150 combo that doesn't offer all the LR bullets that the .284 does.

But a 22" .270 will run 150s at 2900.... that's makes it equal to a 162 at 3k.

150 Berger vs. 168 Berger or A-Max = 1.5" difference.

So how many guys are competing at your beloved SRM with sporter weight 7 Mags?

At 400 yards the 270 has 1.5" more drift than the 7RM? I can't have that.

How much extry recoil I got to absorb for this uber-7mm performance at 400y? Do I need to pack around an 8 or 9lb rifle?

Jason

In 8 lb. rifles, a 270/150/2900 vs. 7mm/168/2950 (similar bullet construction to keep things consistent), with appropriate powders to get them there, you're looking at around a 30% increase in recoil energy from the 270 to the 7mm Mag.

For 1.5" less drift at 400 yards, 30% extry recoil with the 7RM seems like a bargain especially if I take a few weeks off between shooting sessions!

Makes me wonder why anyone would bother with a 270?

Jason

two things wrong with this thread. David Petzal and Field & Stream.

nuff said....

What happens when the distance is 300 yards and the wind is 20-25 mph, rather than the "standard" 10 mph used in ballistic comparisons? BC and MV are the trump cards, even when range is short but wind is strong. I'm personally seen the virtues and lack thereof in various cartridge/bullet combos in exactly this type of situation, on targets and fur.

These arguments always bewilder me a bit.

Its the DIFFERENCE between cartridges that justifies having so many of them!

After reading this whole damn thread, I've come to a single conclusion..........


I think I'll just stick with my 7x57

Reading wind is everything, but fellas would rather skullphuck the difference between .500BC and .625 BC

Of course according to some here, but in reality if you have the 270 combo you will be considered gay and people will have doubts about you. On the other hand the 7mm mag combo will allow you to do less with more and that gives the libs ammo to beat you with. Myself I'm just going to make sure I only shoot my 270 and 7 mm Remington Magnum where I can't be seen by the public. The OP needs to get off his butt buy both, use them, gain some personal experience and come to his OWN conclusions based on HIS own experience. Magnum Man

Best post so far..........

No it ain't 'cause like MD said, there isn't that much difference, except at each extreme end, IE 243 and 375.

Most of us could sell at least half of the rifles we own and loose ZERO capability in the field.

Right. I'm with you. So I'll be looking for yours in the classifieds.

You wouldn't know a good post if it bit you on the ass......

If you sold ZERO rifles you would still own ZERO rifles.

That's your lesson for the day.


Travis

The .277" 150 grain Accubond Long-Range is impressive.

Quite a concept.....

Hey azzclown, I've been hunting with the .270 for the last decade. Its all I used last year. I already said I owned a 7 mag model 70 but have never hunted it. I sold it to a relative. I get a kick out of guys like you who think internet forums aren't for questions. This has been a damn good thread so wise up.

Never yet met anybody who could read wind perfectly, and the higher the BC and MV, the larger your margin of error in your wind call without missing the target. A 0.125 difference in BC is a big difference, with a very real wind advantage.

Why not 250 yards and 45 mph?

When the wind really gets to whipping, you need to make a decision as to when a shot is appropriate, and when you need to get closer or change position into or away from the wind. If the shot is really borderline, I'm not going to take it, whether I'm shooting a 7 Mag or a 270.

Where are you getting the .125 difference in BC? Comparing Amaxs to hunting bullets? When the 7 Mag's only trump card is one cheaper bullet that isn't currently being manufactured, and has a questionable track record on game.....it's proponents are really grasping at straws.

Just logged on again for the morning visit, and see this is still going, so used Bryan Litz's Point Mass Ballistics Solver to run some numbers. For the 7mm Magnum I used the velocities for the 168 and 180 VLD's quoted by Tanner, 3000 and 2800 fps respectively, and for the 150 Long Range Ballistic Tip used 2950 fps, because that's what I easily get from the 23.6" (60 cm) barrel of my very accurate CZ 550 .270, using H4831.

The wind drift numbers are for Standard Atmosphere conditions:

180 7mm VLD @2800--- 300 yards 4.6"; 500 13.4"; 800 37.4"
168 7mm VLD @3000--- 300 yards 4.4"; 500 13.0"; 800 36.4"
150 .270 ABLR @ 2950-- 300 yards 4.5"; 500 13.3"; 800 37.2"

Well John, you certainly provided a lot of nits for the pickers to grapple with.

Kudos!

D

Agreed, there is a point where a guy has to know not to shoot. But a bullet that cuts the wind better extends that point a little bit.

See 16bore's post above for the 0.125 difference reference.

Interesting data for the 150 ABLR. Do we know how Nosler derived the BC for those, and whether the BC has been field verified?

John,

Is that LRBT even more magical in the wind than the LRAB?

I assume those numbers are for a 10 mph crosswind?

Tanner's 7RM numbers leave the cartridge a fair bit of breathing room...

Jordan, I agree with you about the higher BC extending that range a bit. It's just that for me, there isn't really a range or set of conditions where I draw a line in the sand. That line is constantly changing due to wind speed and fluctuations, as well as what terrain that wind is crossing, time of day for tracking, proximity to nasty cover or cliffs if wounded, stability of my shooting position, how worn out I feel, a gut feeling about the shot, and probably some other things I can't think of right now.

I'd like to think I err on the side of safety if one of those borderline shots presents itself, but it depends. I do know that I've never felt handicapped if I was packing a rifle that fired a reasonable game bullet at reasonable velocity.

Jordan,

Typical Friday morning brain-fart on my part....

I've fooled around with both the VLD's in the 7mm Magnum and while there is some room for more velocity, I wouldn't call it considerable in a typical factory chambered 24" barrel.

There's actually a little room in the .270 velocity as well, since newer powders have also helped it.

I haven't had a chance to verify the Nosler BC info by shooting the .270 ALR's yet, having just gotten started on load development. Have heard info both ways, but suspect Nosler's numbers are fairly close. Will have to see.

Just for what it's worth... I've run 162 A-Maxes at 3150 in a 26" barreled 7 Rem Mag with Retumbo, without an adverse sign of pressure after 6-7 loadings on the brass. I started using 7828 when it showed tighter vertical dispersion at longer ranges, hence my quoting 3,000fps... there is surely untapped velocity there.

I have never loaded 150s anywhere near 2950 in a .270, though (not to cast doubt on JB's numbers, I just haven't used a powder that would do it, yet). I don't know why we're talkin' 300 yards though. Anything with smokeless powder and a piece of lead in front of it will work that close.

I think most subscribers of F&S would probably be suited better with a .270, if they ever shot....

Tanner

Totally agree. Higher BC and MV just edge my confidence a little in making the shot, when all factors are considered, including the "gut feeling". To contrast a bit more, the SHOOT or DON'T SHOOT call would likely be totally different for me if faced with a shot at game 150 yards away across a coulee, with a 20 mph variable cross wind, near last light, depending on whether I was holding a .30-30/170RN or a .243/105 combo. Talking about wind drift only.

The difference there is obviously more polarized than that between the .270/150 and 7RM/162/180, but my point is that any ballistic advantage, however small, gives me a slight edge in those tough situations, and can affect the decision to shoot, and success thereafter. In a no wind condition, any cartridge/bullet that you have drop data on will work fine as long as the bullet arrives with enough speed to expand

Nowadays I almost think one could make an argument for a 'better' cartridge based on the components one could find available. Hopefully that will change soon however the last two pounds of powder I saw on store shelves (at Christmas-time) was a pound of Steel at Sportsmans and a pound of 7828 at an LGS/hardware store.

Could I interest you in a Ruger 338RCM SS/poly stock? That is the first of mine that is leaving. My safe is mostly full of evil black guns, 7 of 'em IIRC.

John,

I was just ribbin' ya a little Nobody is impervious to the odd brain fart. I know I have my share.

I agree with you. IME a .270 will push a 150 to roughly 3000, just like a 7RM will push a 175 to 3000, particularly with short-bearing surface bullets like the LRAB. To compare apples to apples I'd go 3000 on the .270/150LRAB, and 3000 on the 7RM/175LRAB.

Even a difference of a couple inches of wind drift can really help when the target is only 10-12" in diameter. I've personally seen this advantage at ~300 yards while hunting mule deer on a very windy day...

Most F&S readers would be even better served with a .243 or .260, assuming they could find factory ammo...

Tanner,

Oh, I don't doubt it in a 26" barrel--and as I noted in an earlier post here, I just got 3300 with published data usin Norma MRP and 160 Partition from my 26" barreled 7mm Weatherby--though backed it down to 3250 due to very slight pressure signs.

I also once had a 26" .270, and it got over 3200 with 130's and around 3050 wit 150's, using H4831 and the top listed Hodgdon loads--and there is some room there.

The latest 150-grain data for the .270 from 24" barrels shows 2974 fps from Accurate Magpro, and 2999 or 3302 fps with Norma MRP, depending on whether the bullet's the Sierra GK or Nosler Partition.

You guys are making me think that I need to get off my duff and test some of my pointed 6.5mm 140 Berger Hybrids in ballistic wax and see how they behave.

It can really make my 6.5x47L into an overachiever.

Undoubtedly no overlap there..........

That's the whole idea, its called interlocking fires, as well as a damned good investment.

Entirely applicable to a discussion of hunting rifles.

You brought it up.

Tanner, I've not used the Amax, but I shot the 162gr Hornady HBT some and in my 26" 7RM Hart barrel 3050fps is easy. My rifle has a non standard throat however. Again, for what it's worth IMR7828 has given me the best groups at 300yds too. My range has a 700yd gong and if gongs could run and hide a good 7MM bullet at almost 3100fps would cause it to want to.

My problem with the whole idea of dumbing down the advantages of modern equipment to suit the skill set of the average shooter, is that equipment capability has always determined what can be achieved, not the current skills of the average user. To clarify, the human being is an amazing thing, and is capable of constantly expanding its abilities and capacities to match the tools at its disposal. If we limit what the "average shooter/hunter" is capable of by saying that he really doesn't need any equipment advantage because he doesn't have the knowledge or skills to utilize that advantage, we are limiting the progress of hunters and shooters as a whole.

I'm sure the spear throwers had the same conversations at the advent of the bow and arrow; "we really don't need a stick with a string to throw our sticks farther, the average hunter can't hit an animal much farther than 5 big steps away, anyway". Or with the advent of the first cartridge-firing rifles, shooting "high velocity" bullets- "I can't even see farther than 50 yards anyway, what do I need a rifle that shoots a little bullet that fast for? My .54 front stuffer kills critters great out to 50 yards".

Even in the last 15 years, I would venture to say that the proficient range of the average rifleman has increased significantly. I remember reading 15 years ago that 300 was a bloody long way off. I'd say 400 yards is the new 300 yards with the advances in scopes, powders, and bullets. People increase their skills and knowledge to match what is possible with modern technology and equipment, not the other way around. Progress and ballistic advantages are moved forward one small advantage at a time, and the better the average shooter becomes educated about these small advantages, the better prepared he is to use them and improve his skills to fully utilize them.

well, I've read most of the thread, and I still think the 7 RM is one of those competent calibers, sorta like a .25-06, a .308 Norma, or a .300 H&H, that will do the job for many different hunts. But were I building a muy fuerte rifle for muy grandes, I think it would be a .270 Roy, or 7 RUM, or STW...

I do know where there's a Ruger #1 in 7 RM, which is a nice rifle, and with its 26" barrel and (probably) long throat, it could really stretch the legs of the cartridge. Then again, I also know where there's a .450 Nitro Express that's calling my name, too. Go figure

Well I like the 270 but have decided to remove .277 from the diameters I reload for. Why? because I have 3 7mm rifles, a 7x57, a 280 AI and a 7RM. I am going to sell the 7RM not because it isn't a great cartridge in an accurate rifle but a friend of mine has wanted it for some time and it will do very little my 280AI can't. I have killed one elk with the 7RM and this was done quickly and cleanly using the 175 gr. Hornady pushed to 2900fps. My only real complaint about this rifle is that it is too pretty for me to hunt with.

In that it nips at the heels of its forerunner, the 280 Remington. That's pretty good company.

Just pokin' fun at ya.

Now yer talkin'!! I'd take a 308 Norma any day over a 7 RM.

Your assessment of technology advances is certainly spot on, and I have no problem with those advances per se. One season of hunting with a T/C Hawken showed me why folks were so happy to see the advent of cartridge firearms.

But (addressing the general forum now) with all of these advances in technology and bullet BC's and all, has anybody ever thought about just stalking closer?

Perish the thought!

Free bump^^^^^

I like having options

Sometimes I prefer to stalk closer than necessary, given the conditions. Other times conditions may not warrant getting closer due to time, too many animals in the herd watching me, wind direction, etc. It never hurts to be able to connect near or far

I've owned both. I liked the 7 a lot more. It wasn't as bad a kicker and I didn't have to form brass. For the .308 I resized .338 brass and it ended up too short until like the fifth firing.

I prefer to shoot game at bow range, but Im setup for the long ball too. Like Jordan said, its nice to have options and an all around rifle that works for both long and short shots.

This thread is one of the finest examples of minutia that I have ever seen. A dead horse and a few rattan canes and we would be all set. No one is going to win this argument , or, answer the original question of why Petzel hates the 7mm mag. Please continue as popcorn has been made and this show is very entertaining.

That being said I don't think any one here would give up hunting if limited to either the 270 or 7mm.

After seeing a couple hundred head of big game go down, I cannot think of one instance where a 7mm Mag firing high bc bullets would have been necessary, or even wanted.

Nine posts over four years and you break your silence to spew that?

I can think of several

Don't Know where Ingwe is, but once he see's this thread I am sure he will run out and get a .270.

Wise up?

I bought my first M700 ADL 7mm Rem Mag when I was 15 in the summer of 1970 LNIB with RCBS dies R-P and WW brass with 2 100 ct boxes of 175 gr WW RN's for $125. I replaced the barrel on it in Sept of 2012 3000+ rds in 42 years. 120 gr Hornadies & NBT's , 125 gr RP's ,139 gr Hornady SP's & BTSP's , 140 gr Nosler Solid bases & NPT's, 150 R-P Corelokts and 150 gr NPT's, 160 NPT's & Sierras,168 gr BTHP Sierras, 175 Gr RN WW's, 175 gr Hornady SP, NPTs and NOT 1 factory load thru the barrel while I shot the 1 st barrel off it. Antelope, Whitetail deer, Mule deer, 1 mountain goat and more than a few coyotes fell to it, as solid a experience base as one can come up with. In 1987 I picked up a M700 ADL in 270 Winchester. I haven't shot the barrel off it yet but I have used it to good execution for 26 yrs on Mule deer , whitetails, antelope, and coyotes. During this time frame their have been other 7 mm Remington Mags in my safe as well as 3 other 270's that all got some action in bloodletting.
Yet YOU with a whole decade of 270 use and NONE at all with the 7 mm Rem Mag of experience. You start this thread hoping you can find enough other posters to rubber stamp all your preconceived idea's as gospel as well as badmouth the 7 mm Remington Magnum which you have ZERO personal experience with. YOU ARE the one who asked for opinions as to why Petzal doesn't like the 7 mm Mag , not me, I stated he got old and can't handle the recoil anymore and wrote the article to piss on the 7 mm Mag as well as promote the 7-08. Before one makes intelligent decisions on what works and what doesn't you need to experience them yourself, not just rely on others to provide you with data to make a sound decision. Yet atleast once in this thread you tried to act as a moderator and come up with a conclusion that there is no difference in how the 2 cartridges perfom. Total bullsh*t from you as well as your thinking who is qualified to express an opinion on the subject as well.

Azzclown ,
next time you label someone an AZZCLOWN be very sure you look in the mirror first so you know what one looks like and read your posts out loud so you know what one sounds like. YOU have a nice day. Magnum Man

He's buying one right now.

If someone came crying that he didn't kill some worthy game animal because all he had was a 270, I'm not going to look at the cartridge as the problem.

You're a whole hell of alot older than me. Maybe when I'm an old man like you I'll know everything too and never have to ask questions?

Who was it who said, '"bullets boolits matter more than head stamps'...

(And shot placement trumps all)

To Jordan's point, while I agree technology is awesome and we are living in the good 'ole days, my experience has shown the vast majority of people do NOT rise to the potential of their equipment. They just plain suck and seem content to stay that way. Obviously, most rifle shooting loonys are a different proposition...

Over time people improve as their equipment allows. It takes time, but it happens.

You must have better shooters up there or at least people who WANT to be better!

The people at our range make me shudder and weep for the game animals they'll be 'hunting'!

This thread is just 33 more pages of another cartridge compared to the 270 Winchester.....that should tell us something.

Mojo that's what I was thinking about Jordan's comment.

Maybe someday we'll have a society of equality where .270 shooters will be accepted for who they are--no matter what goes on in the privacy of their gun safe.

Just, hopefully, not while I'm alive!

I am only 59, I don't know everything, the forum is supposed to be a place to learn from others as well as add to your knowledge of their experience. Occasionally you have to discount some because of doubts to it's validity. Sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I have no doubts about your success on whitetails in Penn. with a M760 in 270 and dead is dead. There is no deader or less deader, if you shoot your game and it falls fast enough that your tag ends up on it without a hassle good enuf. I traded for a 7600 in 30-06 this winter to experience it in the heavily wooded environs of the Black Hills of SD. I do my damndest to not ever hunt in a crowded area an option I'm sure you don't very likely have in Penn. I just wanted to experience the pump gun and it's inherent qualities. Most of my hunting has given me the luxury of using a long barreled bolt gun with whatever I wanted it chambered in, to my advantage. One size does not fit all. My posts usually contain a certain amount of levity and dry at best. We can still drink a beer together and shoot the sh*t sometime and both enjoy it. Magnum man

You guys must be surrounded by the laggards of society

I'm still diggin' the 1.5" less wind drift at 400 yards with the 7RM for only 30% more recoil. And, some rifle manufacturers will give you 2-4" of extry barrel for free with a 7RM compared to a 270 Win with 22" barrel! I'll take the free barrel steel over a 22" handy-dandy rifle anyday, but my safe doesn't seem to like 26" barrels. Stupid rifle safe.

Something to think about...

Last month I helped a buddy with his T3 in 7RM. He wanted to shoot the 150gr NPT. We found a very accurate load at ~2950fps, but had to exceed published loads to get there. Since accuracy was outstanding, and we wanted to limit our adventures beyond book loads, we stopped there.

So he has a 7RM that's shooting at 270 Win velocities. That's not a big deal to him, and pretty reasonable for me. We could add more powder, but that's not where we want to go. He could also try another powder and/or bullet but he's done. He's going to shoot the crap outta that rifle with a stockpile of bullets, powder, and primers. And he's not interested in the AMAX, at all, and I can't convince him otherwise.

Now consider this...

I had a T3 in 270 Win shooting the 140gr NAB at ~2950fps. Never killed a critter with that rifle or load, but I can say for certain that it had noticeably less recoil than my bud's T3 in 7RM. Maybe because of 14gr less powder and 10gr less bullet? I'd say that my 270 could more than hang with that 7RM load... I know, I know... we could make an uber-7RM load... and that is what I would do but not everyone wants a match bullet for hunting (like my friend).

The recoil from the T3 in 7RM was not unbearable, but I did a bunch of shooting with the T3 in 270W at 500y and beyond and it was obnoxious after 10 rounds from prone, for me. I think its safe to say that the 7RM would be worse. The T3 is a nice rifle to carry, but excessive recoil from prone probably isn't good for those wanting to shoot a lot to maintain proficiency from field positions? If the solution for joe-average is to carry a heavier rifle, during a hunt that can last days or weeks to fire one or two rounds, that seems like a schitty trade-off unless he's needing a dedicated medium-to-longrange rig.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the 7RM isn't the better LR hunting cartridge, but for the average-joe at the average range, the 270W has always seemed like a baby-magnum. It'll give a flat enough trajectory to use with a duplex out to 400y in a 22" barrel rifle of reasonable weight.

Seems like we need a new thread entitled, "The 7RM spanks the 270W at longrange, can I get an AMEN!" Also seems that the only thing holding the 270 back is the lack of more high-BC bullets.

Jason

Great post 4th Point (of contact?)

You're the first to catch that.

I've attended a pre-jump or two, and I've been told quite often that I had my head up my 4th point on numerous occasions as well.

Was thinking sword or dagger point. Easy to spot the 4th then count from there to size up a 6x6, 6x7, etc. But... those with jump training think otherwise!

The .270 Win is a great cartridge. But to say there is no difference between the performance of it and the 7RM is just plain not telling the whole story.

The only thing that differentiates any cartridge from another, is the bullets available, the twist to stabilize those bullets, and the ability to push them fast enough to be effective.

I hear the 7em em flies straight for about 800 yards. Of course it's still risin' the first 400 or so.

It will definitely shoot flat. I sighted in my 7mm RM at 400 yards and IIRC it had an 8" mid range trajectory. That is definitely flat, and that was with a plain old 150 grain Nosler Partition. It would probably shoot a mite flatter with one of today's high BC wonder bullets.

The 7x64mm is *the* cartridge in this class..Very popular in Europe, but I never hear it mentioned on here.

Hello Pete, it is because those outside Europe that have a rifle chambered in the cartridge already know what they want and have so do not feel the need for other's opinion on the matter.

But it smells just like a .280, only older by a wide margin! Yeah, we know about it, but since it's basically just another 7mm/06, we don't get excited.

Nothing wrong with it, but we've already got it with another name.

What I have noticed is that those folks who've owned riifles in both .270win and a 7x64mm all tend to like the 7x64mm better, typically saying it tends to have less muzzle blast and recoil..

The top comes up for discussion not infrequently over here and I 've heard two main theories, one being the shoulder angle of the cases are different and the other attributing to the fact that the 7x64mm tends to be seen in upper end Euro rifles which some how have better ergonomics.

I am not sure if I buy either theory, but the 7x64mm is certainly a nice round, and is very readily available over the counter in Europe filling the same niche as the .270win and the 30-06..

Pete E, you're onto something.

Bearing in mind how awesome the 7x57 is according to so many, why wouldn't another 7mm of case length make it even more awesome?

Out of interest, what's easier to get where you are, 270 Win brass or 7x64? 270 is a lot easier to get here but we tend to be under the American influence mainly.

- Bob

For loaded ammo, I'd say the .270win is far more common, but the 7x64mm is gaining popularity. For components, you probably have a better choice of heads in the 7mm, but it would be easier to find .270win brass. However, these days with being able to buy b brass online, that's probably no longer a problem..

Well that right there is the whole point!

But if you load it like a 270,never torch either off at more than 300 yards,it's going to smell like a 270 and you're never gonna see the difference.Neither is the guy who buys one and lacks the incentive or disposition to run it at longer distances.

If he shoots both at animals enough,and loads a 7 mag to potential, he will see that a 7 mag expands tough hunting bullets better at distances past 300 yards.

Jordan those are the "laggards" you refer to above. There are plenty of them out there.They don't hangout here.

The guy is getting a heavier rifle, burning more powder,that "free" extra barrel,and a wee jump in recoil for basically nothing in the way of advantage.I figure if you want a 7 mag,treat it like one.

BTW I don't consider either cartridge to be ideal for a person shooting 50-100 rounds strings at gongs and rocks in a afternoon; or for that shoot that rc and dogshooter are running at Wittington.For that sort of thing I'd rather have a 6.5 Creedmoor or the like.You can learn everything you need to know about a 7 Rem Mag with less strenuous sessions.

I know how old you are, I did the math. I only called you old because of the tone you were taking with me. I never had a problem with you on here so I was kind of taken aback when you started hammering me. I'm in my thirties and I'm on the Campfire for two reasons, to have fun and to learn. There is a wealth of knowledge here because there are a lot of guys on here like yourself who have done a lot of things for a lot of years. I like asking questions so I can glean what I can which is pretty much.

Yeah, those 760's and 7600's are good rifles. Very popular here. I've even taken a few antelope out there with one. And yeah, I'd sit down and have a beer with you.

This discussion certainly has has gone downhill. I stand by my previous statement that it is mostly beating a dead horse. When it gets to the point of name calling things have gone too far. Do you act like that when having a face to face conversation?

Everyone has favorite cartridges and there is nothing wrong with that. If what you are using gets the job done under your conditons it is the correct one,period. You cannot argue with meat in the freezer.

Maybe Iam spewing as has been suggested. Us old folks, just turned fifty, tend to do that.

If you keep replying to me you'll double your post count in no time.

When I discuss build ideas and the merit of different cartridges with friends, it usually gets much, much, much worse.


Travis

Amen!! Good post..




I agree...

By now, he'd be LOL-ing.

The laggards comment was said partially in jest. In the short term, there are early jumpers, who are eager to adopt any new advancement in technology, and there are laggards who will eventually come around after all their buddies are already using the technology. But over the long term, the average guy progresses. What's the proficient distance of the average rifle hunter today- 200 yards? 300? What was it 150 years ago- 50 yards? 100?

Jordan,

I agree that the 7RM offers more than the 270 especially for longrange.

But for the average hunter shooting game at 200 yards or less, does it make any difference? Even the occasional 400 yard shot? I think that was the intent of Petzal's article, and what Mule Deer, Goat, and others have been stating. Joe-Average probably doesn't need a 7RM. Joe-Average probably doesn't shoot much to begin with, so the extra recoil from a magnum probably isn't going to help any either.

By the way, all my rifles in 270 are long gone and I probably won't be buying another. But, my next rifle might just be a 7RM for longrange Either that or another 7mm-08, or 6mm-06. Can't decide...

Jason

Jordan,

A bit of advice...

Never underestimate Americans appetite for mediocrity!

MANY of the groups I see shot at the range literally would be touch and go at 200 and definitely 300 yards.

Speaking of 7 RMs...the last one I saw personally was a guy shooting at the bench next to me a couple of seasons ago before hunting season. Wood stocked rifle (Ruger, IIRC) with a low end Bushnell 3-9. He is resting the BARREL directly on three pieces of carpet covered 2x4 pieces to 'sight in'. NO hearing protection. I carry extra muffs and earplugs and offer them to him, but he says,no thanks, it doesn't bother him...

He shot a whole box of Rem factory. I leave the results to your imagination....

(BTW, this is no way a condemnation of the cartridge)

I know what you're saying and in general would agree with it but to be honest, I think the proficient distance of the average hunter is still well under 200 yards.

That's based on helping out on numerous sight in days at the range and watching lots and lots and lots of people who can't hit a 14" gong at 200 yards with the rifle resting on sand bags.

Now I would definitely agree that the "ability to hit stuff way out yonder" of the top 10-20% of hunters has increased markedly over the years and I would attribute that mainly to the widespread use of laser rangefinders coupled with repeatable scope adjustments.

Target shooters were hitting targets at 1000 yards with precise aperture sights or primitive scopes since the 1870's at least. They already knew about wind drift and trajectory - but they also knew the exact range to their targets.

JOC loved the .270 because it gave one a leetle more room for error in estimating ranges out to 300 yards or so. Now people can know to within a yard or less the exact distance of their target out to as far as their rangefinders will lase. Adjust turrets, watch the wind - still the most important art form in the science of shooting - and a .45-70 will lay'em in there. And now today people are taking laptops and portable weather stations into the field to try to reduce the art of wind gauging to as much of a cut and dried computation as possible.

The combination of accurate, perfectly balanced bullets, accurate rifles and good scopes allows us to shoot smaller groups than we used to, but laser rangefinders are the trump card that allows us to adjust those scopes to precisely intersect the path of the bullet and the point we want to hit.

It still takes a certain skill set to breathe, aim and squeeze properly and consistently and that hasn't changed in hundreds of years. And based on my observations of lots and lots of hunters shooting, I'd say that only a small percentage has really mastered those basic skills which then allow them to take full advantage of the technology available today.

Agreed, But IMO if the 7RM is too much gun for the average guy to handle, then the .270 is likely too much, as well. I think the average guy would be better served by a .243 or .260 than any of the larger cartridges.

Great post. Ross Seyfried was dragging around a 3ft long artillery rangefinder decades ago.

That's what I'm talking about! The average guy around here has a cheap RF, so at least he knows when an animal is out of range for him. In JOC's day, most guys would guess, shoot, and pray.

Split the difference and get a 280. Thread over.

16bore,

Evidently after 4 years and almost 4000 posts you haven't learned anything about the Campfire!

These threads are always funny. Like picking fly sch!t from the pepper flakes! 270Win/7RM, out to 400 yards, yeah, the 'average' shooter will never see it.

Petzal just loves to piss people off. Like the letter to him last year asking if he should sell his dad/uncles old Model 70 and get a new M788 or Ruger American, because the new ones are so much more accurate. He said sell it and people freaked out.

Yeah, Dave really likes to yank people's chains. He does it in person too, and so deadpan they can't tell when he's serious, and when he isn't.

He would fit in quite well here, in that case.

Plus one, MD. "Why do fish get caught? Because they take the bait!"!

You could always load 120's mild for practice and a lightened 700LA/Mickey with a #2 or fluted #3 and that would serve nicely for woods whitetails and be able to be fired enough for solid manipulations/skills from field positions.

Then hot load 140's or heavier for longer range hunting. A 280 had a lot going for it.

Except that you could do the same thing in a 270 with 110's and 140's....

The 270 also has the light bullets designed for the 6.8 SPC. An 85 grain TSX going 3800 fps turns the 270 into a really neat point and shoot cartridge. It can also be loaded down somewhat to simulate 243 loads, making an easy shooting round for the recoil sensitive.

The 270 has a lot going; the array of new bullets means it's only getting better with age.

Throw in a 100 to 110g Accubond at zippy speeds 3400-3600fps and you may well have one of the sweetest fallow/whitetail packages for sub-400 shooting that would serve recoil sensitive shooters well.

The 270 doesn't lose out much to the 7mm cartridges as far as versatility goes. Yes there's more product at the heavy bullet end for the 7mm and no doubt many more VLD types for the .284 as well. But the 270 might just be a better choice for the person who wants a light recoiling rifle shooting quality light bullets.

Exactly correct!

The way I look at it, if more bullet than what a 270 provides is needed, or more powder is needed to get it there, I want a lot more. As in a 338 or 375. I don't like a deer rifle that I need to hold with a death grip in order to shoot it well. A 270 can be built in a 7-8 lb. all up (with scope, mounts, ammo and sling) rifle, and remain easy to shoot. The same cannot be said, at least for me, with cartridges generating much more recoil in a similar weight rifle.

.260

Will someone please sell me some .284 160g accubonds?

You can make a 260 smell a lot like a 270, and a 270 a lot like a 7RM...

And a 7mm RM like a .300 Winchester Magnum, and a .300 Winchester like a .338 Winchester Magnum.

But you can't make a 9,3x62 or .375 H&H act much like a .260.

Or chicken salad outta chicken chit....

The 7mm Remington Magnum was suggested by a hunting guide and rifleman who found that any recoil greater than what a 7mm RM produces was just a little too much for good shooting.

That's why it caught on and is popular.
Les Bowman, a Wyoming big game guide who had helped develop the cartridge, praised it. In short order Remington's belted 7mm was far more popular than the others.

Creeping incrementalism fails when you do it backwards..


I figure this conversation is over 50 years old. Back in the 60's, Warren Page did an article for F&S entitled "The Perfect Mule Deer Cartridge", or something like that. Of course Page was one of the people responsible for popularizing the 7mm Magnums as BG cartridges,so it was sort of funny that his choice, especially for Joe Average, was the 270 Winchester.

Among other reasons,he regarded the 7mm magnums as big game cartridges,their power and long range capabilities being superfluous for little old deer,and as much over matched for most shooters as they were for a 300 pound animal.

Of course Page only hunted the world with a 7mm magnum and about everything here as well....so what the hell did he know?

If you read some of what he wrote, he also said he saw more one shot kills with the 243, then any of the magnums. he said people just shot them better.

I haven't read through all of this but I'd like to make sure of one thing in case I missed it. If a drill the shoulders of something furry with a good bullet, do they still die?

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 .625@3k+ is the best I've shot/seen handle wind... in a lot of shooting. I watched Rick whoop everybody's azzes.... shooting .700@2800. 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

I see where you guys are coming from, I do. But for me, the 7mm Mag is past the point of comfortable shootability, when chambered in a rifle I want to carry and actually shoot enough to get good with. I have a lot more fun when recoil and blast is diminished, and that trumps any supposed advantage I may gain in the rarified air past 500 yards. If I don't practice with the rifle because it isn't fun to shoot, any advantage will be lost.

Understood and agreed on all counts...

Tanner

Ditto. I get a fast seven light enough to carry comfortably I don't want to shoot it a bunch. I'm in the middle of putting together two 7mm SAUM's. One pretty much a Sendero weight Savage , the other a 700 magnum taper in an LVSF that needs bedding. We'll see.

Interesting. I've always considered from the standpoint of gains in yards, so to speak. I.E. what a 270 is doing at say 300 yards, a 7 is going to do at "X+125yards" or whatever. If drift is the biggest concern (and should be) then shoot no further than where your ability is to that regard. If 14" is manageable, then .625 BC is it at 500.

But, this thread will die and in six months start all over again with the same answers.

Practice with double hearing protection and a brake, and use a thread protector when hunting

You bet it will! I'd rather have this discussion than one about a "honey-do" list, or something

That is a technique, and I will never hunt again without a Walker's Game Ear.

Not any more......

Bob,
If only we could edit our bad shots like the pop star experts?
John

^^^^^^^ This.

I've had 7.5 lbish fast 7 most of my life. They aren't a picnic from the bench but they aren't that bad either. Light 7mm's are a quick jab from the bench. Not so much with a 7.5 lb fast 30 cal. Its more like a punch in the shoulder from a prize fighter. I'll take the fast 7's all day. Not so much the fast 30's..........

Yes, and headstamp doesn't mean anything either.

Personally I find anything much bigger than a 308 Win in a scoped 7lb rifle quite objectionable for more than about a dozen shots on a bench rest or prone. Couple the weight with the 22 inch or shorter barrel its likely to have and its not a pleasant experience. For me anyway.

I'd much sooner an 8.25lb to 8.5lb rifle in a fast 7 mag or even a 30-06 especially with 165g bullets and up. Most of my rifles are somewhere in this range - I only own about a half dozen I should add to qualify.

When I was a teenager I used to cart an 11lb Mauser 308 Win with a takeoff target barrel for 15km at a time. Now I wouldn't like to go back to that but I don't notice the weight of an 8+lb rifle in the hills much.

I would almost guarantee this type of thing goes on, very often. Seeing army rangers, SEALS, special forces, Israeli badassses, shooting steel and prarie dogs in the wind will prove that they may not hit the target at distance the first shot. In fact often times in the swirling winds they do not, and these guys are the best on the planet. You don't want them shooting at you twice though! Most hunters have zero business shooting at game at 300+ yards anyway, especially with wind. The LR hunting dudes on TV are a bunch of clowns IMO.

Please Bob, I'm beggin' ya. Do tell who said a$$holes were. I told same story more than once, and also argued more than once with some of the so called "celebrity type LR hunters". A couple of them hate me. And I wouldn't have it any other way. Means I got my point across

With regards to the wind conversation, I like the 180gr 7's simply because they provide a larger margin of error with regards to wind drift if shooting across canyons or the like. I personally don't shoot at animals at longer ranges if there's very much wind at all, but you can't always read the wind at 500 yards, so I'll take the 180gr "cushion".

YMMV

I bought a 200 year Ruger 7mm Rem mag in 1976 and have shot 20 elk and many dozens of deer and antelope with it. And a mountain goat. I never knew till now that I didn't need it.
I have shot the last 10 elk, a bighorn ram, and a moose with a .300 Win Mag and I suppose I needed that even less.
I feel so stupid now.

But I ate quite well.

My headstamp can beat up your headstamp.

Man am I glad I didn't read this thread before I ventured half way around the world to kill African game.......

The long range rage will contribute to more failures than successes. When guys choke at 100 yard shots off the bench, the last thing they need is a dial...

I read an article by Terry Wieland where he said a lot of these long range hunting shows are smoke and mirrors and deceptionand they aren't on the level. Like when they shoot an elk at say 900 yards and it collapses in its tracks.

And to think Selby thought highly of 270's and 30-06's......

Wow! That is one old Ruger.

Well if he's trying to stir the pot I think he was successful. For the record I like my 7mag. Yes it's not much more than an 06 or a 270 but it is more. It never hurts to have more and sometimes you just might need it.

I have both and like both a lot. My buddy was hunting sheep in the Yukon back in the early '80s and killed a mountain grizzly with his .270 and 130 partitions. The Grizzly fell at the shot but he shot it again whether he needed to or not.

I will never be able to put up the money it takes to hunt brown bear or grizzly, but I would use a .300 mag 200 partition if I did. But does anyone believe a .270 Win. could not kill a brown bear with a 150 partitions?

I've only killed deer with the 7 mag and .270 and for deer my memory cannot distinguish any difference! I've had dramatic bang flops with both as well as sprints after the hit with both. In regards to deer I think a 25-06 kills just as quickly, but I had a land owner ask me to not bring my 25-06 again to use on his deer!

When I'm in the mood, I personally find a 7 mag more exciting than a .270.

Dave would like to thank all present and future contributors to this thread. Here's what was likely said over a sammich or a non-alcoholic drink a day or so ago (paraphrased) - Once again, readers, friends and others have spoken to my longevity and relevance. Thank you.

MD - thank you for a refreshingly common sense post. Petzel makes me laugh - I like his style - I enjoy what he writes. I don't have enough experience to agree/disagree with what he writes (or any other professional gun writer) so I take everything with a couple grains of salt. Then again my collection of hunting rifles is relatively small and "plain" - 2 30-06, 1 7x57, and a .243. All very poor choices I know....

Whatever my LRF says, I just add 400 yards to it and call it good and use a short barreled 270 with Partitions as well-Just hate that .284 bore.

I never understand it when .277 guys say they hate .284 bores. But you're certainly not the first I heard say it. I like both.

Same as the .277 haters. Sometimes the rig itself takes precedent over the chambering. I have a late 60's PF M70 270 that I wouldn't have bought on a dare, but it belonged to a late family member so I roll it. Unfortunately it shoots too....

I was being sarcastic.
I hunt and compete at distance with 7mm's.
I don't have a 270 Win., but I don't hate them.

Who are the .277 guys that hate .284s?

I agree with Tanner and what Dogshooter says about the magnum 7's.It was always good even with yesterday's bullets,as a LR cartridge.Moderate recoil (for what you get),and reasonable rifle weight have always been by products of the cartridge.

I've been puzzled by folks who say a 7mm or .300 would be too heavy to tote around the mountains.

You can build or buy a rifle in ANY chambering exactly the way you want it. I'll only own 7.5 # hunting rifles from now on. I couldn't care any less about how much powder it uses or how heavy the bullet it pushes happens to be.

You only have to shoot them in the field once

You carry them for days.

Personally I tend to agree, but I shoot a lot and even at a semi-advanced age can take more recoil than some. The first Ultra Light Arms rifle I sot extensively was also the first .300 Winchester Magnum I shot extensively, and it weighed right around 7 pounds with scope. I mostly hunted with 200-grain bullets at 2900 fps, and had no problems. Have hunted with a 7-1/2 pound .338 Winchester Magnum for over 15 years and killed a pile of game from Alaska to Africa.

But I once guided a guy after pronghorn who thought a .338 Winchester was the ideal all-around North American cartridge. I wouldn't argue with that, except he couldn't shoot it worth a damn, and thanks to shooting it too much flinched even when somebody loaned him a .25-06. I finally had him use my .220 Swift, and after flinching BADLY on the first shot, he settled down and shot it very well. He killed a very good pronghorn the next morning with a perfect shot at 150 yards.

One of the problems with many Campfire threads is most shooters assume (whether out of ignorance or arrogance) that everybody else is exactly like them. But I've guided several people who couldn't handle the recoil of a 9-pound 7mm Remington Magnum, despite shooting quit a bit--or perhaps because of shooting quite a bit. Have also hunted with world champion shotgunners who shot tens of thousands of rounds for so many years they couldn't handle the recoil of 1-ounce loads in an 8-pound gas autoloader. But they couldn't stop shooting, because they were addicted.

Humans vary considerably, the reason threads like this go on and on and on and....

John,

Just a little trick I learned with novice/first timers. Be sure to MAKE them wear muffs that muffle sound as much as possible, and don't let them hear you shoot if they don't have muffs on.

All guns kick less if you can't hear them.

Bruce,

Believe me, all the people mentioned were muffed to the max. All of this took place LONG after you and I started shooting when any sort of ear protection wasn't "manly."

In recent years I've also found that properly fitting rifle stocks make just as much difference as ear protection. Of course, that wasn't manly for many years either!

luv2safari
I have seen that in print a time or two, also.
I believe one thing that will make a person flinch for a long time afterwards is to get severly scoped.

In and of itself, it isn't, until you start living out of a pack for days, and carrying all that schidt uphill. Then the weight of EVERYTHING matters, even the rifle, to a point. I'd be the first to agree that you can reach a point of diminishing returns on a rifle PDQ by stripping weight off of it.

Phug it. Let's all just build 7.5 pound 50 BMGs. We only shoot it once in the field.

The limit is different for everybody, but somewhere around 20 lbs. of recoil (often less) is where most people hit the wall in terms of utmost field accuracy. Far better to err on the side of less recoil and more shootability then the alternative. A rifle with less recoil and blast will be shot more than the fire breathing alternative. Every time.

He wasn't advocating a 7.5 pound 50 BMG.

He was simply stating that you don't have to forgo having a magnum if weight is a concern.

Which is true.

A brake and a stock of proper design that fits the shooter will mitigate any increase in recoil.

Exactly. And it also depends on various physical factors, which don't always depend on condition or age, but injuries or simple joint pain.

Somebody once put said, "Recoil is only temporary, but gravity is constant." They were right, but also wrong: For some people recoil is just as constant as gravity. And if they don't recognize that fact, then the accuracy, ballistic coefficient and "killing power" that's been pounded into cyberspace dirt here don't matter.

Well said.