I have always loaded from my old Hodgdon reloading manual and happened to look at their online reloading data. I discovered that my old load for my Rem Model 700 BDL 7mm Rem mag is way over their recommended maximum load as listed in Hodgdon's online data . I compared my old Hodgdon book with the current online data and found huge discrepancies in the listed volumes for H 4831. My old 7 MM with 160 gain Sierra Spitzer, 65 grains H4831 Federal 215 primer exceeds the60 grain maximum. What's happened?
I'm confused. I have used my old load safely in several 7mm Rem Mag rifles for the last 20 years.

It means they now have corporate lawyers. If you want another reference, the older Hornady manual from the 1970's is even hotter. If my memory is correct they had 72 grains of H4831 for a 139 Hornady SP.

Books are only guides. Your rifle will tell you the max load, not some lawyer reviewed paper.

Many of us don't believe lawyers have much to do with a general trend toward lower powder charges in published data. I strongly suggest looking at the writings by John Barsness including Gun Gack and generally using a chronometer to compare loads in the field with book loads and so much more.

I do believe that changes in pressure measurements are the main reason for lower charges.

As more different lots of powder have been tested and with changes in sourcing sometimes the labs have just tested a faster lot of powder than they did before.

I am by no means saying this has happened in any particular case. I am saying H4831 has not been exactly the same powder of the years. There has been some talk that H4831 has varied enough to make some of Jack O'Connor's earlier published loads for his pet .270 less desirable with later lots of H4831 from different sources. Things have definitely changed over the years. Since I have no control and little knowledge of possible changes I mostly go with the latest editions of data books and fresh powder within the limits of my pocketbook.

In the special case of the 7mm Remington Magnum ballistics from this very board an earlier thread titled Re: Pressure excusions/spikes ? for MD & others

Further much of the faith in pressure signs is misguided and many loads in the field are simply over pressure without warning signs. See extensive discussion about changing velocities and pressures with the 7mm STW and dropping charges and velocities with more testing after the introduction.

And most important, a series of over pressure loads will eventually lead to a rifle that will fail at previously safe pressure loads.

Not something I'd worry about.

In 40 years of loading the cartridge all over the map and maybe 20+ rifles, I've never had an incident of any kind.

Despite the issues with pressure swings I notice the Nosler Manual loads deliver excellent velocities. I'd expect they are to SAMMI spec.

Whether folks worry about it or not, and safe practices will keep most people out of trouble most of the time it's still true that old data has issues

Frex this from the O'Connor Center in Lewiston Emphasis added. H4831 has changed several times and few people use O'Connor's 62 grain load with today's powder and bullets and cases and primers. It's not just the powder that has changed over time.

Thanks for the advice.

Have you had any problems loading the 7 Rem Mag? Blown primers/cases etc.?

The stuff from the JOC center is interesting but pretty basic.

Again I would not worry about it.

As to pretty basic I go along with Bruce Lee - advanced is just basic done right. I very seldom worry about what other people shoot in their own firearms on their own property. I do sometimes take an interest where I am a range safety officer. I will say folks wouldn't use Jack O'Connor's load of H4831 in a .270 and it's not obvious that using H4831 loads of the same vintage in a 7mm Remington Magnum is any wiser. As with the .270 I'd be more inclined to try IMR7828 to match old H4831 performance in a 7mm Remington Magnum.

I don't blame on lawyers what I think is associated with the change from copper units of pressure.

My own experience of drastic overloads is pretty much limited to handguns.

The most I can say about the 7mm Remington Mag is that I was foolish enough to swap a really nice .270 for a 7mm Remington Magnum thinking it was a significant step up in performance.

It wasn't.

I found the 7mm Remington Magnum and the .243 Winchester to live up to their reputations for erratic internal ballistic performance (not so much erratic on game which it wasn't but the 7mm, despite Les Bowman's praise and Warren Page's do everything Mashburn, was no better if no worse than anything else even close) .

I replaced the .243 with a 6mm Remington and did not directly replace the 7mm figuring I either wanted more or would settle for less.

Bob

I know that nothing is the SAME as it was 40-60 yrs ago.
Yes, we need common sense.
There is 1fact that's constant - brass is the weakest link.

IMO as we 'APROACH' dangerous pressure, THE brass will indicate it---
so we GO the other way.

I went for several yrs w/o a chrono but since having one since 1981---
as MD says compare velocities with PRESSURE tested loads.
GET a chronograph ! ! !

Some of US have components from 40yrs ago. I have @10 lbs of Surplus 4831. I've saved it for my 284 W and JOC's pet.

There are newer & in some cases (pun not intended) better powders available but this is a KNOWN quantity.

Jerry

Here is a page from the 44th Lyman Manual.(1967)It's a bit different than todays loadings.I don't load my 7mags quite as hot as these loads,but my loads are closer to these than most of the modern published data.Todays loads are just a belted 280.The pressures are kept below 60,000psi.

Gee....my experience has been that the 7 Rem Mag and the Mashburn run circles around the 270(which is a sentimental favorite but facts are what they are).

I got all three right here...plus maybe another 8-10 rifles in the hands of friends chambered for them all.We won't count the others I've owned over the last 40 years.

The biggest problem I have seen with the 7 Rem Mag is that velocity varies so much rifle to rifle due to things like throats and barrels and who's loading what on what day, that you run into all kinds of disagreements on velocity.

Again take a look at the Nosler Manual to get a more realistic assessment of what the cartridge will do..

I am constantly amazed at how the cartridge gets such a bad rap; yet no one ever says that the 264 has any issues. But Ive found it far touchier to load to potential than the 7 Rem Mag.

One of the top ten BG cartridges in the world yet it befuddles a lot of people.

I agree on the 243...


Here's group from another one of those quirky, dangerous 7 Rem Mags...Velocity about 3125 as I recall.I could shoot the barrel out with that load without and incident.

You want to see some really flat primers, try Elmer's pet 2400 load in the .44 mag with today's 2400.

I load my 7mm RM with H1000 and the 150 Nosler Ballistic Tip. I have been using this combination for 25 years and have been keeping records from every batch of 50. I have been getting a MV of 3145 with an extream spread of 86 fps. This has been pretty consistent whether during 90* summer or 15* winter. Every thing I have read about the 7RM says the problems don't occur until the 175 gn and up bullets come into play and usually only then with eroded throats.

Bob,

Is that from a rifle with a SAAMI spec throat? I thought you have or had several 7RM's w/ a slightly modified throat.

David

I heard the part about eroded throats.

I'll have POPCORN when I get back.

Good luck Bob

Jerry


ps, I have many things to say from my experience but I don't have time today. Suffice it to say, I agree with you.

David yes it is a SAMMI spec throat. I used to set them up longer to seat bullets out but stopped doing it at some point.

Here is the rifle.

I was just looking at some QL data on another site, involving the 162 and 175 gr bullets with newer powders like MagPro, Retumbo, etc.

The velocities were the same/same I've been seeing from the cartridge for years with the 160-ish gr bullets at a bit over 3000 fps,and 175's maxing at a bit over 2900 fps.These were all at pressures of what QL says is around 59,000 psi.

By the time you bumped past those velocities QL was screaming for you to stop as you got over 60,000 psi.

I understand QL is a "model" ut it's still interesting how close it is to what I have seen from quite a few rifles of my own over the years. I always used to say when you see 3050 with a 160 from a 24" barrel, you've arrived.

No wonder I have not had a lot of problems with the cartridge all these years....

Robt,

One big difference in the data from your old Hodgdon manual and today's data is H4831. I don't know which manual you have, but my No. 25 and 26 manuals shows exactly the same maximum load, 66.0 grains with "154-162' grain bullets. This lumping together of bullet weights was common back then, mostly because almost all bullets were cup-and-cores, so produced similar pressures.

It was also common to reproduce exactly the same data in succeeding versions of the same manual, which saved time and money. But there have been three basic versions of H4831 over the decades. First was the original military-surplus powder designed for 20mm cannon rounds, which just happened to be perfect for the .270 and many other cartridges.

The mil-surp powder ran out in the mid-1970's, so Hodgdon started having a similar powder made in Scotland, also called H4831. This version was reportedly a little "hotter" (faster-burning) than the original mil-surp stuff. I don't really know if it was hotter, since I had enough original H4831 to see me through until the next--and present-- "Extreme" version of H4831 started being made in Australia.

I do know that my remaining sample of the mil-surp H4831 (a can I opened last year) is considerably "hotter" than my present batch of Australian Extreme powder. I shot some of both in my present .270, using 130-grain Hornady Spire Points, Winchester cases and Winchester Large Rifle primers, all from the same lots, and 61.0 grains of mil-surp powder resulted in almost 100 fps more velocity than 61.0 grains of Extreme H4831.

All of this is only to demonstrate how much H4831 has varied over the years. It still varies somewhat from lot to lot, like all powders. But the other thing that's changed is bullets. As mentioned, they used to almost all be cup-and-cores, but many other bullet-types started appearing in the 1980's, and today there are far more. Each can produce very different pressures with the same charge of powder.

As somebody else has already mentioned, during this period the method of measuring pressures changed from copper-crusher to electronic systems. Some even older manuals worked up data the same way handloaders do, by looking for pressures signs. (Speer "worked up" data for many years, even though they had copper-crusher testing equipment, apparently because nobody at the Speer plant knew how to run it consistently.) Today's electronic equipment indicates that ammo worked up by handloaders often produced pressures in the 70,000 PSI range, or even higher. Whether this is dangerous or not is another question, since much depends on conditions of both the rifle and weather when the ammo's fired.

At any rate, powder and bullet companies eventually realized, partly due to actually blowing up a few test rifles, that lumping various bullets into one category didn't work.

This is one reason why the exact same data 7mm Remington Magnum that ran in several older Hodgdon manuals was eventually updated. The 27th Hodgdon manual, published in 1998, does not lump 154-162 grain bullets together. Instead it lists separate data, though still in CUP (copper units of pressure), for the 160 Nosler Partition and 162 Hornady SPBT. The maximum load for the Partition is only 60.0 grains, but for the 162 Hornady it's 64.0 grains. However, both maximum loads produced exactly the same amount of pressure in the test barrel, 49,800 CUP.

These days some of Hodgdon's on-line data still lists older CUP loads, but like all of the industry their data is being switched over to PSI readings from electronic equipment, though first for newer powders and bullets. This is why the on-line data for 160 and 162 7mm Remington Magnum loads is exactly the same CUP loads listed in the 27th manual.

No doubt the Sierra bullet you're using produces pressures much closer to the 162 Hornady than the 160 Nosler Partition. So the 162-grain data is probably much closer to what's actually happening with your load--which is then only one grain over the maximum charge listed.

Along with something like five iterations of 4831 the pressure specs for the 7RM and 243 were reduced at some point when they were both loaded with 7828 Data powder the bulk form of what we have now. Both had pressure excursions and wide variations due to the different chamber specs and throat erosion.

Different methods of pressure testing and different barrels will produce wide variations in pressure. As the old copper crusher receivers were phased out the electronic psi barrels gave different and probably more accurate results.

On a long throated almost free bored 7RM I just split the difference between the 7RM and 7 Weatherby. I use only powders slower than R22 so it is difficult to put too much powder in the case. Max loads that fill the case with light compression only work best for me and an overcharge will spill out of the case.

M D -

W/O deleting so much to quote you, let me do this:


Mule Deer:
"The mil-surp powder ran out in the mid-1970's, so Hodgdon started having a similar powder made in Scotland, also called H4831. This version was reportedly a little "hotter" (faster-burning) than the original mil-surp stuff. I don't really know if it was hotter,.... "

I STILL have most of a pound made in 1981 from Scotland. I HAD to REDUCE the charge by 2 grains to stay close to the Surplus.

Mule Deer:

"considerably "hotter" than my present batch of Australian Extreme powder. I shot some of both in my present .270, using 130-grain Hornady Spire Points, Winchester cases and Winchester Large Rifle primers, all from the same lots, and 61.0 grains of mil-surp powder resulted in almost 100 fps more velocity than 61.0 grains of Extreme H4831."

Yes - indeed Surplus AND H 4831 (newly manuf) have VARIED considerably. Hence I simply quit using it. IMR 7828 is slow enuff to give +/- 3100 fps and NOT blow primers.

I can't verify these thing on the net....

but if anyone want to come by, we WILL graph diff lots.

Jerry

If you look at the 139 jacketed chart.
I HAVE 1 700 RM that loves 68 gr IMR 4350.

I have 'another' 700 that 67 gr = the other rifle in vel & accuracy.

I also have (1 has passed) 4 friends with 700s and their rifles ALSO tapped out at 67 grs.


I and WE have USED these loads for years. I have ammo loaded TODAY w/ 67 gr IMR 4350, 139 HBTSP = [3300] FPS .


Maybe that scares 'some' but I/we have shot 100s of rounds w/o blowing primers AND good accuracy.

Jerry

Rob,

I have the Sierra 5th edition manual and it shows 63.6 grains of H4831sc @3000 fps as the max load for that bullet in the 7mm RM. I would agree with the folks who replied that your load is probably fine.

I have been using the Hodgdon online data more lately because I am transitioning to their newer powders specifically IMR4451 & IMR7977. I have also noticed some strange looking data there.

They show the 270 Win getting 2940fps with a 150gr Hndy SP & 60.8 grains of 7977, while the 7mm RM with a 150gr Partition gets only 3042 with 70.9 grains of the same powder. That is 10 extra grains of powder for a 100fps increase in velocity. doesn't make much of a case for the 7mm.

My copy of Nosler #6 shows the big 7 getting well over 3200fps with 150 grain bullets & both IMR 4350 & 4831.

I don't own a 7mm RM so I haven't tried any of those loads, but I do have a pound of 7977 that I am going to try with 150s in my 270.

Bob

General Comment: It's one thing to look at the books for 270 velocities and compare them to 7 Rem Mag; it's another thing entirely to get those velocities.

And that can be as true for the 7RM as the 270. So looking at single data sources and saying ......."Oh look the 270 gets 2940 and the 7 RM gets 3040...not so hot" is easy to do.

But when the 270 only chirps off 2840 at the range and the owner says "WTF"? and the 7 RM (owing greater powder capacity) gets the same 150 to 3140 or so the differences become more apparent.They were never "huge" to begin with....

Point being....day in and day out, rifle to rifle the case with the larger capacity will win the velocity race and if it doesn't something, somewhere, is not equal.That simply will never change.

And of course there are the 160-162 gr bullets in the 7 RM at 3050 or so; and the 175 at over 2900 fps. No 270 loads can touch that. That's a 175 gr bullet at the same velocity a 270 gives a 150.

It's maybe best to think of the 7RM as picking up in bullet weight and velocity where the 270 leaves off. If you aren't realizing that potential that's your fault.

Show me what the rifle does in real life...not just in manuals.

10 gr more powder? Of course! That's how it gets more velocity!

I've never dropped a bull elk on a distant ridge with a 7 Rem Mag and said to myself..."Gee....I wish I had done that with 10 gr less powder.

Who thinks that way?

But hand loaders think that way because their perspective gets skewed by nutty theories like "efficiency" while leaving performance on the table...which is just another way of saying...I lost 200 fps but I did it with 10-12 gr less powder. Whoopee!

That is SSOO low on my list of important shidt I don't even think about it.

Not an improvement?

I dunno......

Bob -

Yeah, we've got a few here on the C F who think likes this:


Bob's Post Above:

"I've never dropped a bull elk on a distant ridge with a 7 Rem Mag and said to myself..."Gee....I wish I had done that with 10 gr less powder. frown

Who thinks that way?"
----------------------

Efficiency is great but it's 'usually' at the expense of performance.

I just bought a 'new to me' 4X4 Full Size truck. I've had 2 small trucks. 1 a GMC Sonoma & 2. a Ford Ranger Edge.
I thoroughly enjoyed having even 4x4 transportation at greater MPG. BUT...

The smaller trucks can't haul, pull, & STOP the load of a Full Size truck.

Performance comes AT a Price---trucks/rifles.

Jerry

When you're driving 300 miles a day, a more efficient vehicle that still gets you from A to B starts to make a lot of sense. The big 4x4 comes in handy when pulling a trailer in a blizzard.

Trucks/rifles.

Case capacity has its place, and I'm no detractor of the 7RM, 7WSM, and the like, but some guys like to practice and shoot more than a little, and 10-12gr per shot adds up to a fair bit more practice per $. It's not just the 10gr difference during the kill shot, but the thousands of shots taken during practice sessions that matter. It's easy to add a couple of extra Mils to the elevation dial, and 40gr of powder pushing a 162 at 2700fps compared to 68gr pushing the same bullet at 3080fps equates to a bunch more trigger time learning the wind and getting rock-solid dope, per pound of powder. There are times/places for performance at all costs, and others where efficiency leads to better outcomes.

I find this entertaining. I was sitting on ridges in both Colorado and Wyoming this year elk hunting thinking if I only had a rifle capable of shooting 10 grains more bullet with the same BC, with 10 grains more powder to arrive at the same velocity - I could really kill an elk!

I bet both elk I shot are really pissed that they died from a bullet weighing 10 grains less and shot with 10 grains less powder. Maybe I could get a rifle that weighs an extra pound to get the same level of recoil.......

Jordan: I got more than one rifle,chambered for different cartridges.

Some have lots of capacity,and some not so much.

Bob,

I'm wasn't trying to say anything about efficiency or that the 270 can keep up with the 7rm with the same weight bullets. Physics being what it is, more powder capacity should equal more velocity. My comment was aimed more at the data. If you read my post you can see that I quoted Nosler #6 data showing 3200+ with 2 powders for the 7rm with 150s. In fact Nosler #6 lists 5 powders that will get you over 3100fps with a 150 in the 7RM. I freely acknowledge the ballistic superiority of the big 7.

I guess what I was trying to say is, doesn't someone at Hodgdon look at this data and say, why is it that our data says that the 270 win gets almost as much velocity with a 150 grain bullet as the 7mm RM and with 10 grains less powder? That can't be right, can it? Even though the 7 is handicapped by a lower map it should still beat the crap out of a 270.

What it boils down to is that my 10 year old printed loading manuals are obsolete. IMR4350 and IMR4831 powders are on the way out. I am trying to get a handle on the new products, that is why I am looking to the website for information, and it is hard not to notice some discrepancies.

Bob

I have never used anymore than 65 grains of IMR 4350 with a 140 gr. Bullet in my 7 mags. Mostly use 64 for years.

Bob,

Exactly. You get where I was going with that...

Here is a point I believe is involved in the new load data. If the powder company pressure tests a load at 60,000PSI with 66gr H4831 and a 160gr bullet. The data books that do not list pressures are likely using a standard 5% reduction on the max powder charge to take into account lot to lot variation. A very good reason to use the latest Lyman data book and the bullets they tested. Just look at the Quick loads software data. It uses 10% as a baseline.

Yep, Jordan, there is a time and place for everything.

I reckon the difference with me is, I've already DONE the loading, graphing, practice for many years. I've already paid the $$$.

For many yrs. guns, rifles & handguns, loading, graphing, experimenting, practice & hunting WAS/WERE my ONLY hobbies.

I did not fish, golf, or many other things. There is NO telling how many lbs. of powder, bricks of primers & bullets
that I shot. So I have B T D T.

I have determined what performance please me. Recoil is not a hindrance or deterrent for me.

So when it comes to hunting rifles- I don't run hundreds of miles burning more fuel - if you get my drift.

Jerry

Jerry,

I'm right there with you, but marksmanship is a perishable skill, and the only way to be truly proficient with a given rifle and load is to keep on amassing spent primers with said rifle...

Yup!

Thanks to everyone for their reply. I'm going to shoot sparingly the remaining supply of loaded cartridges containing my original load of 65 grains of H 4831 and 160 grain Sierra spitzers made from my old can of
H 4831. When that can is used up and replaced with a recent manufactured lot of H 4831, I'll switch to the new revised loading data. Thanks again for the replies to my query.

I find the recoil argument a bit interesting as well.

I freely admit to being purulent (look it up ) but recoil from a lightweight 7 mag is objectionable to me. Lets assume Kimber MT - one in 270, one in 7RM, both weigh 6.5lbs.

My current 270 load, 150 gr bullet, 60 grains Re 26, 3040 ft/sec = 29.5 ft/lbs moving 16.3 ft/sec

My former 7RM load (26" brl), 160 gr bullet, 70 grains H1000, 3050 ft/sec = 36.2 ft/lbs moving 18.0 ft/sec

Different calculators will yield different absolute numbers but the magnitude between them is the same. You get ~ 25% more recoil with the 7 RM over the 270 - for what gain? 10 grains more bullet weight? You have to add 1 lb of rifle weight to get the same level of recoil. The recoil numbers don't actually tell the whole story. To me the recoil velocity is the difference. I find anything moving much over 16 ft/sec to feel like a punch to the shoulder. Recoil velocity is why heavy rifles feel more like a push then a punch. The recoil energy is still there but its not coming back at you as fast.

I took a beating for bringing this up in September but physics is physics. The 7RM doesn't shoot any flatter and bullets don't arrive with more velocity. If you believe kinetic energy, the 7 RM does land with 1-200 more ft/lbs. If you want to run one of the bigger 7 mags, yeah the 270 can't run with it - but we could have a long discussion about performance, rifle platforms, hunt objectives, and various tradeoffs. I'd submit with todays bullets/powders in smaller cartridges in lighter rifles cover more ground than rifles/bullets/powders of 30-40 years ago - mainly because rifles are lighter and smaller cartridges don't recoil as much. As Jordan pointed out, people shoot lighter recoiling cartridges more leading to better shooters.

The 270 Kimber Montana with Re 26 and 150 grain bullets leaves nothing on the table compared to the 7 RM. It is a very good mountain rifle.

Flame suit on.

If you're going to be buying new powder, you would do yourself well to look at a couple of the new numbers, such as Reloader 26.

As to the 7RM, I've yet to hear of anybody having any actual problem when loading it the max or not. Much ado about nothing, since there is so much safety factor already built into the data, including the old stuff. Nobody has been blowing themselves up since back in Elmer Keith's day.

I'm with you and Bob on this one - I've run 2-4 grains over the 58-60k psi max loads for years in 4-5, 7 RM without issue. The only issue I ever had was with 140 TSX when they first came out. It turns out my 7RM at the time had a min spec chamber. Book max of IMR 4831 ran 3300+ in my rifle - and tight extraction, cratered primers, etc. I only shot 2 to figure that out.

In my 24" barrel 7RM, I ran them routinely to 3200 with 140's, 3000 with 160's and 2900 with 175's. Use one of the slower powders, keep to those vels and there shouldn't be an issue. You may be able to run them slightly faster but I didn't and still don't think the extra 50 ft/sec is worth risking running the redline on a known problem with the 7RM, even though I've never witnessed it or was aware of it if it did happen.

Well....who builds 6.5pound 7 mags? Thats too light.

I need to try something else in the 270.....despite a few thousand rounds of both I have never been able to get any bullet from a 270, to stay with a 7 mag and bullets from 140-160 gr to 600 yards.



The 7 mag loads behave like a 300 magnum.

I agree on building a 6.5 lb 7 mag but that is what my 270 weighs. I've had several 7 mags that weighed 7.0 lbs and didn't like the felt recoil.

My point is the 270 with Re26 is dang close to the 7RM with 150-160 grain bullets. It will never beat it because of the bigger boiler room of the 7 RM hull. Its not the 'beating it' point that I'm emphasizing - its the sum total of the package - light rifle, viable elk bullet, recoil. The 7RM and its brethren will always win the speed race but, at least to me, the 'cost' is recoil - some may find it objectionable, some don't. I could live the rest of my days with a 7.5 lb 7RM - but it doesn't do anything that my current 270 package isn't doing. And my 270 is lighter. I wish I lived closer to NH, I'd come up and we'd shoot them side by side to see how they really compare. If I send you my rifle and loads, want to run them side by side?

The last several posts have all been spot on.

One thing to consider, however, is that if a guy wants to compare performance between a .270 Win and a standard 7Mag, in fairness we should really look at a 7Mag with a SAAMI MAP rating closer to the 65k level of the .270. The 7RM is rated at 61k and the 7WSM, while having slightly less case capacity, is rated at 63.8k, which while not equal, is more comparable to the rating of the .270.

Check Alliant's R26 data for the 7WSM and 162gr bullet, and you'll find 3171 fps with 71.2gr of powder in a 24" barrel. That's a solid step up from the 150/3040 .270 load. So 32% more recoil may be worth it in this case. Or alternatively, for 40gr of powder a 7-08 can push that same 162gr bullet at 2700 fps, which gives 19.1 ft-lbs and 13.7 ft/s of recoil in that 6.5 lbs rifle, which is a solid step down from the .270 in recoil (the .270 has 39% more recoil) for similar ballistic performance. Here's how they stack up at 500 meters in theory (atmospherics at my usual shooting spot used for all loads). There's no 150 ELD, so I used the slickeriest 150 I could find:

7-08/162ELD/2700, 19.1 ft-lbs/13.7 fps (recoil via JBM), drop (mrad) 2.9, wind (mrad, 8mph full value) 0.6, velocity 2091 fps, energy 1571 ft-lbs

.270/150VLD/3040, 26.6/16.2, 2.3, 0.7, 2203, 1615

7WSM/162ELD/3171, 35.1/18.6, 1.9, 0.5, 2506, 2257

It's all just a sliding scale of performance and trade-offs. There is no one right answer.

I have never been upset with the recoil of a 7mm magnum with the sole exception of the Kimber Montana, 7mm WSM and Federal factory ammo that was goosing 160 gr bullets at 3260.....geezus.

I build 7 mags to come in at 7.5-7 3/4 pounds . This has worked well for years. My 270's come in about 7 pounds or so.

Good post and points - but the difference in trajectory using the bullets I did for comparison (Nosler Partition), the difference is 3.8 inches less drop at 500 yards, 1.2" less drift, ~ 300 ft/lbs. I'm not good enough rifleman to capitalize on that advantage. Plus I get to deal with that much more recoil to achieve 3171.

In my mind, and it might just be me, the 270/Re 26/150 Partition is hard to beat for an overall package.

My only issue is the RL26 stuff is brand new. The QL data I have seen shows close to 65,000 psi, is that correct?

And while it has the 270 getting a bump,no one yet has told us what kind of bump the 7 RM gets with new powders since it's been laboring at 59,000 psi for decades. If we load a 7 RM to 65,000 psi what do we get? Blown to Kingdom Come?

Of course every time you mention higher velocities for the 7 Rem Mag you get slammed with pressure swing problems and other issues preventing it from gaining any more velocity. If the cartridge is such a menace (along with the 243) I wonder why the companies keep producing it?

So I still have a problem imagining that the 270 can keep up in the face of its smaller capacity.


My son shot this last week. He rarely shoots. He said it's a pussy cat.I watched and the rifle never left the bags. kew recoil can be subjective but I have never found a 7mm magnum to be abusive in a rifle of proper weight.

I hear you guys on the 7 RM. Re 26 changed my whole view of the 270. I have no doubt it will give the 7RM an extra 100 ft/sec - and anything else in that case capacity. I think my deal is that I get 7RM-esque performance in a lighter rifle with less recoil. I dig all those things alot.

Since you brought up the 7mm-08 I'll chime in with my experience this year. My brother killed a nice buck at 534 yards with his T3 in 7mm Rem Mag, 160 AB at 3000 fps at the muzzle. It wasn't any deader than the buck I shot in the same field a day earlier at 541 yards with my 7mm-08, 140 Partition, 2870 fps at the muzzle.




P

The same can be said for the 7-08 vs .270. Sliding scale

Bottom line is that there is ALOT of overlap in the cartridges available for any given hunting appkication.

We are blessed (or perhaps cursed ) with many combinations of cartridges and bullets, all of which can perform very similarly in the field

I don't recall bringing up the 7/08 but maybe I did(?).

JOC made the same observation 5 decades ago.

I don't think you're wrong at all. My little M70 270 WSM runs the 150's out at 3150 pretty easily. I'd hunt anything with that combo as well.

I know a 7 has more but honestly we're all splitting hairs since good Bullets equalize what we probably see in killing power.

Besides we all know the Mashburn Super whoops them both

Bob, have you ever seen an exception - here on the fire - to guys touting
eg 243 is just as good as 25-06, 25-06 = 270, 270 = 7 RM et. al.
et. al.





Jerry

Hear people say it all the time.

Do I believe there's no advantage to the 7 Rem Mag over a 243?

No.

Obviously neither do I.

I 'sometimes' wonder if they have convinced themselves.

I also have another idea 'why' that is but........

edit: MERRY CHRISTMAS

Jerry

Exactly my experience, and I am a small frame guy, 7RM knocks me around a lot but doesn't hurt.

When I go to the range I usually fire 40 to 60 rounds often in a tee shirt. With a decent recoil pad my shoulder is not sore the next day...

However, I cannot say that about any of the three .308 Win. rifles I have owned. They may not knock me around as much, but they abuse my shoulder with that quick punch. Sometimes I'm sore after only 15 rounds from a .308. I know it is not logical and can't explain why, but that is what my shoulder says loud and clear.

I wasn't referring to you.




P

Oh.