On paper the 7mmRM holds an edge all around on the 270 Win.

In diameter is has 3% more, which translates into 6% more frontal area.
In terms of energy it offers 10-15% more energy.
In bullet selection, it has a wider selection of heavier bullets in the 150-180grain range.

So--what would one choose for a hunt? OConnor argued that the 7mm does not add significant hunting advantages, but pays for this in more muzzle blast and a bit sharper recoil.
Hmmm?

I like a lightweight rifle, but both calibres need some barrel length for best effect. Still, a featherweight 22" barrel works as a 270.
I suppose that if I felt inadequate with a 270 I would move up to a 338 WinMag or more.

(The 7-08 is an impressive round, too.)

I prefer the ability to have one extra round in the magazine to additional power at the price of one less round AND often potential feeding issues.

Because of the pointless belt on the 7mm Rem Mag. It would have been a better cartridge without it but the marketing men wanted a belt so it got one.

I'd agree on the statement about the bous of the extra bullet weight. There are some countries where 10 grams (that is 156 grains) is a legal minimum on some large game.

10 gram bullets in 270 WCF are not easy to find (SAKO did them, RWS do do them and Nosler has its 160 grain partition) and often don't shoot as well because of old school rifling twists.

Most animals won't react any different to the extra velocity but the bullet weight advantage is real.

Which is why either 7x64 or its American cousin 280 Remington offer are for practical hunting (assuming easy availability of ammunition) a better choice for some than 7mm Rem Mag...in that small "niche" of 160-175 grain bullet weight.

But if all you ever shoot are 130-140 grain weight bullets then 270 WCF is better than 7mm Rem Mag.

O'Connor was a hunter. He didn't fret about a little extra energy or a little heavier bullet weight. He didn't over think it like a lot of us do on the forums. He just hunted with his 270, put the bullet in the right place and the animal died. No reason to change if it works.

Nothing wrong with 7-mag. It does have an edge in power but if the 270 kills them just as dead, it doesn't really matter to the animal.

The heavier bullet of the 7 mag does a better job of breaking those hard elk bones. Not necessary for deer but a definite advantage for elk.

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
The heavier bullet of the 7 mag does a better job of breaking those hard elk bones. Not necessary for deer but a definite advantage for elk.

I suppose the question for Jack O'C was how much better? This generation gets to come at the question from a different angle because of monometal bullets. A new production facility in the US (GSC) advocates light for calibre, where the momentum of the faster lighter bullet is retained because it doesn't risk splattering like the older lead bullets sometimes did. There are also CEB bullets that blow the petals to produce a hard-driving blunt cylinder. Does anyone have some experiences with these in .277" and .284"?

I've got .270s in Win, WSM and Weatherby. I've 7mms in 7/08, 7mm Rem and a pile of STWs.

For the vast majority of hunting use it doesn't make any difference. Its only when you take things to extremes that the differences matter. I do live smack dab in the middle of one of the extremes and tend to favor the biggest cases in each caliber.

In the grand scheme of things they are all "light rifles" and are suitable for whatever you would use a light rifle for.

The mighty 7 RM

Pure magic

quote:

In the grand scheme of things they are all "light rifles" and are suitable for whatever you would use a light rifle for.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
The mighty 7 RM

Pure magic

Really?

A Montana Outfitter that I hunted with 25 years ago told of O'Conner crippling an elk with his 270. After looking for a short period of time he went back to camp leaving the guide and outfitter to search for his elk. After not finding it by the next day they shot another one and told him it was his just to shut him up. I can't vouch for the validity of this story but it was a very reputable outfitter.

Jack O' was god to many shooters of a certain time frame...he also made a good living as a writer...but I read somewhere, sometime, way back that his favorite bullet was the 150 gr, NOT the 130 gr and he said as much in at least one article I read...but other gun writers of the time and later jumped on the 130 and never let it go...and so the manure spreads.

I wonder what he would say about all the "stuff" people keep putting on him since that day. He didn't see much difference in the 0.007"'s between the 270 and 7mm and I don't either...BUT there IS a "big" difference between the 270W and the 7RM

Most all the comparison "stuff" between the 7RM and the 270 is, again as I've said many times, comparing apples to road apples...it's just hot air.

ANYONE comparing Jack O's 22" 270 with a 130 gr bullet to the same bullet fired out of a 26" 7RM would see a heck of a difference in velo and momentum.

If Remington had come out with a 270RM instead of a 7RM I wonder just how much "hot air" would be blowing between that and the 270W...a bunch I bet.

Everyone keeps blowing hot air comparing and TOTALLY FORGETTING that BOTH fulfill all the requirements when it comes to killing deer, elk, prong horn, black bear, etc...all the rest is just patting your favorite shooter on the poh-poh.

I never read Outdoor Life or Field and Stream much...to sensationalistic for me, I like more realistic, down to earth publications so I didn't get indoctrinated into Mystique of Jack O' or the 270 and ended up in the 7mm crowd, but I never disparaged the 270 in the least...to me it was just as good as all the rest of the mid sized cased calibers...THEN AND NOW...no need or desire to compare it to anything but itself...what bullet best fits the game I'm hunting and which is the most accurate in that particular rifle.

We men shooters have an overpowering need to compete no matter what it is...Hotdog eating or gun comparing...all you need to do is watch Duck Dynasty ONCE to see that in full blown color. Hahahahahah

Hey...no flame or diss intended or Implied...Hey

I'm The 270 Winchester easily ruled the roost in small-medium bores after its 1923 introduction for three simple reasons - 1st, it was factory loaded to a 65000 PMap, 2nd it was factory barreled with fast twist barrels, and 3rd, it was factory loaded with bullets that withstood both the factory loaded velocity and factory fast twist barrels.

The 7x64, a 1917 Brenneke introduction, has a factory 62000 PMap. The 280 Remington, a 1958 introduction, has a factory 60000 PMap. And finally, the 7mm Remington, a 1963 introduction, has a 62000 PMap. Load these three rounds to the same 65000 PMap of the 270 Winchester in a modern rifle with fast twist barrel - with the first two it's slightly greater frontal area vs a slightly greater BC regardless of bullet weight all at virtually identical velocities. And for the 3rd, it's as much extra velocity that can be obtained from the additional powder capacity.

If you do not reload the 270 Winchester offers the optimum factory performance (outside of using one of the modern short magnum cartridges).

If you do reload and are using a rifle manufactured using post-WWII steel then it's your choice of .277 or .284 caliber and whether you want 4-down or 3-down.

But I'm still more concentric to the .264 caliber...

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:
The mighty 7 RM

Pure magic

Really?

The mighty 7 RM kills stuff as far as the eye can see.....no holdover

Deadly

7mm wins. Whether it be the 7mm RM or another 7mm. My personal favorite is the 7X57 for all around shooting.

Why do I say this? Two reasons. Available 175/180 grain bullets in 7mm. Reason 2, factory 1:9 twist barrels ready to shoot those big bullets.

Factory 270 barrels are too slow in the twist department. This is why the 6.5mm is the long range winner between the two. Factory .270's are tuned for 130/140 grain bullets, and won't tolerate longer bullets. Speed up that twist and you have something, but no one makes .270 165 grain boattail bullets that I know of. It would be awesome if they did, though.

Don't get me wrong, the 270 is a fine choice and works. But, it isn't a 7mm.

Jeremy

Almost no one uses 175 gr bullets in a 7mm Mag.

O'Connor had been using the .270 more than 35 years before the 7mm Mag came along. He had 3 identical M70s and he loaded WW brass stuffed full of H4831 and 130 grain bullets.
His wife used a 7X57. For larger game JOC used 180 grn bullets in a 30-06. He used a .416 Rigby for larger critters.

Yes,270, 165 gr. bullets with a good BC requiring a 1 in 9 twist, which almost nobady has, are made by at least one maker in Canada and can be shipped to the U.S. So now we have a known choice of one. Everybody and their brother makes 175gr. hunting bullets and 180gr. target bullets for a 7mm.. A 7 RM. can push a 175 at about the same velocity that a 270 pushes a 150. There in lies that bone breaking difference that I referred to earlier. That's better than a 16% increase in bullet weight. Nosler used to make a 160 Partition but it had a very poor BC. I don't know if they still make it or not.

What makes you think that almost no one uses a 175 gr. bullet in the 7 mag.? They are also frequently used in the 7x57 also. Sectional Density is much higher than a 180 gr. .30 bullet. So, all else being equal,they will out penetrate a 180 gr. 30/06 bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:

The mighty 7 RM kills stuff as far as the eye can see.....no holdover

JO liked high velocity, not for extra killing power, but for the flatter traj. it offered,
since he often hunted game in more open areas,.. I guess that makes the higher vel. 7mmRm more of a good thing in some ways.

one of his latest custom rifles was a PushFeed Ruger in .280rem.

What makes you think they do?
Todays shooters are all about high velocity and flat trajectories often using light for caliber monometal bullets.
I have a 7mm Mag and two 7x57s. I have many, many boxes of 175 grain Hornady, Herter and Sierra bullets that I got very cheap at gunshows. I also have a lot of Hornady 154 grain bullets, 160 gr Speers and some Sierras that I got cheap also. I have very few 140 and 120 grain 7mm bullets. The bullets I have were those offered for sale at gun shows over 35 years of picking up components.
The other question is why would you want a bullet that heavy in a 7mm just to kill a whitetail in Texas? I know why I use the 175 RN in my 7X57s but it has to do with matching the twist and throat for best accuracy and nothing to do with any need for penetration.

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
What makes you think that almost no one uses a 175 gr. bullet in the 7 mag.? They are also frequently used in the 7x57 also. Sectional Density is much higher than a 180 gr. .30 bullet. So, all else being equal,they will out penetrate a 180 gr. 30/06 bullet.

quote:

The other question is why would you want a bullet that heavy in a 7mm just to kill a whitetail in Texas?

Well, its possible A person might conveniently & successfully use the same 175gn bullet in Texas that he uses in Africa or Alaska.

It might also be that someone prefers to hunt with a more traditional heavier weight bullet, simply by personal choice.
just like someone might prefer to hunt with an old-time classic 7x57 on std length action, instead of a lighter more compact short action 7mm/08.

You mentioned the .270 and the .338 win.
If you have those to you have the american land mass covered from the Yukon to the southern tip of Argentina .
You mention the 7,08. Its fine but personally i like the good old .308 better. And as far as i am concerned the 2 perform more or less the same on game.
Now the .260 flattens things out a little more and comes prety darn close the .270...tj3006

quote:

The mighty 7 RM kills stuff as far as the eye can see.....no holdover

and

quote:

JO liked high velocity, not for extra killing power, but for the flatter traj. it offered,

and

quote:

Todays shooters are all about high velocity and flat trajectories often using light for caliber monometal bullets.

Well, is 3400fps fast enough? 3500fps? We need to remember that the reliability of monometal bullets allows for downsizing in weight by one step. The "natural" 130gn in 270 and 140gn in .284" can be dropped.

Barnes developed the 110gn TTSX for these scenarios.
It lists the 110TSX (yes, the non-tipped version) at 3524fps with 63.5gn Ramshot Hunter. Me, I only get 3410fps in a 22.4" barrel with the 110gnTTSX and 60.5gn of Rel-17. If I were to convert to a 270WinShortMagnum (the power equivalent of a 7RM) would I get anything significantly better for hunting? I don't think so. Maybe 100fps and shorter barrel life?

There are practical cut-off points on "S-curve" graphs where a person tries to optimize at the top of the steep rise. The 270Win appears to do that. Handloaded 280's, too. Yes, a person can push more powder through that little bore. Enter the recent 26Nosler and 270WSM. If that's what someone wants, then go for it. But with 26Nosler, 264WM, 270WSM, 7STW, 7RM, one is just pushing a small bullet a wee bit faster with a lot more powder.

As I see it, for a flat shooting deer rifle the 270 can be considered a "poor man's 'magnum'", that is, magnum hunting characteristics in a small package. For deer, with the 110TTSX. For elk, one could go up a step, to the new 129gn LRX (.463BC), comparable to the 145gn .284" (.486BC).

Would a 165grain monometal change things for a 270? Not really. (PS: Woodleigh does a 180grain .277", a modern equivalent to the old 180gn Barnes original, which I've used.) Should Barnes push the envelope and do a heavier LRX in .277", maybe 145grain, or heavier, requiring a twist faster than 1 in 10"? That would probably not be the best marketing decision, since most 270's are in 10" twist.

As Dogleg mentioned, this whole discussion needs to be framed as a "light rifle discussion." We are talking about a 6.8mm versus a 7.0mm. Ultimately, the bullet needs to match the animal. I would want a bit more frontal area if I were in Alaska or chasing elk, even though we know that well-placed, premium, small calibre bullets will do any job on the planet. Yes, Bell proved that.

I've never had the opportunity to hunt elk, but when and that time comes I would use a 270 or 7mm, if there were no other choice. Otherwise I would opt for a 338 or 375Ruger. That's what's happened to this JO'C fan spending too much time in Africa. Elmer had some wisdom, too. A bigger bullet for that quick shot dense and upclose, and accurate for any shot to 400yards.

Swampshooter, I had forgotten about Matrix bullets. The even make a 175 for the 270. You have to go to a custom barrel to shoot them though, which is fine, but not very convenient.

The main problem is that this is an apples and oranges argument. The 7mm RM is a step up in power and is more versatile because of that.

Jeremy

I suppose one should also define magnum for the discussion. Perhaps having a powder capacity over 75 grains? In that case one then asks, what cut off of powder capacity is good for a 6.8/7.0?

Trax You're making assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions. I don't even bother to deer hunt in Texas. All I've done for the past three years is hunt elk and hunt (shoot) prairie dogs. When I did deer hunt it was in the mid-west and I used a 7x57 or a slug gun, although a properly loaded 270 is a most satisfactory deer rifle and I have used and owned 270's.
And a 270 makes a big mess of a Texas whitetail. Leaves way too much blood shot meat. It's not unusual to lose almost 1/2 a deer to bloodshot meat.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:

The mighty 7 RM kills stuff as far as the eye can see.....no holdover

JO liked high velocity, not for extra killing power, but for the flatter traj. it offered,
since he often hunted game in more open areas,.. I guess that makes the higher vel. 7mmRm more of a good thing in some ways.

one of his latest custom rifles was a PushFeed Ruger in .280rem.

Actually JOCs writings were full of references to lightning fast kills due to high velocity and fast opening bullets.there were more than a few mentions of slower kills with heavier controlled expansion bullets when used on deer sized animals. Ole Jack wasn't wrong about much.

The mighty magic 7 RM....wow

We have killed game with the 270 Win, 280 Rem, 280AI and 7mm Rem Mag.

They all work and you or the animal would be hard pressed to discern which one you were holding when you pressed the trigger.

If you have to compare the 270 Win to the 7 Rem Mag, compare common bullet weights, 130's, 140's and 150's.

I think of the 7 RM as a supercharged 270 Win , it will push 130-150's 200-300 fps faster than the 270 Win. The .007" difference in bullet diameter means nothing.

The 7 RM will also push 160's and 175's at decent speeds.

But when all is said and done bullet construction, shot placement and impact velocity have considerably more effect on performance than muzzle velocity....no surprise there.

I had 2

Both Weatherby's.....one was a Vanguard the other a MKV SBGM

The Vanguard was a shooter but I traded it for the MKV

After several months of scratching my head trying to get it under 1.5

I decided it wasn't worth it and sold it.

I can get 3k from my 30-06 with 150's in a rifle that weighs over a pound less


But to be honest the mighty 7 is fine.....it's just some people think it's the end-all-tell-all laser beam....no more worries round

It's not....none are

You will get no argument from me

As we all know the 30-06 is the parent of many siblings

quote:

In my opinion, the 30-06 is much more comparable to the 7 mag but I won't get into all of that...

Well, the 30-06 helps to frame the 270/7mRM comparison by providing perspective. The 06 adds 2.4 calibre over the 7mm and 3.1 over the 270. In other words, both the 270 and 7mmRM specialize in velocity rather than diameter. Both are pretty good at that, too.

Grain for grain the -06 out shoots the .270 in most cases but has poor bc in light bullets

i have not met many 7 mag haters.
Lets face it its a great round. But i have herd guys say ridicules things about it.
One guy i worked with swore you never had to hold over at any range.
I did manage to convince him that unless it has wings an a propeller all objects heavier than air are subject to gravity.
. I have one but it does not get much action.
Have not found a great load for it yet.
. ...tj3006

7mmRM, 160 accubond/partition, 3000fps.......what's not to like?

Trax you really don't have a clue about Texas whitetail hunters do you?
There are nearly 4 million whitetails in the state. About 1 million hunters will kill 500,000 deer any given year.
Heavy bullets in 7mm caliber are poor sellers and the ammo is not even stocked with that bullet weight in 7mm Mag in most sporting goods stores.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

The other question is why would you want a bullet that heavy in a 7mm just to kill a whitetail in Texas?

Well, its possible A person might conveniently & successfully use the same 175gn bullet in Texas that he uses in Africa or Alaska.

It might also be that someone prefers to hunt with a more traditional heavier weight bullet, simply by personal choice.
just like someone might prefer to hunt with an old-time classic 7x57 on std length action, instead of a lighter more compact short action 7mm/08.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Trax you really don't have a clue about Texas whitetail hunters do you?

One does not really need to know much about TW hunters, since the OP did not specifically mention Texas whitetail hunters in his orig. question.
I do know people who have used just one heavier weight bullet in their 7mm guns, for many game species from one part of the world to another,
....and I'm rather confident that particular soft point bullet they used would also work just fine on Texas whitetails.

quote:

Originally posted by swampshooter:
Trax You're making assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions. I don't even bother to deer hunt in Texas.

Since I have not mentioned you specifically in my posts, where then did I assume anything about you specifically?

MY post was simply openly referring to some peoples[anyones] choice to use a heavier 7mm bullet for all their game hunting no matter where it is they hunt,
and I purposely wrote in that broader context, because the OP did not mention any particular or specific land continent or game animal.......

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

So--what would one choose for a hunt?
Hmmm?

Wow. The .270 WCF was introduced in 1925.
During his lifetime O'Connor owned seven .270s, four .30-06s and one 7mm RM - most custom rifles. He hunted with all of them, most extensively. He understood the relative performance of each and considered them all good medium game cartridges. He sold the 7 RM because he considered its advantages for his hunting to be small compared to the other cartridges. Not much has changed in 50 years.


.

O'Connor chose to keep his 270 and 30/06. Had he chose to, he could have kept his 7RM and got rid of his 270 and 30/06. As we climb the ladder of more powerful cartridges, there is not much difference from one to the next. Although the differences do exist it's normally very hard to notice them in the field. A more powerful cartridge is not really a better cartridge, just more powerful.

Warren Page hunted the world over with his 7 mag very successfully. Warren was a champion benchrest shooter and undoubtedly a more astute rifleman than O'Connor.

The 270 is a great hunting cartridge, just not one of my favorites, and I've owned and hunted with three of them. I consider it the "best" cartridge available, as factory loaded, for mule deer/caribou, but a little on the small side for elk/moose. Although with careful shooting it will fill that role as well. If one owns a good 270 but desires a more powerful rifle also, he would be best served to skip over the 7RM and go to at least a 300 mag. and probably a 338 mag would be a more noticeably powerful rifle. If you own a good 7RM then you don't need a 300 mag. The noticeable differences are small.

To my mind a 7mm Rem mag doesn't offer any practical advantages over a .270, .280, or .30-06. If you need more power than a standard '06 family cartridge can give you, the .300 mags are a more logical next step to me, because you can shoot 200+ grain bullets and still get decent velocity.

quote:

Swampshooter:
The 270 is a great hunting cartridge, just not one of my favorites, and I've owned and hunted with three of them. I consider it the "best" cartridge available, as factory loaded, for mule deer/caribou, but a little on the small side for elk/moose. Although with careful shooting it will fill that role as well. If one owns a good 270 but desires a more powerful rifle also, he would be best served to skip over the 7RM and go to at least a 300 mag. and probably a 338 mag would be a more noticeably powerful rifle. If you own a good 7RM then you don't need a 300 mag. The noticeable differences are small.

My thoughts, too. From the trio of 270-7RM-3006 a noticeable step up in hunting impact would be the 338WM, providing more diameter and energy.

quote:

kjjm4:
To my mind a 7mm Rem mag doesn't offer any practical advantages over a .270, .280, or .30-06. If you need more power than a standard '06 family cartridge can give you, the .300 mags are a more logical next step to me, because you can shoot 200+ grain bullets and still get decent velocity.

Yes. but I would qualify that for distance rather than power. The 300mags shoot the same bullets as the 3006, but extend the range a bit. I would think the four: 270, 7RM, 3006, and 300mag would all make excellent deer cartridges out to about any distance one would normally want to shoot. They'll all take elk, too, maybe the 300mag a bit better, but I would want more if making a first choice for elk. That's just me.