quote:

People are not very good at judging distance.

To do it reasonable close one has to have plenty of experience in the field.

We go to the desert quite often with friends, and I always laugh at them guessing distance to trees, animals etc

I gave up guessing years ago and have a laser do it for me.

p dog shooter has it right: why guess when they sell such a wonderful device?

If the shots are long (insert your own definition of such), the use of a rangefinder will quickly tell you if it's within or beyond YOUR ability. The cartridges in question will do their job well beyond that.

Zeke

Its not really fair to the 7X57 to compare it to the .270 WInchester as it simply will never keep up with it even in the heavier for caliber weights and the reason is simple and irrefutable--powder capacity. In the lighter weights (130-150grs for the .270) a better comparison would be with a 7mm Rem Mag. If you run those numbers you will see there really isn't a hill of beans difference between say a 140 gr 7mm Rem Mag and a 130 gr .270. I say again--zero practical difference.

Now the 7mm Rem Mag will certainly beat the pants off the .270 when you begin taking 175 gr, bullets...again powder capacity matters. But in the more common offerings for both calibers they are virtually the same.

The 7X57 ballistically really compares more favorably to the 7-08.

When it comes to long range however, Saeed nailed it. Doesn't matter really what you are shooting. Beyond 300-400 yards you will miss if you don't know your load and its come-ups at distance. Yeah you might miss by less with one or the other. But its still a miss. A hunter who is an expert with a .308 out to 1,000 yards shooting a 175 gr SMK at say 2500fps will always beat the pants off some yahoo shooting the latest greatest 3,000 fps whizz bang round with ultra High SD bullets who's never fired a round on paper beyond 300 yards.

Personally, I've killed a semi-load of large game on three continents with my .270 Win. But I've killed stuff with 7X57, 7-08, 30-06 and others as well. For me the 130 grain .270 has been my go-to for more than 40 years and will continue to do its job until I'm dead. If you can hit well with a 7X57 its what you should use. Numbers wise the .270 beats it--even handloaded and even with heavy bullets. Does it matter? I've not seen too many hunters good enough to take the differences and make it matter.

I have a shooting buddy that shot the 7X57, .270 Win and others with me weekly for years. They were accurate and impressive on killing much game for him from this country to Africa. I never shot either but when the .270 WSM came out I had to give it a try. I now load and shoot four of them and never ceased to Be amazed. 130 grain Northfork at 3455 fps, 160 grain Nosler Partition at 2967 fps. My bunch have taken many Deer of both kinds as well as Elk with them. I have taken many Elk with the bigger chamberings and still use them, particularly in big Bear country but the WSM’s and a new play thing the 6.5 PRC sure are fun. Those here that like the .270 would be impressed. Good Shooting.

I have a Ruger No. 1B in 270 and the Ruger No 1 RSI in 7x57 and both of them like lighter bullets so the only advantage is the 270 has a longer barrel so it gets more velocity with similar loads.

Out to 300 - 400 yards there's not enough difference to argue about.

Six of one and half a dozen. Over on this side of the pond 270 win is the go to open ground / mountain calibre for deer stalking. Its not that popular in Europe, where its place is taken by the 7x64, which adds another 150 to 200 fps to the 7x57.

But with the increasing need to shoot lead free bullets, the 7x57 has always been able to shoot long bullets. I am now shooting a 130gn lead free bullet in mine. Its the same length as a160 grain lead bullet - accurate and kills well.

Stupid Euro-trash 7mm isn't even really 7mm.


At least the .308/7.62 is correctly named in both imperial and metric derivations...

.308 inches is not 7.62 mm.

.308 inches is 7.8232mm

The lands are 7.62 mm on the barrel.

Just like the .277 is 7mm not 6.8 mm. The land measurement is 6.8mm.

You sit on a throne of lies!

If you are saying I am lying measure a .308 inch bullet in mm or just google it.

I am not lying. It is what it is .308 inch equals 7.8232mm.

If I am miss-inferring from your post forgive me as I obviously do not get the context.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
If you are saying I am lying measure a .308 inch bullet in mm or just google it.

I am not lying. It is what it is .308 inch equals 7.8232mm.

If I am miss-inferring from your post forgive me as I obviously do not get the context.

+1
Hence the 7.82mm Lazeroni (.308”)
I’m guessing (hoping) KY was being sarcastic...

Lets be honest any good rifle and cartridge in 6.5, 270, 7mm, 30 and 8mm with a good bullet suitable for beast being shot will take care of pretty much any legal game animal provided bullet is put in the right place. You can add in the 6mm. All will do the job without a lot of fuss or bother and out to ranges where game really shouldn’t be shot. And you don’t need a fat case either.

In some jurisdictions you may legally need to use a 375 H&H or bigger, and if you are going up and close and irritate big animals that will make into toe jam or poo then a big stopping rifle might be better. But really any good rifle with a good bullet in the right place does the job.

And the argument on flat trajectories doesn’t really come into play until you are well over 200 metres (save of course for low velocity 45-70 type cartridges), and nowadays laser rangefinders, ballistic apps a box of cartridges and a bit of range time sorts the rest out.

But wind will always be an issue and in my view on windy days its a lot easier to close the distance.

I had a 7x57 but would buy a .270 if I had my time again. 7x57 is a great deer cartridge but the 270 has more thump and longer legs.

quote:

Originally posted by Code4:
I had a 7x57 but would buy a .270 if I had my time again. 7x57 is a great deer cartridge but the 270 has more thump and longer legs.

Why not go to 30.06 then? More thump, more legs. Or a 7mm Mag, or 300 Mag, or a 338 Win Mag? If the only requirement is more thump / legs then there's no real reason not to go bigger.

7X57 hands down. I was a bid fan of reading Jack O'Conner in my younger years + his advocacy of the 270, but I prefer the 7X57 because of performance (120 years worth) + the nostalgia of its history.Just my choice on the matter, But then that's why they make Fords + Chevys.

It really does not matter unless you are building a proper custom rifle. Then the answer is simple. A 270 on a sporter style stock (such as Goens would have done). A 7x57 if you are looking to do more of a british express style stock with a pancake cheek piece, quarter rib, express sights, etc. English walnut for the 7x57. Black walnut or English for the 270.

What I like about this thread? its one of the dumbest damn threads in AR history!! totally ridiculas on some folks part..not all just some.

Both calibers are outstanding, have been for years, made their bones a long time ago.

Both cartridges are proven winners.

Ray, you would be a hoot to be around and clear spoken so a person would know what's going on. Have a good week amigo.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
What I like about this thread? its one of the dumbest damn threads in AR history!! totally ridiculas on some folks part..not all just some.

Both calibers are outstanding, have been for years, made their bones a long time ago.

Dang Ray this is what makes the forum go around and around.

If everybody just used common sense what fun would that be.

Why don’t we follow logic?

The 270 has a bullet diameter of 0.277

The 7x57 has a bullet diameter of 0.284

That is a significant difference of 0.007.

Which translate to an incredible 2.5271 percent BIGGER.

See?

There IS difference!

One thing that a 270 will do that a 7x57 most certainly will not, is drive an 85 grain bullet through a deer at deer at almost 4000 FPS. I have a few 270s and my favorite is so damned accurate with Barnes 110 TTSXs nd kills deer so well, that I just can't bring myself to try anything else. Some day I will load up one of the others with those 85 grain TTSXs and push the at the top of what I can and shoot Bambi just to see what happens. Maybe.

Ha. My 7x57 will kill one so far away that I have to put salt on the bullet it so the meat won't spoil till I can drive and go get it..
..its all shot placement. You can kill about e everything with a 22 mag in the right place. You may need to follow it awhile till it dies but you can. Put that starvation sight on em.

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Fisk:
Ha. My 7x57 will kill one so far away that I have to put salt on the bullet it so the meat won't spoil till I can drive and go get it..

I like that

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:
One thing that a 270 will do that a 7x57 most certainly will not, is drive an 85 grain bullet through a deer at deer at almost 4000 FPS. I have a few 270s and my favorite is so damned accurate with Barnes 110 TTSXs nd kills deer so well, that I just can't bring myself to try anything else. Some day I will load up one of the others with those 85 grain TTSXs and push the at the top of what I can and shoot Bambi just to see what happens. Maybe.

I know that the 90 grain Sierra HP will drop a sheep killing Rottie at 300 yards with no hold over. Leaves an impressive hole.

the only thing I know is the 130 gr. Speer, fB or BT will kill deer quicker than about anything else, but so will a 220 swift with a 50 gr to 60 gr. bullet...Oh me ho my!

Thanks Jerry, your welcome in my camp anytime..

See if you can find a copy of the 5th edition of the Gun Digest Treasury edited by John Amber. There is an article in there on page 134 written by Jack O'Connor. Its entitled "Forty Years With the Little 7mm".

Of course we all know Jack O'Connor was very fond of the 270, but this article tells of his, and his wife's fondness for the 7mm Mauser.

Good reading and pertinet to this thread.

.270 WSM is my choice. Killed a pronghorn with my Winchester Model 70 Featherweight at 285 yards with a Berger 140 grain VLD hunting bullet. The buck dropped as if hit by lightning. Amazing performance.

quote:

Originally posted by Kolo-Pan:
See if you can find a copy of the 5th edition of the Gun Digest Treasury edited by John Amber. There is an article in there on page 134 written by Jack O'Connor. Its entitled "Forty Years With the Little 7mm".

Of course we all know Jack O'Connor was very fond of the 270, but this article tells of his, and his wife's fondness for the 7mm Mauser.

Good reading and pertinet to this thread.

Gun writers have to write that is why this stuff get written about over and over. A lot write because a certain advertiser has brought ad space.

A model 700 is better than a model 70 because Remington brought a full page Winchester did not.

45 vs 9mm 06 vs 270 ect ect.

Rugers were featured on a lot of Gun Digest covers. I always wondered how much that cost Bill.

Now we need a 270 vs. the 30-06 to illistrate the non sence of this post..Im sure we can find data on the above from about a 1000 gun scribes over the years..

My opine is "Play it again, Sam" yehawwww!

Might check out the new browning/Winchester 6.8 Western before going forward. Their ad info makes this new “270”short action offering sound pretty interesting.

It matters only beyond 3-400 yards.

Well, for no reason at all I like the 270. I have only owned one 30-06. I took the barrel of it and had a .270 barrel on it within a week of buying it. No Reason other than personal preference ...

The beauty of the 7x57 is not its challange to the .270 it cannot compete without juggling figures as so many do.

The 7x57 is a mild recoiling caliber, has an accurate reputation, and its killed elephants longer than the 270 has lived..its easy to shoot, works on anything out there, just gets the job done and good for 400 or 500 yards depending on shooting skill, penetrates as well as most any caliber, it just a nice gun..

I could say the same about the 270 and 30-06 come to think of it...

The only reason this thread has lasted this long is like most "this vs.that" is what caliber some own and of course the 270 owners can't fathom anyond owning a 7x57 and the 7x57 owners think they just don't know better!!

In fact based on all the chatter the .280 is the champion on paper, never remember owning one, but I have a 30-06!

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
.270 WSM is my choice. Killed a pronghorn with my Winchester Model 70 Featherweight at 285 yards with a Berger 140 grain VLD hunting bullet. The buck dropped as if hit by lightning. Amazing performance.

I killed an antelope at just under 400 yards with a .270 Winchester using Hornady Lite Mag ammo(140gr SPBT) and my results were identical to yours.

I don’t know that any of this makes as much difference as our brains tell us.

Numbers, numbers, just statistics

I prefer the 7x57. When it comes to working up loads it is easy and forgiving. I prefer the 7mm with heavy bullets - slower-moving but higher SD. I think the recoil of the 270 is excessive and out of proportion to what it sends downrange. Both rounds are effective way out there but if you are planning to hunt beyond 300 yards then get a magnum.

It's really six of one and half a dozen the other. Split the difference and use a .280.

They all work.

Just to keep the thread goin..

Picked up my first 7x57 Ruger No. 1-A recently. Sitting alongside my 3 270 Winchesters. Found a dealer with 500ct of the 7mm 175gr core Lokt bullets which should do great trucking along at the x57 velocity.

So many guns, so little time

I think the 7x57 Mauser really shines with 175g bullets

My first hunting rifle was a sporterized 7x57. I only used 175 grain bullets in it mostly Remington Corelokt's with a few Winchester PowerPoint's thrown in. Several Roosevelt elk and blacktail deer fell to that combination.