I guess I'm being a sour puss here and I certainly mean no offense to anyone, but I really get tired of reading about "more bullets to select from."

Just how many bullets does it take to have a "good selection?"

I guess I'm pretty different than everyone else. I usually try and pick a bullet weight for a given task and narrow the selection down to 3 good choices. In this case, I'd go with a 270 and a 130 gr. bullet. I'd probably start with a TSX, Partition, Scirocco, Hornady, and ballistic tip. I may even throw in a 140 Accubond. Now from this list, that could mean a heck of a lot of range time already.

Both calibers have pros, and I cannot think of any "con" for either.

But, my vote goes to the .270 hands down. I've shot a few 7-08's and they're nice but a 270 with a good 130 grain bullet is about the best load for antelope on earth...and arguably, deer also.

The more bullets to pick from doesn't work for the 7-08 anyway if you are using a short action and loading to 2.8 inch overall length. The 160's really start to eat up case capacity and the 175 grain bullets massacre it.

Doc,
We allmost have something in common, I find irksome those contributions made by those who seem to have little grasp of sampling and statistical analysis comment as though it had no value. Then there's the use of conversational language when an attempt is being made to make a technical point.

However this is a public forum it's not a technical journal limited to gun makers, ballisticians, ecologists and various others qualified to state their case. Further, as new members join they will not have the exposure that older memebers have and may state things which others find are the rehashing of an old topic.

I have found some of the things written here, in some of the forums, odd, some just plain rude and some based on error. So what!

Welcome all I say, and let us be tollerant, no matter how irksome that might prove to be.
If it becomes too tiring one can allways stop.

Finally; you ask what is a, "good selection"?

"Good is a notion, all statements about it are synthetic not analytic". (GE Moore Principia Ethica).

Weidmannsheil

quote:

Originally posted by oldun:
is a public forum it's not a technical journal limited to gun makers, ballisticians, ecologists and various others qualified to state their case.

Must be different where you are. In the US, I've found that most folks who call themselves "ecologists" ain't qualified to state much of any case.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
I guess I'm being a sour puss here and I certainly mean no offense to anyone, but I really get tired of reading about "more bullets to select from."

Just how many bullets does it take to have a "good selection?"

I guess I'm pretty different than everyone else. I usually try and pick a bullet weight for a given task and narrow the selection down to 3 good choices...

I only need one. I pretty much stick to one load for each gun I have. I don't really care for range time and experimenting all that much anymore. Sometimes it takes quite a few to find the right one though. Once I get it fixed I see no need to break it.

.270 and the 7mm-08 are two different things entirely in my book. For antelope hunting IMHO the .270 would be better suited.

I have owned both and have done a lot of reloading /development for both. Neither one is a bad choice but in the end I sold the 7-08 and kept the .270. I think it is a more flexible round.

Olarmy,
Teheehee.
There can be quite a difference between those who call themselves ecologists and those who actualy are.
I well remember an actress calling her self an animal biologist. It was put to her by an interviewer that it would be more accurate to call her "an animal lover". He was right she was just going in for a bit of self promotion.

Do you actualy know any ecologists or are we having a post modernist exchange ?