If I were looking for a gun to use factory ammo. I would have no problem choosing either. Both have low recoil, both shoot 300-400 yards easily, both have excellent ammo. availability and both nearly pass-through all animals using modern bullets.

However, if reloading, I would choose the 7mm Rem. Mag. because you don't have to fiddle around with compressed loads.

Who says that using a 270win means you have to use compressed loads? Besides the solution to that so called problem is to switch powders!

Don't know so much about the compressed loads but bottem line is the big 7 is the rifle the .270 wisht it were. If it weren't for J Oconnor writing monthly articles about how great it was, it'd be just another forgotten cartridge. It's a good cartridge, no doubt, but there is a phletora of cartridges that are as good or better that no one can recall or remember.

Shooting deer sized game I do not think you could tell the difference, but on bigger stuff the 160 and 175gr bullets of the 7 Mag, put it ahead of the 270 IMHO.

I'd take a 7mm over a 270 any day of the week myself.

270 is more than adequate for deer size game and smaller. Some have taken elk and much larger, but I feel more comfortable with something larger for Elk.

The 7mm Mag isn't anymore capable of taking animals than the 270, but with 50 yds more useable range. The 7mm Mag is for those that are angry with their fathers for having taken all their game with a 30-06.

If you want magnum blast, 26" barrel, and longer action associated with magnums, get the killing power to go with and get a 338 Win mag, everything else is just wasted powder.

John

In the field, having used both extensively, I can say that it's near impossible to tell the difference

I would go the 270 myself

I have owned/shot both and would choose the 270 if my hunting didn't include elk, otherwise it would be a coin toss. I have found that if I need more power, I step up to a 358+. Lou

I have owned several 7mm Rem's and shot several .270 Win's and I would pick the .270 WSM over both. Good shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:



If I were looking for a gun to use factory ammo. I would have no problem choosing either. Both have low recoil, both shoot 300-400 yards easily, both have excellent ammo. availability and both nearly pass-through all animals using modern bullets.

However, if reloading, I would choose the 7mm Rem. Mag. because you don't have to fiddle around with compressed loads.

Really? And just what, may I ask, is wrong with compressed loads? So what?
I've used the .270 Win. here in Ak. for nigh on 40 years and nobody's told me it doesn't perform on game larger than deer. In fact, tho I've never done it, a friend of mine shot several moose with his a number of years ago. He never had a problem with his .270.
In my experience, it's superb on both sheep & caribou. Never tried it out on goats tho. In short, for me and to paraphrase Quigley to Marsten in regards to any 7mm anything - "Didn't ever say I couldn't use one, just said I never found the need for one". Now the flames can begin & give it yer best shot.
Best to all anyway. Bear in Fairbanks

I think the 7mm REM Mag is a better choice since you can find a lot more different bullets in 7mm vs .277" diameter. That's about the only advantage I can see for the 7mm....

"Don't know so much about the compressed loads but bottem line is the big 7 is the rifle the .270 wisht it were."


More likely is that the .270 is the 7MM with the problems corrected, unnecessary recoil and muzzle blast.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
"Don't know so much about the compressed loads but bottem line is the big 7 is the rifle the .270 wisht it were."


More likely is that the .270 is the 7MM with the problems corrected, unnecessary recoil and muzzle blast.

In rifles of equal weight, it takes a given amount of recoil to move bullets of equal weight at comparable velocities. This is just simple physics. Dosen't matter if one is a little smaller round.

Commercial rounds for the 7mag can be hit and mis in reguards to accuracy and pressure spikes comparred to the 270 win.

You can usually get five .270 rounds in your magazine. With a 7mm, it's mostly three.

quote:

Originally posted by Indy:
You can usually get five .270 rounds in your magazine. With a 7mm, it's mostly three.

Not an advantage to me. In 50+ years of hunting, I have never fired as many as 4 shots at an animal.

If for some reason a "high capacity" magazine is needed, it won't be attached to a bolt action.

I'm more interested in what your shooting and were. I've hunted Sask. every year for the past 32 yrs. I only hunt deer there and in the northern half around P.A. I use a 270 and it's great for this area. Further south in the more open land with increased wind gusts I'd look at the 7mm it has better cross wind balistics. I think the 270 ammo is cheaper but at the end of the day I say go with your gut and your usually happy.

I would go 7remmag just because I have no use for the 270, never armed to it. Probably because all my cousins & uncles that hunt use a 270. So for me, it's a 280 & while I like the 7remmag, I had mine rechambered to 7mm Dakota & really like that round.

I currently own two 270 Wins and 3 7RMs. I prefer the 7RMs over the 270s, but they both work on small critters at close range. I get 3100-3125 in the 7RM with 150s, the 270s are good for ~ 2850 with 150s. Inside of 250 yds, that's not much of a difference, but when you shoot 300-400, it's enough difference for me to pick the 7RM in many applications.

It's really not an apples to apples comparison and will give a debate from now on. Sort of like the debates that the 30-06 is equal to the 300WM, 308 to the 30-06, or the 7-08 to the 280. There is indeed a difference in all of them, but the difference doesn't really apply to most hunters as most game is killed at less than 200 yards.

If you intend to shoot at extended distances or larger game is on the menu, the 7RM will be a more suitable cart IMO.

Good Luck

Reloader

Forget both and go with a .280 Rem. Get the best of both without the noise of the 7mm.

Stilbeeman:

Gee I didn't know Jack O'Connor was writing about the 270 Winchester in 1925!! How long has it been, since Jack has been gone? The reason people buy the 270 Winchester, is because it is one of the finest cartridges ever offered!!

Jerry

The 270 is a fantastic cartridge,and is closer to being a 7mm in dia. than the 7 rem mag.

Winbag338, where are you coming up with these tidbits of "data" about store bought ammo for the 7mag?

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
Winbag338, where are you coming up with these tidbits of "data" about store bought ammo for the 7mag?

When SAAMI started the move from CUP to PSI, the 7mm Mag was significantly downloaded. In the olden days, it was not uncommon for 7 Mags to get stuck in the chamber in the heat. These days, I don't think there is much of an issue, especially in factory.

John

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
Winbag338, where are you coming up with these tidbits of "data" about store bought ammo for the 7mag?

Good question.

Le's see, the .270 shoots a .277" diameter bullet, while the American 7 m/ms (including the 7 mm Rem Mag) shoot .284" bullets and many of the British 7 m/ms were loaded with .287"/.288" bullets. Factory-loaded (RWS mainly) German 7 m/m rounds I have shot were loaded with either .283" or .284" bullets.

So how IS the .270 closer in diameter to the 7m/m in size?
-----------

Anyway, to throw in my two bits worth, I currently have left 5 or 6 of the 7 m/ms and one .270 Winchester. Although on paper I prefer the 7m/ms, I only take them hunting for elk. For virtually all smaller size deer I automatically grab the pre-'64 M70 .270 FW.

I like the heavier bullets of the 7 m/m cartridges for elk, and the handling of the .270 FW rifle for deer. Other than that, I'd just as soon toss a coin to chose one over the other....

quote:

Originally posted by winbag338:
Commercial rounds for the 7mag can be hit and mis in reguards to accuracy and pressure spikes comparred to the 270 win.

That depends on whether you buy quality ammo or junque.

The worst factory ammo I have ever used in my entire life was sold under the Musgrave label during the arms embargo on the RSA. But don't blame Musgrave, it was loaded by Hirtenberger.

And IT just happened to be in caliber .270 Winchester. I bought two cases of it, because I could get it, and still have almost two cases of it because I have found it too unpredictable with high pressure spikes to want to use it in ANY of MY guns either then or now.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
Winbag338, where are you coming up with these tidbits of "data" about store bought ammo for the 7mag?

Good question.

Le's see, the .270 shoots a .277" diameter bullet, while the American 7 m/ms (including the 7 mm Rem Mag) shoot .284" bullets and many of the British 7 m/ms were loaded with .287"/.288" bullets. Factory-loaded (RWS mainly) German 7 m/m rounds I have shot were loaded with either .283" or .284" bullets.

So how IS the .270 closer in diameter to the 7m/m in size?
-----------

Anyway, to throw in my two bits worth, I currently have left 5 or 6 of the 7 m/ms and one .270 Winchester. Although on paper I prefer the 7m/ms, I only take them hunting for elk. For virtually all smaller size deer I automatically grab the pre-'64 M70 .270 FW.

I like the heavier bullets of the 7 m/m cartridges for elk, and the handling of the .270 FW rifle for deer. Other than that, I'd just as soon toss a coin to chose one over the other....

Actually, he is pretty right on this one. .277 x 25.4 (mm/inch) yields 7.03 mm

.284 x 25.4(mm.in) yields 7.21 mm.

John

Nominal bore dia puts the 270win at 6.86mm (eg;Rem 6.8spc) and the 7mm closer to seven mm.
cal. specs http://www.gsgroup.co.za/cip.html

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Nominal bore dia puts the 270win at 6.86mm (eg;Rem 6.8spc) and the 7mm closer to seven mm.
cal. specs http://www.gsgroup.co.za/cip.html

Looking at your link, they show the bore at 6.86 and the groove at 7.040. In US they measure the caliber at the groove, in Europe, by the bore. The diameter of the 270 bullet is .277 and the diameter of the 7mm is .284. I guess it depends on which side of the pond you are on.

John


John

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
Winbag338, where are you coming up with these tidbits of "data" about store bought ammo for the 7mag?

Good question.

Le's see, the .270 shoots a .277" diameter bullet, while the American 7 m/ms (including the 7 mm Rem Mag) shoot .284" bullets and many of the British 7 m/ms were loaded with .287"/.288" bullets. Factory-loaded (RWS mainly) German 7 m/m rounds I have shot were loaded with either .283" or .284" bullets.

So how IS the .270 closer in diameter to the 7m/m in size?
-----------

Anyway, to throw in my two bits worth, I currently have left 5 or 6 of the 7 m/ms and one .270 Winchester. Although on paper I prefer the 7m/ms, I only take them hunting for elk. For virtually all smaller size deer I automatically grab the pre-'64 M70 .270 FW.

I like the heavier bullets of the 7 m/m cartridges for elk, and the handling of the .270 FW rifle for deer. Other than that, I'd just as soon toss a coin to chose one over the other....

Actually, he is pretty right on this one. .277 x 25.4 (mm/inch) yields 7.03 mm

.284 x 25.4(mm.in) yields 7.21 mm.

John

True, but bore diameter of a .270 is generally .269" to .270" (Guess where the name .270 came from?), while the bore diameter of a 7m/m usually runs somewhere around .276" whether American or European.

Groove diameters of both are larger than those diameters.

So, actually, the 7 Mag is a 7 m/m which ever measurement method is used, while the .270 is not.

If your animal is less than about 500 lbs,
I would probably use the .270.
But for a 1 rifle hunter i would give the 7 mag a bit of an edge.
Using a good barnes bullet or a 160 grain nosler partition, I would feel ready to shoot any elk or moose with a 270
But not a big bear.
But then again I would,nt choose a 7 mag for the big bear either...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Nominal bore dia puts the 270win at 6.86mm (eg;Rem 6.8spc) and the 7mm closer to seven mm.
cal. specs http://www.gsgroup.co.za/cip.html

Looking at your link, they show the bore at 6.86 and the groove at 7.040. In US they measure the caliber at the groove, in Europe, by the bore. The diameter of the 270 bullet is .277 and the diameter of the 7mm is .284. I guess it depends on which side of the pond you are on.

I am guessing US manufacturers are refering to the nomiunal bore when they named the 6.8spc,270win,270Weatherby,270wsm,7mm/08,7mmRmag,7mmDakota,7mmWeatherby,7mmstw... so it dont seem like a measure method exclusive to Europe.
Might I also add they used the nominal bore dia when naming the 300sav,300H&H,300win,300wsm,300saum,300rcm,300dakota,300weath,300rum.
Yet Norma of Europe went the other way with .308normaG and .358normaG.

TJ'S kinda right on this one for the average guy, I guess. In my case however, I have shot several elk with the 270 Winchester, and NOT with what you would call a "Premium Bullet", and the results have been nothing less than spectacular!! Bang/flop on all of them. My son has shot several with the 270 Winchester as well, same result. Now the caveot, all of the shots were under or about 200 yds, and all the shots were placed, EXACTLY where intended. I don't have much patience for the arguments that you need more powder, or a bigger bullet, just in case you make a mistake. Don't make one!

Is it possible, that most, (and this is just a comment not based on anything other than my experiences) shooters who use the 270 might be a little more practiced with their rifles, and therefore because of less recoil etc, they are better shots, with their rigs?

Jerry

Well Jerry, I wonder how long it will be before you folks that parrot that stale old bullshit line of "magnum shooters flinch and are bad shots while we popgun shooters are hot shit" are gonna wake up. Because basically, you're full of shit!
Assuming you are talking about a hunting rifle, bring your hot shot .270 east of the big river and I'll take my standard model 700 7mm Rem mag with a 3x9 scope and I'll shoot off of a bench with you as long as you can or want to and we'll see who flinches and who can shoot.
Bring money and a prepaid gas card. You'll need the gas card to get home on.
I tired of you clowns that try to justify shooting a popgun by pulling "facts" off the ceiling.

Can we all just take a breath and agree that either will do just about anything needed with todays bullets. I can almost feel the spit over a topic of modest import at best.

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
Well Jerry, I wonder how long it will be before you folks that parrot that stale old bullshit line of "magnum shooters flinch and are bad shots while we popgun shooters are hot shit" are gonna wake up. Because basically, you're full of shit!
Assuming you are talking about a hunting rifle, bring your hot shot .270 east of the big river and I'll take my standard model 700 7mm Rem mag with a 3x9 scope and I'll shoot off of a bench with you as long as you can or want to and we'll see who flinches and who can shoot.
Bring money and a prepaid gas card. You'll need the gas card to get home on.
I tired of you clowns that try to justify shooting a popgun by pulling "facts" off the ceiling.

270 a popgun? No offense, but the 7mm Mag is not high up on the recoil list. I think that most will agree that that the 270 will kill everything the 7 mag will, you will probably get about 50 yds more useful range out of the 300 fps advantage the 7 mag has to offer.

If you wanna kill something better, use a bigger bullet. .338 ought to do. 416 would be better. and a 600 is good enough for anything that walked this planet since the dawn of time.

John

I'll take the 50 yards, I'm not interested in the 300fps. It's the bigger ball that I want.
The last several deer I've killed have been with 7-08's and 260's and the last three elk were 300winnies. I shot a 338 for a bit but couldn't see that it killed any better than the .300. I like to keep my hand in with my magnums year around and the .338 was more of a chore to shoot while the .300 and the 7 were no problem. But the question wasn't about 7-08's and .300's, it was about .270's and 7mags.
Both are needlessly powerful for anything east of the big river (I don't know about moose) but for western needs the 7mag leasves the .270 in the dust for several reasons one being simple weight of the projectile each can send downrange.
A 130gr bullet at some boyhowdylookwhaticando velocity doesn't match a 160 or 175gr bullet at 2900-3000fps. Once you break 2900-3000fps, all you're doing is impressing the non-hunters around the water cooler.
And, if nothing else, that extra weight is insurance. Insurance for breaking bones, making a raking shot, compensating for a less than perfect shot since everyone that has hunted very much knows that sooner or later you can and WILL make a mistake or something beyond your control will go awry.

I've come to the conclusion that the 7mm Remington Magnum is the most under rated hunting cartridge out there. It pushes heavier bullets faster than the 270 or the 280, and even the 280AI,...and I've had them all.
Where the big 7's interest me is in replacing the common 300 magnums like the 300 Win, the two 300 short mags and the 300 Wtby.

Reason?..more donwrange performance in relation to recoil......it shocks many to learn that a 160 out of a 7Mag at 3050 has virtually the same trajectory and energy at 400 yards as a 180 out of the 300 Winny at 3050....and less felt recoil , muzzle blast and powder consumption. I carried nothing but a 300 Win for 12 seasons but it's pretty much overkill in my book. I only own one 300 mag these days, just for conversaton, a Rem 721 in 300 H&H...I've gone to 7's for all my hunting rifles, no more 30 cal magnums for me.

I have a 7-08AI lightweight, stainless Senderos in 7 Rem Mag and 7 STW, a sporter weight in 7 STW and a 700 Classic in 7mm Weatherby, which just may be the best of the 7's......it get's speeds very near the STW.

While comparing the 7mm Rem Mag with the 270 Winny is a valid comparison and a popular pass time, I think the big 7's are better compared to the common 30 caliber magnums....

I'm a fan of both cartridges and the 270 Win. is my soulmate of cartridges but I have had 3 7Mag's and all were good. Now I shoot a beltless 7mag in the 280 Ackley Improved 40 degree shoulder.

The 270Win. with a 140 Barnes TSX will fill the bill for what you are looking for and kill elk out to 400 yards if you do your part and put them where they are supposed to be. And do it with MUCH LESS FELT RECOIL than the 7mm Mag.

quote:

Originally posted by bc300winguy:
I've hunted Sask. every year for the past 32 yrs. I only hunt deer there and in the northern half around P.A. I use a 270 and it's great for this area. Further south in the more open land with increased wind gusts I'd look at the 7mm it has better cross wind balistics.

I'm originally from southern Sask. and the fat road shooters would agree with you. The hunters don't care if they happen to be carrying a .270 instead of a 7 mag. At least when deer are on the menu. While not absolutely necessary, I'd like a bit more bullet weight for moose and elk. More frontal area on the bullet wouldn't hurt either. Despite having hunted elk with a .270, for my money, the real elk and moose cartridges are .30 or bigger.

Dean