I was firing a couple of rifles that belong to my friends. They both used the 140 Gr Accubond.
The .270 is loaded with 55Gr Imr 4831 and the 7x57 has 49Gr of H4350. The 7X57 has a heavy barrel and is heavier over all. The 270 gets about 100 FPS more with a shorter barrel. The end result is the .270 fires much smoother and with less recoil. Seems curious as it should be reversed.

might be an apples to oranges comparison. felt recoil has a whole heck of a lot to do with the shape of the stock. i don't have any experience with the loads you listed and have no experience with the .270. I shoot a fair amount of 7x57 and 25-06 and find the recoil levels similar.

I found that recoil from either a 7X57 m/m or .270 Winchester, is about the same as the recoil from a .308 Winchester, in the same rifle weight.

The 7x57 is a pussy cat, the 270 is a snarling vixen, they have recoil to match.

I've owned both and from the one's I owned the 7 x 57 couldn't hold a candle to the sharp rap the .270 had.

I suspect some dramatic diffenences in stock design are in play here.

quote:

Originally posted by swiss:
I was firing a couple of rifles that belong to my friends. They both used the 140 Gr Accubond.
The .270 is loaded with 55Gr Imr 4831 and the 7x57 has 49Gr of H4350. The 7X57 has a heavy barrel and is heavier over all. The 270 gets about 100 FPS more with a shorter barrel. The end result is the .270 fires much smoother and with less recoil. Seems curious as it should be reversed.

390ish is on the right track- when firing bullets of the same weight, in loads where one cartridge is using MORE POWDER to produce a higher MV, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the one using the lesser powder charge and producing a lower velocity to give greater recoil unless the gun giving the greater velocity is heavier than the other one. If both weapons in your example are of the same weight, then the idea that the 7X57mm is giving greater recoil is merely a perception, not reality. But stock shape, etc., can often create such a perception.

HOWEVER!! If one were to use the 7X57mm in a rifle having a modern, strong action with a heavy charge behind a 160, or better yet, a 175-grain bullet, it would certainly give more recoil than a .270 with a 130 or 140-grain bullet!!

I must be in the minority, as I have to have a dramatic change in recoil to notice any difference. To me a 7x57, .30-06, .270, 7Mag are all the same, step up to a .338 or .375 and I can feel a difference. Step down to a .257 and I can tell a difference. Stock shape also has a big effect. I have a .338 WM on an FN action with a McMillan stock that I would rather shoot than my FN .338-06 with its original stock that has a bit more drop. The .338 WM is an easy shooter, while I had a Sako in the same caliber that kicked hell out of me.

quote:

Originally posted by swiss:
I was firing a couple of rifles that belong to my friends. They both used the 140 Gr Accubond.
The .270 is loaded with 55Gr Imr 4831 and the 7x57 has 49Gr of H4350. The 7X57 has a heavy barrel and is heavier over all. The 270 gets about 100 FPS more with a shorter barrel. The end result is the .270 fires much smoother and with less recoil. Seems curious as it should be reversed.

That rep. comes from the fact that America is dumping ground for ole' military clunkers. With many ole' Spanish Mausers out there Winnie and Remi didn't load 7x57 to it's full potential.

I have never found the recoil of either round to be even close to a problem, Both are great rounds and have about the same capability.
Its prety hard to compare the recoil of the two unless you have identicle rifles, and even then , I supose, to make it fair you would probably need to get about the same muzzle energy , and then decide.
...tj3006

In this case, the rounds are both very similar so rifle stock design and overall weight would be a determining factor