Although I own a 7mm Rem Mag, I noticed in the Swift reloading manual that the 7mm short action ultra mag gets the same speed with less powder using 160gr A Frames. Actually, all of the bullets listed get the same speed in the RSAUM with less powder. Would think the WSM does the same thing too. Just offering another alternative to a belted cartridge.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:
I believe that you are quoting 280 factory MV. The 280 fctory loads are loaded to less than 58,000psi while the 7mm mag is loaded to about 73,000psi plus the 7mm Mag is usually found with a 26" barrel.

73,000 PSI? How do you figure that? The SAAMI max pressure for the 7mm Remington Magnum is 61,000 PSI and from what I understand most factory ammo is around 57,000 PSI. The velocities reported by the poster you replied to are within the limits of quite a few published sources of data which report pressures of around 58k to 60k PSI using a 24" barrel.

I get 1" groups with my 24" LH 700 BDL 7mm RM shooting 140g Barnes TSX bullets at 3250 fps. This is certainly not spectacular accuracy; however, this is an untuned factory rifle and that level of accuracy is plenty good enough for big game hunting. Primers are starting to flatten a touch but cases still last a long time. I don't think a 280 could get anywhere near that velocity with a 140g TSX. The ones I have chronographed get around or just over 3000 fps with a 140g bullet before primers get flat.

I think I would probably be more inclined to get a .300 Winchester Magnum considering what rounds the poster already has.

quote:

Originally posted by Buzz:

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:
I believe that you are quoting 280 factory MV. The 280 fctory loads are loaded to less than 58,000psi while the 7mm mag is loaded to about 73,000psi plus the 7mm Mag is usually found with a 26" barrel.

73,000 PSI? How do you figure that? The SAAMI max pressure for the 7mm Remington Magnum is 61,000 PSI and from what I understand most factory ammo is around 57,000 PSI. The velocities reported by the poster you replied to are within the limits of quite a few published sources of data which report pressures of around 58k to 60k PSI using a 24" barrel.

I get 1" groups with my 24" LH 700 BDL 7mm RM shooting 140g Barnes TSX bullets at 3250 fps. This is certainly not spectacular accuracy; however, this is an untuned factory rifle and that level of accuracy is plenty good enough for big game hunting. Primers are starting to flatten a touch but cases still last a long time. I don't think a 280 could get anywhere near that velocity with a 140g TSX. The ones I have chronographed get around or just over 3000 fps with a 140g bullet before primers get flat.

I think I would probably be more inclined to get a .300 Winchester Magnum considering what rounds the poster already has.

Well to start, the 73,000psi is obviously a typo

Second, I was quoting from memory so 63,000psi/61,000psi whatever.

My M700 CDL with Vv N560 loads behind a 140gr Accubond will do 3,135fps (avg) A.O.L.= 3.270"

These were hastily assembled loads done just before deer season. ( I got the gun a few weeks prior to the opener) Accuracy is sub .5" w/3 shots, sub.75" w/5shots @ 100yds. CCI std. primers still have a radius on them. (not flattened) I did have time to pillar bed the action and install a Timney trigger.

I had 7 left over Norma MRP loads w/ 139gr Hornady Interbonds @ just over 3,200fps I shot a sub 1" 5 shot group @ 100yds. CCI Mag. primers were also not flattened. O.A.L. = 3.340" This was done before any bedding or trigger mods. (out of the box)

I can no longer get Norma MRP powder, but I am sure that RL 22 will get close to the same Mv. I also found that the long throat will allow a much longer O.A.L. so I will work up loads when the deep freeze here in Northern New York defrosts.

Now, I doubt that a 7mm Mag could beat that level of performance in a 24" tube by an appreciable margin.

quote:

Originally posted by gixxer:
Although I own a 7mm Rem Mag, I noticed in the Swift reloading manual that the 7mm short action ultra mag gets the same speed with less powder using 160gr A Frames. Actually, all of the bullets listed get the same speed in the RSAUM with less powder. Would think the WSM does the same thing too. Just offering another alternative to a belted cartridge.

I don't beleive a 7SAUM will get the velocity of the 7mm Rem Mag...at least the 7mm SAUM that I had would not. With a max load of 60 grs of IMR4350 it did 3000 out of the M7's 22" barrel. Hardly near what a 7mm Rem Mag will do...even in a 22" barrel, a few years back a friend got a hold of Tikka M65 in 7mm Rem Mag with a 22" barrel. It was only 50 fps behind my 24" barrel with the same handloads.
I have a new 280AI reamer here that will get exercised in a few days/weeks. I also have recently acquired another 7mm Rem Mag in a '63 vintage 700 BDL with the blued stainless barrel. I plan to do a side by side comparision of the two rounds when I get the 280AI built. Will also have a standard 280 to use, maybe two of 'em , a 22" and a 24". I'll ream them to the AI chamber after I do the load testing.

i got a 280AI that does 3206 with a 140NAB. And thats out of a 24 3/4" barrel. That load came from Jim Borden as he is the smith that built my rifle. And I have absolutely no signs of high pressure at all. And accuracy runs consistantly in the .3s. If that man doesnt know what he's doin...there are a bunch of us in real deep trouble. So..7mm mag...hah...why do i need all that recoil??

I have been able to get better performance by using a long drop tube to get compressed loads with slow burning powders. Some of these powders (according to "Quickload") will not generate "high" pressures with any amount that can be easily "stuffed" into the "06" based case. Indeed with Norma MRP it is hard to generate 60,000psi in the .280 with 140gr bullets. I have never been able to "flatten" a primer with MRP/140gr loads in the 280. RL 22 is similar, but not exactly the same, it will get "warm" in the 280 case with 140s. Close but no cigar.

I believe that this is where all of the "Light Magnum" and High Energy" type factory loads come in, loading technique, not some super duper powder. Oooh the cartridge manufactures want you to think that they use some "special" powder to do this, but they do use compressed loads, perhaps that is all there is to it.

Once one starts to increase the case capacity to "overbore", this is no longer plausable.

I load slow powders up to the 107% load density range in "06" class and smaller (for bore size) cases, the 8X57 Mauser being a particularly stellar performer when loaded thus.

This also usually results in low SD and great consistancy, lending itself to better accuracy.

One seldom sees published load density figures over 90% for the 7 Mag.

Why go for a 7mm Mag and burn all that extra powder and buy all those expensive cases? Stick to a .280 or a 7x64mm, get nearly the same bang as the magnum with less recoil, less powder, and maybe even more style. In my neck of the woods we have a lot of people using the magnums to shoot 90 pound deer at less than 100 yards. SOmething doesn't add up there, to my way of thinking anyway.
LLS

I think with the 280/7mm Mag scenario we are getting into the realm of maximum "useable" vs "overbore" case capacity.

Perhaps the 280 is getting to the point that case capacity has reached near maximum as far as efficientcy is concerned with the 7mm Mag getting into the "overbore" range of case capacity.

Perhaps that is why the 7mm WSM seems to have the best of both worlds. IMO, I feel that the WSMs are a real step forward for this very reason.

My wish list does include a 7mm WSM in the near future, but a .325 (8mm) WSM will have to come first.

Think about it, has the 7mm WSM answered everbody's wishes in this particular case?

Pun intended.

Looks like some of the .280 fans are getting a little over optimistic , so I think the time has come to calm them down a bit(grin)

The 7 mag will beat the .280 by a good 200 fps across the board.....no matter how you slice it IF everything is equal . A quick glance thru any of the proven data sources that also publish the pressures will soon prove that to any impartial observer ; seat of the pants primer appearance judgements aside.....

Brass and powder cost ? I hardly think a difference of maybe $10/hundred for brass is going to make or break your hunting season , and a good many 7 mag loads only use 65 to 66 gr. of powder , not much difference from the hot .280 loads I see being mentioned here.

And don't forget ammo and brass AVAILABILTY. I don't see Wally world here even have .280 on the shelves , and you can forget finding .280 in the average 2-bit corner store.....

By the way , SAAMI recommended max for the .280 is 60000 psi , and it is 61000 for the 7mag. Again , a differnce hardly worth mentioning .

Not trying to be a prick here fellas--I think the world of the 280 AI...but the lack of pressure signs with a 40 degree shoulder is not necessarily indicative of a lack of pressure...

I remember an old (really old) Handloader article entitled "26,27 and 28" or something like that. The author admitted pushing the envelope and his top 7mag loads were 140s at 3400fps. He was probably running in the the same pressure vicinity as a 3200fps AI loads. Have done the same with certain 280AI rifles...but ain't no magic involved, just pressure.

Great stuff all of you!

Both calibers have their distinct advantages and well as drawbacks... that's why I have both.

A .280 in my opinion is best suited for a light, shorter barreled rifle. Defintely an all arounder, though. I used my mountain rifle to kill two red stags this past year with 160 grain Accubonds, one at 100 yards, another at 300 yards. Both one-shot kills. Never had any trouble with all the deer I've killed with it either as long as I do my part.

My 7 mag I dedicate to longer shots... to efficiently use the case capacity with slower burning powders I believe a 26 inch barrel is the minimum. I've got a Rem Sendero which fully tricked out weighs about 10.5 lbs. Not a gun I ever want to carry anywhere, but man it will shoot. 150 grainers at 3250 fps, and that's a full grain of powder off max (lost a half inch of accuracy at the max). Again kills the stink out of every deer I've ever shot, including the ones out to 400-500 yards.

I carry both rifles in a hard case when I go hunting, then decide which rifle to use depending on stand location.

I love the 7mm so much, I've just ordered a 7mm WSM for an in between rifle... It'll probably be about 8 lbs with scope and a 24 inch barrel with velocities between the two (I hope closer to the 7 mag, though). I guess I'll get a 7mm-08 for the kids when they get old enough to start out!

Jon

My data shows max pressure for the 7mm Express/280 @ 58,740psi, (piezo CIP) just like the 30-06.

7mm Mag @ 62,366psi,(piezo CIP) as is the 270 Win.

That is a difference of nearly 5,000 psi! Hardly insignificant.

My data lists CIP as default, but also lists SAAMI when there is a difference, such as in the case of the anemic 8X57 SAAMI spec (35,000psi) compared to the CIP spec (56,564psi)

Every thing that I have ever seen published lists the 280 as being loaded to lower pressure to funtion in the Rem M742 as the 270 SAAMI pressure was too much for the original action. It has since been updated, (the action of the Rem. semi auto) it is now available in 270 Win, but I would seriously doubt that SAAMI would change the pressure spec with the thousands of M742s still out there.

Junkie

Don't know where you are getting the CIP numbers , but the Ramshot load booklet(for one) lists both the 06 and the .280 as SAAMI recomended max =60000 psi .

They list the 7 mag at 61000 recomended max . I'm quite sure the magnum is at 61000 now because I've seen several people mention this number lately , including John Barsness .

And for instance , they got a .280 load with 140 s and Ramshot Hunter powder listed at 60,760 psi giving 2965 fps.

A load in the 7 mag with the same bullet and powder shows 61,900 psi and 3225 fps .

Hodgdon #26 also lists their pressures . but they use CUP numbers for the most part . The fastest .280/140 gr load I see is with IMR 4831 at 3009 fps and 51000 CUP , so they weren't afraid to push the .280 a little .

The fastest 140 gr 7 mag load they list is IMR7828 at 3232 fps and 51900 CUP. Not a great difference in working pressure from either souce......and 24 inch barrels used for both calibers and all loads .



PS.

I think you will find CIP is the European rating and that SAAMI numbers will be somewhat different .

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
Junkie

Don't know where you are getting the CIP numbers .

CIP is the European equivilent to SAAMI.

In most cases it will correspond directly to SAAMI spec as a relative value. (similar variances but not neccesarily exact values) As long as one does not try to mix SAAMI with CIP it is apples to apples, or oranges to oranges.

I believe CUP is Copper Units of Pressure, not directly relative to psi. apples to oranges.

As I stated, my data lists both CIP and SAAMI. When there is a (relative) difference as in the 8X57 Mauser, both are listed.

When did SAAMI raise the pressure limit on the 30-06? I have never seen 60,000psi published as a SAAMI spec for the "06", or the 280 for that matter.

Few if any load manuals that I have seen will list compressed loads. My nosler Manual does list a compressed IMR 4350 load for the 8X57 Mauser that will hit just shy of 2700fps with a 200gr Partition, blowing away any other load listed.

Just because nobody has tried something doesn't mean it will not work, or is neccessarily unsafe for that matter. But then what is Hornady doing with the "Light Magnum" loads. Compressed loads? You bet! New proceedures to achive compressed load density? Of course, but is it really rocket science? Specially formulated powders? They want us to believe that, but I wonder. Would Hornady go to the expense of having new powder formulas developed if they could achive the same results with available powders? Not if they didn't have to, all they need to do is convince everybody that's all.

My real world data varified with a Pact chronograph does varify that most listed powders show pressure signs in my 280 when MV gets in the 3100fps range. Just about the same Mv as "Quickload" predicts in most cases.

Only by experimenting with very slow (magnum) powders with magnum CCI primers using methods that allow compressed loads without using excessive bullet seating force, did I get significant gains in Mv. These loads can be predicted with some expected reliability in most scenerios with "Quickload". Again varified with chrono data.

Norma MRP is the only powder that I have been able to get really significant gains , and no RL 22 is NOT the same. Both "Quickload" and traditional pressure signs have varified this.

Just try to get enough Norma MRP into a 280 case with a 140gr Interbond or similar bullet @ 3.320" OAL to get any sign of excess pressure. No flat or loose primers, good brass life, easy bolt lift, no need to trim cases excessively, good SD and accuracy. Yes recoil and muzzle blast are a bit higher, but not compared to the 7mm Mag. "Quickload" predicts a 60,00psi pressure range with thes loads @ muzzle velocities very close to what I measured.

RL 22 however is another story altogether, it will start to flatten primers etc. when you get upwards of 3100fps Mv by a significant amount in the 280 with 140gr pills, but not drasticly if you use your head.

And, while we are at it, the last time I looked @ factory 7mm Mag data. Mv was in the 3150fps range with 140gr bullets in a 26" barrel, while the 280 is commonly listed @ 3000fps with a 24" barrel and similar bullets, and @ less pressure. Even if your data shows that the pressure difference is not a whole lot, it is none the less, less pressure. Everything I have ever read says otherwise as far as factory load pressures. They list SAAMI pressure for the 7mm Mag @ signifcantly higher pressure. Perhaps the data I am refering to was when the 7 Mag was loaded "hot". When it did beat the 280 by 200fps or more. That is no longer the case with standard factory loads now. Is it?

A 150fps advantage, with a 2" longer barrel, burning a significantly heavier powder charge, with more recoil and muzzle blast is not all that significant now is it?

Why not just go for the 7mm Ultra Mag and be done with it?

Posted by Junkie

"Few if any load manuals that I have seen will list compressed loads. My nosler Manual does list a compressed IMR 4350 load for the 8X57 Mauser that will hit just shy of 2700fps with a 200gr Partition, blowing away any other load listed.

Just because nobody has tried something doesn't mean it will not work, or is neccessarily unsafe for that matter. But then what is Hornady doing with the "Light Magnum" loads. Compressed loads? You bet! New proceedures to achive compressed load density? Of course, but is it really rocket science? Specially formulated powders? They want us to believe that, but I wonder. Would Hornady go to the expense of having new powder formulas developed if they could achive the same results with available powders? Not if they didn't have to, all they need to do is convince everybody that's all."


Hmmmm.....not sure where you get the idea there have hardly been any compressed loads published ?; there have been many, many; stuffing a case full of slow burning powder is nothing new , and neither is using a long drop tube . You can perform the same trick with any case , including the 7mm mag . Some of the loadbooks will mark such loads with a C .


I think you are getting these CIP ratings out of your Quickload , and I don't believe they are going the same in all cases as SAAMI numbers . Mybe your software needs to be updated . I haven't payed much attention to the .280 , but the 30/06 has been rated to 600000 by the SAAMI for a long time .

[OOPs, My bad]

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
Posted by Junkie

"Few if any load manuals that I have seen will list compressed loads. My nosler Manual does list a compressed IMR 4350 load for the 8X57 Mauser that will hit just shy of 2700fps with a 200gr Partition, blowing away any other load listed.

Hmmmm.....not sure where you get the idea there have hardly been any compressed loads published ?; there have been many, many; stuffing a case full of slow burning powder is nothing new , and neither is using a long drop tube . You can perform the same trick with any case , including the 7mm mag . Some of the loadbooks will mark such loads with a C .


I think you are getting these CIP ratings out of your Quickload , and I don't believe they are going the same in all cases as SAAMI numbers . Mybe your software needs to be updated . I haven't payed much attention to the .280 , but the 30/06 has been rated to 600000 by the SAAMI for a long time .

If you would please read the above quote, it does not say that "there havn't been any compressed loads published. Perhaps the "if any" part was not appropriate, but I said "that I have seen", and you are correct there are some loads with a "c" listed, but they are not "common" in the manuals that I have, especially in "magnum" class cases.


I would also like to point out that I did state that the relationship between CIP and SAAMI is not "the same" but were "relative", as in the variances are similar, not the same. CUP does not convert in a "linear" relationship to psi now does it? Some of the specs you were quoting were CUP.

I may indeed be quoting out dated SAAMI pressure for the 7mm Mag as from what I understand the factory SAAMI pressure was reduced because the 7mm Mag tended to be somewhat erratic when variables associated with the firearm, not the ammunition, were taken into account. This is not a factor when loads are developed for a specific firearm, but I stand by my quotes for factory load (projected) performance when comparing the 280 to the 7mm Mag, and I still find it hard to believe that the substantialy greater powder charge in the 7mm Mag can be taken full advantage of in the shorter barrel lengths.

Data I have seen suggests that once one gets beyond "06" class case capacity in a 7mm cartridge, we are getting into the realm of diminishing returns.

I have seen a much greater performance gain between the 7mm-08 and the 280 with 250fps gains from the 280 with similar bullets in similar length barrels with a powder volume increase of 9grs or less. It takes a somewhat greater increase in powder to achieve the same level % wise from the 7mm Mag and the 7mm Ultra Mag is even less efficient.

I have chronoed just over 3200fps (avg) with 62.5grs of Norma MRP in a 24" barrel, and these loads do not exibit any hint of excess pressure. Cases, primers and brass flow etc. etc. are about on a par with 60K loadings in other "06" class cartridges from my experience. "Quickloads predict 60k range pressure and Mv in the same range as I am reading. I am using actual case H2O capacity and every other parameter as found in my actual loads.

Now I have "played" with "quickload" data long enough to know it is not "loading data" and I always start low and work up cautiously. Sometimes the data is way off, but more often than not, if one pays close attention to actual parameters, eliminating as much guesswork as possible, it can be very close to actual results.

For that matter, one cannot take any published data for "gospel" as it only reflects actual performance for the particular barrel, chamber etc. that is used for testing. I shudder to think of the novice that has a rifle with a tight barrel or chamber, short throat etc. or perhap "all of the above" (it can happen) that is getting 200fps above the published data and just because his is not over the "max", he adds another grain or two and happily blazes away with his "fast barrel".

How many grains of powder does it take to reach 3400fps in the 7mm Mag, and can it be done in a 24" barrel? @ 60,000psi?

Easy question to answer.

1. 7 Mag if you want to 'impress' you shooting friends or you cater to the machoism that haunts gun shooters.

2. 280 if you want 90 % of the above cartridges performance in a less testosterone producing environment, don't feel a need to impress your shooting buddies or anyone else, and thirdly you are looking to accomplish that 90 % capability with about a 40% more efficient manner. ( less powder, less recoil, longer barrel life.)

cheers and good shooting
seafire

quote:

Originally posted by seafire/B17G:
Easy question to answer.

1. 7 Mag if you want to 'impress' you shooting friends or you cater to the machoism that haunts gun shooters.

2. 280 if you want 90 % of the above cartridges performance in a less testosterone producing environment, don't feel a need to impress your shooting buddies or anyone else, and thirdly you are looking to accomplish that 90 % capability with about a 40% more efficient manner. ( less powder, less recoil, longer barrel life.)

cheers and good shooting
seafire

Wow! That makes me feel like the famous orator (what's his name) that spent 2 hours blathering on @ the Gettysburg war cemetary dedication back in 1863, only to be out classed by old Abe who summed it all up "in a nut shell". I think that last post is the "Gettysburg Address" of 280 "loonies"

Great job Seafire B17G

Since you already have a 7x57, the 7mm Mag probably makes more sense since elk are on the menu. The .280 is an excellent round, but as others said, the 7mm Mag will beat it by 200 fps or so with any bullet weight. Probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference with 140-150s, but if you want to load the heavier bullets for elk, the big 7 has the edge. That being said, the .280 is a superb cartridge and plenty have proven it to be elk worthy, just the 7mm is another step up compared to the rounds you already mentioned, while the .280 is in the same ball park as the .308s.

-Lou

Well Junkie , I guess I would question why you feel the need to push a .280 to 3200 with the 140 s ? If you really want that level of ballistics , the 7 mag is a hell of alot more relaxing at that point , since you don't need to push it absolute redline balls to the wall to get there , computer similations not withstanding . Actually , a load I have used alot is 67 gr of old surplus H4831 for around 3100 fps from a 139 gr Hornaday . Shoots as flat as a maximun .270 load ,plenty for most hunting and quite mild . The very fact that you feel you have to crank out the max possible fps from your .280 makes a good case for the bigger cartridge , 'cause no matter how you slice it and dice it , whatever the .280 will do the magnum case will do easier. I can post data to prove this till the cows come home , but I have a hunch you could care less about the cold , hard facts .

And if you really have an illogical dislike of the magnum case for some reason , I can see no good reason at all to pick the .280 over the much more widely available .270 .

I wont try to tell anyone that the 280 will match the 7mm RM, but I will say that under the majority of hunting circumstances the in the field difference is going to be quite negligible. The difference between the 280 and the 30-06 is even more negligible, and everyone knows the 06 will get it done. Just do your part by hitting the mark and the Elk, deer or whatever wont care about velocity quotes, personal loads, trajectories or powder capacities. It will just die like all creatures whose vital organs have just been demolished do.

I hunted with a 7mm Mag primarily for about a decade and it is a fine round, but I doubt if I ever will again. It just isnt nessecary IMO. And I personally think the 280 could give the 06 a run for its money for the most versatile round because of the excellent 7mm bullet availability. It has become one of my favorite rounds ever, and the notion that a 280 cant be made accurate is straight out of the bottom of the stable.

Those who said get whatever YOU want were right on the money. Ive had my experience with both and those are a few of my reasons for the one I now chose.

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
I can see no good reason at all to pick the .280 over the much more widely available .270 .

As Wstrnhuntr pointed out, the 7mm bore has one of the widest selections of bullet choices.

The 270 is one of the most limited.

That is why when I do purchase a "short mag", (no obsolete belt, and better performance than the 280 without all of the blast and machismo asociated with the 7mm Mag) it will be the 7mm WSM, not the less versitile 270 WSM.

As I am obviously a reloader, why would I choose any 270 bore cartridge over a 7mm bore cartridge when performance is almost identical?

I don't buy my ammo @ Wally World.

I got to thinking about what Wstrnhuntr posted.

Please understand, I am not saying that the 280 is the equal to the 7mm Mag, but there is not a significant difference when using a 24" barrel.

It would be interesting to do a test with similar rifles, same barrel make and length, one in 280, the other in 7mm Mag.

Add to this real pressure measuring capabilities.

Test my Norma MRP load in the 24" barrel and then see what could be accomplished with a 7mm Mag with a similar barrel (heck we could even use the same barrel rechambered to iliminate one variable) with the same bullet @ the same pressure.

Would the 7mm Mag beat the 280?

Of course it would, but @ the same pressure in a 24" barrel, I would be willing to bet that there would be less than 100fps difference.


To add a little more interest to the test, do the same with a 7mm WSM, same perameters.

I again would be willing to bet that the 7mm WSM would be very very close to the 7mm Mag, perhaps even besting it slightly, with muzzle blast and recoil very close to the 280.

A compromise with the best attributes of both.

So the .270 bore hasn't got enough bullets for ya ? A quick glance thru the Midway catalog shows around 50 different jacketed bullets commonly available . If you can't find something that won't work for you in that lot , I don't know what to tell you .


Buy a 7WSM if it trips your trigger , but I look for it to be discontinued in a few years.....the marketplace has already decided that the .30 and the .270 bore are going to be winners in the short fat race .


Your comparision for all three of the 7mm cartridges has already been done , there is plenty of pressure tested data out there if you pay attention . Refer to my 2nd post again , but I'll repost the numbers here along with the WSM which Ramshot also has pressure data for .(140 gr bullets AND 24 inch barrels for each cartridge)

.280......55 gr of Hunter for 2965fps @60700psi


7WSM.....66.7gr of Hunter for 3221fps @64070psi


7Rem mag..65.6gr Hunter for 3225fps @61940psi



Note that it took another grain of powder and about 2000 more psi for the WSM to eqwal the old Remington cartridge. The capacity is close enough between the WSM and the long mag that the diff is pretty much nil ,except for action length of the rifles......

So much for less muzzle blast and powder consumption from the WSM , and so much for the supposed superior ballistics and efficientcy of the short fats.........

You guys are funny. Some of you act like the 7mm Remington Magnum is a hard kicking round. Using a 140g bullet with 63g of IMR 4350 will result in a velocity of about 3150-3200 fps from a 24" barreled 7mm RM. This will give you right at 19 ft/lbs of recoil. Sure you can load a 7mm Magnum up a good bit faster than that, but even at 3300 fps with RL22 – the load produces a modest 21.8 ft/lbs or recoil. Using a .280 Remington with a 140g bullet at 3000 fps and 56g of IMR4831, you will get about 16.5 fps of recoil. Neither one of those is a hard kicker by any stretch of imagination.

I think sdslinger was saying that .270 Winchester ammo is far more available than the 280 Remington, and I think everyone would agree there. Every little mom and pop store in North America that sells ammo will have .270 Win ammo likely will not have .280 ammo. I have seen first hand how valuable that advantage can be!

Will the extra capabilities of the 7mm RM give you a real world field advantage for most hunters? Probably not. However, I would also go out on a limb and say neither one will give 90% of hunters much of an advantage over the 113 year old 7x57 either.

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
So the .270 bore hasn't got enough bullets for ya ? A quick glance thru the Midway catalog shows around 50 different jacketed bullets commonly available . If you can't find something that won't work for you in that lot , I don't know what to tell you .


Buy a 7WSM if it trips your trigger , but I look for it to be discontinued in a few years.....the marketplace has already decided that the .30 and the .270 bore are going to be winners in the short fat race .


Your comparision for all three of the 7mm cartridges has already been done , there is plenty of pressure tested data out there if you pay attention . Refer to my 2nd post again , but I'll repost the numbers here along with the WSM which Ramshot also has pressure data for .(140 gr bullets AND 24 inch barrels for each cartridge)

.280......55 gr of Hunter for 2965fps @60700psi


7WSM.....66.7gr of Hunter for 3221fps @64070psi


7Rem mag..65.6gr Hunter for 3225fps @61940psi



Note that it took another grain of powder and about 2000 more psi for the WSM to eqwal the old Remington cartridge. The capacity is close enough between the WSM and the long mag that the diff is pretty much nil ,except for action length of the rifles......

So much for less muzzle blast and powder consumption from the WSM , and so much for the supposed superior ballistics and efficientcy of the short fats.........

Comparing one powder is not conclusive. No one powder is likely to be ideal for all three cartridges.

quote:

Originally posted by Buzz:
You guys are funny. Some of you act like the 7mm Remington Magnum is a hard kicking round.

What I find funny is the guys who act like 2950 fs isnt enough velocity for them. Dead animals dont care about peoples testosterone levels.

quote:

Comparing one powder is not conclusive. No one powder is likely to be ideal for all three cartridges.

True enough , wildcat . But if anything , Hunter powder should showcase the .280 quite well , being about the ideal burning rate for the cartridge . It is a little less ideal in the WSM , and a little less yet in the old 7Rem mag . It does show you though , what can be done with a bigger case by using a somewhat fast powder and moderate loads . As Buzz pointed out , the 7mag is not quite the fire breathing dragon some of you'all make it out to be.

Thanks for a good discussion , though .

quote:

What I find funny is the guys who act like 2950 fs isnt enough velocity for them.

Right........I figure 2950 would be pretty good myself.......with 175 gr 7mm bullets out of the Rem mag(grin)

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:

quote:

What I find funny is the guys who act like 2950 fs isnt enough velocity for them.

Right........I figure 2950 would be pretty good myself.......with 175 gr 7mm bullets out of the Rem mag(grin)

I can get that with a 180gr bullet in an 8mm-06.

Bob Hagel determined that the 7mm Mashburn Super was just right for starting 175 gr Partitions. Hagel felt that such a heavy bullet was desirable to get adequate penetration in the larger Western animals at long range.

We know that smaller cases in a particular bore do quite well with the lighter bullets so if the game is moderate in size then a 140 gr bullet could be indeed optimum.

To each his own ok? This rifle pictured here on the left weighs 6.3 lbs and it's 270 WSM starts a 140 gr .277" bullet at 3210 fps with an approved load. I have not seen many long action factory rifles around that are as light as this one and yet have a strong composite stock.


If it were 7mm I would expect a 140 gr to start at 3250 fps maximum.

Show me your 6.3 lb 280 Impr.

"Don't force it, use the big hammer."

quote:

You guys are funny. Some of you act like the 7mm Remington Magnum is a hard kicking round. Using a 140g bullet with 63g of IMR 4350 will result in a velocity of about 3150-3200 fps from a 24" barreled 7mm RM. This will give you right at 19 ft/lbs of recoil. Sure you can load a 7mm Magnum up a good bit faster than that, but even at 3300 fps with RL22 – the load produces a modest 21.8 ft/lbs or recoil.

Buzz, I find that funny as well. My 30-06 has more percieved recoil than my Model 700 7RM. Sure weight of the rifle and stock configuration is most likely where the difference comes in but, that 7 RM is quite pleasant to shoot. Infact, it's my favorite rifle to take to the range.

Savage99,

What kind of stock is that 270WSM wearing? I like the Olive and the Gray stocks.

Reloader

It's a Kimber

I am just getting used to these composite stocks and do not have a favorite color. In fact I would prefer one that had wood grain.

quote:

I can get that with a 180gr bullet in an 8mm-06.

Well , good for you junkie , but tell us , do you really believe that bullet is the equal of a 175 gr 7mm bullet in wind bucking , velocity retention for a flat trajectory , and penetration ?



However , if you bored that 8mm out to a .358 caliber , you'd make a real gun out of it.....(grin)



Sav99......some of these guys are already scared they might burn a few grains too much powder with the 7 Remington . I doubt they are going to be interested in the Mashburn cartridge.HehHehHeh

Here is the gist of an email I got from a real man's 7mm It's a 7mm/338 RUM!

"This is my "big gun" I`m a 7mm guy and personally have 5 reamers of my own incuding this one. This is a Remington 700 action Krieger Sendero taper 1 in 10" twist crowned at 26". It has a McMillan Classic stock with sendero barrel channel, Jewell trigger, Leupold LRT 6.5-20x50. I took it antelope hunting this fall in NE New Mexico and was able to harvest my furthest shot of 530 yds. My son also used it and took his buck at 306 yds. I have several others but this is my long range favorite. It is pushing the new Nosler 140 Accubond at 3605 with exceptional accuracy, I put 4 of 5 shots in the .2`s before the hunt, 88.5 gr IMR 7828."

Nice Rig but, ouch, I didn't see anything about a muzzle break.

I bet it'll be a barrel burner.

Reloader

I have shot both. my choice is the .280 rem.you don't need that extra 300 fps. if your only shooting 300 yards or less. i seen a young boy 12 years old or so, kill a larg elk on the outdoor channel with a 7MM-08 what do u intend on hunting and at how far. bullet placement is more important that fps. you don't need a MAG for deer size game.or better yet get a 7MM-08 with a 24 in. barriel mine is shooting 2944 with a 140 grain sierra b.t.

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:

quote:

I can get that with a 180gr bullet in an 8mm-06.

Well , good for you junkie , but tell us , do you really believe that bullet is the equal of a 175 gr 7mm bullet in wind bucking , velocity retention for a flat trajectory , and penetration ?



However , if you bored that 8mm out to a .358 caliber , you'd make a real gun out of it.....(grin)

No need for that, I'll just load an 8mm 200gr Partition @ 2800fps for some real hitting power on larger game. Or perhaps an 8mm 220gr Game King @ 2600fps if I really wanted to go after something big.

And then of course there is the 325 WSM that will do 2950fps with the 200gr Accubond, that would be pretty darn close to your 7mm Mag as far as flat trajectory and more energy @ 400yds to boot.

But if I wanted to burn more powder, I could go with the 8X68S for in excess of 3000fps with 200gr pills or 2800fps with 220s.

I think one could make an argument that a prudently loades .280 will be very close to many factory loaded 7Remmags in equal length bbls. I like both, why not?