Which Rifle 270 OR 30-06

I think there's been a history of deliberate under-loading by the manufacturers with the 7mm Rem Mag. This goes back several decades, if I'm not mistaken, and probably has something to so with the (uncomfortable) recoil generated by the original factory loads, which were loaded with 175 grain bullets.

If you load your 7mm Rem Mag with 160 grain bullets and a slow-burning powder you should see that it generates decent velocities without excessive pressure. (Barrel length helps too. ;) )
 
I'm always curious about the love affair people have with heavy bullets for the 7mm. I spit 139-grainers out of mine and they are producing great velocity, incredible down-range performance, suitable accuracy and minimal recoil. To me, the 7MM is one of those calibres that's been handcuffed by a selection of heavy bullets. I'll grab a .30 cal if a I want to shoot bullets over 150 grains.
 
Last edited:
popcan said:
what's up with that?

We keep hearing over and over that 7mm mag loads are under acheiving....

Is there some reason for that?
Click to expand...


The 7mmRM is one of those cartridges that has been found to have crazy pressure spikes, in some rifles. So factory ammo tends to be loaded down from it's full potential, and especially since the cartridge first came out, when it was really a sizzler...

Chronographs tell you what is really going on, one reason I generally exceed maximum loads in the 7RM, in my rifle, while keeping an eye on everything.
 
MauserMike said:
Seeing as you are in Southern Ontario, .270 is allowed for hunting in many areas around here whereas .30-06 will not be. (.275 and under areas)

Something to consider if you want to hunt coyotes or other game and don't have a small bore centre fire rifle.
Click to expand...

this is probably the most relevant post in the thread.
since everyone else seems to agree that there is little difference between the .270 and .30-06, why not get the .270 and be able to use it for whatever you want in southern ontario.
 
sheephunter said:
I'm always curious about the love affair people have with heavy bullets for the 7mm. I spit 139-grainers out of mine and they are producing great velocity, incredible down-range performance, suitable accuracy and minimal recoil. To me, the 7MM is one of those calibres that's been handcuffed by a selection of heavy bullets. I'll grab a .30 cal if a I want to shoot bullets over 150 grains.
Click to expand...

There's all sorts of advantages to choosing heavy for caliber bullets in big game cartridges. Not the least of these advantages is that you are afforded flat trajectory and ample down range power without driving bullets at a velocity that exceeds their design parameters.

The TSX has changed the dynamics of this to some degree, but to my way of thinking they are built backwards. Normally, the heavier a bullet, the longer the core and the longer the core, the greater the potential upset of the bullet, and because wound volume is proportional to the expanded diameter of the bullet, the more killing power the heavy bullet brings to bear on the target. The X bullets by contrast all have the same depth of hollow point within caliber, so regardless of weight the expanded diameter of the bullet does not change. The X bullet's weight is determined by the length of the shank hence X bullets are built backwards. But they do stand up to high velocity impacts reasonably well, and light bullet enthusiasts are better off with the TSX than with anything else commonly available in Canada.
 
I understand the theory but with heavy bullets you get heavy recoil and poorer ballistics within normal ranges. I agree going too light can be an issue with some calibres but 140-150 seems ideal to me for the 7mm. Both provide more than ample energy for game to elk or even moose size. I may go to a 160 for moose but it seems few people enjoy what this calibre is actually capable of by shooting huge bullets. It's for this reason alone that the 7mm has earned a reputation for being recoil heavy. For sheep, deer, antelope, bear and even elk, the 139 grain is all that's needed. BTW, I shoot Accubonds and performance is great. While I am a TSX fan, I'm not sure they are the best 7mm bullet, especially at closer ranges on small game like deer. I much prefer the performance of a bonded bullet.
 
Everyone has their own ideas. I like 160s in my STW. The TSX shoots awsome and flies very flat. Not to argumentative but if you want to shoot light bullets get a 270.
 
sheephunter said:
I understand the theory but with heavy bullets you get heavy recoil and poorer ballistics within normal ranges. I agree going too light can be an issue with some calibres but 140-150 seems ideal to me for the 7mm. Both provide more than ample energy for game to elk or even moose size. I may go to a 160 for moose but it seems few people enjoy what this calibre is actually capable of by shooting huge bullets. It's for this reason alone that the 7mm has earned a reputation for being recoil heavy. For sheep, deer, antelope, bear and even elk, the 139 grain is all that's needed. BTW, I shoot Accubonds and performance is great. While I am a TSX fan, I'm not sure they are the best 7mm bullet, especially at closer ranges on small game like deer. I much prefer the performance of a bonded bullet.
Click to expand...


A bonded bullet? What the hell are you talking about? The so-called bonded Accubond averages somewhere between 65-70% weight retention. The TSX averages 95% or better. So which is the true bonded bullet? I mean really, the TSX deserves to be called a bonded bullet more then the Accubond, in my opinion.

Btw I am a huge Accubond fan and I do not use Barnes bullets...
 
Demonical said:
A bonded bullet? What the hell are you talking about? The so-called bonded Accubond averages somewhere between 65-70% weight retention. The TSX averages 95% or better. So which is the true bonded bullet? I mean really, the TSX deserves to be called a bonded bullet more then the Accubond, in my opinion.

Btw I am a huge Accubond fan and I do not use Barnes bullets...
Click to expand...

HUH??????

Bonded has to do with the process the bullet is made....not how it holds together. Bonded is just a version of the old cup and core but the core is chemically bonded to the jacket. Many manufacturers make =bonded bullets these days. My favourite is the Trophy Bonded Bearclaw. I can show you dozens of these with 90%+ retention from a wide variety of ranges in wide variety of critters. Nothing wrong with the TSX when used in its performace envelope but it most certainly not a bonded bullet! It does not deserve to be called bonded because...well...it isn't bonded.
 
Last edited:
I know what bonded bullets are and I understand how they are made. I have Hornady Interbonds, Nolser Accubonds. The Hornadys actually run about 85% weight retention, the Nolsers 65%. I've never tried Trophy Bonded because the price is ridiculous.

I'm just making the point that the so-called "bonded" bullet is nothing but a damn marketing ploy. Hell a Remington CoreLokt or Hornady Interlock will get you the same terminal performance as an Accubond. To me the real reason to use an Accubond is due to their superior accuracy and consistency.

They are also a bargain for the performance IMHO.
 
I'd have to disagree with you. One of the main failures of a cup and core bullet is jacket seperation and bonded bullets were developed to eleviate this problem. I think the SST is a classic example. I used the non-bonded version for years and likely made a 100 or more muzzleloader kills with it but jacket seperation was nearly always the case. It really didn't make the bullet any less deadly but it did impede penetration and just didn't look that great. Now, Hornady offers a bonded version of the SST and jacket seperation is a thing of the past and weight retention definitely went up as well. Much more than a marketing ploy I'd say.

There's lots of good bullets out there and they will alll get the job done if they shoot accurately and the shooter does his job but there is no questioning the fact that bonded or even cup and core or partitions offer a wider performance envelope than the TSX. Hard to argue that the TSX does hold together though.
 
Last edited:
After shooting a big black bear at close range stem to stern with an Accubond last year, and a long range deer form stem to stern with a TSX...I am impressed with both bonded and monometal.

I'm fine witht he TSX. It opens fast and penetrates- from close up to long range.:)
 
sheephunter that is the modern myth in my opinion. If you read John Taylor and read about the theories of the old British hunters, the cup and core bullets perform absolutely flawlessly when appropriate bullet weight and velocity are respected!
I'm talking about sectional density to velocity.

The British standard was velocities in the 2150-2400 fps MV range, with high sectional density bullets; .300 or so and up. That idea still holds water.

When you read Taylors descriptions of bullets and how they were constructed, they were designed to those British specs. Long bullets. Taylor would describe the subtle differences in the amount of exposed lead on the bullet tip and how this affected penetration.

The thing is nowadays is too many people are hung up on velocity. Read posts in this forum or anywhere on the internet and 90% of guys stress velocity. Read anything guys write about their .45-70 loads and they are all over max'. Too many guy want to shoot light bullets at hyper velocity.

Moderate velocity with high sectional density works and it will always work and then all this BS about premium bullets goes out the window.

If people step back and think about it for a second you realize that 90% of all the game animals that you shoot are inside of 150 yards, then that hyper velocity is not required. People that live in Sask or hunt sheep are the exception. But really for the rest of us it's true.

So instead of using a 150gr "premium" Barnes TSX bullet in your .30-06, use a plain-jane Hornady Interlock of 180 etc... You will save a pile of money too, since you'll get about 5 of those Hornadys for the price of 1 TSX.
 
I have never had a problem getting the velocity i wanted out of my 7mm mags with RL-22 powder.

Weatherbys have always been hard to match velocity I have found. But the 7mm no issues I shoot over a chrony plenty to back this up.
 
sheephunter said:
I understand the theory but with heavy bullets you get heavy recoil and poorer ballistics within normal ranges.
Click to expand...

It's been my experience that with respect to most big game cartridges, there is little difference in recoil between light bullets and heavy bullet loads, due to the proportionately smaller powder column behind the heavy bullets. If one finds a 175 gr bullet beyond their ability to shoot well, neither will they be able to shoot well with a 150 gr bullet loaded to the same pressure levels in the same cartridge.

Lets just do a quick comparison of a 140 gr AB @ 3450 and a 160 gr AB @ 3230, and compare the trajectory. The velocities are an average of maximum loads from the Nosler Manual for the 7mm Ultra. In both cases we'll zero the rifle for 200 yards, and consider the trajectory at 300 and 500 yards. I personally try not to shoot at game beyond 300 yards, but not everyone is like minded. Wind drift is calculated for a 10 mph cross wind.

Bullet -140 AB @ 3450..........................160 AB @ 3220

300 yds drop .... -4.5" ....................................... -5.2"
300 yds drift ...... 4.8" ........................................ 4.9"

500 yds drop ... -27.0" ....................................... -30.7"
500 yds drift ..... 14.2" ........................................ 14.3"

So at 300 yards the difference between the light bullet and the heavy is about 3/4" and at 500 yards the difference is 3.5" in favor of the light bullet. I dare say that at those ranges the advantage could not be utilized. A 10X scope reticle could cover more than 3.5" at 500 yards. Suffice to say that at least in the case of the 140 and 160 gr Accubonds, there is no practical difference in trajectory.

Because penetration is a function of momentum, penetration of both bullets would be equal, provided both bullets retained the same percentage of original weight. But a heavier bullet when comparing lead core bullets, tends to expand to a larger diameter, and a larger frontal area diameter will create a larger wound volume. Just how much larger can only be determined by firing each bullet into an aqueous medium, that would hold it's shape for measurement, but it would be safe to assume 10-15% in favor of the heavier bullet.
 
Last edited:
Sectional density is quite possibly the most outdated theory that shooters rely on today. The only purpose that sectional density serves today is when comparing two idenical bullets either of different weight or calibre. Sectional density plays no role when comparing different types of bullets. Bullet construction has come a long ways since old Taylor's day and while he was likely on to something when all bullets basically had the same construction, it means little today. Bullet construction and performance has far more to do with penetration than SD. I can show you over two feet difference in penetration with two bullets that have an identical SD and are both sold as big game hunting bullets. SD has become a crutch on the internet to foster discussion but has little real world value any more.
 
But you can't show me any difference in penetration between two soft point bullets of different weights but of similar construction fired at maximum pressure from the same rifle. The reason you cannot is because there isn't any difference. It has nothing to do with sectional density and everything to do with momentum. The velocity of the light bullet makes up for the mass of the heavy bullet, provided both bullet retain an equal percentage of their original weight.

Sectional density can be used as a measure for how well one solid might penetrate compared to another, but again, the construction and design of the solids plays an equally important role as it does with soft points, so we must be sure we are comparing apples to apples.
 
Boomer...to some degree, the theory of sectional density is a measure of momentum so that's why it does apply when comparing idenical bullets but you are 100% correct that you must be comparing apples to apples and when most people throw around the term SD, they aren't.

Soft point bullet is a pretty broad term and there are lots of construction/performance differences even within that broad category but you are correct that penetration will be pretty similar between indentical bullets of different weights fired at maximum pressure. As you pointed out, the heavier bullet will likely have a larger frontal diameter after expansion so that would play some factor in limiting penetration. While you are starting with bullets of identical diameter, they may not end up that way and penetration would vary slightly just as it would with two identical weight bullets of different calibres.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom