270 or 7mm Rem mag

While neither is my choice, I can relate to articles and some of my chronographing over the years, when tested, the 7mm mags. didn't live up to their advertised velocities and when all was said and done, there was very little diff. between the .270 and the 7mm mag. In the past, folks in the know, said it was because the 7mm Mag. required a longer barrel to dev. those numbers, and that they weren't making rifles with 26" or longer barrels. The .270 didn't need the extra barrel length, this may not be as relevant as before, with all the new powders avail. to handloaders.
 
Go with the .270:

-Less expensive ammo/reloading.
-Less recoil.
-Practically no trajectory difference at any reasonable range.
-No meaningful difference in terminal effect. If you want/need something that hits harder, you should be looking at something in a larger calibre.
 
An elk takes a hell of a lot more killing than a moose.My son lost a cow elk last fall lung hit under 100 yards with a .270 Minimal blood trail ,then none and got mixed in the herd as they scattered all over.Became wolf food.................I've shot truck loads of moose with my .270 but no elk.Always used the .338 WM...............Harold
 
sunray said:
.270. There's no game in North America that requires any magnum's extra muzzle blast and noise. A .270 will kill any game you care to hunt and be far more enjoyable on a range.
Click to expand...

But but but but, the guy at wholesalesports said I needed a minimum of .300 winmag to kill a rabbit and .700 nitro express for deer! :nest:
 
I have had quite a few 7mm mags, but sold them all. The 270 is more than enough for deer, moose, and bear, all of which I have put away handily with this cartidge over the years, so that continues to be my choice.

Ted
 
The 270 is a fine choice especially with the new premium bullets which will handily take down moose or elk.
There is very little to gain using the 7 mm actually more to loose in terms of extra recoil and added cost of ammunition.
The 270 is a pleasure to shoot at the range allowing you to practice more and with greater confidence and in doing so increasing you accuracy.
 
I was going to opt for the 7 mag due to the abundant bullet choices in .284" compared to .277" but the bullets available in .270 cover the same range, so that argument falls a bit flat. The bottom line is that the vast majority of cartridges that have been produced from the .30/06 case are both capable and successful and the .270 is certainly no exception. Both cartridges are useful and over lap to some degree, but perhaps the best option is a .280 Remington. Col Townsend Whelen thought so and recommended that anyone who wanted a new rifle would be well advised to choose a .280 over either a .270 or a .30/06, but cautioned that it was not so good as to justify discarding either older cartridge if you already owned rifles chambered for them. Today a .280 AI is every bit as capable as the 7 mag.
 
I had a T3 lite in .338 win mag. I loved it. The recoil actually felt much more like a big push than a hit (the limbsaver I installed really helped here, and the stock design really helped too I think). I doubt the 7mm will not be TOO bad. BUT, my friend (who has shot nothing but his T3 in .270 for the last 4 years) has recently converted me to .270, I shoot much better with one. (I suggest trying to find one to shoot just to get an idea if the recoil is something you could be comfortable with. If you have no experience with magnum recoil, I'd suggest shooting some guns to see just what you have to deal with, and if you have a flinch)
 
Thanks for all the input. It sounds like 270 is the way to go.

Again yeah I could go 308 or 306 or whatever that universal old military caliber is but I am hauling this rifle over mountains in the bush and I am getting to mid-life crisis age. I either drink less or buy lighter gear. Hence the T3 Lite.

Reading the ballistic stuff it sounds like there is not a huge difference between them and I would rather spend a few bucks less on ammo per box. I was just interested if most thought it was enough diameter for the job.

Great site guys.

cheers
 
I have both and prefer the 270 largely because of reduced recoil and the fact that the 7rm rifle is heavy and feels like a club compared to the 270. On the deer ive shot there is no difference in effectivness. The barrel on a model 70 featheweight in 270 is 12 ounces lighter than one in 7 mag.
 
Yamnuska said:
Wow you guys have quick responses. Thanks for the input so far.

So no problems with 270 on elk? I am never never never going to hunt moose.

I do see that 270 is cheaper to buy (not much) than 7mm rem mag. According to BC regs the only problem seems to be if you hunt bison. You need 175 grain or larger bullet, which retains 2712 joules (2000 ft lbs) or more energy at 100m.

I am never going to hunt bison.
Click to expand...

That solves this one for me as well. I doubt I will ever hunt bison either.
 
I much prefer the 7mmremmag over the 270win,I have owned four 7mmremmags,but I would never consider any cartridge shooting a .277" bullet.Anything that a .277" bullet can do,a .284" bullet can do just as good or better.
 
The 7mm RM is loaded quite a bit tamer than in the past. For example Jack O'Connor in "The Rifle Book" (1964) notes the following performance for factory 7mm RM ammo:
175gr @ 3020fps
150gr @ 3260fps

He says, "When I chronographed a factory Model 700, I found the velocity to be just about what the factory claimed".

New loads for the 7mm RM are quite anemic:
for example Federal
175gr 2750 - 2860 fps
150gr 3025 - 3110 fps

Winchester
175gr - 2860 fps
150gr - 3090 fps


Interestingly the velocity listed by O'Connor for the 7mm Wby Mag is:

175gr - 3050 fps
154gr - 3260 fps

Today's Weatherby loads? Take a look:

175gr - 3070 fps
154gr - 3260 fps

Even Hornady's Superformance ammunition doesn't make up for the reduction of 7mm RM loads:

154gr - 3100 fps
162gr - 3030 fps

On the other hand, the .270 has also been mildly neutered since O'Connor's days as he lists the muzzle velocity with the 130gr at 3140 fps while most loads today are listed a 3060 fps. However, Hornady's Superformance does make a difference here:

130gr - 3200 fps
140gr - 3090 fps

Given that info and the fact that you do not reload, I'd go with the .270 Winchester. All things being equal it will have less recoil than the 7mm RM but will kill deer and elk just as dead.

I should point out that I have owned 3 .270 Winchesters and 2 7mm Rem Mags - and only the 7mm RM remains in my safe. But I reload so the mild factory ammo doesn't matter to me. ;)
 
I had a T3 Lite. Because the rifle is so light, you'll soak up a good portion of the recoil, therefore I'd say go with the 270. It'll be great for what you're doing, factory ammo will be less expensive and easier to find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom