270 or 7mm Rem mag

Hi Boomer. Is there research evidence for the assertion that greater velocity doesn't significantly increase killing power? Thanks
Boomer said:
For the life of me I don't know why people wring their hands over the difference of .007" of bullet diameter between a .270 and a 7mm. Both .277" and .284" bullets can claim 7mm status. Given bullets of similar design and construction, impacting at a similar velocity, there is nothing one does better than the other. If you need more, you need a bullet of larger frontal area with greater mass, not one that is faster. Faster reduces the importance of errors in range estimation, though not as much as you might think, and the often claimed advantages of increased velocity on wound volume is grossly exaggerated. If I was contemplating the purchase of a 7mm rifle, I would choose a .270 over a belted 7mm magnum, and I would choose the .280 Remington over either. In truth I might stick with a 7X57 as the .275 Rigby has panache the other rounds lack. Besides it provides the ballistics I can use, rather than a hypothetical advantage I cannot. IMHO, the .243 is an excellent round for game up to 100 pounds.
Click to expand...
 
mbogo3 said:
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
Click to expand...

Can't see an elk or a moose or a deer going very far shot through the lungs with a .270. Moose are not as tenacious of life as an elk but no animal will go far shot through the lungs.
 
Yamnuska said:
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...

spenom said:
That solves this one for me as well. I doubt I will ever hunt bison either.
Click to expand...

I'm (probably) never going to hunt bison either, but since I found out that woodleigh makes 180 gn bullets in .277, i decided to revisit this point. According to the free ballistics program on Berger's website, as long as you can get your 180 to do 2400 fps you'll still have 2000 ft lbs of energy at 100 yards. So there's that. :sniper:
 
I own both. The difference in bullet diameter between the .270 and the 7mm (.284-.277) is .007 inch. Not a big difference. The ballistic difference between the .270 and 7mm Rem. Mag. in 150 grain favours the 7mm Rem. Mag. handily. The sectional density of the .270 is superior to that of the 7 mag. The recoil is only about 4 or 5 ft. lbs greater in the 7mm in similar weight guns firing bullets of the same mass. My point? Not taking into account the price of the rifle, or the cost/availability of the ammo - flip a coin to decide. Remember the sage advice quoted here earlier too "Never say never."

Then again, if you reload and use Barnes TSX or TTSX your choice of caliber really doesn't matter...:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom