Best 7MM cartridge

7x64 for me. I've owned five of them, still own three. Wonderful cartridge. Versatile, accurate, easy to shoot and easy to load for. And the rifles it's chambered in are European beauties! The .280 Remington is "almost" as good, but has no reason to exist other than USA prejudice against anything Metric. And the 7x64 was designed correctly and loaded correctly from the start, a couple decades before the .280.
The 7x57 gets honourable mention since it's such a classic, but is really replaceable by the 7mm08 in bolt actions. I like my 7x57R's though.
My 7x64's shoot the same bullets as the 7mm magnums I've been in contact with, only 100 fps slower. With less fuss, boom and kick. I like that.
 
Longwalker said:
7x64 for me. I've owned five of them, still own three. Wonderful cartridge. Versatile, accurate, easy to shoot and easy to load for. And the rifles it's chambered in are European beauties! The .280 Remington is "almost" as good, but has no reason to exist other than USA prejudice against anything Metric. And the 7x64 was designed correctly and loaded correctly from the start, a couple decades before the .280.
The 7x57 gets honourable mention since it's such a classic, but is really replaceable by the 7mm08 in bolt actions. I like my 7x57R's though.
My 7x64's shoot the same bullets as the 7mm magnums I've been in contact with, only 100 fps slower. With less fuss, boom and kick. I like that.
Click to expand...
One of my appreciated 7's for sure is the 7x64.
280Rem has a little more case volume though, it's nothing to turn a nose up lol.
7mm Mag is my go to. Belts don't turn me off, never caused me any issues. It rolls pretty good hand loaded.
 
Hitzy said:
280Rem has a little more case volume though, it's nothing to turn a nose up lol.
Click to expand...
Please forgive me Hitzy for being contrarian, But here goes.... Following is a bunch of "gun geek ballistic minutiae"

Actually, the .280 does not have more capacity, not in practise. American sources of data get this wrong all the time. Here's why....

The 7x64 was designed with a very long freebore, with close fitting tapered sides and a shallow angle at the start of the rifling lands. The case capacity is 1-1.5 grains of water less than the .280 Rem. True. But the difference in the throat geometry more than makes up for that piddling "extra" case capacity. The 7x64 can take full advantage of magazine length with bullets seated longer than the .280, and drive the same heavy for caliber bullets 50-100 fps faster, with the same or lower peak chamber pressure.

The twist of most 7x64 rifles is 1:8.7" vs 1:10 for most .280 barrels. It's designed for heavy for caliber bullets but still shoots the light/short ones well. The 7x64 handles the long, sleek 175 gr. bullets so well with its long tapered throat and fast twist it may as well have been designed last year, not a century ago. And because the freebore is "tight" the shorter 140 grain bullets still shoot accurately. No need to seat bullets close to the lands with a 7x64, (and it's pretty much impossible anyway).

Factory loads for the 7x64 have always been loaded to full potential ( CIP standards, not SAAMI) in strong bolt actions by the European firms like RWS, Norma and S&B. .280 loads are specified by Remington and therefore SAAMI to operate at lower pressure due to Remington designing their round for semi-autos.

So, When actually compared on their merits, the 7x64 design and factory loading specs is clearly superior to the .280.

And now have a look in American reloading data manuals for 7x64 data. They often recommend and publish "reduced .280 Remington loads" as if that's based on anything but expediency. Americans ( and many Canadians ) don't understand the 7x64 cartridge very well.
 
Last edited:
Longwalker said:
Please forgive me Hitzy for being contrarian, But here goes.... Following is a bunch of "gun geek ballistic minutiae"

Actually, the .280 does not have more capacity, not in practise. American sources of data get this wrong all the time. Here's why....

The 7x64 was designed with a very long freebore, with close fitting tapered sides and a shallow angle at the start of the rifling lands. The case capacity is 1-1.5 grains of water less than the .280 Rem. True. But the difference in the throat geometry more than makes up for that piddling "extra" case capacity. The 7x64 can take full advantage of magazine length with bullets seated longer than the .280, and drive the same heavy for caliber bullets 50-100 fps faster, with the same or lower peak chamber pressure.

The twist of most 7x64 rifles is 1:8.7" vs 1:10 for most .280 barrels. It's designed for heavy for caliber bullets but still shoots the light/short ones well. The 7x64 handles the long, sleek 175 gr. bullets so well with its long tapered throat and fast twist it may as well have been designed last year, not a century ago. And because the freebore is "tight" the shorter 140 grain bullets still shoot accurately. No need to seat bullets close to the lands with a 7x64, (and it's pretty much impossible anyway).

Factory loads for the 7x64 have always been loaded to full potential ( CIP standards, not SAAMI) in strong bolt actions by the European firms like RWS, Norma and S&B. .280 loads are specified by Remington and therefore SAAMI to operate at lower pressure due to Remington designing their round for semi-autos.

So, When actually compared on their merits, the 7x64 design and factory loading specs is clearly superior to the .280.

And now have a look in American reloading data manuals for 7x64 data. They often recommend and publish "reduced .280 Remington loads" as if that's based on anything but expediency. Americans ( and many Canadians ) don't understand the 7x64 cartridge very well.
Click to expand...
I said one thing lol.
" The case capacity is 1-1.5 grains of water less than the .280 Rem. True" and you agreed lol.
That's all i said or meant. I use 280Rem brass to load for my 7x64, the shoulder is just hairs longer in the 280 then the 7x64, just FL size and trim and good to go. This was before Hornaday and PRVI brass was available, 280 is easy to find.
That was a big rabbit hole you went down, and that's fine, put them in comparable chambers and twists, load to the same pressure, ones got a little more room for powder is all.
Like comparing the 6mmCM and 243 Win, one has faster twist, higher pressure, put them in the same chamber and twist and pressure and the one with more powder is going to eek out a bit more velocity, more with the heavy for cal as the powder capacity is bigger for sure.
I love my 7mmRem mag for 1000m playing, has the standard twist 9.25, so I tap out early on the heavy for cal bullets. Now Remington is turning them out with 1/8 twist...kinda pissed me off, it would get me into really high BC heavy for cal bullets like the 7mmPRC lol.
I guess my point of not going down that rabbit hole of twist rates and pressure with cartridges so similar is that is all that differentiates them, apples to apples, is that.
I like the 7x64 for it's history and performance with heavy bullets. If gun makers start running 280Rem with 1/8 twist, there is little point in the 7x64.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom