The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 25, 2008, 10:49 PM   #1
Major Dave (retired)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2008
Location: Between Dallas and Shreveport, LA
Posts: 552
Is the 7mm RemMag over rated?

In the July, 2007 Field & Stream, a writer states, "...if you chronograph a 7mm RM, you find ..almost no distinction between it and a .270 and .280."

Agree, or disagree?

Did you ever chronograph a 7 RM and compare your chrony results to published data (from ammo manufacturers or handloading)?
__________________
Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be but a vulgar brawl.
Major Dave (retired) is offline  
Old August 25, 2008, 11:34 PM   #2
Jason280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2002
Location: Athens,Georgia
Posts: 355
I doubt its over rated, especially with 150-162gr bullets. I just picked up a 7mm Rem Mag a week or so ago, but I haven't had a chance to chrony any loads yet. I do know that Federal HE 140gr loads will do 3050fps out of my 22" .280, so it will be interesting to see what 140's will do in the Mag.
Jason280 is offline  
Old August 26, 2008, 01:44 AM   #3
BntBrl
Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 95
THey also compared my 300 weatherby to the 270. But according to them the tired old weatherby isnt any better thant he 270. At 100 yards, but I say at 200 or 300 or 400 or 600 its better. I would compare it with what ranges etc you are going to be using it for. If you are using it for 50 yards then you might want to reconsider I would think. But it you have any longer range shots or need/want more knockdown check its long range energy (they didnt do thise things witht he 270 and 300 weatherby comparisons I read). They made the 300 weatherby look silly compared to a 270, but it was apples to oranges for how they did it.
BntBrl is offline  
Old August 26, 2008, 12:53 PM   #4
Dr. Strangelove
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,418
I mostly agree

They are very, very similar.

Thanks for posting this question. I have been wondering this lately myself and just spent a rainy morning comparing ballistics from my trusty Hornady Reloading Manual 3rd edition. I do not have a chronograph and this was just one source and an old one at that, but I learned quite a bit.

I shoot/load both calibers and always knew they were very close ballistically, but I never suspected how close. I'll not bore everyone with the actual numbers, as I'm sure you all have access to ballistics information, but unless you look at the extreme ends of the spectrum of bullet weights, there is no real difference that I would ever be able to use. When comparing bullets of similar weights, the 7mm Rem Mag does come out slightly ahead in velocity, but not by so much it would make any difference for my shooting needs. I'm sure there are those out there who can make use of a couple of more hundred feet per second or foot pounds of energy, but I'm not one of them. So, is the 7mm Rem Magnum over-rated? I do not think so, it offers distinct advantages over .270 Win at the low and high ends of the available bullet weight spread and the ability to use heavier bullet weights is a nice option for those who need them. The 7mm RM is not one of the howitzer-class super magnums, nor was it ever designed or marketed to be. As a magnum loading of the 7mm round, I think it lives up to its name well.
Dr. Strangelove is offline  
Old August 26, 2008, 03:24 PM   #5
ForneyRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2007
Location: Forney, TX
Posts: 725
I load .270 Win(.30-06 based) and 7mm Magnum(belted family).

There are lot of similarities.

I use same powders for both. RE19, RE22(heavy bullets, and/or max loads).

I use magnum primers for both.

I use 130gr for .270, and 120gr to 162gr for 7mm Magnum.

I did some full tilt boogie 130gr Nosler Ballistic tips for my brother's Husqvarna 270. It was the first time he complained of recoil for that rifle. They were ~3140fps.

.280(.30-06 based.) is somewhere between 7mm-08 and 7mm Magnum. There is a 280AI(Norma) that is between .280 and 7mm Magnum. 280AI is a SAAMI specification.
__________________
When all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done.
ForneyRider is offline  
Old August 26, 2008, 03:46 PM   #6
Major Dave (retired)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2008
Location: Between Dallas and Shreveport, LA
Posts: 552
Chronograph results needed!

Come on, guys, SOMEBODY has to have a chrony AND a 7 Rem Mag.

I saw one thread on these forums that stated 3,050fps was achieved by a 7 RM as a max load. That's not impressive - I have personally achieved 2,950 fps thru my chrony with a 140 g loading in my 7x57 Mauser. ( I have a modern, strong action that can take higher CUP than the 46,000 SAMMI approves for the 7x57). Don't try this with ANY military surplus 7x57.
__________________
Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be but a vulgar brawl.
Major Dave (retired) is offline  
Old August 26, 2008, 04:25 PM   #7
ForneyRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2007
Location: Forney, TX
Posts: 725
Benchracing is fun.

http://gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satelli...270+Winchester

Hornady's magnum load for .270 win @ 140gr is 3100fps, for 7mm Magnum @ 139gr is 3250fps. These are the most stout loads listed for their cartridge and grain size on G&A ballistic website.
__________________
When all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done.
ForneyRider is offline  
Old August 26, 2008, 07:30 PM   #8
ligonierbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Posts: 768
3,000 fps with 160 gr Speer. That was with my old H870. Setting up some new loads with Re25 and the Speer plus some Hornady 162 gr SST, which I will report. These are out of a Remington 700, which dropped my first elk in it's tracks at 400 yd with good old Remington CoreLokt 150 gr commercial loads. I think the round is at its best with 160 or 175 gr. bullets. If you are shooting 130-140 gr, it's somewhat of a waste of powder. That said, I'm shooting a 6.5x55 mostly now. But when I get back out West, I'll be packing old "kicks like mule".
ligonierbill is offline  
Old August 26, 2008, 08:42 PM   #9
Major Dave (retired)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2008
Location: Between Dallas and Shreveport, LA
Posts: 552
clarification, please.

ForneyRider - what do you mean by, "a magnum load for .270"? Do you mean "maximum", i.e., "hottest" load for (standard .270, or a load for the .270 WSM?

ligonierbill - did you chronograph the rounds to get your info?

Just trying to understand the source for your info.

Thanks for commenting.
__________________
Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be but a vulgar brawl.
Major Dave (retired) is offline  
Old August 27, 2008, 09:24 AM   #10
mikenbarb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2007
Location: N.J.
Posts: 1,111
I think its highly over rated round and their are alot better cartridges for the job and with alot less recoil. Not that its alot but some can kick pretty good. Im sure alot of 7mm guys will disagree with me but I owned one and shot alot with it and it didnt impress me that much compared to how much they rave about it. Im sure it has a place somewhere as most calibers do but I have alot better choices to chose from considering how many different cartridges are out there now.
I see some data for lighter bullets that will put you in the 3400+ fps range(3499fps to be exact). Thats fast!
I still think the .300Win.Mag. is one of the best long range hunting rounds out there and theirs alot of different guns to chose from chambered for it.
__________________
Mike B.
Gun control= Being able to hit your target.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pifinnercircle
mikenbarb is offline  
Old August 27, 2008, 09:47 AM   #11
Loader9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2008
Posts: 949
I don't think it's fair to say it's over rated. I think it's a case of diminished returns. Take the same case and neck it up to 30 caliber and there is no comparison. For those not familiar with it, it's the 30/338 mag (it's in the Sierra manuals). I can get 150 gr bullets out of my 40X at a hair over 3500'ps thru my screens. You won't get close to that with the 7 mag. But if you look at the 338 mag, which is the parent case for both, it also won't push a 160 near that of the 30 caliber. It's all about diminished returns. Another one to look at would be the 308 vs the 260 Rem vs the 243. All on the 308 case yet the 308 will push heavier bullets faster. It's all in what you want out of a cartridge. My experience says you have a hard time beating the old 7x57 if you just want a 7mm cartridge. But when the 7 MAG first came out it had the magical MAGNUM name on it and it sold. Otherwise, I think it's like a lot of the cartridges that come out and really have no benefits. If it wasn't for the name, it probably would have faded into oblivion. Kinda like the 7mm Sharpe and Hart. It will push bullets faster and harder than the 7 mag but it doesn't have the name. Try to buy S&H brass today. Fortunately for me, I have about a thousand rounds of it but the rifle isn't all that and is more of a collector piece than a shooter.
Loader9 is offline  
Old August 27, 2008, 06:23 PM   #12
ligonierbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Posts: 768
I chronograph all my loads so I know what's up with my rifle, not the manual writer's. Also to get the standard deviation--more consistent velocity=good groups. For the price, compared to other shooting costs, I don't understand why every reloader wouldn't use one. Back to the 7mm. Don Lewis, who wrote for Pennsylvania Game News for years, opined that 7mm was the "perfect bore size" for hunting most game. Unfortunately, Mr. Lewis passed away recently, so you'll have to wait awhile to challenge him on that. As I recall, he said this because 7mm results in a high BC with bullet weights that are right for most game. There are faster rounds than the 7 mag, like the Weatherby and Dakota, but for me the 7 mag will kill further than I'm willing to shoot. Further than a .280 Remington? Probably not, but it will hit a little harder when it gets there (Speer says +150 fps with the same bullet at "max"). Personally, if I had to use only one rifle for all big game hunting (and hadn't inherited the Remington), I would buy a .280. Less powder, better case life, etc. Did I mention I shoot a 6.5x55? What fun is one rifle?
ligonierbill is offline  
Old August 27, 2008, 10:27 PM   #13
ForneyRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2007
Location: Forney, TX
Posts: 725
270 magnum is Hornady's name.
Actually, Hornady calls it Light Magnum.

3150fps in 130gr for the 270 is about as stout as any .270 load data I have seen.

I really enjoy the 120gr loads I make for my 7mm Magnum. I have 139gr, 162gr, etc. But the 120gr I use the most. Game is small in Texas, if I was on larger hunt, I would use my 162gr or load up some 175gr.

Plenty of people I talk to hunt Texas deer with .22-250. Much more enjoyable hunt to kill a deer without suffering a shoulder bruise for 3 days.

I read plenty of articles talking about elephant hunters using 7x57. Magnum is a marketing term. .22-250 and .220 Swift have no belt and are the stoutest in .224.

I still want a 458 Lott though.
__________________
When all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done.
ForneyRider is offline  
Old August 27, 2008, 11:10 PM   #14
Major Dave (retired)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2008
Location: Between Dallas and Shreveport, LA
Posts: 552
The suspense is killing me!!!!

ligonierbill, you said, "I chronograph all of my loads...", then you never told us how your 7 RM performs when comparing your chrono results to published, i.e., "book" data.

Equals published data, exceeds, falls a little short, falls way short, or what??!!

Is this some kind of conspiracy to keep "real" 7mm Rem Mag data a secret?
__________________
Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be but a vulgar brawl.

Last edited by Major Dave (retired); August 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason: Typo error
Major Dave (retired) is offline  
Old August 28, 2008, 02:34 AM   #15
Dr. Strangelove
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,418
Of course we can't tell you the "secret" 7mm Rem Mag data

Then it wouldn't be secret anymore, would it?

Here's a deal for you: I've got a 7mm Rem Mag but no chronograph. I also happen have a birthday coming up. It would be less expensive for you to send me a chronograph to commemorate the occasion than to purchase a rifle for yourself.... I'll be happy to shoot all sorts of things over it, maybe even see how fast I can throw the cat across it if you like....

(Meant in fun)

I probably will pick up a chronograph in the next little while, if someone hasn't answered your question by then I'll do my best because I'm curious myself, especially about the .270 vs 7mm RM question.
Dr. Strangelove is offline  
Old August 28, 2008, 07:08 AM   #16
ForneyRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2007
Location: Forney, TX
Posts: 725
I have a chrony, a Remington 7mm Magnum, and access to a .270 Win.

Lots of magnums have 26in barrels. Not sure of the most comon length of a 270 Win. Maybe 24in? I know the new short magnums are running shorter barrels of 20-22inches.
__________________
When all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done.
ForneyRider is offline  
Old August 28, 2008, 07:28 AM   #17
wncchester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2002
Posts: 2,832
"Is the 7mm RemMag over rated? In the July, 2007 Field & Stream, a writer states, "...if you chronograph a 7mm RM, you find ..almost no distinction between it and a .270 and .280."

It's a fact that almost all of the NEW cartridges, that is including all the belted magnums since about 1960 or so, are little better than the older cartridges. Magazine readers and paper ballistics chart experts frequently argue trivial differences in "flat trajectories" with differences of a couple of inches at 500 yards or a couple hundred ft. pounds of energy at the same distances. They are, of course, correct - on paper. But most of those touted differences really don't mean much in the field when fired from factory rifles in cold, shakey hands at targets at unknown ranges and unknown winds between between the shooter and critter.

Few of us have any business shooting at game further away than maybe 300 yards. Inside that distance, the .270, .280 and .30-06 are as effective as as any other cartridge.

Shooting a magnum under .33 caliber doesn't hurt my shoulder for three days but it is a fact that any of us can shoot more accurately with a lighter recoiling rifle. More recoil makes tiny variations in sighting, grip and shoulder contact detremental to accuracy, period. A tiny loss of accuracy negates any small advantage in trajectory and energy of a big cartridge so at what cost do we get any magnum advantages?

I load for a few of my friends, including for a .300 Winny and two 7mmRMs. I like both mags, on paper, but I don't have copies of either in my gun safe. In fact, my favorite deer cartridges are a .35 Rem/336 and a .30-06/700. I have NEVER failed to get my deer due to any short comings in either cartridge.

Magnums do have their place for a few people but I believe it's at the fringes of hunting, not the norm. Usually for much larger game than most of us ever see in our hunts. One of my friends took a large black bear in Canada last year, with a .270 I had loaded for him with common 150 gr. Corelocks; one shot did the job. And the guy didn't even take his flat shooting .300 Winny with him on the trip!

So, is the 7mag over rated? In my opinion, NO, not really. But it's older competitors are badly under rated in the minds of many hunters and magazine writers.
wncchester is offline  
Old August 28, 2008, 06:46 PM   #18
ligonierbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Posts: 768
For 7mm mag at least, my velocities are about the same as both Speer and Hornady manuals. Not always so with other calibers. Overrated? If you think it's magic, yes. If you just want an accurate round that retains killing energy a quarter mile out, no. Made for elk, I say.
ligonierbill is offline  
Old August 28, 2008, 08:18 PM   #19
ForneyRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2007
Location: Forney, TX
Posts: 725
There's other points of comparison to consider between cartridges.

One is powder efficiency. How much powder you use for the energy you make. 7mm Mag and 270 Win are about the same, low. 257 Roberts, 7x57 Mauser, 308 Win, and 8x57 Mauser score high.

Commercially available ammo. 270 Win: 110gr to 160gr, Rem 7mm Mag 139gr to 175gr.

I went through some old magazines. ;P
__________________
When all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done.
ForneyRider is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12599 seconds with 9 queries