Which 7mm is 7mm?

[FloridaVeteran]

Major Dave - a couple of months ago I saw a couple of fellas shooting a .284 at a 300-yd. range. Started a conversation and it tuned out they were working on loads for a 1,000 yard match the following month.

[Scorch]

.275 (Rigby) is actuallly the Standard System measurement of the diameter of the lands. The diameter of the grooves is .284, which is much more recognizable as 7 mm.

We typically call that the "bore diameter" rather than the "lands diameter". The other critical dimension is the "groove diameter".

All 7mm rifles actually fire 7.21mm bullets. The only rifles that fire real 7mm bullets (.277") are the 270s (Winchester, Weatherby, WSM, etc).

[LockedBreech]

This is one of those great threads I'm going to save to my computer. Learning a ton.

[gak]

I agree when it's usually mentioned as having a "7" or "7mm," folks these days are referring to 7mm Mag. As a general rule, cartridges that are most commonly referred to by it's "inches" description - .284, .280 Rem, etc, - are hardly ever actually called 7's in conversation, unless sometimes just discussing the bullet component. So, IMO, in this order of using "7" or "7mm" as the moniker,
- 7mm Rem Mag
- 7mm-08
- 7x57 (Mauser)
Hardly ever, as others have mentioned
- .280 Rem
- .284

People will almost always call these last ones (as well as the likes of 7x30 Waters) by their complete names.

As far as a solid, supported round/platform to pursue, I also agree the 7mm Mag is largely a "waste" or is excessive for most hunting purposes. It requires a longer action, often is more expensive (ammo), and its "report" and shove beyond what many consider desirable for what they need.. BUT, it certainly is capable and supported. But, if I want or feel a need for a magnum, something more than an '06, I'll get a .300 Win Mag for a "do all" or for "just elk and above," something in the .338 class. One of my faves is the classic .35 Whelen, a sunbsonic non-magnum beauty that'll do it under 500 as well as any. But, not largely "supported" for the OP's purposes.

SO, for a general purpose round/rifle, I'd focus instead on, by category:
Standard Action
- .30-06
- .270 Win
Short Action
- .308
- 7mm-08
IMO, no need to look elsewhere--again for the OP's criteria.

Looking at the Standard actions, the two listed do it all and can be loaded up or down, and are found on virtually all LGS shelves nationwide, including "backwoods" general store types (carrying any ammo).
.280 can equal or better .270 but, despite better bullet choices (7's again) is not supported nearly as well for non hand/re-loaders. The .270 is the quintessential "deer" (and sheep) round, and with modern ammo choices has made very decent inroads into the elk territory--to the extent that if it's what you have you no longer have to (as a g.p. hunting set up (as if you ever did really have to) think of a second rifle for an elk hunt.

Looking at the Short actions, .308 does it all about as well as the .30-06 except some heavier loads. 7mm-08 is one of the great under-rated rounds, a necked-down .308, it's less in recoil and report, and arguably more accurate under 300. The 7mm-08 to me can make for the quintessential "mountain rifle" as it seems to thrive in all barrel lengths but, unlike some, is particularly tolerant of the shorter barrels (18-20). Both it and the .308 are available most anywhere, but the .308 does reign supreme in that department by a good margin.
Hard to beat a 22" 7mm-08 or .308 as a do-all round.

All others than the four main ones above--of the general purpose bolt, pump or auto platforms--are pretenders IMO in the "well supported" department--rifles and ammo.

[Jim Watson]

I am in the part of the country in which "7mm" means 7mm Remington Magnum and very seldom anything else.

Sure, I am an enthusiast and know of many other 7mm cartridges, but am in the minority.

[Buzzcook]

Also, for general purposes, could I get a basic power ranking of the most popular hunting cartridges? For instance, I know .30-06 is mostly equal to .308 but can be loaded a bit heavier, and that .270 Win is weaker than those but overpowers .243. My trouble is figuring out where rounds like 7mm (either one), 22-250, and 300 WSM fit.

Just look at a list of cartridges by caliber. Then determine standard bullet weight and standard velocity. That's how you figure a hierarchy of rounds.

There is lots of overlap between cartridges. Many cartridges are ballistic twins.

[Scorch]

It requires a longer action, often is more expensive (ammo), and its "report" and shove beyond what many consider desirable for what they need.

7mm Remington Magnum fits in a standard length action (same as a 30-06). Ammo for the 7mm Remington Magnum is just slightly more expensive than 30-06 ammunition of comparable quality. IIRC, it is the 5th most common hunting caliber cartridge in terms of sales in the US (30-06, 270, 308, 243, 7mm Rem Mag).

The "report" and "shove" can be issues, especially with the 22" and 24" barrels and the lightweight barrel profiles generally used on production rifles. While I am no fan of the 7 mm Rem Mag (I shoot a 7X57 nowadays), it is not all that much different than the 300 Win Mag.

[chucknbach]

7mm or 7 mag usaully mean 7mm Remington magnum.

[RC20]

When people simply refer to the 7mm, usually they mean the 7mmRem Mag as it is the most popular 7mm. However as demonstrated above it can lead to a lot of confusion due to the number of cartridges that are 7mm.

Bingo.

Context is important. If its a WWII forum, then it would be more likely European cartridge but it would self explain.

We used to call my dads gun a 30-06. Well we knew what we were talking about, though technically it was a 1903 shooting a 30-06 cartridge (which was used not only in intold numbers of sporter arms but also M1, 30 calibers machine guns and M1917s.

My younger brother was on a mission to ensure we all called Spruce trees that, and not pine trees.

So it goes, approach it with a sense of humor as we all drift into loose terminology when we thing everyone knows what is being discusesed.

[hooligan1]

I call mine "Ole # 7".

[publius]

Always have wanted a .280 labeled 7mm Express and a 7x57 labeled 275 rigby.

[gak]

Scorch said:
"While I am no fan of the 7 mm Rem Mag (I shoot a 7X57 nowadays), it is not all that much different than the 300 Win Mag."

Scorch,I don't disagree on the recoil between the two. I guess what I was suggesting is that if I want/feel the need for a magnum and going to suffer for it anyway I want.a .3__ in front of it, with more bullet weight that usually goes along with that - something that'll more reliably break shoulder.

[tobnpr]

Most shooters refer to their rifle's caliber by the chambering and not the size of the bullet, too many standard chamberings, much less the wildcats.

It's a .308, not a .30 cal...
It's a 7-08, not a 7mm...
It's a 6.5 Grendel, not a 6.5...
etc...

But, I've always wondered why in the world, it's called a .223, and not a .224...
And why it's a .260 Remington, and not a .264 Remington...

Some consistency, please!

[gak]

...or. a .270 and not a .277

[Ideal Tool]

Or a .357 Special..Instead of .38..or .40-40 instead of .38-40?

[jmstr]

Personally, when I hear anyone say '7mm', my first thought is Mauser, as in 7x57mm. Then I have to re-evaluate based on where I am or whom I hear talking.

I use the 'WalMart' test: what cartridges in a 7mm do they carry? Those are the ones most likely to be thought of by the average person with a rifle [non-reloader] in the area. In my neck of the woods, it would be 7mm Mag or 7-08.

I keep wondering what those are and this thread has helped me figure them out.

I just wish the local WalMart carried 7x57 for my 1895 Chilean Mauser that has been in my family since at least the 60s, or .300Savage for my Savage model 99.

[Scrumbag]

Interesting point about ballistic twins.

Classic example of this is probably the .270 Win (6.8mm) and the 7x64mm.

Ballistically very similar over the common cartridge weights for the both (say 130-150 gr). Only difference being that the 7x64 has ammo available in 170+ grs which the .270Win does not.

The 7x64 actually came about in 1917 (Designed by Brenneke no less) and the 270Win in 1925 (I think those are the correct dates, please update me if wrong).

The reason the .270 came about is probably because the N American market wanted that sort of performance (as had the European Mkt) but there was a lot of '06 cartridge brass, actions and tooling set up so made economic sense.

Same can be said of the 7x57 and 7-08 as raised earlier. Very similar in many ways ballistically, just slightly different cartridges pushing the same bullet.

The 7x57: Effective hunting and military round developed from the German military standard 8x57mm (having actions / brass / tool etc ready to go)

7-08: Another 7mm going roughly the same speed but developed from the currently very common .308W/x51mm Nato cartridge.

What I'm driving at is you often get similar performance in different ways due to cost / parts availabilty / tooling etc

ATB,

Scrummy

[jmstr]

The 7x57: Effective hunting and military round developed from the German military standard 8x57mm (having actions / brass / tool etc ready to go)

Was it? I thought the 7x57 came out around 1893, before the 7.92x57. I thought Mausers had some round ball ammo they pushed out of the chamber with black powder back around 1888 and that they switched to the smokeless powder with the 7x57, then developed a 7.92x57 smokeless round for the action around 1904/1905.

IIRC, the 7.92x57mm was a cartridge revision that developed after the 7x57mm. When I was growing up, I remember being told that the 7x57mm was the 'granddaddy' to the 8mm Mauser, the 30-06 and the revised .303Enfield, as it performed so well in Cuba and in the Boer War that it inspired other countries to up the ante in the cartridge game.

Sorry. I was just hoping for clarity, as I thought the 7x57 egg came before the 8mm Mauser [7.92x57] chicken.

[BlueTrain]

Well, then, here's a question for you folks. Why are there different Mauser military cartridges and why isn't the 6.5 one of them?

There is the 7x57 Mauser, the 7.65x53 Mauser, and of course the 7.92 Mauser, which the German army seemed to refer to as 7,9. At least someone claims the 6.5x55 Mauser is not a Mauser. Why not?

[TimW77]

"the 7.92x57mm was a cartridge revision that developed after the 7x57mm."

Wrong...

The 7.9X57mm came out in 1888 BEFORE the 7X57mm.

The 7.92X57mm was just a minor change/revision to the original 7.9X57mm, groove increased from .318" to .323".

T.

[Scorch]

Well, then, here's a question for you folks. Why are there different Mauser military cartridges and why isn't the 6.5 one of them?

There is a 6.5X57, introduced in 1893, but it was never adopted by any government as a military cartridge. It is slightly more powerful than the 6.5X55mm Swedish cartridge. Mauser also developed the 6X57mm (just think, 6mm Remington 75 years before Remington thought about it), 7X57, 7.5X57 (yes, that is 30 caliber), 8X57, 9X57 (.356"), 9.3X57 (.366"), 9.5X57 (.375"), 10.15X57 (.410"), and 10.75X57 (.424"). All based on the 57mm case. Then there was the Mauser 54mm case . . .

BTW, one of the things Mauser had patented was the case design, which they used to successfully plead their case on patent infringement against the US Government. Even though the 30 Government cartridge of 1903 was longer, it used their case head size.

6.5X55 was developed jointly by Mauser and the Swedish military and adopted by the Swedish military in 1894. 7.65X53 was developed and adopted by Belgium but is famous as the 7.65 Argentine cartridge here in the US.

[TimW77]

"the 7.65x53 Mauser"

It is the "7.65X53mm BELGIAN" cartridge but better know in the US as the "7.65X53mm ARGENTINE" cartridge.

Was adopted by Belgium and some South American countries and like Scorch mentioned with the 6.5X55mm Swedish cartridge, named after the country that adopted it first.

T.

[Brian Pfleuger]

es·o·ter·ic/ˌesəˈterik/
Adjective:
Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
Synonyms:
occult - private - mystic

[Scorch]

Thank you peetza!

[Scrumbag]

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

My point is more about market penetration and wide usage than what came first as a strict technical development.

So, what I'm saying is that there are various rounds that have similar performance, often achieved in different ways and coming from slightly different stand points.

7mm seems to be a popular calibre to develop as for many shooters it seems to be about the "sweet-spot", for deer sized game at least. (And before the pedants jump on me, yes, I am making a broad generalisation).

So 7mm be in energy terms:

Fairly mild eg:
7-08
7x57

Medium eg:
7x64
280
.270 Win (I know more like 6.8x64 in terms of the metric system but I think ballistically so close out on an off the shelf sporter with factory ammo we're splitting hairs)

Hot:
7mm Magnums - Various.

My apologies again for the generalities to the cartridge pedants but that is what the OP started the thread with so that is how I answered.

Enjoy your shooting (that means leaving the books and reloading room!)

ATB,

Scrummy