WisBorn
Contributing Member
Very nice rifle
7x57 or 270 or 243?
- Thread starter el Godfather
- Start date
- Status
By the way, I used the "under-powered" .270 to kill a nice bull moose at 270 yards down a woods road, one shot. Opposite side lung/shoulder.
1948CJ2A
Member
I for one am happy to see the 7x57 getting some love! Over the past 30 years lots of folks including gun writers have touted the 7-08 as the "modern replacement" for the old Mauser. While the ballistics are nearly the same, the 7x57 does have more case capacity (think 243 to 6mm Rem for another analogy). In a modern rifle, the 7x57 is superior to the 7-08. The 7x57 also will NOT fit into a short action, whereas the 7-08 will.
The 7x57 was my first deer rifle, built on a milsurp M98 when I was in high school a long time ago. I have probably harvested more game with it than any other rifle I own. It's also one of the more pleasant rifles to shoot. Factory ammo is loaded way down so it's really a hand-loaders only option in my opinion.
I also own a 243, which is a fine little rifle. Short action, low recoil and flat shooting, though I prefer my 250-3000 savage over my 243. 243 factory ammo is easy to find and perfectly acceptable for field use. I don't have a 270 win but I do have a 270 Wby Mag. It's a great rifle but won't do anything my 7mms won't do better.
I like rifles...
The 7x57 was my first deer rifle, built on a milsurp M98 when I was in high school a long time ago. I have probably harvested more game with it than any other rifle I own. It's also one of the more pleasant rifles to shoot. Factory ammo is loaded way down so it's really a hand-loaders only option in my opinion.
I also own a 243, which is a fine little rifle. Short action, low recoil and flat shooting, though I prefer my 250-3000 savage over my 243. 243 factory ammo is easy to find and perfectly acceptable for field use. I don't have a 270 win but I do have a 270 Wby Mag. It's a great rifle but won't do anything my 7mms won't do better.
I like rifles...
Chuck R.
Member
We load our .270s similarly, a lot of guys and the factories don't, which is why I suspect it get's the "ho hum" effect from a lot of guys. With the 130s at +3150FPS you've got to go to a magnum to get any increased performance and even that's marginal. My latest load development with H4831SC yielded 3210 from a 24" barrel with a Nosler 130 AB, without signs of pressure.
OP
OP
el Godfather
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,847
Found this old 7x57 bullet made by Kynoch.
js8588
Member
So this is still going on, hmm?
I maintain the correct answer to his question was the 6.5x55 (or, I'll throw some credit to @LoonWulf, a 6mm Creed...or, I guess 6.5 Creed).
Of the 3 he mentioned, 270 does more, better. I like it where a lot of people would use a 300 Win Mag (I used to have a Win Mag). Why? It kicks me less & I shoot it better.
He didn't ask about a 30-06. While 30-06 isn't the answer to a lot of questions, it's usually nevertheless not the wrong answer. Unlike the 308, it's an awesome round (just had to stir that pot...)
Since OP has a 243 & a 7x57, he doesn't really need a 270.
Clear as mud, eh?
I maintain the correct answer to his question was the 6.5x55 (or, I'll throw some credit to @LoonWulf, a 6mm Creed...or, I guess 6.5 Creed).
Of the 3 he mentioned, 270 does more, better. I like it where a lot of people would use a 300 Win Mag (I used to have a Win Mag). Why? It kicks me less & I shoot it better.
He didn't ask about a 30-06. While 30-06 isn't the answer to a lot of questions, it's usually nevertheless not the wrong answer. Unlike the 308, it's an awesome round (just had to stir that pot...)
Since OP has a 243 & a 7x57, he doesn't really need a 270.
Clear as mud, eh?
OP
OP
el Godfather
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,847
For me personally you are spot on. With 243 and x57 there is no need for 270.
Old times nostalgic memories of leather bullet belts and kynoch rounds lolz.
Jim Rau
member
7mm-08, and don't look back!
Ballistic twin to the 7x57, slightly more recoil than the 243, and real close to the ballistics of the 270, IN A LIGHT SHORT ACTION PLATFORM!! js8588
Member
Brother, I get it. That's what the 6.5x55 & 9.3x62 are for me. Kinda want a 300 H&H for the same reason.
OP
OP
el Godfather
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,847
I bought a 9.3 (forgetting now if it was 64 72 or what). It was short carbine it seemed. They guy needed money and he pitched it to me and sold it VERY cheap with 200 rounds. Later about six months passed he became very friendly and one day came to me while I was visiting my parents at my ancestral home in the mountains. Suddenly he popped the question and requested that I give him the rifle back at same price as he is no longer in financial constraint. I was taken by surprise and just said ok and gave it back. Angry at myself and him since.
I am glad bro that you get it! I am also after HH Caliber but 375. Lets see.
js8588
Member
I have it on good authority that Zastava USA will be bringing in 9.3x62 rifles in the near future. Those m70 bolt actions are really nice with a little polishing around the edges.
i disagree. the strain gauge used in the transducer method reads the flex of the chamber/barrel. different cartridges have different chamber/barrel dimensions and therefore flex differently. the crusher method used the same copper crusher for all the different cartridges and therefore the max pressure is comparable over all cartridges.
the crusher method can't give pressure curves, but saami doesn't require pressure curves. nor does saami require cartridge max pressures to be comparable between cartridges so the transducer method works, too.
murf
p.s. you are right after all, newtosavage. i'm off topic and am done here.
cdb1
Member
For your stated use and cartridge choice I’d go .243.
As usual Skylerbone stole my thunder but I’ll add my two cents. BRNO’s are normally slicker than a Zastava but there are exceptions.
I believe .270 is definitely more powerful than 7x57.
Again stealing my thunder.
If I could only keep one rifle it would be a tough choice between my .270 and 6.5x55. In fact I don’t know if I could choose.
My thinking is if you have a rifle in .277 caliber then there’s no need to have one in .284 and the opposite holds true also. I have a .270 and that’s that-except when it comes to the 7x57. If I had plenty of discretionary income I’d have a Rigby Highland Stalker.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,958
If a reloader can’t get more from a .270win than a 7x57, something is broken. Even loaded to the same pressure standard in the same rifle, the 270 is about 15% larger case and can run larger powder charges.
I’d take a 7x57 every day of the week over a 270, but ballistics are what they are, and in this case, as in most cases, there’s no replacement for displacement.
I’d take a 7x57 every day of the week over a 270, but ballistics are what they are, and in this case, as in most cases, there’s no replacement for displacement.
denton
Member
The SAAMI transducer method uses a steel rod to exert force on a piezoelectric crystal. It is capable of producing a graph of pressure as a function of time, but usually only reports peak pressure.
The strain gauge method uses a small, paper thin gauge glued to the outside of the chamber. As the chamber expands, the gauge stretches and that changes its resistance. Knowing how much the chamber stretched, the ID, the OD, and the physical properties of steel, pressure can be calculated, and a graph of pressure vs time can be generated.
The crusher methods are less precise than either of the above. Practically all the pellet deformation takes place at or near peak pressure. It's a measure of peak pressure, not the integral of pressure.
The reloading tables for the 270 stay respectfully short of the 65,000 PSI maximum.
Propellant gas cannot read the headstamp. All cartridges with the same case head dimensions will handle the same amount of pressure, all other factors equal.
The strain gauge method uses a small, paper thin gauge glued to the outside of the chamber. As the chamber expands, the gauge stretches and that changes its resistance. Knowing how much the chamber stretched, the ID, the OD, and the physical properties of steel, pressure can be calculated, and a graph of pressure vs time can be generated.
The crusher methods are less precise than either of the above. Practically all the pellet deformation takes place at or near peak pressure. It's a measure of peak pressure, not the integral of pressure.
The reloading tables for the 270 stay respectfully short of the 65,000 PSI maximum.
Propellant gas cannot read the headstamp. All cartridges with the same case head dimensions will handle the same amount of pressure, all other factors equal.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,958
This bears repeating.
Newtosavage
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Give it a rest Picher. The OP never mentioned the .270.
mcb
Member
Doesn't the title of the thread say 270? I think the OP does mention 270 in the OP text also, does he not?
js8588
Member
mustanger98
Member
And while everybody's arguing for .270 and 130gr, my load was a 140gr BTSP running about 2800fps... higher BC than a 130 or 150 according to the Hornady book. If I ever fool with a .270 again, it'll be that bullet, but I might look into how it performs at about 2500fps.
It's okay "Newtosavage". Anyone can make a mistake. BTW: I've had .30-06s in the past, my first being a Savage that was a pretty good rifle. Wish I hadn't sold it, but really wanted a Remington at the time and couldn't afford to get one without parting with the "project rifle" that I modified with a blank stock, finished to feel like a Weatherby when about 16 years old (around 1960). It was bedded and free-floated.
The guy I sold it to won't sell it back to me for love or money.
The guy I sold it to won't sell it back to me for love or money.
If someone doesn't like my writing about the .270, they should look back about 20 years when I was a fan of the '06. It's a good cartridge that shoots heavier rounds better, but not as flat, if that's what's desired/needed. I used one for many years, until a situation begged for a flatter trajectory, due to quick shots out to 400 yards as deer crossed a narrow old woods road. A hot handload solved my problem, so gave my '06 to my son, who loves it.
denton
Member
Some imagine the 7x57 to be a "weak sister" compared with the 270. It's not necessarily so. Nor is the 270 anything like being under powered. Both are excellent chamberings.
130 grain comparisons
Remington Scirocco 270 ammunition,130 grain bullet, 3060 FPS.
270 loaded with 56.6 grains H4350, 3157 FPS @ 61107 PSI, 26.7% efficiency.
7x57 (per QuickLoad) loaded with 130 grain bullet and 51.5 grains H4350, 3120 FPS @62900 PSI, 28.6% efficiency.
Hodgdon does show a very zippy StaBALL 270 load, but I don't have a way to compare that powder's performance in the 7x57. Maybe someone can contribute that information.
Conclusion: At this bullet weight, both 270 and 7x57 reloads beat Remington commercial 270 ammo. 270 reloads have a slight advantage vs 7x57, but not much. The 7x57 is slightly more efficient at converting powder to MV.
160 grain comparisons
Best 270 load from the Hodgdon site, 160 grain bullet with IMR 7977, 2843 FPS @ 59800 PSI.
7x57 QuickLoad estimate, 52 grains Ramshot Hunter, 2837 FPS @ 59832 PSI.
Efficiency difference seems to disappear with 160 grain bullets.
Conclusion: Not enough difference to really distinguish one cartridge from the other.
Note
I run my own 7x57 at 2750 FPS, and a few thousand less PSI than the 160 grain QuickLoad estimate.
So if you have a 7x57, you don't need a 270, and if you have a 270 you don't need a 7x57. The differences are the stuff of which pointless arguments are made.
Of course, the 7x57 is a much cooler cartridge.....
130 grain comparisons
Remington Scirocco 270 ammunition,130 grain bullet, 3060 FPS.
270 loaded with 56.6 grains H4350, 3157 FPS @ 61107 PSI, 26.7% efficiency.
7x57 (per QuickLoad) loaded with 130 grain bullet and 51.5 grains H4350, 3120 FPS @62900 PSI, 28.6% efficiency.
Hodgdon does show a very zippy StaBALL 270 load, but I don't have a way to compare that powder's performance in the 7x57. Maybe someone can contribute that information.
Conclusion: At this bullet weight, both 270 and 7x57 reloads beat Remington commercial 270 ammo. 270 reloads have a slight advantage vs 7x57, but not much. The 7x57 is slightly more efficient at converting powder to MV.
160 grain comparisons
Best 270 load from the Hodgdon site, 160 grain bullet with IMR 7977, 2843 FPS @ 59800 PSI.
7x57 QuickLoad estimate, 52 grains Ramshot Hunter, 2837 FPS @ 59832 PSI.
Efficiency difference seems to disappear with 160 grain bullets.
Conclusion: Not enough difference to really distinguish one cartridge from the other.
Note
I run my own 7x57 at 2750 FPS, and a few thousand less PSI than the 160 grain QuickLoad estimate.
So if you have a 7x57, you don't need a 270, and if you have a 270 you don't need a 7x57. The differences are the stuff of which pointless arguments are made.
Of course, the 7x57 is a much cooler cartridge.....
Last edited:
mustanger98
Member
140's are heavy? Nah, if I want a slow heavy bullet, I'd load for a .45-70. Lazercast 405's are heavy... usually a good bit slower too. But for my purposes, a deer rifle only needs to be PBZ'd 50/200yds and shoot into 4"/200yds. 200yds is a long shot in my part of the country. Don't know why I'm bothering to think about a .270 because I know 100gr .243's good for it.
- Status
