Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

270 Winchester vs. 7mm Remington Magnum

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Jaenak, Jan 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jaenak

    Jaenak Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    223
    I've never shot these two loads before but I was paging through the ballistics of the different rifle rounds and found these two calibers have many offerings, they have roughly the same bullet weights available and the drop on both is relatively shallow. I was wondering if any of you have shot both and know from practical experience how these two rounds behave. I'm looking at the bullet drop and accuracy in wind first of all. Secondly I'm looking at recoil. I would like to know how much each round kicks in comparision to each other. And lastly, what's the largest sized game you should consider taking with each of these rounds? I don't really know how much power you need to cleanly harvest what sized animal.

    Again, the rounds are the 270 Winchester and the 7mm Remington Magnum. Thanks up front for the comments I know are coming.
     
  2. tsanford405

    tsanford405 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    98
    I use a 7mm Rem Mag as my primary hunting rifle. I did a lot of research on the different calibers and this seemed to be better than the .270. Although I haven't used a .270, all the things I read seemed to indicate that the 7mm was ballistically superior especially approaching longer distances. I have taken a couple deer with it, and I have heard from some that the bullet velocity from a 7mm is a little high for short range shots. The kick is to me is a little harder than a 30-06, but probably around that, and I would think that the .270 is probably a little less. As far as the size of game that can *ethically* be taken, I would say PROBABLY just about everything you'll find in North America, although some will argue against using it for something as large as a moose or possibly a bear. Although I think that with the right load/bullet they would be fine. Hope this helps!
     
  3. birdbustr

    birdbustr Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Sioux Falls, SD
    The 7mm (.284) a little larger round than the .270 (.277).
    The 7mm Rem Mag is going to top out at about 3250fps with the 140gr bullet.
    The 270 Winchester tops out at about 3050fps with a 140gr.

    There is going to be some added recoil with the 7mm Rem Mag (close to a .30-06 IMO). Either will take up to Elk size game. I have used the .270 for deer and it is quite capable, but now I have a 7mm-08 (140gr @3000fps reloads) for deer and a 7mm STW (140gr @ 3450fps reloads)for anything larger and hunting large fields or cutovers.

    You really can't go wrong with either. I would look at some ballistics tables and go from there. You don't NEED mor than a .270 for anything up to an elk, but I like the 7mm rounds a little more personally. A 270WSM may be another one to look into.
     
  4. dakotasin

    dakotasin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,777
    Location:
    Transient
    i have both, shoot both, hunt both, and prefer the 7 rem mag for no good reason.
     
  5. Jaenak

    Jaenak Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    223
    I was initially tossing around the idea of a 270 Winchester Short Magnum too. If I asked about that round too, what would you guys say? Judging by the ballistics the 270 WSM seems to be exactly the same as the 7mm Rem. Mag. The only differences here are that the 7mm bullet's average ballistic coefficient is a bit higher than that of the 270's bullet. That and the 7mm has all the cartridge offerings of the 270 Win and the 270 WSM and it adds a few more on up to 175 grains so you get the heavier rounds too if you decide you need them. What do you guys say about the 270 WSM as well as the two mentioned above?

    Edit: I was in an online reloading database and found that the 7mm can do the same stats as either of the 270's but the 7mm can get those results with lower maximum pressures. What exactly does that mean? Why is the 270 rounds using higher maximum pressures to accomplish the same job as the 7mm? Shouldn't the bigger bullet (7mm) have the higher maximum pressures?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2008
  6. Shawnee

    Shawnee member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,306
    Location:
    Along "That Dark and Bloody River"
    Hi Jaenak...


    All of the calibers mentioned in all of the above posts are entirely capable of taking everything that walks on North America.

    None of them is just an "...up to Elk" cartridge.

    My personal favorite of the two you mentioned originally happens to be the .270 but the 7mm Rem. Mag. is a hoot to shoot. If you don't reload, the .270 will be cheaper to feed.

    :cool:
     
  7. Jaenak

    Jaenak Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    223
    Really? All the rednecks I know and live around say the 270 is an "up to and including mule deer" kinda gun. That is coming from a bunch of rednecks too though. (alas, the area I love is redneck stomping ground) The 270 seems to be the lightest kicking and lightest powered offering of the ones I mentioned and if I can ethically and cleanly take something like grizzly with it (if I do my part) then I'd just stick with that.

    The one question I'm still scratching my head about though is the chamber pressures of the 270 and the 7mm. Is the 7mm just more efficient or is it simply incapable of handling the higher chamber pressures? I might just take this small question to the reloading forum though.
     
  8. hossdaniels

    hossdaniels Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    nc
    A 7mm(139g) will give you about 1.5" less drop(32") at 500 yds, and 3/4" less drop at 400 yds than a 270(130g) will. You still gotta know the range with either past 300 yds. The 270 ammo is cheaper, which is what you will need to get good at ranges past 300 yds, and it don't kick as hard.
     
  9. ThreadKiller

    ThreadKiller Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    Nebraska
    No animal will be able to tell the difference between the two.
     
  10. Shawnee

    Shawnee member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,306
    Location:
    Along "That Dark and Bloody River"
    Hi Jaenak...

    Jack O'Conner, the world-wide big game hunter/author and long-time rifle editor for Outdoor Life magazine wrote that the first Grizzly he shot with the .270 hit the ground so hard it bounced.

    All that "...up to Elk" horse mustard is nothing more than the big-bore bozos trying to justify the mistake they've made in choosing laughably over-powered and punishing calibers.

    :cool:
     
  11. tblt

    tblt member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    florida
    I had both

    I have owned 2 270 rifled and one 7 mm mag.I have a 7mm mag Winchester ss W/synthetic stock and the BOSS system.The Boss reduces recoil and makes the mag kick like a 243 and it really works.I sold my 270 because I was hunting 200 plus pound deer on fields in Georgia and I could see over 500 yard and I wanted a flat shooting gun.I now hunt florida and the 7 mm mag is too much gun for florida deer.I won't be selling it because I love the gun it shoots 3/4 groups at 100 yards.Wincheter makes a good shooting gun.My father has a 270 winchester an it shoots great.For 250 and under deer the 270 is great but if your shooting 200 plus yards the mag is flater shooting.I think only Browning offers the Boss now with there rifles???
    Any Questions send me a message???
    I would love to have the 270 back because it is a lighter gun
     
  12. slzy

    slzy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    at least look at 280
     
  13. redneck2

    redneck2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    10,128
    Location:
    Northern Indiana
    It's really kinda funny. Guys say the .270 is smallish for elk, and the 7mm mag may be considered one of the very best elk rifles....

    difference is 150 fps with a 150 grain bullet. Bet the elk would never know. If you can hold within 3/4" at 400 yards hunting, you're a lot better shot than I am.

    As for recoil, it's pretty much a function of bullet weight, velocity, and amount of powder. Felt recoil will be determined by stock design, recoil pad, action (bolt vs. auto), and muzzle brake.
     
  14. 351 WINCHESTER

    351 WINCHESTER Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,039
    Not enough difference between them except the recoil and muzzle blast. I doubt you will notice any difference in range and killing power.
     
  15. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    Weight is a factor and recoil is a factor.
    The .270 is going to come out ahead in both.
    And I agree the .270 with the right 150 grain load is going to knock off that elk or even moose as well or better than the 7mm with proper shot placement.
    Being a life long Jack O'Connor disciple,my prejudice is with my beloved .270.
     
  16. DeerHuntr

    DeerHuntr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    49
    Location:
    Moorhead Minnesota
    You never said what exactly you were intending to do with it???? I have owned a 7mm and currently own 2 .270WSM's. I harvested 3 whitetails with the WSM's this year and numerous with a 7mm in the past, if you can tell the difference when harvesting game you are smarter then I am. Dead is dead and they both do a damn fine job. I can actually load my WSM to be faster then the 7mm in 130/140gr offerings and can at least equal it at 150gr, the 7mm does much better with the heavier bullets because of it's slightly larger diameter and longer case, the bullets don't infringe on case capacity so much. My WSM's seems to be more accurate then my 7mm was, my Browning M1000 Eclipse is simply incredible. I would say if you don't reload go with the 7mm or the .270 but if you are a handloader go with the WSM it does an awesome job but factory ammo is pricey and can sometimes be hard to find. My favorite hunting load for it right now puts a 140gr Barnes TSX through the chrony at 3260fps and groups well under an inch at 100yds in the Eclipse and just over an inch in my Vanguard, damn fine deer medicine in anyones book.
     
  17. Zeke/PA

    Zeke/PA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,293
    Location:
    Southeastern Pa.
    I have to agree with the O'Conner buffs as I am one myself.
    Jack called the .270 Winchester the poor mans Magnum and he stressed shot placement above all other factors.
    Zeke
     
  18. green-grizzly

    green-grizzly Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    181
    The 270 is a great cartridge. As you can see from the ballistic charts it is very close to the magnums as far as drop and wind resistance. It has less recoil than the 7mm Mag, the ammo is cheaper and more readily available (it is the 2nd most popular deer round), and you get 1-2 more rounds in the magazine.

    I have never noticed any accuracy differece, except for what can be attributed to recoil fatigue.

    If you are of the school that elk require heavy bullets, the 7mm Mag has an advantage in that regard.

    Both are good cartridges for sure.
     
  19. MCgunner

    MCgunner Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    24,953
    Location:
    The end of the road between Sodom and Gomorrah Tex
    The 7 uses .284" bullets for which there are a great variety of choices in bullets. I like that. .270, while better now days, has always waned in bullet selection, odd ball .277". The .270 is easier on the shoulder and doesn't carry as much down range punch, but has enough. No, I wouldn't go brown bear hunting with it, nor would I be completely comfy with the 7, but hey, I could kill one with it with proper placement and a controlled expansion bullet.

    I was thinking .280 Remington (a .270 clone ballistically) when I bought my 7 mag. I thought about it, why buy the .280 when the gun is the same in 7 mag? Holds one less round in the magazine, but it's the same long action gun in the same weight. Well, the magnum does have 2" more barrel. I figured if I was a wuss and didn't like the recoil (not likely) I could down load it to .280 ballistics (I handload), but I can't load the .280 up. So, I really prefer the 7 mag. Turned out to be rather pleasant to shoot, too, no worse than a .30-06 IMHO and a little flatter shooting with a little more punch at range and somewhat better BCs and SDs. I like the .284" bullets a lot.

    In the end, I can't kill anything with my 7 that I couldn't with an ought six or a .270 or .280, anything that I'll ever be hunting, so it's really just what gets you goin', makes you happy. I ain't going to sit here and put down the .270 just because the ballistics on the 7 mag are better, which they are. I mean, they'll both kill game and if you're afraid of the magnum recoil or don't like the belt or something, get the .270 and live happy, or a .280, or a .30-06, or a 300 mag, or a 7-08 or a .260 Remington, or a 300 H&H, or a .308, or a 25-06, or a 300 Savage, or a .264 Win Mag, or an 8x57, or a 7x57, or................ They all work.
     
  20. RugerOldArmy

    RugerOldArmy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    750
    The .270 does have one advantage...

    If you ever read a copy of 'Pet Loads' or reload .270 and try light bullets, you'll see another advantage: It meets or exceeds the flexibility that was always attributed to the .30-06. And unlike the .30-06, for some reason, the .270 seems to shoot light bullets as well as the heavier ones. Perhaps it was optimized for the mid-weight 130 gr.

    Try Sierra's RL-15 90 Gr Varminter load (Their accuracy load)...or the 110 Gr VMax max load with Varget. I've never seen a .270 that didn't shoot 'em well, and yet I've never seen a .30-06 shoot accelerators well. I can push a 90 Gr Varminter @3650 fps without flattening or cratering primers in Winchester brass. (That's a 90 Gr BTHP at 50-55Gr .22-250 speeds!). The 110 Gr V-Max load is shoots great too!

    In Pet Loads (by Ken Waters) there are cast loads listed that shoot to the same point of aim as 130 Gr Hunting loads, and were used by T. Whelen to hunt small game with.

    .270 is really a very forgiving cartridge to reload.

    7mm Mag benefits from better bullet selection, but that big case, you won't find allows this kind of flexibility.

    Just my $.02
     
  21. RugerOldArmy

    RugerOldArmy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    750
    One last note, maybe a deciding factor: .270 Win really likes 24+ barrel lengths. You'll get realistic Jack O'Connor velocity from the longer barrels. You won't be able to get 3140 fps with 130 Gr bullets with a 22" barrel. If you opt for a .270, get a 24" barrel. I put a Pac-Nor 26" barrel on my Savage that had a 22" barrel, and get an additional 180 fps with H4831 or IMR4831
     
  22. Elgin47

    Elgin47 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    45
    Location:
    Eastern Oregon
    Another Jack O'Connor "believer" here (though the "old" rumors had it that Jack privately thought the .280 might be a little better [bear in mind he didn't actually tell me that]).

    I've owned several .270s but never bought a 7mm - the 7mm is a proven caliber for deer or elk, great ballistics, etc. - it just never interested me enough to buy one.

    I normally use a .270 Win for deer and a .300 WinMag for elk, but if it was necessary I could reverse the order - I'd just have to make a few adjustments as I live and hunt both deer and elk in very open, windy country.

    It still all comes down to bullet placement - the animal won't be able to tell the difference between a .277 and a .284 projectile well placed. That said, bullets matter, and I wouldn't hunt elk with a .270 using anything other than a 150 gr. Nosler Partition (just me) or maybe the new Trophy Bonded Tipped.

    Just MHO, worth exactly what it cost - sort of a Dodge/Chevy/Ford question that will generate 1000 learned and well-intentioned opinions, but no clear answer - you can sort through the opinions and figure out what the answer is for you, because you're the only one you need to please.
     
  23. tblt

    tblt member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    florida
    I have a 7 X 57 which Jack also used before a 270.
    Go with a winchester when you get a gun, best shooting out of the box,next would be remington
     
  24. Lonestar.45

    Lonestar.45 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,077
    I have both and shot both. A Win M70 in 7mmMag and a Rem BDL M700 in .270. The 7mm Mag kicks more. Don't know what else to say. It beats me up at the range more than the .270 and I don't like shooting it near as much. Shooting deer with it, you don't feel it. I've noticed it does not put the deer down any faster than my .270, so that's what I shoot. I've not shot anything larger than whitetail with either of them. I think the 7mm mag makes a fine elk rifle, and if I ever get the chance to go that's what I'll carry. Besides that scenario, it's the .270 for me.

    As for ballistics, I believe the 7mm Mag may have more reach and shoot a little flatter, with heavier bullets. It's ballistically superior, but not by a huge margin. That said, the .270 shoots flat and far enough for me. If I could really see a difference in the way it puts deer down, I would put up with the added cost and recoil of the 7mag, but as it is, I can't, so it sits in the safe more often than not. YMMV
     
  25. Terrierman

    Terrierman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    374
    Location:
    SWMO
    .270 and 7 mm Remington Magnum are functionally equivalent. Once again, the real differences lie in the rifle, the projectile used and the shooter.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page