7-08 vs. 6.5x55?

[Kestrel]

I was asking some questions the other day here about the 6.5x55 and got lots of good info and help. Now, I'm wondering about the 7-08. How does it compare to 6.5x55?

Does it shoot as flat and as accurately? Are there any advantages of the 7-08 over the 6.5x55?

By the way, I have a couple of rifles in 7x57. Does the 7-08 have any advantages over that?

Thanks again for your indulgence.

Steve

 

[tbige]

Can't stand to see such an interesting question go without a single response. Those two rounds have performance way out of proportion to their popularity in the American market. Both have wonderful ballistics, mild recoil, are as close as it gets (perhaps along with .270) to one-gun solutions for someone who wants a gun for everything from paper-punching and varmints to game up to elk.

Check this link for very interesting stats on 7-08:
http://members.tripod.com/sed88/rem7/

 

[squibload]

The 7mm-08 can also be had in a short-action package, which may be of interest to a person looking to put together a short, handy hunting package.

With the range of loadings available for the 7mm-08, it's a great round, and quite a flat shooter.

 

[Art Eatman]

The 7mm08 shoots a 140-grain bullet at about 2,900 ft/sec. That's not a lot less than an '06's 150-grain at 2,900 to 3,000. I believe the BC of the 7mm bullet is a bit better than the .30, so it would be a tad flatter. Wouldn't make much difference at normal hunting ranges, of course.

Same old deal. 2" high at 100 = dead on at 200 and about 6" low at 300. As near as makes no nevermind...

The recoil at the bench isn't bad at all, and my 700Ti only weighs 6-1/4 pounds.

, Art

 

[tbige]

Both are very flat, have outstanding reputations for performance on game, can be loaded in a huge variety of bullets and are available in a considerable range of good guns at attractive prices, from Savage (7-08 only) to Tikka to mention just two of the best shooters.

Haven't checked weights, but short-action may be a consideration, though trend is to lighter guns in all actions.

Seems fair to point out that handloaders will get the most out of either round, and that for the non-handloader wanting retail availability, the 7-08 would have an edge.

 

[Clemson]

Nobody has answered your other question --

No, the 7mm08 has no ballistic advantage over the 7x57. If you are a handloader and if you have modern 7x57 rifles (i.e., not model 93 or 95 Mausers), you can exceed the 7mm08 ballistics pretty handily with the 7x57.

On the other hand, the 7mm08 will fit in a short action. That saves you about 1/2 inch of action length and weight for what it's worth.

7mm08 vs 6.5x55 is pretty much a matter of personal preference. The game won't know or care which cartridge you use between those two.

Clemson

 

[mete]

Actually there are four that are very close in performance and all are wonderful cartridges. 6.5x55, 260,7x57, 7-08. I used the 6.5x55 for many years for deer.The 140 grain with high sectional density and ballistic coeffecient performs an excellent job without much recoil or muzzle blast . As deer cartridges they can't be beat . Who needs a magnum!!

 

[Gewehr98]

Steve, a better comparison would be...

The 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser vs. the .260 Remington. That way, they can share at least a good chunk of the available bullets.

 

[tbige]

Gewehr98 makes a good point: the Swede and .260 are nearly identical, though the erudite will argue one versus the other convincingly, and should be considered for the purposes of this thread as one or the other vs 7-08. While truly enamored with the Swede, not being a handloader I've just ordered a .260 barrel for my .243.

 

[Dave R]

Any way you look at it, the two are pretty close.

 

[Jaywalker]

There's another difference for which I chose the 6.5X55 over the 7mm-08 (even though I've always admired the 7, and will likely buy it next). In factory loads, the 6.5X55 is loaded down from its real capabilities.

This cartridge is really a "deer rifle" load, and even in its anemic factory loading will kill a deer at 400 yards, much further than I intend to shoot at one. So, I find it "right-powered" for its use, rather than "over-powered." With that load, it's entirely capable of taking the game that I'll use it for, and it will do so at a lower recoil and muzzle blast than the 7mm-08.

IMO, we too often think that "faster" is the same thing as "better," and I don't believe that's always the case. Why isn't "quieter" what's "better," as long as it does the job? I have enough ringing in my ears already. And, as tbige noted, it's got the same drop figures at 400 yards as the 270, a round noted for its flat trajectory for 75 years.

Jaywalker

 

[tbige]

Jaywalker makes an excellent point. Read an interesting article waiting for a prescription today. Can't remember the name of the mag (Shooting Times, maybe) comparing the .308 and a .338-something on all kinds of ballistics measures as hunting rounds. The point, in every measure, was that the paper superiority of the .338-something was all but meaningless in many real-world situations, and mostly offset by recoil and blast (he forgot to mention ammo cost) which minimize shooting accuracy and practice.