nascarnhlnra
Member
Trying to decide between a 270 or 7mm for an all around deer rifle . Would like pros & cons of these two cartridge's please. Thanks in advance for any help.
Help deciding between 7mm 0r 270 !
- Thread starter nascarnhlnra
- Start date
- Status
If you are trying to decide between a .270win. or a 7mm RemMag, then I'd go with the .270win. Remember, we are talking about deer sized game and FWIW I believe a 7mm RemMag is more gun than what is needed for deer.
But if you mean a cartridge using a 7mm bullet like a 7X57, or .280Rem then I'd recommend a 7mm.
There is a larger selection of bullet weights and configurations for 7mm than there is for .270.
That would be my determining factor.
But if you mean a cartridge using a 7mm bullet like a 7X57, or .280Rem then I'd recommend a 7mm.
There is a larger selection of bullet weights and configurations for 7mm than there is for .270.
That would be my determining factor.
Assuming 7mm Rem Mag. and .270, the 7mm gives you a flatter shooting cartridge but with slightly greater recoil and muzzleblast. As someone else said, either one will work very well for whitetail. If I hunted where I might be taking long range shots, I'd go with the 7mm. For general woods use, the .270 will be more than adequate.
Poodleshooter
Member
Under 300yds= .270 is my recommendation.
I own a 7mmRM, and it's more gun than I really need here in the East, not to mention it is rather expensive to feed.
I own a 7mmRM, and it's more gun than I really need here in the East, not to mention it is rather expensive to feed.
When I read "7mm" I assumed that you were asking for us to compare the .270 Winchester to the 7mm Mauser or 7x57mm cartridge, not the 7mm RM. If so....
I have both, and wouldn't care to give up either. If I had to, it would be the 7mm that had to go, although I have extensive experience with it in many different rifles. The .270 is more comparable to the .280 Remington, and with slightly better ballistics than the 7x57 *with similar bullet weights and configurations*, is just more versatile. We have a current run of six deer with six shots at ranges from 120 to 260 yards on our medium to large sized Maine whitetails with the .270 and 130 grain bullets. None of them ran more than 20 yards. The 7mm is a fine cartridge but not as accurate with the loads I prefer in MY guns. Still it makes a nice short stalking rifle for high or thick places, while the .270 is really at its best with more barrel length. The Mauser cartridge is a bit easier on the shooter, too, so is a good choice if the shooter is small-framed or young.
Your .270 can also handle bigger stuff than deer, generally better than the 7mm Mauser, although an exceptional shot could take pretty heavy game with the Mauser, with the right loads.
I've owned a lot of rifles, but never could see the sense in the 7mm Magnum. It's a nice flat-shooting heavy hitter, but uses an awful lot of brass and powder to do the job that a .280, 270 or .30-06 could do just as well.
Ammo for the .270 is no problem, lots of different bullets and brands in many weights are available, to cover the full spectrum of shooter's needs.
I have both, and wouldn't care to give up either. If I had to, it would be the 7mm that had to go, although I have extensive experience with it in many different rifles. The .270 is more comparable to the .280 Remington, and with slightly better ballistics than the 7x57 *with similar bullet weights and configurations*, is just more versatile. We have a current run of six deer with six shots at ranges from 120 to 260 yards on our medium to large sized Maine whitetails with the .270 and 130 grain bullets. None of them ran more than 20 yards. The 7mm is a fine cartridge but not as accurate with the loads I prefer in MY guns. Still it makes a nice short stalking rifle for high or thick places, while the .270 is really at its best with more barrel length. The Mauser cartridge is a bit easier on the shooter, too, so is a good choice if the shooter is small-framed or young.
Your .270 can also handle bigger stuff than deer, generally better than the 7mm Mauser, although an exceptional shot could take pretty heavy game with the Mauser, with the right loads.
I've owned a lot of rifles, but never could see the sense in the 7mm Magnum. It's a nice flat-shooting heavy hitter, but uses an awful lot of brass and powder to do the job that a .280, 270 or .30-06 could do just as well.
Ammo for the .270 is no problem, lots of different bullets and brands in many weights are available, to cover the full spectrum of shooter's needs.
cratz2
Member
Assuming you are talking about the 7mm Remington Magnum and not 7x57 or 7mm-08.
The 270 has killed plenty of deer (and larger game) at realistic ranges from 25 yards to way way out there... 600 yards and I'm sure past that. It is an excellent round that offers very managable recoil, acceptable muzzle blast and excellent accuracy.
The 7mm Rem Mag does have more energy at longer distances and can hurl heavier factory-loaded bullets as well for further increased long distance performance. Lots louder. Considerably more recoil though still managable in my opinion. For the reloader, it takes lots more powder but really is more flexable, I suppose.
I have one of each. For what I do, my 7mm is a plaything a big blasting cannon. The 270 is an excellent choice and is what I would recommned for 99% of users that aren't wanting to hunt moose at 500 yards.
The 270 has killed plenty of deer (and larger game) at realistic ranges from 25 yards to way way out there... 600 yards and I'm sure past that. It is an excellent round that offers very managable recoil, acceptable muzzle blast and excellent accuracy.
The 7mm Rem Mag does have more energy at longer distances and can hurl heavier factory-loaded bullets as well for further increased long distance performance. Lots louder. Considerably more recoil though still managable in my opinion. For the reloader, it takes lots more powder but really is more flexable, I suppose.
I have one of each. For what I do, my 7mm is a plaything a big blasting cannon. The 270 is an excellent choice and is what I would recommned for 99% of users that aren't wanting to hunt moose at 500 yards.
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
Gimme a 7mm-08 any day
losta bullets
lotsa power
nice ballistics
Short action > light rifle
$13.50 for 20
cheaper to reload.
losta bullets
lotsa power
nice ballistics
Short action > light rifle
$13.50 for 20
cheaper to reload.
454c
Member
For a deer rifle go with the 270.If you are talking about a 7 mag.,it's too much for a strictly deer rifle.IMO Before you put your money down on a 7 mag. find someone that will let you shoot one a few times and see if you like it.Several guys I work with got "magnum fever" before deer season and went out and bought 7 mags.,bragging about how far it would shoot and how powerful it was.The first week of season there was several 7 mags. for sale.cheap.The 7 mag. is a great cartridge but make sure you really need it.
The 7X57mm, especially in older rifles, will likely be throated for 175 grain bullets. Jack O'Connor said that one reason why he adopted the .270 over the 7X57mm was that his 7mm's washed out the barrel throats when used with lighter (139-140 grain) bullets. That was in the 1930's, and barrel steels are no doubt tougher now, but I'd think about it.
Does anyone know if this is a factor with the .280? If not, the 175 grain bullets when desirable would be the sole reason to buy a 7mm/.280 over the more widely distributed .270. Rifling twist will spin the 7mm bullet faster, which I suspect in some calibers affects destructiveness on target, but the .270 is so close that it seems to make no discernable difference. (Twist in the 7mm is usually 1-9.25 or 1-9.5 inches; for the .270, it's 1-10 inches.)
The neck on the .280 is slightly shorter, and I like a long neck to seat and retain bullets, with the ability to seat the bullet "just so" for a particular rifle with handloads, but this isn't an issue with anyone who likes the .280, to my knowledge.
The 7mm/08 is okay with the 140 grain class bullets that most will use, but powder capacity may not be quite enough for good velocity with 175 grain bullets. Any reloading manual should tell you this. As long as it'll equal the 7X57mm, shouldn't be a problem...
Frankly, I'd decide between a .270 and a .280 more on the issue of how pretty the wood is and how well the individual rifle is finished! I would make sure that .280 ammo is easily available where one lives and hunts.
Lone Star
Does anyone know if this is a factor with the .280? If not, the 175 grain bullets when desirable would be the sole reason to buy a 7mm/.280 over the more widely distributed .270. Rifling twist will spin the 7mm bullet faster, which I suspect in some calibers affects destructiveness on target, but the .270 is so close that it seems to make no discernable difference. (Twist in the 7mm is usually 1-9.25 or 1-9.5 inches; for the .270, it's 1-10 inches.)
The neck on the .280 is slightly shorter, and I like a long neck to seat and retain bullets, with the ability to seat the bullet "just so" for a particular rifle with handloads, but this isn't an issue with anyone who likes the .280, to my knowledge.
The 7mm/08 is okay with the 140 grain class bullets that most will use, but powder capacity may not be quite enough for good velocity with 175 grain bullets. Any reloading manual should tell you this. As long as it'll equal the 7X57mm, shouldn't be a problem...
Frankly, I'd decide between a .270 and a .280 more on the issue of how pretty the wood is and how well the individual rifle is finished! I would make sure that .280 ammo is easily available where one lives and hunts.
Lone Star
Texas Gunman
Member
Alot of people use .270 here in the Hill Country, it is one flat shooting round and is very accurate, also as you already know, ammo is easier and cheaper.
I use 30.06 or .308, but always considered using the .270.
TG
I use 30.06 or .308, but always considered using the .270.
TG
- Status
