7mm rem mag or .270wsm? their soo close...

S

skidooracer_99

New member
what seems to be the most favourite of these 2 mags? used for deer only! and the 7mm would be in 140 grain, and the .270wsm in 130g. all specs seem soo close it wouldnt probably make a difference. but which would get the nod and which would you pick and why?
 
I would stick with the classic 7mag only because I love the "classics" and because the ammo would be a lot easier to find in in the stores.
 
Im sure someone will disagree with me but they are not even close to equal when you compare what it takes to get the velocities close to the same. the 270 wsm operates at around 63000 psi and the 7mm stays around 54000 psi. I would stick with the 7mm. I think its inherantly safer and will last longer. The sectional densities and ballistic coefficient are so close its a toss up between the two.
 
Last edited:
I have both. A 7mm Rem Mag with a 140 grain bullet has significantly more recoil than a .270 WSM with a 130 grain bullet unless you use a muzzle brake. I would say the .270 is perfectly tolerable on the bench without a brake. 7mm Mag, not so much.

The .270 WSM with 120 to 130 grain super premium bullets in a light weight rifle is my choice between the two for deer. Mobile, somewhat easy on the ears, and performs like a .270 Weatherby. I also found the "short-fat" principle to work as the benchrest cartridges do. Not finicky about powders and inherently accurate.

I recommend 130 grain Nosler Accubonds over RL19 or IMR4350 for a deer smasher with a fairly decent BC. (.435)

I love the 7mm Rem Mag, but the .270 WSM does the same job with better proficiency for deer sized animals. Elk is a different story.

JMO
 
I've only shot one deer but that was with the .270WSM from 275 yards.My brother has shot alot more deer than I have and he uses a 7mm Rem Mag.Last year he shot a doe from 310 yards with his.I would go with the 7Mag since the ammo is alot easier to find.Both will kill a deer dead as a doornail though. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
If I was in the market to get one of the two calibers, then it would be the 7 mag for me also.
I've had my 700 BDL since 1977 when I bought it in Anchorage and it has served me very very well in all them years.
 
i was kinda leaning towards the 7mm. a better known caliber and has been around longer. ammo seems the same price but 7mm is alot easier to find. i was also gonna take this gun along camping in the mountains for bear protection. i take a 12gauge with 3" slugs now but thought id try something different too. with the 7mm i can find heavier loads than the wsm, which should be better, or is the 12 ga still a better choice for bears?
 
.270 WSM all the way. Mine, weighing 7.5lbs w/ scope, kicks the same or slightly less than my dad's .30-06, which weighs 8 to 8 and a quarter pounds. Mine is sighted in at 2.5" high at 100 and stays below a 30" drop at 500 yards. Between the .270 WSM and the 7mm mag, the 270 will have the higher ballistic coefficient and sectional density, given that both bullets are of the same type and weight. I'm sure not trading mine in for a 7mm, and if it ever comes time to need a new rifle it will probably be another .270 WSM.
 
Toss up between the two calibers. Both have their good points. The .270WSM is more than adequate for up to and including Elk, Caribou and Moose. Ammo should be readily available in any Sporting Goods Store. Now at some gas station in the middle of nowhere, you might not find 7mm Mag either. I too have shot both and I prefer the .270WSM. The .270WSM is more forgiving on my shoulder.

To answer your bear question, you are far better off with a 12 gauge shotgun. You are not going to be able to accurately shoot a charging bear at close quarters with a scoped rifle. You certainly are not going to be able to articulate that a bear was a threat to you if you shoot him at 100 yards. For bear protection, stick to your 12 gauge. You dont need anything different and wont find anything better for bear protection.
 
I am a 270 wsm fan. especially if you load your own. Mine absolutely loves a 130 grn nosler accubond over 60.7 grains of 4350. Shoots 1/2 high at 100 and no more than 1/2 low at 200. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't done it myself. I am a touch over book max (60.5 - lee), but show absolutely no pressure signs.

the 7mm has the nod in the heavier bullet category, but the 270 wsm is hard to beat for most mid sized game, up to and including elk, etc.


Just MHO
 
It depends on whether you want to reload. The 270wizzum isn't the most popular of the bunch from what I've seen, so ammo will be more expensive where you do find it. If you want the 270 to do the job the 7mag does, just go 7mag! You can find the ammo everywhere in a nice variety too!

Unless you just like having something different there are way more benefits to having 'the same ol stuff'..
 
I can't tell the differnce in recoil of the 270 WSM with a 130 at 3100 and a 7 Mag with the 140's at 3250, but the 7mm 140 Noslers have a much better BC than the 130g 270. At most practical hunting distances, BC is worthless to talk about.

With the 7 Mag, you have the option of shooting the 120g Barnes at 3600 fps with extreme accuracy, up through the 150g at 3150 with extreme accuracy.

The Short Mag brass can a real [beeep] to deal with(especially the Nickel plated brass), unlike the 7 mag brass.

I suspect that the 270 WSM loaded with the Barnes 110g Tripple shock X bullet would be heck on wheels on any deer walking.

Both cartridges are very close, ballistically speaking, with the edge going to the 7 mag due to better BC. I can't tell the difference in the recoil between the two guns. It could be that the shorter cartridge fools the brain into thinking that it kicks less.
 
think the 7mm it is. i was looking at a shorter gun atfirst, but seems like any of the mags have a 24" barrel. between the synthetic tikka lite stainless , and synthetic ruger hawkeye stainless, which would be a better gun? i would almost prefer a laminate but nothing really catches my eye.
 
Tikka and never look back. smoothest action on the market IMO. Accuracy out of the box is fantastic - no tweaking usually necessary. The only Tikka I've ever known (out of 40 or 50) is one that a gunsmith screwed something up on. After he "checked" it (translated - went back and fixed what he messed up), it went back to shooting lights out.

That's probably not a fair thought - I have never owned a Ruger, so I can't say that a Tikka is DEFINITELY better, but I do know I LOVE mine and everybody that I know that owns one loves theirs.

RB
 
Back
Top