Author Topic: 7mm-08 or .270 (Read 2985 times)

lgall · « **on:** January 16, 2007, 05:47:17 PM »

I am going to be moving to Denver, Colorado in the next year. I will be hunting mainly deer, antelope, and the occasional elk. I want to keep my shots under 400 yards for antelope/deer, and 300 for elk. The action size does not matter as the rifle will be a Tikka T3 lite and they all use the long action. Please let me know your opinions. I am looking for a light weight, low recoil, and accurate rifle.

MS10point · « **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:13:34 AM »

I have both the .270 & the 7-08 and honestly you can't go wrong either way. I love the 130 grain .270 but when you move up to a 140 gr. or higher it gets less impressive. When using 140 grain bullets the two are very similar. This year I bought a new Encore in .280 and think that it may well be the best gun for you. It has a little more pop than either of the other guns and also will handle heavier bullets better than the .270. As far as recoil goes The 7-08 will have the least recoil but the other two should be very manageable.

Good Luck!

TP

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2007, 02:35:21 AM »

Either round would be good, but I think I would consider a 30-06 also. JMHO

jasonprox700 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2007, 03:48:13 AM »

I would go with the .270. Other options would be .280 or .30-06.

jro45 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2007, 04:05:53 AM »

I'd say the 270 for long range shooting. I've shot mine to 600 yds with a Burris scope on it.

hardertr · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2007, 04:18:42 AM »

Just for comparison....here is a ballistics chart for typical Remington factory loads. Both 270 loads are 130 grain, and the 7-08 is pushing a 140 grain.
http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/comparative_ballistics_results.aspx?data=PRA270WA*R270W2*R7M081*PRA7M08RB

As you can see, the BALLISTICS aren't really an issue. If it's "light weight, low recoil and accurate", I would choose the 7-08 every time.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2007, 05:28:05 AM »

7-08. Without a doubt. Greater choice of bullets of all types. User friendly reloading. Inherently accurate. If the .270 folks could get past J. Oconnor, they'd say the same thing about it.

TrenchMud · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2007, 07:06:35 AM »

That rifle is offered in 6.5x55 too isn't it?

... Nuff Said!

PartsMan · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2007, 08:51:28 AM »

I am haveing the same problem deciding between 7mm-08 and 308.
That 7mm-08 sure looks good on paper.
I just don't see as much ammo on store shelves.

ScoutMan · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2007, 09:46:56 AM »

The 7/08 and the 308 are basically ballistic twins in the field. The 7/08 has a "small" ballistic edge. The 308 is more universal and thus has more choices and options.

"Pick your poison".

thumbcocker · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2007, 01:35:22 PM »

270. Ammo can be found anywhere. A classic cartridge.

kudzu · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2007, 03:36:15 PM »

I don't know JACK, but I would still go with the 270. In comparing the two with fed ammo loaded with 140 Accubonds, the 270 beats the 7-08 in every catagory. (vel., energy, wind, drop). Ammo is also more readilly available for the 270. Having said this I think the 7-08 is a good round also, but the 270 wins out.

JMHO, DM

SuperstitionCoues · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2007, 05:49:17 AM »

Quote from: barr25-06 on January 17, 2007, 08:51:28 AM

I am haveing the same problem deciding between 7mm-08 and 308.
That 7mm-08 sure looks good on paper.
I just don't see as much ammo on store shelves.

I was up in a corner of Arizona a few weeks ago named Fredonia, across the state line from Kanab, Utah. A research site I work is about 30 miles below there. Not much in the town, except a couple of motels and gas stations. This part of the world, The Arizona Strip, produces a whole lot of record book typical and non-typical mule deer. Big ones, and I mean Big Ones!!!! The owner of the gas station had 4 different calibers of ammo on hand - .25-06, 270 WSM, 7mm-08, and 30-06. Nothing else was on the shelves. When I asked him what his preference was, he said the .25-06 and 7mm - 08. I think that says a lot.

kenscot · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2007, 02:47:24 AM »

Wow! tough choice. I own both and love both but if I had to chose one it would be the 270 win
I also have to agree with Redhawk about concidering the 30-06 if you are only going with one gun and elk are in the picture

old06 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2007, 01:52:51 PM »

We live in a great time to have such a tough decision with 2 equally fine rounds they pretty much mirror each other in performance the decision is long action or short action.. Our fathers didn’t have such luxury’s of such fine rounds and firearms. Good Luck

dw06 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2007, 02:20:19 PM »

Quote from: Redhawk1 on January 17, 2007, 02:35:21 AM

Either round would be good, but I think I would consider a 30-06 also. JMHO

I agree with redhawk1,and would add the 280 to be considered also.

Gregory · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:09:29 PM »

Both are fine rounds, but between the two I'd prefer the 7mm bullet in 160 gr or more if I were shooting an elk, and I'd keep the range closer to 200 yds if possible.

Lou270 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2007, 03:53:48 PM »

Absolutely no reason to choose a 7-08 over the .270 in a long action except possibly lower recoil. The .270 is superior ballistically in every way and is vastly more common if you don't reload. No flies on the 7-08 as it is an excellent round, but if I'm going to use a short action round, I would have a short action rifle. My shoulder can't detect it, but the 7-08 will recoil slightly less than a .270 because it burns less powder.

-Lou

beemanbeme · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2007, 04:34:59 AM »

OOOOOOPPPPPPSSSS.

I didn't notice the rifle was gonna be a long action. (dang, I'd better start reading these things huh) In that case, the .280 is the way to go. Versatile selection of bullets, varmints to moose.

k3yston3 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2007, 04:57:05 AM »

Out of the two choices, I would pick the .270. But in all reality I would pick up a .30-06.

Brithunter · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:46:22 AM »

OK .............................. can sone one please explain the problems that they have with action length?

Just cannot see any problems myself in a bolt action rifle. It all seems such a "Storm in a teacup" to me

.

Now the choice of bullets is superior in 7mm, better range of weights so it's more versatile to my mind

, but I will say that I have never even handled a 7-08 and doubt I would bother with one having a 7x57 in a modern action I simply cannot see any benefit in having a 7-08. I do have several .270's and happen to like the cartridge but it's bullet selection is limited

. So the BSA Monarch I have in .270 which has a worn barrel I am planning on fitting a new barrel in 7x64mm

and should get the best of both worlds

.

As I see it the shorter cartridge in more important in a Military context as with automatic weapons the shorter cartridge reduces weight of the gun significantly. in a huntign bolt action rifle the difference in weight between the short action and long normal 2 1/2" action is hardly noticable

talking about making a Mountain out of a Mole Hill

.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2007, 06:33:07 AM »

The first poster said he was gonna use a long action. That's when I switched to a .280 (aka 7x64) rather than a 7-08. However the .280 can do very little that the 7-08 cannot.
Brit, if you've never used a 7-08, you've missed a treat. I've shoot for a long time and used a large number of cartridges, including the mystical .270, and feel the 7-08 is the most versatile cartridge, in a mild recoiling package, going at this time. If a fellow wants to tailor his loads, he can cover everything from varmints to elk. Without looking foolish doing it. --imagine loading some 110gr bullets in a 300WM for varmints

)

lgall · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:28:51 AM »

The Tikka T3 actions are all based on a long action so the debate over weight savings does not apply. The T3 lite all weigh 6 lbs 3oz in all standard calibers regardless if they are long or short actions due to the fact they all are built on the long action. The only thing that I can gain from the 7mm-08 over the .270 is less recoil, shorter bolt throw, and more bullet selection, but all this comes at a cost of slighlty lower velosity and ballistics. Also what would the recoil be like in a .270 or even .270wsm in a 7-71/4 lb rifle scope combo. I like to shoot alot during range sessions, 40+ rounds and I am able to do it with a 30-06, but after 25-30 it gets uncomfortable. Out of the three 30-06 rifles that I have owned winchester, browning, and ruger, I have not been impressed with the accuracy. Don't get me wrong I still love the 30-06, but I would like a more accurate rifle and with this light of a gun I think the recoil would be more than I would like. Right now I am leaning to the 7mm-08, but have not completely ruled out another caliber. So far I am thinking the .280 or .270wsm would work if I need a little more punch. Decisions, decisions, decisions. More that likely it will be whatever caliber sportsman's wharehouse has in stock when I go to buy the gun.

Tackleberry · « **Reply #23 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:29:15 PM »

What's the problem? have several!!!...I've got an old Savage 110B .270...superbly accurate, stock like a club, it would be a superb rifle from a Sendero Stand.....a Browning A-bolt in .280 (I prefer to call it a 7mm Rem Express because really it's damn near a 7mm Rem Mag with alot more efficiency and a lot less recoil, and very light and accurate like a laser (honestly it's my first choice to take where ever I go) and a new 7mm-08 H&R1871 Handirifle. To stalk hunt, the Handi rifle will have the nod..it's weight about 5-6 pounds and no appreciable recoil and who really needs more than one accurate shot anyway? or my sporter 6.5 x 55 Swede Model 38, 20 inch barrel with Fajen stock (my future mountain goat rifle) ...They are all GOOD!!! Remember the adage...once you have 5 rifles, the wife will have truble telling them apart!!!!!

Dave

Ahab · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2007, 05:30:45 AM »

Quote from: lgall on January 22, 2007, 10:28:51 AM

The Tikka T3 actions are all based on a long action so the debate over weight savings does not apply. The T3 lite all weigh 6 lbs 3oz in all standard calibers regardless if they are long or short actions due to the fact they all are built on the long action. The only thing that I can gain from the 7mm-08 over the .270 is less recoil, shorter bolt throw, and more bullet selection, but all this comes at a cost of slighlty lower velosity and ballistics. Also what would the recoil be like in a .270 or even .270wsm in a 7-71/4 lb rifle scope combo. I like to shoot alot during range sessions, 40+ rounds and I am able to do it with a 30-06, but after 25-30 it gets uncomfortable. Out of the three 30-06 rifles that I have owned winchester, browning, and ruger, I have not been impressed with the accuracy. Don't get me wrong I still love the 30-06, but I would like a more accurate rifle and with this light of a gun I think the recoil would be more than I would like.

Get the 7mm-08. I'm sure you will be pleased and it does have an accuracy edge.

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2007, 09:24:33 AM »

I'd go with the .270 myself. Better at long range, better at short range. I've had both and like both alot. You can load heavier bullets faster in the .270 for elk, etc. Look at Conley Precision Cartridge for loads with heavy bullets. They load up the 160 grain Partition bullets in the .270 at 2850 fps. $35 a box. Yeah, they get 2750fps out of the 7-08. Decisions.... Best solution is to get both, use one as a back-up gun?

?

Hey dancoman, we agree on the .270 on this too, LOL.

kudzu · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2007, 10:14:32 AM »

Ahab, what gives the 7-08 an accuracy edge over the 270. Iv'e seen this presented before between a number of differant calibers. JMO, but I don't see where any cal. is any more accurate than another. Iv'e seen just about every cal. shoot "lights out" and the same cal. I would let you shoot at me from 50 yrds.(JK, but you get my point).

Ahab · « **Reply #27 on:** January 31, 2007, 09:33:00 AM »

Quote from: dancoman on January 30, 2007, 10:14:32 AM

Ahab, what gives the 7-08 an accuracy edge over the 270. Iv'e seen this presented before between a number of differant calibers. JMO, but I don't see where any cal. is any more accurate than another. Iv'e seen just about every cal. shoot "lights out" and the same cal. I would let you shoot at me from 50 yrds.(JK, but you get my point).

Exactly the same reason the .308 is inherently more accurate than the 30-06. And if you've been shootin as long as I have, you wouldn't have asked.

kudzu · « **Reply #28 on:** February 01, 2007, 08:24:23 AM »

If you are talking long vs short action, I still don't buy it. I believe it's more to do with the gun itself, not the cal.

If I be wrong, do tell.

DM