Author Topic: Gunwriter Does It Again - .270 vs 7mm (Read 1184 times)

Lone Star · « **on:** November 26, 2004, 04:52:20 AM »

One of the staff at the American Rifleman (Dec. 2004, pg. 36) once again promotes one of the misconceptions about the .280 cartridges. A caption in the article states: "He especially values one of its significant advantages over the .270 Win.; the opportunity for the handloader to try a wider variety of bullets for maximum performance." He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but let's take a look at it.

While a quick review of the four major bullet makers shows that the .277 caliber has 7 different weights versus 12 for the .284 bullets, I question the "significance" of the "advantage". The range of weights in .277" is 90 to 160 grains, while in .284" it is 100-175 grains. Will a 175-grain Partition bullet offer a significant "maximum performance" advantage over a 160-grain Partition which is just 0.007" smaller in diameter? Experienced hunters know the answer to that one.

Of course there is a large performance difference between a 139-grain and a 140-grain .284" bullet. :roll: Ditto with the .284" 160 and 162-grain bullets, or the 140 and 145-grain bullets. I suppose if the .284" owner wants to buy three dozen different bullets to find the "perfect" bullet for his rifle then perhaps the writer's opinion makes sense....but I doubt he's done that, or ever will do it.

If "more choices" is a significant advantage for the .284" bore, even if the differences are miniscule, then I guess I'm all wet. It is this kind of lazy re-writing of what previous gunwriters have published for decades that cheapens the firearms writing trade. BTW, I currently own neither a .277" nor a .284" firearm and don't really care which is "best".

leverfan · « **Reply #1 on:** November 26, 2004, 09:43:10 AM »

Blame the lazy editors. They assign articles to staff writers, and they give the okay to articles written by free-lancers. After all these years, it's probably tough to come up with enough new content to fill all the magazines on the market today.

New product reviews are about the only way to come up with fresh material. However, no-name free-lancers don't have much of a chance to get their paws on new guns to try out. No editor will bother to have a sample gun sent out to a name that doesn't draw readers, so the money comes out of the gun writer's pocket. When you figure that the average pay for an article ranges well under $1,000, unless Outdoor Life publishes you, it's easy to see that gun writing is a losing proposition for the average shooter. At least, if you actually have to buy a gun to do the article.

The cheap and easy way out? Churn out a re-hash of: 9mm vs. 45 ACP, 270 vs. 7 mag vs. 30-06, cast bullet loads in your rhino hunting rifle, etc.

longwinters · « **Reply #2 on:** November 26, 2004, 10:36:55 AM »

Hey, I shoot a 280 and think it is one of the best calibers out there. But I can't say it is better than about 10 other calibers. Next month someone will probably write about how the 270 is better than the 280 :eek: . I just read em and try to glean any good info . . . and then go do what I want anyway. I have come to the point where I won't argue calibers etc... as, except for a little mental exercise, it serves no purpose.

Long

ricciardelli · « **Reply #3 on:** November 26, 2004, 12:03:17 PM »

"When I was a young man, and never been kissed..." (remember that old song?).

Well, in those "olden days", there was a saying:

"Those who know, do.
Those who don't know, teach.
Those who have no idea, write books."

Lone Star · « **Reply #4 on:** November 26, 2004, 12:34:15 PM »

Quote

Blame the lazy editors. They assign articles to staff writers, and they give the okay to articles written by free-lancers. After all these years, it's probably tough to come up with enough new content to fill all the magazines on the market today.

I free-lanced for several gunzines for almost twenty years, so I know the game well. The author in question is better than the average hack, and is a "field editor" for AR. He wrote a pretty decent article on the G2 a few months ago, but the .270/7mm comment may well have been added by the chief editor himself.

One of the reasons I got out of that game (I still write for non-gun mags) was the inept editing done to my stuff. I'd turn in a manuscript, only to see it in print six months later with many minor changes made by the editor....most of which completely changed the points I was trying to make. It is the editor's magazine afterall and he can do what he wants as long as he pays, but I got tired of looking foolish in print for words I never even wrote. :evil:

Of course I assume that riddiardelli didn't mean folks like Elmer Keith or Jack O'Connor when he made his over-used, over-simplifying comment about those who write books..... :lol:

ricciardelli · « **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2004, 05:31:32 PM »

Well, if you took "270" out of Jack's vocabulary, he couldn't speak!

And if you give Elmer sodium pentathol, he couldn't speak either!

Hyperbole might interest some, but it is boring as hell to those who "are in the know".

Sure, Elmer, and Jack, and Capstick, and Ackley are interesting conversation over a campfire, or a bottle of Bud, but exactly how many elk can you kill at 400 yards with a .17 caliber cartridge, or how many bears did Elmer really kill with his .44 at 500 yards (or did he confuse himself with his "outhouse at 400 yard" stories)?

And Capstick? Interesting reading! He has been mauled by every animal in Africa, and has also killed the largest and meanest of them, as well. Pretty good for a shoe salesman from New Jersey!

As for "technical writers", how many times have you read an evaluation of a $3000+ firearm, and the writer rants and raves about what a great firearm it is in paragraph #1, yet in paragraphs #2 thru #6 he then states that the wood to metal finish is poor, the checkering is over-run, and 5 shot groups at 100-yards are around 3 MOA. BUT...in his closing paragraph he once again tells us what a great firearm it is (because it only jammed around 5% of the time) and that everyone should run right out and buy a couple!

And how about the extremely useless phrases that you will find in just about every article? One like, "The .280 offers more flexability when handloaded"? Name one centerfire cartridge that doesn't?

Or, "This firearm will please any owner who has purchased one." Well, hell! If I paid my money for something, it damn better well please me! Or back it goes...

And then there is the classic, "Although accuracy is not all that great at 100 yards, it is good enough for hunting!"

At one time in my life I considered gun writers a "gun scribes", now I consider them "gun scribblers"...

Lone Star · « **Reply #6 on:** November 27, 2004, 12:10:31 PM »

Quote

Well, if you took "270" out of Jack's vocabulary, he couldn't speak!
And if you give Elmer sodium pentathol, he couldn't speak either!

Well, I see why you are stuck on using worn-out cliches and trite insults. It seems so easy for you to pidgeonhole people into catagories which fit your personal comfort zone - fine I guess, if it makes you happy.

I'm glad that most shooters are content, fullfilled people rather than bitter old men....it makes the hobby so much more fun and interesting. Being one of the few true firearms experts must be a terrible burden to you - I'm glad that after half a century I'm still learning something new about firearms every single day.

TNrifleman · « **Reply #7 on:** November 28, 2004, 03:17:07 AM »

Well said, Lone Star, very well said indeed.

Daniel · « **Reply #8 on:** November 30, 2004, 10:03:57 AM »

Ditto what TNrifleman said.

Yukon Gold · « **Reply #9 on:** November 30, 2004, 11:39:09 AM »

Between my son and I, we must subscribe to 10 gun/hunting magazines. I love them all, and enjoy reading them... however, for once I would love to see:

1) The author one time state something is a piece of junk. I have read several "glowing" articles, only to be disappointed when I had the product in hand. It almost seems like the gun magazines are afraid to say something negative about a gun.

2) When the magazine cover makes a statement like "Best handgun for self defence" or "best cartridge for elk hunting" - I would like to see the article state exactly what the author feels is the best in their opinion and their reasons for and against. I may or may not agree, but I would like to know what the author feels. Too often, it goes on for paragraphs stating endless statistics, then to end with something like "ultimately, it is up to the user to determine what is best for his needs".

Typically I find gun owners to be pretty firm in their beliefs, likes, dislikes, and as a group, not afraid to say what they feel.

It would be nice to have gun magazines reflect that aspect of it's readers. Too often, they read like one giant advertisement.

KYsquirrelsniper · « **Reply #10 on:** November 30, 2004, 11:40:37 AM »

I use and like both .277s and .284s, and for all practical purposes I consider them as identical, with the only variable being how fast a particular cartridge can push the bullet. Of course this seems to make sense to me, as the two calibers nearly are identical :wink:.

I guess gun writers have to come up with something to write about though, but I don't think I'd even attempt to debate the faults and merits of two calibers that are within .007" and have a 10gr difference in bullet weight. If bullet selection made a particular caliber the greatest thing since sliced bread, then everyone would be using something chambered for .308" bullets anyway :roll:

Questor · « **Reply #11 on:** November 30, 2004, 11:47:09 AM »

Oh well. A writer's gotta write.

My take on the .270 and its limited range of bullet weights is that it doesn't really need more than it has. It's just one of those great cartridges that has a niche and fits into it very well.

Most would agree that Craig Boddington is one of today's best, yet he writes the same kind of hairsplitting stuff that we see in the above comparison of the 270 and 280. He just writes it better.

swecology · « **Reply #12 on:** November 30, 2004, 01:05:56 PM »

copy is copy is copy, to an editor.

I stopped listening to the gun writers once I realized how often they rehash everything every 10 to 20 years, and how often they have been wrong.

Best way to decide on what caliber to get is to pay attention to what others are using in the areas that you like to hunt, and if you have a chance, ask why. Then factor in how much recoil you can stand and how much $ you can spend. That will decide the "perfect" caliber for you, or your situation.

Oh yeah...The guy behind the gun counter is usually a illiterate sycophant who will sell you whatever has been hanging out in the shop the longest. Very rarely, and I was able to meet not only one but two individuals who actually knew what they were doing and talking about, will you ever find a gun salesman who has your interest at heart, and not his profit line. Be careful, and buyer beware. FWIW, I bought from the girl who knew the least, but knew enough to admit it and go and ask about what she didn't know. I blew off the twit who thought he knew it all. I have never been happier with a purchase.

O.K., I'll get off my soapbox now...

Matt

jhalcott · « **Reply #13 on:** November 30, 2004, 01:51:03 PM »

A couple years ago I hunted bear in Maine.The Guide showed me several Magazine photos of a dead bear.Most photo's were accompanied with some thing like"the author used a ***** on this bear hunt".The bear was shot by a local boy who NEVER got mentioned once! The guide showed me where each gun "scribe" dragged the bear for a photo. One pic claimed to be taken on a Montana hunt. I no longer read all those gun mags.It just makes me want to spend my retirement $$

victorcharlie · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2004, 03:49:11 PM »

Heck fellows.....the .270 is soooo good, Horniday just has 2 .277 calibers listed.......If the 7mm were so great.....why is there so many different ones?

longwinters · « **Reply #15 on:** December 01, 2004, 12:07:37 PM »

For exactly that reason. Because it is worth doing.

Long

Jaydub in Wi · « **Reply #16 on:** December 01, 2004, 05:44:51 PM »

the only hunting/shooting mags i get anymore are wolfe's 3 ;Rifle, handloader, and successful hunter. The rest are a bit repetitive to me with the same old 270 vs 7mm vs 30-06 song and dance.Ross Seyfried, John Barsness, and Brian Pearce are my 3 favorite writers. I used to like Gary Sitton's stuff too, but i don't think he writes anymore and was getting a bit repetitive towards the end. Sorry, i forgot John Wooters but he's retired now.Boddington is good, but he also writes too many 270 vs 7mm articles.

anthony passero · « **Reply #17 on:** December 20, 2004, 12:33:01 PM »

When did Elmer say he shot a bear at 500 yards with a sixgun? I have read every book by him and cannot recall him ever saying that.

gwhilikerz · « **Reply #18 on:** December 20, 2004, 03:57:19 PM »

Quote from: ricciardelli

"When I was a young man, and never been kissed..." (remember that old song?).

Well, in those "olden days", there was a saying:

"Those who know, do.
Those who don't know, teach.
Those who have no idea, write books."

LOL ricciardelli when i was a younger man and still working for a living my company sent me for our annual checkup including a mental check :grin: . Somehow the conversation with the shrink got around to who was qualified for what. I used the quote about writing books. He went to the book shelf and handed me two books he had written.