Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    	Variety is the spice of life. People like to tinker and
    experiment. Without people like this, life would be too boring. Just
    look at what the Handgun industry has done in the past few years: 
    .41 Express, .40 S&W, .10 MM....Is there a need for more handgun
    calibers ? I have no need for 'em, but someone does.
    
    	Red

    a) There are more 7mm bullets than .270 bullets available.
    b) The 7-08 fits in a shorter, lighter gun than the .270.
    c) Larger bore means ability to handle heavier bullets.
    d) 307 and 356 are rimmed versions of the 308 and 358, allowing
       same firepower in lever-action tubular-magazine guns. (Some
       folks *like* 'em.)
    e) the 416 Remington combines the trajectory of the .375 H&H 
       with the power of the 458 Win. Nice when you're in the field
       with critters that can eat you for breakfast.

    Someone will always be trying to get something a little better.
    The .280 does better than the .270. But when you look at the difference
    between the 30/06 and the .270 the /06 is just a bit better than
    the .270, but the main reason someone developed (at least this is
    what I think) the .270 was to reduce recoil and to a caliber that
    would shoot comparable to the /06. The same can be said about the
    .308, back in the 50's when it was developed people were saying
    that it was not understandable why the gov't would come out with
    this cartridge when the .300 Savage was already available. Now look
    what has happened. The .308 has become almost a standard and the
    .300 Savage has taken a back seat. I now when and if I can afford
    a new rifle it will be a .280.
    							Bret

	I think .-1 was right, but there is obviously also more
	to it than merely the idea of creating something different.
	Consider:

	.280 Rem was originally developed for use in the Remington
	autoloaders, which had a hard time handling the high pressures
	which the .270 Win is loaded to (.270 Win 57200 c.u.p. vs.
	.280 Rem 50900 c.u.p, both "average working pressure limits").
	It is perhaps ironic that the .280 only became really popular
	(to my knowledge) for use in bolt actions where one would assume it
	could safely be loaded to higher pressures. Apart from that, 
	the .280 offers the ability of using all the wonderful 7 mm 
	bullets (of which there are more than .270) with the 30-06 size 
	case.

	The 7mm-08 fits into the short actions made for the .308 Win case.
	This allows short "carbine" type rifles to be built (saving
	about 1/2 inch in the action alone). This type of cartridge is
	inherently accurate, and has obtained considerable popularity
	for various target shooting disciplines (metallic silhouette
	springs to mind) to prove it. Besides, with a 7mm-08 you obtain 
	splendid ballistics from short barrels, without burning more powder
	than necessary.

	The various .416 factory cartridges were welcome arrivals
	in places where the .458 Win had long been the only affordable
	alternative. Many knowledgable shooters had long pointed
	to the inability of the small capacity .458 to perform well
	on dangerous game (such as the African big five) even at
	relatively short distances. And even if you liked it at short
	distances, then it was pretty obvious that the cartridge was
	a best a 150 yard proposition. That left you with options such as
	the .375 H&H (which is wonderfully flexible, but which some people
	consider to be marginal for the really big stuff) or the more 
	expensive way such as a custom rifle in one of the old English
	calibers. Some people had long been noting, that what was really
	needed was something like the ballistics of the old .416 Rigby
	- 400 grs of lead at about 2400 fps. You could have this (albeit 
	at a price) in one of the .416 wildcats such as the Hoffman or 
	the Taylor. So along comes Remington and presents us with a 
	virtual copy of the .416 Hoffman (and Weatherby did their normal 
	turbo-charge job :-). So now you have a cartridge for which you 
	can obtain factory loaded ammo, cheap brass, cheap rifles, more 
	energy than a .458 and at close to .375 trajectories. Sounds 
	pretty good to me :-).

	As you can hear, I am the kind of person who thinks constant
	development is to the benefit of us shooters. I like the
	variety (even if the good old 30-06 is still one of my favourites)
	presented by all the various factory loads. In the future I'll
	also venture into the wonderful world of wildcats, just for
	the pure fun of it. I say: the more variety the better, it
	allows us a better choice, and it adds spice to discussions like
	this no end :-).
	
	
							- Mike


	P.S. There are about as many European cartridges as there are
	American ones. How does the idea of the 7 X 64 (the Central European
	30-06 equivalent) strike you? Or for the big stuff: 9.3 X 74 R,
	which Ian described so well to us a few notes back. So as you
	can see, the variety is endless :-).

RE:
        <<< Note 694.2 by HEFTY::CHARBONND "ain't no Prince Charming" >>>
        -< and besides, there's always an excuse to buy a new gun :-) >-

	Could not agree more....

>>    d) 307 and 356 are rimmed versions of the 308 and 358, allowing
>>       same firepower in lever-action tubular-magazine guns. (Some
>>       folks *like* 'em.)

	And loaded to lower pressures for lever actions such as
	the Model 94 and the Marlins.

	P.P.S. I also like Carmichael better than O'Connor -
	sorry if I just admitted to heresy :-). But Carmichael's
	"Book of the Rifle" is a true tour de force.


							- Mike

    re .5 Mike, I think the 307/356 are loaded to about the same
    pressures as the 308/358. The difference is that flatnose or
    roundnose bullets must be used, yeilding lower energy at the
    long ranges. The lever guns built for these 'hot' cartridges
    are much more stout than the 30-30 guns.

	
RE:        <<< Note 694.6 by HEFTY::CHARBONND "ain't no Prince Charming" >>>

	Actually, I think you may be right :-). My reloading manuals
	certainly don't seem to say anything about lower pressures.
	Apologies from a devoted bolt-action fan :-). My Speer manual
	does say that the .307 brass has much thicker side walls
	than the .308 cases.

	I wonder what the SAAMI pressures for these cartridges are?
	Any takers?

	Btw. I find it quite extraordinary if it is possible to build
	lever actions (a'la Model 94) to be strong enough to handle
	bolt-action like pressures. Hmmm, maybe I'll have to revise my
	perceptions about those old bangers... :-)


							- Mike

    regarding pressures in lever actions et all...
    
    One of the reasons (among others) that the .280 never caught on
    originally was because hunters had heard that Remington had to reduce
    pressures to allow the round to be safely used in their 742 autoloader
    and 760 pump... 
    
    as far as have more bullet weights to offer in 7mm vs .270... I don't
    buy it.  look at the 30-06, theres a whole slew of bullet weights
    available to use, but who in their right mind is gonna hunt varmints
    with it... certainly no serious varminter. and for deer your best
    possible bullet selection is a 165 grainer... for moose you might opt
    for the 180, possibly 220... but how often will your average joe be
    using the full gammit of bullets in this cartridge?  probably never.
    
    The difference in bullet weights, between .270 and .280 in a useable 
    range are so miniscule as to be negating.
    
    For deer sized animals hunters should be using 130's in the .270 and
    140's in the .280, at least thats what the bullets were constructed to
    perform well on.  There is a mere 90 foot lbs difference at the muzzle,
    and the gap barely widens to 150 foot lbs out at 500 yds.  In the .280
    the 150 grain bullet has 200 foot lbs lees than the 140 grain selection 
    at 500 yds.  The .280 is comparable in the velocity dept. but the .270
    is flatter, so wheres the advantage?  I'm not saying one is better than 
    the other, but the selection based on bullet weights alone is not really 
    a logical one, but who said hunters are logical... 
    
    Variety is the spice of life and the more the merrier... but there
    should be no "one gun can fire them all" thinking.
    
    without variety we'd have no 25-06 cause the .243 can do the same...
    there'd be no .243 cause the .220 swift can do it too, no 6mm PPC cause
    we already have the 6mm rem.   Keep em coming!
    
    Fra
    

    	Fra,
    I have to disagree with you on shooting flatter. Using comparable
    bullet weights (.280=154, 30/06=150 and .270=150 grains) the .280
    shoots the flattest, next is the 30/06 and then the .270. This is
    at 300 yards, which in this area doesn't happen very often when
    hunting in New England. But the seperation between the three is
    almost 2 inches with the 30/06 right in the middle. But there are
    also some hunters out there that use the 110 gr. and 30/06 accelerator
    for varmints. And with good success too. Using the 110 gr. is only
    10 gr. more than the varmint bullett for the .270 if I am correct.
    The reasons that most people, that I have talked to, select the
    .270 over the 30/06 is recoil. The .270 is not a bad round but I
    prefer the 30/06 or even better the .280 over the .270. But it doesn't
    really matter when the meat is put on the table, it all tastes the
    same.
    							Bret

    Bret,
    
    when i said flatter i was refering to bullet weights that you would 
    actually use for the job at hand, since i would'nt use 150's for deer
    in a .270 i didn't use these numbers...  it's kind of biased data
    i admit, but you use 130's in a 270, 140's in a 280, and 165's in an
    30-06 for deer sized game.  Granted you could select other bullet
    weights, but these numbers represent the optimum weights for deer,
    antelope, goat, sheep and caribou.
    
    FWIW,  fra
    
    

	Re: the last few.

	In the end, the differences between the calibers compared
	(.270 WCF, .280 Rem., .30-06 Sprgfld) are pretty miniscule
	They are all *great* deer cartridges, and will get the 
	job done at all reasonable ranges. I've often played with 
	comparing ballistic data and found the differences pretty 
	minor, but then again judge for yourself:

	.270,  140 grs Nosler Ballistic Tip
	.280,  150 grs   ""      ""      "
	.30-06 165 grs   ""      ""      "

	These bullets represent a fair medium (not the heaviest, not
	the lightest) for all of the calibers. They will handle
	deer anywhere. I chose the ballistic tip bullet because
	it exists in all the above weights. I would have chosen
	the Partition, but it is not available in .270 140 grs. 
	The trajectories with a 200 yds zero are:

	Caliber	   Muzzle Velocity (fps)  300 yds drop (in)  Energy (Ft-lbs)
	.270		3000			-6.6		1794
	.280		2900			-7.2		1785
	.30-06		2800			-7.8		1851

	The cited velocities should be obtainable from normal hunting 
	rifles. 

	What do you say guys, can you tell the difference between
	a 7 or an 8 inch hold-over at 300 yds (in  hunting situation)?

	I think it really is a question of what you happen to pick
	up and like. Granted there *are* differences in trajectories,
	but I think in the end it is more a question of what you know
	and have confidence in that really matters. 

	When we move up to larger animals, the heavier calibers probably
	hold the edge for versatility (which is where I belive that
	there *is* a difference) due to their larger bullet weight and
	diameter. For deer size animals they are all close to perfect.
	Obviously, the lighter calibers kick a bit less.

							- Mike