Thread: Conclusive Evidence ....

All you that don’t really know what you’re on about, read and weep.
https://www.fieldandstream.com/story...ource=facebook

Most importantly this passage. It just gets the job done, no fuss, no pretenses.



And go.

Figured it’s about time we had a lighthearted “My big one is better than your little one” tussle.

Originally Posted by oraki

Figured it’s about time we had a lighthearted “My big one is better than your little one” tussle.

Why tussel just own both

Was the author drunk or have dementia?

Check out the best numbers you can find for windage and energy for both cartridges at 600, 700 and 800m.....

I think you'll find the 7RM a decent step up.

Better comparison 6.5prc v .270win v 270wsm

Yep 243 is always the answer

Originally Posted by stevodog

Yep 243 is always the answer

unless the question is "what should I shoot that deer with over there at 400 yards (just teasing)

My fast twist 243 with a 115Berger?

243 for when you have to ask "will this hurt me to fire mummy?"

long live the 7mmRM

Which I don't have.never found a good enough reason to go below 6.5mm but reason has never been much of a barrier for me

So what actually defines a cartridge a magnum other than tacking the word magnum on the end of it

The design of the case. The belt reinforces the base of the case to run higher pressures without blowing the case where it comes out of the chamber.

It comes from the original Weatherby line of cases I think late forties

I have read that old time definition, pre-Weathrby etc, was length of cartridge especially when related to bolt actions. Eg. Short (308), Standard (30-06) and Magnum (375H7H). As noted above, is the 7mmRM really a magnum because Remington called it that to lure more buyers with the hype.

It's actually Winchester's fault they released the 264 magnum in around 1956 then did the 300 and 338 on the same case therefore Remington using the same case for a 7mm in 1960(?) called it the magnum.

222 magnum doesn't have a belt