Which 7mm is 7mm?

"Correct me if I"m wrong, but wasn't the .275 Rigby a simple repackaging of the 7X57? A simple name change for the British market? "

That's only partly correct. If I undestand it correctly the British would never use a cartrdige designed by Germans. So they just changed the name to the .275 Rigby and called it good. I believe the .276 Westley-Richards may also be just a renamed 7x57 You'll note that rifles note made in England have to be reproofed and then stamped "Not British made" or make. Just a bit of British snobbery, don't you know. :rolleyes:
Paul B.
 
The only way to determine the cartridge being referenced is "Which 7mm, specifically?"

ASSuming anything in a world of 60,000+ psi can be... unfortunate.
 
Correct me if I"m wrong, but wasn't the .275 Rigby a simple repackaging of the 7X57? A simple name change for the British market?
Click to expand...
Well, the answer is long-winded and a little off topic, but a good question nonetheless. Rigby was the exclusive importer (into the British Commonwealth) of Mauser rifles, most importantly for the Brits the square-bridge Mauser Magnum action used in large-bore rifles typically used for dangerous game. Since Napoleon had mandated the metric system (SI) for the European countries that came under his control and the British were using the Standard System, cartridges with metric designations were renamed with Standard System dimensions. So the .275 Rigby was a .275" bore rifle firing the Rigby cartridge (since Rigby was the only source for the ammo in England at that time), and later 7mm Rigby cartridges got a number (#2, #3, etc). Rigby had a whole line of proprietary cartridges. Many European metric designated cartridges were from other parts of the world, but the continentals renamed them with their very logical naming system (bore diameter X cartridge case length, and sometimes a designation for designer, rimmed, belted, etc). So yes, .275 Rigby was in fact the 7X57mm.
 
Last edited:
My experience has been that most people that say they have a 7mm actually mean 7x57mm (AKA 7mm Mauser), if they're referring to the 7mm Rem Mag they usually say 7mm Mag. I would second asking "which 7mm" when the subject comes up.

Stu
 
.275 (Rigby) is actuallly...

the Standard System measurement of the diameter of the lands. The diameter of the grooves is .284, which is much more recognizable as 7 mm.

Speaking of .284, no one has yet mentioned the .284 Winchester, one of the earlier 7 mm short/fat rounds. It was notably necked down to 6.5 mm (.264 inch) and became the 6.5-.284, a very accurate long range competition round.

I'm just saying.
 
Major Dave - a couple of months ago I saw a couple of fellas shooting a .284 at a 300-yd. range. Started a conversation and it tuned out they were working on loads for a 1,000 yard match the following month.
 
.275 (Rigby) is actuallly the Standard System measurement of the diameter of the lands. The diameter of the grooves is .284, which is much more recognizable as 7 mm.
Click to expand...
We typically call that the "bore diameter" rather than the "lands diameter". The other critical dimension is the "groove diameter".

All 7mm rifles actually fire 7.21mm bullets. The only rifles that fire real 7mm bullets (.277") are the 270s (Winchester, Weatherby, WSM, etc).
 
I agree when it's usually mentioned as having a "7" or "7mm," folks these days are referring to 7mm Mag. As a general rule, cartridges that are most commonly referred to by it's "inches" description - .284, .280 Rem, etc, - are hardly ever actually called 7's in conversation, unless sometimes just discussing the bullet component. So, IMO, in this order of using "7" or "7mm" as the moniker,
- 7mm Rem Mag
- 7mm-08
- 7x57 (Mauser)
Hardly ever, as others have mentioned
- .280 Rem
- .284

People will almost always call these last ones (as well as the likes of 7x30 Waters) by their complete names.

As far as a solid, supported round/platform to pursue, I also agree the 7mm Mag is largely a "waste" or is excessive for most hunting purposes. It requires a longer action, often is more expensive (ammo), and its "report" and shove beyond what many consider desirable for what they need.. BUT, it certainly is capable and supported. But, if I want or feel a need for a magnum, something more than an '06, I'll get a .300 Win Mag for a "do all" or for "just elk and above," something in the .338 class. One of my faves is the classic .35 Whelen, a sunbsonic non-magnum beauty that'll do it under 500 as well as any. But, not largely "supported" for the OP's purposes.

SO, for a general purpose round/rifle, I'd focus instead on, by category:
Standard Action
- .30-06
- .270 Win
Short Action
- .308
- 7mm-08
IMO, no need to look elsewhere--again for the OP's criteria.

Looking at the Standard actions, the two listed do it all and can be loaded up or down, and are found on virtually all LGS shelves nationwide, including "backwoods" general store types (carrying any ammo).
.280 can equal or better .270 but, despite better bullet choices (7's again) is not supported nearly as well for non hand/re-loaders. The .270 is the quintessential "deer" (and sheep) round, and with modern ammo choices has made very decent inroads into the elk territory--to the extent that if it's what you have you no longer have to (as a g.p. hunting set up (as if you ever did really have to) think of a second rifle for an elk hunt.

Looking at the Short actions, .308 does it all about as well as the .30-06 except some heavier loads. 7mm-08 is one of the great under-rated rounds, a necked-down .308, it's less in recoil and report, and arguably more accurate under 300. The 7mm-08 to me can make for the quintessential "mountain rifle" as it seems to thrive in all barrel lengths but, unlike some, is particularly tolerant of the shorter barrels (18-20). Both it and the .308 are available most anywhere, but the .308 does reign supreme in that department by a good margin.
Hard to beat a 22" 7mm-08 or .308 as a do-all round.

All others than the four main ones above--of the general purpose bolt, pump or auto platforms--are pretenders IMO in the "well supported" department--rifles and ammo.
 
Last edited:
I am in the part of the country in which "7mm" means 7mm Remington Magnum and very seldom anything else.

Sure, I am an enthusiast and know of many other 7mm cartridges, but am in the minority.
 
Also, for general purposes, could I get a basic power ranking of the most popular hunting cartridges? For instance, I know .30-06 is mostly equal to .308 but can be loaded a bit heavier, and that .270 Win is weaker than those but overpowers .243. My trouble is figuring out where rounds like 7mm (either one), 22-250, and 300 WSM fit.
Click to expand...

Just look at a list of cartridges by caliber. Then determine standard bullet weight and standard velocity. That's how you figure a hierarchy of rounds.

There is lots of overlap between cartridges. Many cartridges are ballistic twins.
 
It requires a longer action, often is more expensive (ammo), and its "report" and shove beyond what many consider desirable for what they need.
Click to expand...
7mm Remington Magnum fits in a standard length action (same as a 30-06). Ammo for the 7mm Remington Magnum is just slightly more expensive than 30-06 ammunition of comparable quality. IIRC, it is the 5th most common hunting caliber cartridge in terms of sales in the US (30-06, 270, 308, 243, 7mm Rem Mag).

The "report" and "shove" can be issues, especially with the 22" and 24" barrels and the lightweight barrel profiles generally used on production rifles. While I am no fan of the 7 mm Rem Mag (I shoot a 7X57 nowadays), it is not all that much different than the 300 Win Mag.
 
When people simply refer to the 7mm, usually they mean the 7mmRem Mag as it is the most popular 7mm. However as demonstrated above it can lead to a lot of confusion due to the number of cartridges that are 7mm.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Context is important. If its a WWII forum, then it would be more likely European cartridge but it would self explain.

We used to call my dads gun a 30-06. Well we knew what we were talking about, though technically it was a 1903 shooting a 30-06 cartridge (which was used not only in intold numbers of sporter arms but also M1, 30 calibers machine guns and M1917s.

My younger brother was on a mission to ensure we all called Spruce trees that, and not pine trees.

So it goes, approach it with a sense of humor as we all drift into loose terminology when we thing everyone knows what is being discusesed.
 
Scorch said:
"While I am no fan of the 7 mm Rem Mag (I shoot a 7X57 nowadays), it is not all that much different than the 300 Win Mag."

Scorch,I don't disagree on the recoil between the two. I guess what I was suggesting is that if I want/feel the need for a magnum and going to suffer for it anyway :) I want.a .3__ in front of it, with more bullet weight that usually goes along with that - something that'll more reliably break shoulder.
 
Most shooters refer to their rifle's caliber by the chambering and not the size of the bullet, too many standard chamberings, much less the wildcats.

It's a .308, not a .30 cal...
It's a 7-08, not a 7mm...
It's a 6.5 Grendel, not a 6.5...
etc...

But, I've always wondered why in the world, it's called a .223, and not a .224...
And why it's a .260 Remington, and not a .264 Remington...

Some consistency, please! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top