Mummichog

The Anemic 7mm Rem Mag

Rate this topic

17 posts in this topic

This reloading data surprised me. At least for Barnes Triple Shocks, it’s slower than the 30-06.  See top loads for 150 grain bullets.  It’s only 38 fps faster than the 308 Win.  It has greater capacity, wondering why the velocities are so lame?  I get the 30 caliber has a bigger base to push, but to actually be faster than the 7 mag, a little surprised.

A6409FAA-D22A-4D3C-AEF5-E5F65494A4A7.jpeg

7770BB4B-B4E1-433B-A2B7-F92BB86C9CFF.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to really shine, a 7 mil mag need to be pushing heavier bullets...180's...Kind of...

 

Ballistically speaking, it is better than a 300 mag.

 

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Largest bullet in this manual for 7mm is 175 grain. BC of .417 and SD of .310.  Maximum velocity is 2757 fps. 
 

in .308 caliber, this would compare to the 200 grain bullet in SD and BC.  Here, the 7 mag does beat the 30-06 by 200 fps.  It trails the 300 Win Mag by 50 fps.  Not bad.  The 300 Weatherby beats it by 305 fps.  But Weatherbys are special. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when i chased velocity.  No longer. 

 

Actual drop on target is all that really matters.  

 

But, I also get that you are a rifle loon, and thats cool too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 55555s said:

I remember when i chased velocity.  No longer. 

 

Actual drop on target is all that really matters.  

 

But, I also get that you are a rifle loon, and thats cool too!

 

It's not that I'm chasing velocity.  I have a 300 Weatherby for that.  It's that a magnum is producing less of it than a 30-06 and barely more than a 308 Win.  That's not very efficient.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think generically anything in 7 or 8mm that could push one of it's loadings over 3000fps got the name magnum.

Equal to 30-06 and right behind 300 Win magnum in terminal ballistics ain't too anemic....but I see you're a Weatherby fan so all bets are off !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 mins ago, surfrat59 said:

Equal to 30-06 and right behind 300 Win magnum in terminal ballistics ain't too anemic....but I see you're a Weatherby fan so all bets are off !

It's all about efficiency.  If you have a bigger case but can't push bullets any faster than a standard round, it's wasted powder and recoil.  I think it's all this particular reloading manual, though.  All other manuals list higher velocities.  Even the original Barnes X manual, which really surprised me because those bullets were not as forgiving with pressures.  

 

I researched my notes on the caliber and loads over the years.  When the Barnes Tripleshocks came out. they were available before the new manual was.  So, you called Barnes and they  gave you reloading data.  This was much hotter than what they have in their manual. Here are various loads for the 140 grain TSX.  These are the hottest loads for RL22.

 

-  66 grains @ 3107 fps:  Barnes Reloading Manual Number 4

68 grains @ 3169 fps:  Currently on Barnes' website

-  72 grains (no velocity avail):  Load I was using prior to manual coming out

73 grains @ 3372 fps: 7 max load given to me by Barnes when TSX were new and manual not yet available.  I backed down to 72 grains as these seemed to have high pressure.

 

The original Barnes X bullets top load with RL22 was 71 grains @ 3222 fps.  The TSX are supposed to operate at lower pressure and able to be driven faster.  It's interesting where the trends in loads have gone.  Are they backing down to avoid lawsuits?  

 

It seems they started hot with the TSX loads and then backed down as more testing showed higher pressures?  Maybe?  The current online load is two grains higher than the load in the manual.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 mins ago, Mummichog said:

It's all about efficiency.  If you have a bigger case but can't push bullets any faster than a standard round, it's wasted powder and recoil.  I think it's all this particular reloading manual, though.  All other manuals list higher velocities.  Even the original Barnes X manual, which really surprised me because those bullets were not as forgiving with pressures.  

 

I researched my notes on the caliber and loads over the years.  When the Barnes Tripleshocks came out. they were available before the new manual was.  So, you called Barnes and they  gave you reloading data.  This was much hotter than what they have in their manual. Here are various loads for the 140 grain TSX.  These are the hottest loads for RL22.

 

-  66 grains @ 3107 fps:  Barnes Reloading Manual Number 4

68 grains @ 3169 fps:  Currently on Barnes' website

-  72 grains (no velocity avail):  Load I was using prior to manual coming out

73 grains @ 3372 fps: 7 max load given to me by Barnes when TSX were new and manual not yet available.  I backed down to 72 grains as these seemed to have high pressure.

 

The original Barnes X bullets top load with RL22 was 71 grains @ 3222 fps.  The TSX are supposed to operate at lower pressure and able to be driven faster.  It's interesting where the trends in loads have gone.  Are they backing down to avoid lawsuits?  

 

It seems they started hot with the TSX loads and then backed down as more testing showed higher pressures?  Maybe?  The current online load is two grains higher than the load in the manual.  

You should be chronographing your own loads and using pressure indicators to determine max load.

My 7MM max loads got close to 100 FPS higher velocities than the manuals.

IIRC H414 was my best powder for velocity and accuracy optimization.

Can't do comparisons using those manuals to more than +/- 200 FPS.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was 15 teen and my buddy got a BSA bolt action in 7Mag for Christmas he really want a 300 WM but by the time has Dad got their all they had were 7's and his Dad didn't know the difference , I don't remember the scope but we went to the old Islip town range to shoot it . I got the second shot at it popped me above my eye and had blood everywhere , The Range Official thought it blew up . That was the first and last time I shot a 7mm mag , I'd buy everyone that did the same thing to its owner and happily rebarrel to 338 WM or 300 WM 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, Steve_in_PA said:

You should be chronographing your own loads and using pressure indicators to determine max load.

My 7MM max loads got close to 100 FPS higher velocities than the manuals.

IIRC H414 was my best powder for velocity and accuracy optimization.

Can't do comparisons using those manuals to more than +/- 200 FPS.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll have to find the chronograph.  I haven't chronied any loads in about 20 years.  I use the manuals velocities as a guideline and realize my mileage my vary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, jolly mon said:

That was the first and last time I shot a 7mm mag , I'd buy everyone that did the same thing to its owner and happily rebarrel to 338 WM or 300 WM 

Are you saying the 7mm Rem Mag kicks more than a 300 or 338 Win Mag?  I think mine kicks pretty similarly to my 30-06. Maybe a little more.  It burns a little more powder but shoots lighter bullets.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, Mummichog said:

 

I'll have to find the chronograph.  I haven't chronied any loads in about 20 years.  I use the manuals velocities as a guideline and realize my mileage my vary. 

I used to run my 7MM elk loads right to the max as long as velocity didn't suffer.

I hunted elk above 4,000 feet and always in cold weather.

Also had to do a lot of calculations to get my sea level sighting in adjusted for point of impact at altitude.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, Mummichog said:

Are you saying the 7mm Rem Mag kicks more than a 300 or 338 Win Mag?  I think mine kicks pretty similarly to my 30-06. Maybe a little more.  It burns a little more powder but shoots lighter bullets.  

I have an uncle who had about a pound of lead put into the stock on his 338 WM.

Was done by a good smith and well balanced afterwards.  Some in butt and some in the forearm.

He was a farmer and well-built so he didn't mind lugging the extra weight.

Really took the recoil out of the gun.

Pre 64 model 70.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve shot a few 338 win mags.  A Sako, Browning A-bolt Stainless Stalker and Ruger 77 synthetic stainless.  Didn’t mind the recoil.  The 300 Wby seems to sting a little more.  Like a punch instead of a shove.  I have a 300 WM as well and that’s not too bad, but you know you shot it.  
 

My 7mm Rem Mag is in an older Sako Deluxe.  L61R action.  It’s relatively heavy and absorbs recoil pretty effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mummichog said:

Are you saying the 7mm Rem Mag kicks more than a 300 or 338 Win Mag?  I think mine kicks pretty similarly to my 30-06. Maybe a little more.  It burns a little more powder but shoots lighter bullets.  

I found it to have a sharper snap , I have shot a good number of large bores and found them to feel like a hard push , The 7Mag was one that I just never liked . Now days when I do hunt big game it's with a 7x57 or 6.5x55 no kick just drops them .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.