It's a Curse

[Smitty of the North]

I yam cursed because I like 7mm Caliber.

Three of my favorite cartridges, 7x57, 280 Rem., and 7mm Rem. Mag. Are all underloaded in terms of most handloading data.

The 7x57 because of OLDER guns chambered for it,

The 280 because of non BA guns. ???

The 7mm Rem. Mag. because of reasons unclear. ???

Anyway, loading data is often less than what I would expect it to be. I doubt the max is really max.

My Speer Manual #12 lists lighter charges for max, than my Speer Manual #10

Smitty of the North

[Smokey]

It could be worse, like if VP Uncle Joe was your twin brother!

[Smitty of the North]

It could be worse, like if VP Uncle Joe was your twin brother!

On the face of it, that would be MUCH WORSE. Tragic even.

However, if that were the case, then I wouldn't even be ME, and so what would it matter? To ME, as ME.

You gotta think these things through, Smokey.

Smitty of the North

[BrownBear]

The 7mm Rem. Mag. because of reasons unclear. ???

Long out of date because the powder is no longer available (original surplus 4831), but one author back in the late 1960's did some serious load development that went quite a bit above "book" max. I'm not getting specific here because I don't want some internet fool to try using the same loads with any of the new versions of 4831. But the loads were so good while still giving decent case life, they validate what you're saying, I think. I'm still harboring a little under 20# of that original powder (yes, it's still in good shape) specifically for those loads in my 7mm Rem Mag. It does things with 160 grain and 175 grain Partitions that the case sezz it oughta do. Gotta guess that something similar could be achieved with the newer slow powders, but I'm not going to go digging. Already got what I need.

I'm not one to exceed book max, but in my youth and enthusiasm I reasoned that these loads came from a book, so they must be okay. I worked up to them, and I'm still using them.

[ADfields]

Long out of date because the powder is no longer available (original surplus 4831), but one author back in the late 1960's did some serious load development that went quite a bit above "book" max. I'm not getting specific here because I don't want some internet fool to try using the same loads with any of the new versions of 4831. But the loads were so good while still giving decent case life, they validate what you're saying, I think. I'm still harboring a little under 20# of that original powder (yes, it's still in good shape) specifically for those loads in my 7mm Rem Mag. It does things with 160 grain and 175 grain Partitions that the case sezz it oughta do. Gotta guess that something similar could be achieved with the newer slow powders, but I'm not going to go digging. Already got what I need.

I'm not one to exceed book max, but in my youth and enthusiasm I reasoned that these loads came from a book, so they must be okay. I worked up to them, and I'm still using them.

Yup 7mag the darling of the extreme range hunting crowd, an extremely capable round! The data has an ever growing safty margin because the smaller the caliber the closer togather "hey that's great" and "oh chit" are and there are so many speed freaks with lawyers out there. There are plenty of great loads and powders for it though.

[markopolo50]

Long out of date because the powder is no longer available (original surplus 4831), but one author back in the late 1960's did some serious load development that went quite a bit above "book" max. I'm not getting specific here because I don't want some internet fool to try using the same loads with any of the new versions of 4831. But the loads were so good while still giving decent case life, they validate what you're saying, I think. I'm still harboring a little under 20# of that original powder (yes, it's still in good shape) specifically for those loads in my 7mm Rem Mag. It does things with 160 grain and 175 grain Partitions that the case sezz it oughta do. Gotta guess that something similar could be achieved with the newer slow powders, but I'm not going to go digging. Already got what I need.

I'm not one to exceed book max, but in my youth and enthusiasm I reasoned that these loads came from a book, so they must be okay. I worked up to them, and I'm still using them.

Any hints, like FPS on the 175grain??? :question:

[Smitty of the North]

I've read that the range of pressures (highs and lows) for 7mm RM is greater than most other cartridges.

Also, at least one loading manual says that there are wide variances the 7mm RM chambers, and their loading data takes that into consideration.

I say, "unclear" because I don't think that the 7mm Weatherby cartridge shares those problems. Also, some folks have lengthened the throats on their 7mm RMs, to alleviate the problem.

I have had the throat lengthened on MY 7mm RM, but I did it mainly for more flexibility in seating long/heavy for caliber bullets. I've not tried to determine the Maximum Safe Velocity I can get, as I'm a little timid with those things.

Besides, I don't feel I NEED to do that, since it's performance with even mild loads, is greater than my 280, and 7x57s, and at the same or less pressure.

With a 7mm RM, you can have high velocity AND, have it with a with a "heavy for caliber" bullet.

For some reason, 7mm RM isn't that popular here in the Greatland.

They're out there, I'm sure, but I don't hear folks talkin about them, or bragging them up. They may be "Out There" because so many rifles are chambered for them. (It's one of the popular chamberings)

I've wondered if too many hunters are using, 140 grain bullets, and have had some terminal performance issues.

But, and I'm still guessing, I also wonder if those who like a Long Range, Do All, cartridge have chosen 300 Magnum, for more POWER, instead of the perfectly adequate 7mm Magnum.

Smitty of the North

[Smokey]

I think the shooters that enjoy the 270's and 280's like what they can do with moderate recoil. When you grab a 7mm mag with a hot/heavy load it can pop you pretty good, so I think the recoil shy folks tend to avoid it and the chaps that don't mind some recoil therapy tend to go on up in caliber.
The TV hunt shows with the long range shooting systems that utilize the 7mm mag probably have stirred some interest in the lower 48 but other than sheep and goat hunter in AK I doubt there are as many that could use or need a 500+ yard gun.
Great round for sure but if one is going to a long action thumper the 30cals on up seem to get the nod.

[Smitty of the North]

I think the shooters that enjoy the 270's and 280's like what they can do with moderate recoil. When you grab a 7mm mag with a hot/heavy load it can pop you pretty good, so I think the recoil shy folks tend to avoid it and the chaps that don't mind some recoil therapy tend to go on up in caliber.
The TV hunt shows with the long range shooting systems that utilize the 7mm mag probably have stirred some interest in the lower 48 but other than sheep and goat hunter in AK I doubt there are as many that could use or need a 500+ yard gun.
Great round for sure but if one is going to a long action thumper the 30cals on up seem to get the nod.

Moderate Recoil is what 7mm Mags. have goin for them.

Recoil is pretty close to 30-06. Which can also "pop you pretty good". My 280 usta "pop me pretty good".

Yeah, I've heard complaints of too much recoil 7mm Mag. even with 140 grain bullets. It's how you hold the gun that matters more than anything else as to what seems to be "too much".

Few people seem to complain about their 300 Mags, though. And, they want them in the lightest rifle they can find chambered for it. "Well, I carry the gun more than I shoot it, you see, and I never remember the recoil when I'm hunting". yadda yadda.

7mm Mag was all the rage, way back when, when the published velocities turned out to be a bunch of hooey. Nonetheless, it has lasted, even though few people have anything good to say about it. At least to me. I've heard people blame the cartridge for all kinds of failures.

It doesn't have a reputation for being very powerful. Those who have killed truckloads of game, might know better than me, but I think it is, plenty gun, myself.

Smitty of the North

[.338 mag.]

Never owned a 7mm any thing, but I intend to, especially if I hunt state side. The 7mm Rem. Mag. appeals to me, so does a light weight 7mm-08. Then again the .280 Improved has my interest. So little time, so many rifles to want.

[back country]

I would sooner be carrying 160's or 175's in my 7mm mag loads than a 338 with 200's , THAT'S for sure ! I started out years ago with a fat bolt Browning with a Douglas barreled 7mm Mag that accounted for a bunch of bull elk and that was with inferior "elk bullets", when I shot the barrel out I advanced in common fashion through the 300 mag and on to the 338 win mag, shot that barrel out and found myself shooting a Tikka Superlight 7mm Mag and have wondered since why I ever left that chambering .... (bullets I guess) BUT "bullets" is no longer a problem and me thinks I'll stay with a 7mm mag (or two) for the duration - good 140 grain bullets present no limitations for me that I can detect either ....

[rbuck351]

I like the 7mm Rem Mag and I think it's plenty of gun for anything in N America. The bigger rounds give you a little more margin for error but they are harder to shoot well. Bell ran all over Africa dropping elephants and such like they were chipmunks with a 7x57. I like rounds that are not so "normal" so the 7mm Rem holds little interest for me although I have had two over the years. I usually hunt with a pre64 in 300H&H because it is an adequate round and it's just plain neat rifle and round. If I could find a 7x61 S&H at my price, I would have one of those and it's so close to a Rem 7mm Mag you can interchange data. The 7x57 or even the 6.5x55 are probably all the rifle most of us would really need but I'm sure that will cause a real storm.

[Smitty of the North]

I like the 7mm Rem Mag and I think it's plenty of gun for anything in N America. The bigger rounds give you a little more margin for error but they are harder to shoot well. Bell ran all over Africa dropping elephants and such like they were chipmunks with a 7x57. I like rounds that are not so "normal" so the 7mm Rem holds little interest for me although I have had two over the years. I usually hunt with a pre64 in 300H&H because it is an adequate round and it's just plain neat rifle and round. If I could find a 7x61 S&H at my price, I would have one of those and it's so close to a Rem 7mm Mag you can interchange data. The 7x57 or even the 6.5x55 are probably all the rifle most of us would really need but I'm sure that will cause a real storm.

Though, not recently, I've seen a 7x61 S&H in the Shultz & Larson rifle at a Gunshow, more than once.

Interesting rifle with Rear Locking Lugs. Interesting Cartridge, with a longer neck than the 7mm RM. Knowing what it was, was tempted.

I don't like the short neck of the 7mm RM, and having both, I prefer 7mm Weatherby Mag.

HOWEVER, there is something I consider an advantage with the Remington Version. The short neck can be brushed out and neck-sized with a NECK ONLY die, without bothering to lubricate it. This makes for fast, easy, handloading.

Smitty of the North

[Smitty of the North]

I would sooner be carrying 160's or 175's in my 7mm mag loads than a 338 with 200's , THAT'S for sure ! I started out years ago with a fat bolt Browning with a Douglas barreled 7mm Mag that accounted for a bunch of bull elk and that was with inferior "elk bullets", when I shot the barrel out I advanced in common fashion through the 300 mag and on to the 338 win mag, shot that barrel out and found myself shooting a Tikka Superlight 7mm Mag and have wondered since why I ever left that chambering .... (bullets I guess) BUT "bullets" is no longer a problem and me thinks I'll stay with a 7mm mag (or two) for the duration - good 140 grain bullets present no limitations for me that I can detect either ....

I would too, because I've been able to get adequate terminal performance, but with less recoil than with 300 and 338 Mags.

SOTN

[back country]

the "world of bullets" has advanced so dramatically in the past few years that pretty much all of the "old" arguments and campfire discussions have been forever changed or put mute - I just HATE it when I am forced to start all over again !

I had pretty much settled on 140 accubonds for my lower 48 loads then yesterday I threw some 150 ETips loads in just for kicks and low and behold they shot just as good as the 140's did - Nosler says that the ETips are the best "terminal performance game bullet they've ever produced" so now I am all in a tizzy again - I'll post results as they come to me