Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
You're right. And thanks again, for all the info.
7x57 mauser
- Thread starter mrpike
- Start date
Well I don't know what to tell you Ted but if you know something I don't please do tell. Below is the link to the load data with the results for 160gr bullet for 7x57mauser??????
http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
BULLET // POWDER MIN LOAD VELOCITY PRESS // MAX LOAD VELOCITY PRESS
160 GR. NOS PART 160 H4831 .284" 3.000" 43.0 2311 41,500 CUP 46.0 2415 45,700 CUP
160 GR. NOS PART 160 H4350 .284" 3.000" 40.0 2314 42,100 CUP 42.5 2399 45,400 CUP
160 GR. NOS PART 160 H414 .284" 3.000" 40.0 2292 40,200 CUP 42.5 2405 45,400 CUP
160 GR. NOS PART 160 H380 .284" 3.000" 37.0 2186 40,800 CUP 39.5 2299 46,000 CUP
160 GR. NOS PART 160 Varget .284" 3.000" 33.0 2160 41,100 CUP 35.0 2261 45,900 CUP
160 GR. NOS PART 160 H4895 .284" 3.000" 33.0 2165 40,200 CUP 34.5 2245 44,700 CUP
160 GR. NOS PART 160 Benchmark .284" 3.000" 32.5 2174 40,800 CUP 34.7 2284 45,700 CUP
.NOTE THIS IS MAX LOAD AND THE POWDER IS 760, Only shows 2405 fps
160 GR. NOS PART 160 760 .284" 3.000" 40.0 2292 40,200 CUP 42.5 2405 45,400 CUP
NEVER EXCEED MAXIMUM LOADS
Last edited:
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
A quick look in the Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, Barnes and Lyman manuals indicates there are a number of loads available for the 7x57mm Mauser giving 2500+ f/sec velocities using a 160-162gr bullets.
I have two Husqvarna Featherweights that get that velocity out of 20 1/2" barrels.
Just look in any loading manual.
Ted
Last edited:
I'm not disputing you guys, but why does the Hodgdon loading data web site only give me what I've shown you for 160gr bullets? Is that web site CRAP? Does any one of your load manuals show these same velocities for any of the same powders I've listed or do they show faster velocities. Another question then what powders (NOT LISTED IN MY POSTED DATA SHEET), show 2500 plus for 160gr and could you give me the min and max loads.
STILL ANY THEORIES ON THE PRESENTED DATA ???LOOK AT MY DATA AGAIN, I PUT TITLES ON THE DATA SO NOT TO BE CONFUSED
Also if you note on that data for all the max loads, the different powders have a range from 34.5 to 46 grains of powder depending on the powder used. Do those max powder grains seem normal. I mean when I load 34.5 grains of Benchmark which is the listed MAXIMUM LOAD, there is still lots of room left in the casing???
STILL ANY THEORIES ON THE PRESENTED DATA ???LOOK AT MY DATA AGAIN, I PUT TITLES ON THE DATA SO NOT TO BE CONFUSED
Also if you note on that data for all the max loads, the different powders have a range from 34.5 to 46 grains of powder depending on the powder used. Do those max powder grains seem normal. I mean when I load 34.5 grains of Benchmark which is the listed MAXIMUM LOAD, there is still lots of room left in the casing???
Last edited:
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
No, I wouldn't say the Hodgon website and/or their manual is crap. I don't have a real definitive answer for you, except to say there are a number of variables, the particular brand of bullet, brass, primer the test firearm and choice of powders used to name but a few.
In most manuals, each manufacturer deals primarily with their own brand of components as much as possible. Also, for any given bullet weight, most manuals list maximum & minimum loads and the resulting velocities. The only manual, other than the Hodgon Powder # 27 Data Manual I have that in addition also lists the C.U.P., is my Lyman 48th Edition Reloading Handbook. Do you have or have access to a copy? If not and if you're interested, I could scan the page and send it.
Let me know what 160gr bullet you're using and I could reply to your question on max & min load or send you a scan of that page as well.
Last, with some of the faster burning powders, its very likely there will be a certain amount of room left in the casing.
I apologise for the lack of clarity, the second lot of figures on the first page are for 154-160gr loads(Page 165 of Nick Harvey's sixth reloading manual), the listing for BM2 (35 gr at 2295)is what Hodgdon sells as Benchmark, and it is way too quick for 160 gr projectiles in 7x57.
The second page is ADI's powder equivalent listing( ADI makes quite a lot of the Hodgdon powder), personally I find ar2209 and ar2208 cover all my needs in 7x57.
The best advice that I can give is for you to treat the manuals as a guide(not set in concrete) and use the figures to start working up loads for your own particular firearm...START LOW and with the judicious use of a Chronograph and a liberal helping of common sense you will find the right combination for your personal firearm.
Regards, J Stuart.
On the contrary, what better way for a newbie to the 275 Rigby for finding info than in one big fat thread!
This cartridge is to often overlooked IMO. I wish I wold have grabbed the first one I saw 14 years ago. I thought brass would be hard to find for such an "obsure" (hardly) cartridge and like a fool passed on the first Brno 21H I ever laid my hands on.
A quick cross miltiplication of what my 154gr loads moves at says I "should" be able to get 2700 with the 160gr pill. Keep in mind it is a modern rifle and has a long throat so the bullet is seated accordingly.
The reload manuals will have to take in to account those using the arcaic firearms in 93 Mauser etc. They are covering their behinds.
Yes, I would appear so. Many Many factors to building up one's own personal rifle load eh! My rifle will demand further questioning as to what it will like and be able to handle. It is a Mod 1935 Chilian mauser in 98 action, with orignal barrel. Barrel length is 22" I do not know throat chamber info but will find out. I guess the objective I should be aiming for here, is the flattest trajectory I can achieve (which may mean higher velocity) that my rifle will shoot accurately and also of which powder burn rate and pressure are not problems. Back into the BOOKS.
K98Action: Some manuals (perhaps most) seem to hold their pressure levels to approximate SAAMI specs for the cartridge. Those specs were made keeping im mind that the 7 X 57 was originally chambered in a lot of relatively weak actions including the very early Mausers and even the Remington Rolling block action. Lots of those old rifles are still being used.
A lot of 7 X 57's have since been built on strong actions and you will likely have to follow the "process' to find what is near max for your rifle.
Modern 7 X 57 brass is no weaker than many other cartridges of it's type and head size which are loaded to higher levels in a lot of modern rifles. Consider the 6mm Rem or 257 Roberts (Improved as well) which are made from the basic 7 x 57 parent case.
The manual publishers are covering their butts and protecting the public's as they don't know what rifle you will be shooting and they generally don't give out data which is likely to be excessive in a lot of rifles unless they make a point of warning you (such as the multiple load levels currently published for 45-70).
Jack O'Connor wrote 50 or more years ago about the potential of the 7 x 57 in strong rifles and it depends on the individual reloader to safely determine what that is for his rifle.
Recently John Barsness wrote an article about the cartridge where he would not supply his load information for fear some one would apply it where it shouldn't go.
A lot of 7 X 57's have since been built on strong actions and you will likely have to follow the "process' to find what is near max for your rifle.
Modern 7 X 57 brass is no weaker than many other cartridges of it's type and head size which are loaded to higher levels in a lot of modern rifles. Consider the 6mm Rem or 257 Roberts (Improved as well) which are made from the basic 7 x 57 parent case.
The manual publishers are covering their butts and protecting the public's as they don't know what rifle you will be shooting and they generally don't give out data which is likely to be excessive in a lot of rifles unless they make a point of warning you (such as the multiple load levels currently published for 45-70).
Jack O'Connor wrote 50 or more years ago about the potential of the 7 x 57 in strong rifles and it depends on the individual reloader to safely determine what that is for his rifle.
Recently John Barsness wrote an article about the cartridge where he would not supply his load information for fear some one would apply it where it shouldn't go.
Last edited:
Ya I starting to figure this out. But one question pops to mind regarding my particular rifle, Being a Mod 1935, ok it's old, but it is in mint shape, and it is a Oberndorf manufactured 98 action. Everything I've researched on this particular action and year of manufacture, indicated that it is a very strong, well built, ie tempered etc etc action. That being said do you think I could consider it modern in that I should be able to seek out these hotter loads and be confident in my rifle?
A model 98 Mauser built in 1935 should be considered a "modern" action. Because the earliest 7x57's were built in and after 1893 ('93 and '95 so-called "Spanish" Mausers and Mexican rolling blocks) there are legitimate concerns for their strength and the quality of their metalurgy.
Also, as these rifles were almost all military rifles, they have typically seen considerable use and so may be "tired" and have headspace or other issues (and so may be unsafe to fire, period.). You simply wouldn't want to treat an old, tired, weak military '93 or '95 action as though it's a "modern" ('98) one.
AFAIC, that's where most of the cautionary tales come from. It's just erring on the safe side.
As far as your 1935 Oberndorf is concerned, I would definitely check its headspace but, beyond that, I would be happy to treat it like the wonderful inter-war modern Mauser that it is and develop my loads accordingly.
K98 Action,
I would not hesitate to work up your loads to those indicated for modern actions. Oberndorf actions are among the best-built and strongest '98 Mausers, especially those built pre-WWII.
Try loading with slower powders, 4831, Re22, etc. You'll be amazed!
Ted
I would not hesitate to work up your loads to those indicated for modern actions. Oberndorf actions are among the best-built and strongest '98 Mausers, especially those built pre-WWII.
Try loading with slower powders, 4831, Re22, etc. You'll be amazed!
Ted
Last edited:
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
Good advice and along the line of what you've said about slower powders, IMR 4350 is one of my main 'go to' powders in a number of calibres.K98 Action,
I would not hesitate to work up your loads to those indicated for modern actions. Oberndorf actions are among the best-built and strongest '98 Mausers, especially those built pre-WWII.
Try loading with slower powders, 4831, Re22, etc. You'll be amazed!
Ted
Bottem line for me in working up loads, is watch for signs of preasure, especially on the primer.
H414 is my preferred powder for the 7x57 (using 140 grain bullets especially) as it tends to produce higher velocities while retaining excellent accuracy.
H4895 works just fine too (velocities will be lower). I tend to shoot that in the 1908 Brazilian with excellent results (139 grain Hornady SP).
If you want them to go faster, work up a load with H414. In my experience, 2,800 to 2,900 fps with a 140 is easy to achieve (probably best not to exceed 2,900fps). Some guys like IMR4350 but it's far easier to consistently meter H414 with a powder measure.
Thanks Nestor.
H414 has given me the speeds you have mentioned but my rifle has yet to shoot 140 -145gr pills worth beans. 1 1/4" was the best I could manage.
The 154gr goes under MOA in my rifle and goes fast enough to cause alot of worry for any game I will see. I don't really mind loosing a little speed by switching to the 4895 so long as the groups stay tight. Gives me an excuse to try something different and go shooting more. LOL
H414 has given me the speeds you have mentioned but my rifle has yet to shoot 140 -145gr pills worth beans. 1 1/4" was the best I could manage.
The 154gr goes under MOA in my rifle and goes fast enough to cause alot of worry for any game I will see. I don't really mind loosing a little speed by switching to the 4895 so long as the groups stay tight. Gives me an excuse to try something different and go shooting more. LOL
