Well, I for one am beginning to think that c-fbmi is loosing credibility. Every time someone disagrees with him on anything, he mentions how much he spends on hunting as an argument that he knows things. Sorry, but that logical fallacy always smacks of insecurity and running out of reason.
The velocities quoted should be a real red flag. Kman is absolutely correct that no one should be going after those sorts of numbers when they violate all the data, and certainly my experience. (I must admit, I have never spent 50,000 on a hunt. Does that make me ignorant? See how irrelevant that argument really is?)
The point being, rral22 that when I spend that kind of money on a hunt the last thing I want, is to leave success or failure up to a bullet of substandard construction. There are bullets that perform well from 20-400 mtrs, where 99% of all game is taken. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to load a bullet that would fail dismally at 50 mtrs just because I may have to make a 450 mtr shot, would it?
I would also like to ask you why "no one should be going after those kind of numbers", where is it decreed in law that I shouldn't load my particular rifle and cartridge combination to it's greatest safe potential? I AM, as we all are, bound within the limits of the brass. I may not get 15 loads from every case but I do get several, which tells me that I am at the upper SAFE limits of the brass in that rifle with that load.
I won't get into personalities here so I choose not to respond to "my insecurities" other than to suggest you may wish to look up "projecting". As far as my credibility, I'll let you worry about that, because I'm not.
kman300...All the velocities listed were worked up to, in 1/2 or 1 gn increments and were safe in the rifles I was using at the time, I don't strive to reach any predestined velocity, I work up until I note the pressure indicators at which point the velocity is the velocity. I chrono almost all my test loads, so I know if anything untoward is going on as I go up the ladder.
40 years of handloading experience has taught me that manuals are conservative guidelines that have to take into account every cheap piece of junk gun ever made for any given caliber. They are far more concerned with liabilities than eeking the last fps performance from any given rifle/caliber. I can also tell you, there can be over 100 fps and 2-3 grns of powder difference in 2 different makes of brass, with identicle pressure indicators, which they also must take into account.
Please note; I only reported velocities not my actual loads, THAT would be irresponsible and not something I ever do.
I am doing my best to keep this civil and adopt the attitude that you may actually open your mind and learn something from those of us who have been playing this game for many decades, like eagleye and myself and I'm sure many more who are brighter than I and kept their mouth shut.
I am sure as a rational reloader, with obviously a decent understanding of exterior ballistics, you must agree with the statement that if you drive a 7mm bullet with a BC of .6 @ 3000 fps and you drive a .308 bullet with a BC of .6 at 3000 fps the flight characteristics will be identicle, however the energy and retained energy will be significantly higher for the .308 bullet, right?
Now according to my calculations if you take that .308 bullet and retain the nominal weight but change the shape so as to reduce the BC to say .5 and you increase the velocity by 100 fps the .308 bullet still retains more energy to 1000 mtrs, and still flies virtually identicle, run the numbers youself. Hence no 7mm bullet can be better from a 7mm RM than a similar bullet from a 300 Win because for any given BC bullet the 300 win is capable of at least the same velocities as the 7mmRM if not more. This is what eagleye and myself have been trying to point out to you.
So I ask you, as did the OP, which is the better longrange hammer 7mm RM or 300 Win? Powder burn and recoil not withstanding, speaking strictly ballistically.
