140 vs 160

Just another note on 160gr and 175gr vs 140gr

7mm RM 175gr Partition @ 3000fps
PBR 300 yards with 254 yard zero
400 yards -14.1 2083 ft-lbs


7mmRM 160gr Accubond @ 3075fps
PBR 307 yards with 260 yard zero
400 yards -12.8 2035ft-lbs

Compare to figures above. As you can see the heavier bullet flies almost as flat and DOES have a noticeable increase in punch.
 
both of your quoted velocities are a tad optimistic, especially for the 175 gr.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'd be alot more comfortable shooting 160's @ 3000-3050 fps, and 175's @ 2900 fps (and I wouldnt go as far as saying 50 ft-lbs of energy at 400 yards is a noticeable increase in punch)



them 175 gr. Partitions have a nice Ballistic CoEfficients though, .519.....just as high as the 160 gr. Accubond :)
 
Of the seven reloading manuals that I own,not one shows 3000fps for a 175gr bullet.The nosler manual is the closest at 2970fps.Their data for the same rifle has the 160gr load at 3112fps and the 140gr load at 3340fps so even though all appear optomistic they are from the same source derived using the same rifle,so if you accept one velocity you have to accept all three.Using these velocities.
200 yards 300 400
140gr- zero -5.3 -15.4

160gr zero -6.1 -17.7

175gr zero -6.6 -18.7

To provide a fair comparison all bullets used were nosler partitions since there is no 175gr accubond.If you substitute the 140 and 160gr accubond the difference between the 140gr and 160gr would remain the same but the gap between the 160gr and 175gr would widen.Either way,the 140gr does have the flattest trajectory and the 175gr the least flat trajectory.
 
Do you really think that noone would notice that you chose bullets so that the 270 win would have a much higher ballistic co-efficient?
Click to expand...
When you sober up try comparing the same bullet design with both loadings at the cartridges design pressures and you will see that the 7mmrem mag does indeed offer an advantage over the 270win.
Click to expand...

When you get your head out of your ass then read your own post. I am comparing MY load to the load your buddy uses. And you use Partitions as well. Just because you hobble yourself with a low BC you have to be a cry baby. "But its not fair"

xbt.jpg


and here is the data for the 7mm:
7mm.jpg



and the .270
270.jpg


Oh well look at that. The 7mm can't keep up.

And I'm calling BS on your "3500fps" STW too. Please point any load out from the notoriously optimistic Nosler manual that comes even close to your claim:
STW.jpg


And your reading skills fail you once more:
you will see that the 7mmrem mag does indeed offer an advantage over the 270win.
Click to expand...

No one ever said that there wasn't an advantage. I said:
Not that great of a trade-off considering how much more powder you burn.
Click to expand...
and
Virtually identical performance.
Click to expand...

Virtual = existing in effect, though not in fact
And I did admit the 7mm was a little faster, qualified with the fact that it is not superior in any real life situation to a .270 if you bring its performance down by using 140gr bullets.

So WTF is your point? :evil:

And TB, I am using a 26" barrel with 79gr. of H870 with the 175 and 81.0 with the 160gr.
 
I used the nosler book because it compares all three 7mm loads in the same rifle .With an equal comparison the 140gr does shoot flatter.That is my point
As to me hobbling mysef with a poor ballistic co-efficient,My post also states that another partner uses the 140gr accubond.Why did you not use that for your comparison?Because it would have resulted in a more level comparison that didn't favor the 270.Either that or in your drunken state you simply missed that part of my post.
.Of course you have no interest in any level comparison because it does not support your argument whatever that may be..
Now why did you choose not to use your nosler manual for your 7mmremmag vs 270win comparison?You obviously have one?Why did you choose to use the one that you did?Perhaps because every other manual that you can find shows a 100fps to 150fps advantage for the 7mmremmag.Was it not you that originally supplied those numbers,or is your memory fading in your drunken state.
As for my 7mmstw velocities,I supplied actual chronograph velocities not published velocities.After you sober up read about chronographs so you can understand what they are.By the way the 26th edition hodgdons manual lists the exact load that I use in my 7mmstw's.That load being 80gr of imr7828 which hodgdons claims produces 3490fps with a 140gr bullet.Pretty close to my 3500fps isn't it?Now go sleep it off and come back when you can remember what you said previously and perhaps sober you can learn a bit about ballistics.. :mrgreen:
 
With an equal comparison the 140gr does shoot flatter.That is my point
Click to expand...

Again, whoever said it didn't? Are you just trying to be abrassive for argument's sake? Have you ever even owned a .270, or shot game with one? And you need to use a chronograph. Just because your guide claims 3490fps doesn't mean you'll reach it. But you need to chronograph to know that. And just as a note, I have loaded the Nosler Manual's max charge for the 7mm RM with RL19 and 140gr BT and it chronographed (you know, the machine that measures velocity) at just a hair over 3200fps. It was 100fps under the book values, even though the barrel on that particular 7mm is 25.75". I have yet to chronograph a load that exceeds book value, which is what you claim. Or maybe you claim that because it makes you feel superior?


Now why did you choose not to use your nosler manual for your 7mmremmag vs 270win comparison?You obviously have one?Why did you choose to use the one that you did?Perhaps because every other manual that you can find shows a 100fps to 150fps advantage for the 7mmremmag.Was it not you that originally supplied those numbers,or is your memory fading in your drunken state.
Click to expand...

Actually, I used the numbers you gave for the 7mm RM. I also used the numbers I chronographed for the .270 Win.


I'll dumb my point down for you: The 7mm RM does have an advantage over the .270...when you use 160 or 175gr bullets. When you use 140gr bullets the small advantage is for all practical purpose not an issue. So why bother using 140gr bullets?
 
I'd bother to load 140's if I was shooting something like an X, where you dont need the weight for penetration and the BC is already quite high.

For most bullet types, a guy would be better off loading a 160 gr. or 175 gr. for larger stuff
 
And you need to use a chronograph. Just because your guide claims 3490fps doesn't mean you'll reach it. But you need to chronograph to know that.
Click to expand...

If you had been sober when you read my last post you would have read.

As for my 7mmstw velocities,I supplied actual chronograph velocities not published velocities
Click to expand...

I do own two chronographs and have chronographed all of my loads with both. :mrgreen:
 
can we just agree that if you place your shot in the vitals with a properly constructed bullet, it doesn't matter if it weighs 140 or 175 grains?
willy.gif
 
todbartell said:
can we just agree that if you place your shot in the vitals with a properly constructed bullet, it doesn't matter if it weighs 140 or 175 grains?
willy.gif
Click to expand...

That was my point all along.You can use 175gr bullets if you wish,but they certainly aren't required as the 140s do a great job while offering flatter trajectory. :)
 
Here's an Idea, why not buy (if you don't load) a box of 150 gr Nolser Partitions from Remington and go. Both the TSX and the Accubond will do the same thing to a moose/deer at 50-300 yards, a nice hole going in and depending how you hit them a much lasrger hole going out for you to examine during the autopsy.

Way back when the saying used to "beware of the man with one gun" and it could probably be updated to "beware of teh man with one gun and one load"

That being said I have a whole pile of 2/3 full boxes of bullets on my bench that didn't shoot well in a gun or something else did really well and I didn't get around to shooting them.
 
That being said I have a whole pile of 2/3 full boxes of bullets on my bench that didn't shoot well in a gun or something else did really well and I didn't get around to shooting them
Click to expand...

I have several boxes of unopened bullets that I never bothered with because another bullet shot so well.I have 7mmfailsafes,.308"-165gr ballistic tips,180gr ballistic tips and 180gr accubonds that I will never get around to using.I guess it's time to put up a poster at the range and sell them off. :D
 
I got more half full boxes of bullets on my bench than the local sporting good store has on their shelves :oops: :lol:






There's something about trying the latest and greatest that keeps my VISA bill hurting... :cry: :mrgreen:



One load for the 7mm Mag for all types of game in all types of situations would be a 160 gr. Nosler Partition. I'm sure it's by far the most popular premium factory load in the 7mm Rem Mag BY FAR. Federal Premium load that is...
 
Im going hunting for deer this month, and two of my three rifles Im bringing are loaded with Triple Shocks. THe other is with Accubonds. :wink:
 
todbartell said:
One load for the 7mm Mag for all types of game in all types of situations would be a 160 gr. Nosler Partition. I'm sure it's by far the most popular premium factory load in the 7mm Rem Mag BY FAR. Federal Premium load that is...
Click to expand...

Agreed, "for all types of game in all types of situations " was my point all along! :wink:

This has been a very interesting discussion. Everybody has their point of view, supported by their personal experiences.

stubblejumper said:
Furthermore if you are so concerned with killing the animal as quick as possible,why use a 270win when much more powerful cartridges are available?
Click to expand...

Because the 270 Win is quite capable of killing big game every bit as quickly as "much more powerful cartridges." :roll:

Just so you know, the rifle I most often hunt with is my Sako 375 H&H using 270 gr bullets at around 2700 fps. It shoots more than flat enough to take game beyond 300 yds with no problem at all. The reason I spoke of my satisfactory experiences with the 270 was to indicate that I was in agreement with you gentlemen that light bullets at high velocity will kill game quickly.

Let's all go hunting! :D

Ted
 
I haved managed to pare down my loads to 2 or 3 per gun.

FOr instnace, my 7RM has a 160gr X bullet load that will do anyting in NA, as well as a 140gr Accubond that will do almost anyting, and then a 139gr Hornady that I just use for pracitce.

I've got about 25 rounds of the 160gr X bullet, and I'll just keep them in case I ever need a spare moose or bear gun.

I intend to use the 168gr TSX for my 300WSM, and then find a similar bullet in a Hornady or other inexpensive bullet for practice.

(Although I did buy a box of 180gr Accubonds to try out in the 300WSM) :oops:

Like you guys, I've got tons of bullets that I will ever use. I loaded up a bunch of 150gr Partitions a couple of months ago to PRACTICE with, since I relaized they had been on my shelf for 3 years... :p
 
stubblejumper said:
If the trend keeps up,the tsx will soon be one the the most common bullets used.The stores are having problems keeping them on the shelves now.
Click to expand...

You are right on that, and I think you are going to see other manufacturers heading the same direction. Lapua now has an all copper bullet, apparently because they see the lead ban coming down the road.

I just ordered some 85 gr TXs for a friend who wants to try them in the 243. You have any expeience with anything this light on game?

Ted
 
todbartell said:
Im going hunting for deer this month, and two of my three rifles Im bringing are loaded with Triple Shocks. THe other is with Accubonds. :wink:
Click to expand...


That is part of a common trend .Our entire hunting party used to shoot partitions.This fall only one member did and he is going to try the tsx next year.Between the accubonds,interbonds,tsx and scirocco,the partition is fading in popularity quite quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom