7mm Sierra 175gr Gameking

[1899]

Have any of you used this bullet for hunting? My rifle shoots 175gr Partitions really well, but wouldn't mind trying something that shoots a bit flatter.

 

[Northman999]

I have not used the 7mm/175gr gameking, but have used Gamekings in many other forms (from .270 to .375) and always found them to be accurate and perform well on game. They were my standard bullet in most calibers for years, before I started experimenting with other things.

 

[209jones]

If you want flatter trajectories, speed up the bullet or go to a lighter bullet.

 

[Eagleye]

You are already shooting one of the best "heavy" bullets made for the 7mm Mag.
The difference in trajectory between the Partition and the GK over 500 yards would be relatively insignificant, IMHO.
Personally, I am in the other posters camp....go to the 160 Partition or Accubond to flatten the Trajectory.
No game animal in North America would be able to tell the difference in performance.
Regards, Eagleye.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

I have never,yet, used that specific bullet in any 7mm but I have used the Sierra Game Kings and SBTs in a number of other calibers. They've worked well for me knocking down game and have been second to none punching paper. Although I've changed over to Barnes TTSX in a number of calibers, nothing shabby about the performance I've experienced with the Sierra Game Kings and/or the SBTs. A couple of examples I've posted previously.

 

[1899]

You are already shooting one of the best "heavy" bullets made for the 7mm Mag.
The difference in trajectory between the Partition and the GK over 500 yards would be relatively insignificant, IMHO.
Personally, I am in the other posters camp....go to the 160 Partition or Accubond to flatten the Trajectory.
No game animal in North America would be able to tell the difference in performance.
Regards, Eagleye.

I really do like the 175gr Partition, but I am getting to the point where expansion velocity might become an issue. The BC of Nosler bullets seem to be quite inflated. According to Brian Litz the 175gr has a BC of .453 as opposed to the claimed .519 - and this seems to be verified through in my own testing. Due to the lower BC of the lighter bullets the velocity/trajectory/drift between the 150/160/175 Partitions are actually quite similar at extended ranges.

Having said that I do have about 25 160gr Accubonds sitting on my bench, so I will give those a try too.

 

[Redlich]

If expansion at lower velocities is the issue I'd be inclined to choose a "softer" bullet design too, but maybe not cup and core as they can still be quite tough depending on jacket thickness. Best to ask the manufacturer directly, as I know for example that the Sierra 200gr .323 is heavily built and designed for higher impact velocities.

As a rule of thumb from what I've gathered, anything bonded tends to be softer and opens up more readily at lower velocities due to the bonding process, and anything with a plastic tip also tends to open a little better at distance. This means your 160gr accubonds may be an excellent choice, and I would also look at the Barnes LRX as it is supposed to also be designed for lower velocity expansion. It's available in 168gr (.550 BC and 1:9 twist) and 145gr (.486 BC and typical twist rates). The TTSX would be another option. I'd email Sierra to ask about the 175gr game king, and let us know what they say!

 

[gunrunner100]

PM me if you want to try a few.

 

[Pathfinder]

Funny you mention them...I loaded a dozen of them up for a 7RM I had laying around and then sold the gun before I could ever try them.....I was actually looking forward to trying them out but had no use for the gun.

 

[1899]

PM me if you want to try a few.

Thanks for the offer - mighty kind of you.