7x57 rifle advice

9.3mauser said:
Pick up a 4th edition Hornady manual. They have good, aggressive data in that one. The data in the latest manual is very watered down.
Click to expand...

That is a curious observation - is the difference between maybe later ones are pressure tested and earlier ones done "by eye"? I do note in my Hornady #9 book that Hornady dis-avows all previously published data by them - so hand loader is basically "on their own" if using old books?

Is a comment in John Barsness article or book - he says Hagel or Wooters mentioned that they wished they could "call back" some of the loads they had published in the past - because they are now aware of aspects (pressure?) that they were not, back then.

As previously mentioned in other posts - we have found errors in data on-line and in loading manuals - found that by comparing three or four or five sources for information - instead of relying on "one" source. Mistakes happen - I am sure it is a clerical or "cut and paste" type of error - but when new guy relies on Start level load, from one source, and is higher then multiple other Maximum loads - even using same company's previous book data - should be signal that something is wonky - but if you only know of one source, would not know whether it is reasonable or not.
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
That is a curious observation - is the difference between maybe later ones are pressure tested and earlier ones done "by eye"? I do note in my Hornady #9 book that Hornady dis-avows all previously published data by them - so hand loader is basically "on their own" if using old books?

Is a comment in John Barsness article or book - he says Hagel or Wooters mentioned that they wished they could "call back" some of the loads they had published in the past - because they are now aware of aspects (pressure?) that they were not, back then.

As previously mentioned in other posts - we have found errors in data on-line and in loading manuals - found that by comparing three or four or five sources for information - instead of relying on "one" source. Mistakes happen - I am sure it is a clerical or "cut and paste" type of error - but when new guy relies on Start level load, from one source, and is higher then multiple other Maximum loads - even using same company's previous book data - should be signal that something is wonky - but if you only know of one source, would not know whether it is reasonable or not.
Click to expand...

And that's why you buy more than one manual. In fact, buy all the manuals you can find. Cross reference the data. Then start low, pay attention, work up. - dan
 
hoytcanon said:
The 7X57 is a terrific cartridge, light recoiling and with just enough powder to move a 140 - 160 grain bullets with enough energy to cleanly harvest most game. I have owned a dozen or so 7X57 rifles over the years, my current one is a relatively rare M77-R Mark II... Ruger made many runs in 7X57 of the M77 Tang safety rifles, but very few of the Mark II rifles were made in 7X57. Mine is mint and mostly sits in the safe as I also have an M77-RS Mark II rifle in 7X64, which invariably ends up coming to field with me. A load that has worked very well for me in my past several 7X57 rifles has been a 150 grain slug over 50.0 grains of W760... proven accurate and lethal on 20 or so medium game animals (deer & bear). Personally, I like standard cup & core SP bullets out of the 7X57, their expansion characteristics work well with the energy level of the 7X57 at hunting ranges.
Click to expand...

I will mostly echo that - I bought a new Ruger No. 1A in 7x57 - I initially tried 140, 150 and 160 Partitions - convinced myself was "better" groups in that rifle with the 150's - so is all I ever used in that rifle - many dozen white tail and mule deer - but I was using RL-19 powder. Our chronograph always read slightly plus or minus 2,800 fps - and, as mentioned - deer that went down, stayed down. My previous 20 years of deer hunting had been with 165 grain in 308 Win - about same velocity on that chronograph - I am not sure there is an iota of difference on game between the two. Articles by John Barsness says his preference is 140 grain from 7x57 for deer, and he has taken Alberta moose with 160 grain 7x57.
 
Potashminer said:
That is a curious observation - is the difference between maybe later ones are pressure tested and earlier ones done "by eye"? I do note in my Hornady #9 book that Hornady dis-avows all previously published data by them - so hand loader is basically "on their own" if using old books?
Click to expand...

In the 4th edition, they specifically mention that the loads should only be used in strong, modern rifles like the Ruger M77. They don't give actual pressure data in either manual, and I wish they would, but the more recent version seems to be tailored to work in anything, including rolling blocks and Spanish Mauser 93's.

My view is, that if a given rifle can be chambered safely for the .270, then there's no reason not to load the 7x57 up to the same pressure level. The catch is, of course, you can never be certain exactly what the pressure of any given load is in your rifle.
 
9.3mauser said:
In the 4th edition, they specifically mention that the loads should only be used in strong, modern rifles like the Ruger M77. They don't give actual pressure data in either manual, and I wish they would, but the more recent version seems to be tailored to work in anything, including rolling blocks and Spanish Mauser 93's.

My view is, that if a given rifle can be chambered safely for the .270, then there's no reason not to load the 7x57 up to the same pressure level. The catch is, of course, you can never be certain exactly what the pressure of any given load is in your rifle.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I believe - was why I think John Barsness published such enthusiastic loads for 9.3x62 - two of which I use - he had CZ rifles - one in 30-06 and one in 9.3x62 - could not accept that his 9.3x62 had to be loaded to lower breech pressure than the 30-06 rifle - so he did some calculations, made up loads and had them pressure tested at Western Powder lab in Myles City, Montana - to know his 9.3x62 loads were indeed at 30-06 pressure - and significantly more "oomph" than previous USA SAAMI compliant loads. Is something to wonder whether that is really a good thing or not - USA people seem to think "faster" must be "better" - even though the older, slower loads worked just fine for the job, for many decades. Maybe modern bullets respond better to increased velocity than old bullets did. Maybe modern hunters are more tolerant of unexpected bullet paths in game.
 
Last edited:
You can find some interesting reloading data for the 7X57 in the Norma, Lapua and Vitavuori manuals.
 
I have a Whitworth in 7x57. Iron sights, CRF. I'm having hard time finding info about it. It is not a re-badged Zastava as a Whitworth which they did for a while. Mine doesn't have the slide/tang style safety it's a normal three position wing safety on the back of the bolt. Says its from Birmingham I have no indication to say it's Serbian.20200429_192618.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20200429_192618.jpg
    20200429_192618.jpg
    52.6 KB · Views: 178
It looks like a reworked military action. It has the thumb slot and it looks like the clip bridge has been ground off. Without seeing any markings it's hard to tell what it was originally.
 
Each rifle is a law to itself when it comes to loading for it.

I have a load that I will not share that I use in my #1AB
Ruger. It drives 139/140 grain bullets to just over 3K MV..

Brass lives forever, and primer pockets stay tight. This
load with the 140 Accubond, shoots sub-moa as well.

I'm sure pressures are right up there, but in this rifle, I
would deem it a safe load, since pressure signs only show
at 2 grains above my hunting load. Dave.
 
Milt Dale said:
I am thinking my next last rifle will be a sporter in 7x57, I will want a bolt action, preferably with a hinged floor plate, wood and blued with open sights, prefer a monte carlo or bavarian stock. I am not interested in other calibres, I already have a 7-08 and a 6.5x55. I am not in a rush. I like Ruger 77s old and new, I have owned a few Zastavas and Brno 600s but never an older model or a CZ. I like Husqvarna rifles 1900s and 1640s I have seen pictures of some Voere rifles that look interesting and reminiscent of my 1900s. The rifle does not have to be CRF . If there is something I have missed please comment. I am not up on the different CZ models or the older Brnos. It will be a hunting rifle not a collector piece.
Click to expand...

Go check out site sponsor Reliable Gun on Fraser Street in Vancouver.
They just might have two of what you are looking for as of today.
Rob
 
9.3mauser said:
It looks like a reworked military action. It has the thumb slot and it looks like the clip bridge has been ground off. Without seeing any markings it's hard to tell what it was originally.
Click to expand...
Both the barrel and action have BNP proof markings. The barrel says Whitworth rifle company Manchester (earlier I said Birmingham. My mistake) The butpad also says Whitworth
 
200250126 - I suspect is how BSA, Sako, Parker Hale, etc. made bazillion bucks - working over former German Mauser military rifles into various sporter rifles. As per British and many European countries - can not sell a gun to a client unless it has been through a government proof house - even the former British military guns had to get "proofed" when they were sold off as surplus to civilians - they were "good enough" to be used in service, but not "good enough" to be sold to civilians without proof testing - what those "BNP" marks signify. Gets to be doubly so if the maker like BSA or Whitworth installed their own made barrel to that ex-military receiver - the whole assembly needed to get "proofed".

Look (usually) under the chamber area of the rifle barrel - below the wood stock line - will see the crossed pennants symbol - will be a letter on one side and a number on other side - then go here - http://www.hallowellco.com/proof_date_codes.htm - you should be able to work through the tables and find out when the Birmingham Nitro Proof test was done on that barrel / action / bolt
 
Last edited:
Hitzy said:
I had 2 7x57 at one point, both M70's, one Win and one Zastava. The Zastava was pretty clunky, plus I have a SS in 7x64 that is really smooth so I dumped it.
Kept the Win M70.
20200922-103157.jpg

20200922-104232.jpg
Click to expand...

My Zastava was a piece of trash, so glad I got rid of it. That M70 is a nice one, I had a a Featherweight in 6.5x55 I hugely regret selling. Nice rifle! Both the CRF and late push feed actions are very nice guns.

Eagleye said:
They are about as rare as hen's teeth, but the M700 Classic in 7x57 (1982)
is a very nice rifle. Mine is sub-moa with 4 different loads. Dave
Click to expand...

These are also high on my list, I try to snap up Classics as I find them!
 
Potashminer said:
200250126 - I suspect is how BSA, Sako, Parker Hale, etc. made bazillion bucks - working over former German Mauser military rifles into various sporter rifles. As per British and many European countries - can not sell a gun to a client unless it has been through a government proof house - even the former British military guns had to get "proofed" when they were sold off as surplus to civilians - they were "good enough" to be used in service, but not "good enough" to be sold to civilians without proof testing - what those "BNP" marks signify. Gets to be doubly so if the maker like BSA or Whitworth installed their own made barrel to that ex-military receiver - the whole assembly needed to get "proofed".

Look (usually) under the chamber area of the rifle barrel - below the wood stock line - will see the crossed pennants symbol - will be a letter on one side and a number on other side - then go here - http://www.hallowellco.com/proof_date_codes.htm - you should be able to work through the tables and find out when the Birmingham Nitro Proof test was done on that barrel / action / bolt
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Very interesting. My date code corresponds to 1950-1974. 18.5 tons per. Is it still assumed that this is a sporterized mauser action put together and proofed by BNA/whitworth? Also, it's a two position safety not a three like I said in my first post.
 
200250126 said:
Thanks for that. Very interesting. My date code corresponds to 1950-1974. 18.5 tons per. Is it still assumed that this is a sporterized mauser action put together and proofed by BNA/whitworth? Also, it's a two position safety not a three like I said in my first post.
Click to expand...

I looked again at your picture in Post #48 - and I can not disagree at all with what was posted in #49 - it truly does look like a worked over ex-military receiver. FYI - I think was the Rigby Company were exclusive importers of new German made Mauser actions - so even the fabled H&H rifles had to have got their actions through Rigby - I am not real certain what years that exclusive arrangement was in place - possibly only prior to WWI?

Not real sure who you mean by BNA/whitworth - Whitworth, I think, was a company that made up and sold rifles - I do not know who owned or operated the Birmingham Proof House, where the BNP (Birmingham Nitro Proof) test were done. I do not think any British gun maker was directly involved with any British proof house??

The date range that you gave, corresponds to letter "B" on left side - will be another letter on opposite side - use the table linked earlier to get the exact year within that range - using the letter on the right side - use the table headed "Proof Houses" - then use the column headed as Birmingham - between the years 1950 and 1974.

That British way of expressing the pressure rating - is much that I do not know about it. I believe it was what we would call a "breech load" or bolt pressure load - so pressure exerted rearward by the test cartridge against the locking lugs - so an axial load - not a radial loading like SAAMI and CIP use. Somewhere I had read that the British proof testing procedure required the cartridges to be dipped in oil before chambering - to limit or reduce the amount of case wall "grip" on the chamber walls - that placed the full pressure of the load against the lock-up. I do not know if that rating is the service pressure or the test pressure. I do not know if that is a long ton or a short ton. I do not know how to convert a British "tons per square inch" into a SAAMI equivalent "pounds per square inch", although I am sure the two measurements are related in some way. I believe the typical SAAMI "psi" rating is a maximum mean or possibly a maximum peak pressure within a lot - I do not know what that British number is signifying.
 
Last edited:
200250126 said:
I have a Whitworth in 7x57. Iron sights, CRF. I'm having hard time finding info about it. It is not a re-badged Zastava as a Whitworth which they did for a while. Mine doesn't have the slide/tang style safety it's a normal three position wing safety on the back of the bolt. Says its from Birmingham I have no indication to say it's Serbian.View attachment 616201
Click to expand...

Whitworth (like Parker Hale) sporterised a great many surplus Mausers after the war. They built good rifles, I have owned a few over the years. - dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom