New lightweight mountain rifle, with a heavy side of Grizz. Debate starter.
- Thread starter Ardent
- Start date
Fair enough. Take the dremel and do some mods to make the .270 Win fit then. Perfect?
In all seriousness I would make it a 7x57 if it was mine. I think a mountain rifle should be somewhat more flat shooting than a .375 can be without burning 70+ grains of powder. Not to mention the game being hunted in the mountains is not hard to tip over. I see the point with your concern about old Mr. Grizzly and the .375 cal certainly would inspire more confidence. I just can't see such an exquisite action being a bear defence rig. I've walked a fair number of miles in grizzly country with no rifle, no bear spray, nothing but ice tools which would be more than useless even if I could get them off my pack in a short amount of time. My closest calls have all been with black bears.
We probably have different goals and live in different areas though. Really I would take the 7x57 though. Wish I could form a more coherent argument but I'm on my phone.
We probably have different goals and live in different areas though. Really I would take the 7x57 though. Wish I could form a more coherent argument but I'm on my phone.
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Perhaps you should read Theodore and Kermit Roosevelt's wonderful book called "East of the Sun and West of the Moon" The journals from their Asian expedition hunting sheep and ibex and stags in the Himalayas and Pamirs almost a hundred years ago. They were forced to pare their equipment down as their expedition went on for months in more and more rugged country, hunting mountain game the whole while. They chose to keep their .375 ( 9.5x57) rifles over the pair of 30-06 Springfield rifles they also had along.
R.M Patterson also thought highly of the same cartridge while exploring the Nahanni river during the same era. Read "Dangerous River"
R.M Patterson also thought highly of the same cartridge while exploring the Nahanni river during the same era. Read "Dangerous River"
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Oddly enough the 235gr Barnes 9.5x57 shoots slightly flatter than the standard 173gr 7x57 according to my ballistic calculator. There's actually surprisingly little difference out to 300 yards between the 7x57 and 9.5x57, as the 9.5x57 is a lot more efficient at making velocity from the powder charge of course. Modern bullets have certainly helped the larger bore as well, much to my surprise the plain, un-tipped 235gr TSX sports a BC of .400. That's actually quite impressive, and seeing as it appears the 9.5x57 will push that over 2,400fps and perhaps even a bit more, nothing to sniff at and very "7x57 like" in trajectory.
However, if comparing apples to apples (modern mono metals light for cal with a BC in the .4 range) the 7x57 will launch a 140 TTSX in the 2800-2900 fps range at similar pressure.
500 fps is a big difference in trajectory, just like 0.091" is a big difference in caliber. All depends on your application I guess
Also velocity does not equal trajectory... it is a primary contributing factor to improved trajectory... but light bullets shed their energy faster, and often are "overtaken" down range.
As an extreme example for purposes of illustration, a 200 gr bullet from a .300 WM at 3000 fps will outperform a 60 grain bullet from a .22/250 at 3000 fps... but this is a simplification, because there are many other factors contributing.
If the 9.5x57 gives up a little in trajectory to the 7X57, it makes it up in momentum in the truly critical application.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
That's fair, vs Hornady's Superperformance GMX 7x57 139gr load the 9.5x57 with the 235gr TSX is 5" lower at 300 and 11" lower at 400, neither of those figures would prevent you from making the shot mind you. And the 9.5x57 arrives at both ranges stronger, and with a hundred grains more bullet. Much to my surprise, in my judgement the 9.5x57 with modern bullets is an easy 300 yard cartridge and even 400 in a pinch. From such an efficient little case, and the energy it delivers, that's really rather impressive.
To confirm your thoughts Ardent on this cartrdge you're looking at being a 400 yard capable package my 21" barreled T/C Contender carbine in 375JDJ loaded with 260gr Accubonds @ 2300fps is a 300 yard combo where it is still doing over 1800fps at that distance.
I have a Leupold VX 111 2.5-8X36mm Boone & Crockett reticle scope on this carbine.
I zero the main reticle crosshair 1" high at 100 yards the first B&C reticle line down is 1" high at 200 yards and the second B&C line down is dead on at 300 yards.
An added 100 + fps for the 9.5X57 should give you at least 350 yards capabilities before the bullet is going to slow to expand.
I have a Leupold VX 111 2.5-8X36mm Boone & Crockett reticle scope on this carbine.
I zero the main reticle crosshair 1" high at 100 yards the first B&C reticle line down is 1" high at 200 yards and the second B&C line down is dead on at 300 yards.
An added 100 + fps for the 9.5X57 should give you at least 350 yards capabilities before the bullet is going to slow to expand.
Given equal ballistic coefficients two bullets will shed energy at the same rate no matter what the weight.
Just my preference is to the 7mm for a mountain rifle. Ardent are you planning to scope this rifle? I know you are a champion of irons and if the rifle was to be a dedicated iron sights rig than I would agree on the 9.5 being the right choice. Despite shooting irons in competition to 500m, I would not shoot past 200 on game with most irons that are suited to fast, close shooting. This would of course would negate any trajectory advantage to the 7mm.
Where are you getting your numbers from? I just looked on the Barnes site and they list that bullet with a BC of .270.
http://www.barnesbullets.com/bullets/tsx/
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
This is a guiding rifle and heli work right hand gun, so it'll have to have both, good irons and scope provision. I'll likely seldom hunt this rifle myself but it will be a very light rig to ride along as others use theirs. So if I do have to use it, it'll be in follow ups with a disappointed client, something I'd rather avoid. So while the reach is handy, if I'm shooting it's not likely to be extremely reachy. Very much Jack of all trades master of none field tool, chief job will be not to rust and not to weigh much, and if required hit fairly hard for its weight.
I ran some numbers through the ballistic calculator on the Hornady website. Comparing the TSX for both, the 235 gr .375 bullet has an S.D. of .239, reasonably close to the .248 S.D. of the 140 gr. 7mm bullet. The 7mm starts out with at least 400 fps more at the muzzle, and realistically could probably do better than that. By the time the 9.5mm has traveled 200 yards, the velocity is down to 1818 fps (assuming it started at 2400 fps). The 7mm bullets doesn't fall below 1800 fps until it's out to 475 yards. With a 200 yard zero, the 9.5mm drops an additional 3 1/2 feet at 400 yards. With the same 200 yard zero, the 7mm has dropped only an additional 2 feet at 400. The 9.5 has more energy at the muzzle, and keeps that advantage until the 200 yard mark, where the two are roughly equal. Past 200 yards, the 7mm runs away. If you want to run comparisons with the 175 gr 7mm bullet, then you should be using the 300 gr .375 bullet, which is equivalent in sectional density.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I'm actually running the 9.5x57 235gr TSX at 2,500, as upon looking into it that seems more accurate. The 9.3x57 pushes a 232gr Norma Vulcan to 2,450fps over 47.0grs of 3031, and the 9.5 is slightly more efficient at making velocity from pressure (61fps more at the same pressure and bullet weight). It also has a few grains larger case capacity as it's an improved and essentially straight walled case compared to the 9.3 with a larger shoulder diameter. Barnes also outperform conventional bullets weight for weight on velocity produced typically, 2,500fps seems very realistic for the 235gr TSX- it may even safely go a smidge more.
Reading with interest!
Back in the day, those I used to climb with would cut the handles down on their utensils. I know how creative people can get shaving ounces off their gear.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
Well since this has essentially been settled (except for the guys that haven't been following along and simply posted after partially reading the first post), what are the other specs for the build? I know you want to whittle a stock, but wouldn't an ultralight like a Wildcat make a better handle? After all, it's about ounces or you wouldn't have spent the money on the Ti-Mauser. Besides, you're intent on boring a slightly larger hole in the bore just to be different and save weight...this is the logical extension!
Fair enough. Should work very well!
