tylerjwitty
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Northern Ontario
pointless this thread has become
Short Barreled 7 Rem Mag
- Thread starter Gerald
- Start date
Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Too bad, the initial discussion topic has merit 
Wow - where do people come up with this stuff? These myths will never die - who needs facts?
Magnums, even those that are very "Overbore", do not "need" long barrels.
1. A cartridge of greater capacity, loaded with the same powder to the same pressure, will always produce a proportionally higher MV (approximately 1/4 higher than the capacity increase) than a smaller cartridge - at all barrel lengths. A short barrel does not turn a 7mm Rem Mag into a 280 Rem, then a 7mm-08 and finally a 7-30 Waters.
2. You do not "need" a long barrel to "get the most" from a Magnum cartridge - you "need" it to "get the most" from any cartridge. Velocity loss or gain is typically 20-50 fps per inch.
3. Short barrels do not "need" faster powders than long barrels - the fastest load with a long barrel will also be the fastest load in a short barrel.
As to whether or not the 7mm Rem Mag kills an animal any deader than a 280 Rem, nope, no deader either than an animal killed by a 30/30 or a 22LR. But perhaps I'm missing the "logic" at play.
Magnums, even those that are very "Overbore", do not "need" long barrels.
1. A cartridge of greater capacity, loaded with the same powder to the same pressure, will always produce a proportionally higher MV (approximately 1/4 higher than the capacity increase) than a smaller cartridge - at all barrel lengths. A short barrel does not turn a 7mm Rem Mag into a 280 Rem, then a 7mm-08 and finally a 7-30 Waters.
2. You do not "need" a long barrel to "get the most" from a Magnum cartridge - you "need" it to "get the most" from any cartridge. Velocity loss or gain is typically 20-50 fps per inch.
3. Short barrels do not "need" faster powders than long barrels - the fastest load with a long barrel will also be the fastest load in a short barrel.
As to whether or not the 7mm Rem Mag kills an animal any deader than a 280 Rem, nope, no deader either than an animal killed by a 30/30 or a 22LR. But perhaps I'm missing the "logic" at play.
mike shickele
Regular
My question is; generally when someone picks the 7mm rem mag over the 280, they are generally doing so to obtain more velocity, because that is a priority to them. Barrel length is equal to velocity; weather it be 35fps, or100fps. If you want a shorter barrel in a 7mm why not the 280? you can get more cartridges in the magazine, and it will loose less in a shorter barrel.
Muzzle blast is another thing that you NEED to worry about as well. I once had a 243win with a 20" bbl that was just brutal. I shot at a coyote on a snow covered clearcut once with that gun, and I kid you not, I couldn't hear a thing for 5 minutes after.
Mike
Muzzle blast is another thing that you NEED to worry about as well. I once had a 243win with a 20" bbl that was just brutal. I shot at a coyote on a snow covered clearcut once with that gun, and I kid you not, I couldn't hear a thing for 5 minutes after.
Mike
Agree 100%....
I tried.
I just hope that my punishment for this heresy is not to be accused of having ### with Camp Cook and Gatehouse.
Don't' worry, you aren't my type.
Thank You!!!!!!
Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Yessir, and I'll give a hardy "amen" to that.
Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Not necessarily...
Maybe the win is an extra 150 fps, but you contend with at least twice the muzzle blast, more recoil and little or no material gain in terms of putting food on the table.
Yep.
I'm only interested in things I can measure
Seriously though, if I live to be a hundred years old, I will never understand the concept of "I want a carbine, and am going to sacrifice some ballistics by going with a short barrel, therefore I should go with a smaller cartridge (thereby sacrificing even more ballistics)".
I suppose if one will only hunt deer and black bear however.
Then as an engineer you must know that certain cartridges were designed with certain bore lengths in mind for optimum performance. The 7 mm magnum lives happily at 26" and the .308 is optimized for 20-24" barrels. Getting 150 fps extra is hardly a win considering the higher level of nasty you get for very little real-world gain.
I'd go the other way and get a longer barrel for a standard cartridge. It's quieter, milder and faster.
I'm an engineer, and further to my previous post - huh?
"Optimum" performance, so just what's that? How is the 7mm Rem Mag most "happy" at 26" and the 308 at 22-24? Most F-Class guys shooting 308, go with a minimum barrel length of 28" and they know a bit about ballistics.
I'd like the list of barrels lengths for which various cartridges are designed - must be a SAAMI spec I suppose.
If you want a 22" barrel and decide you "need" a certain MV at sane pressures that a 280 can't deliver then voila, that's where the 7mm Rem Mag will come in. Now others will tell you "the deer won't notice 150 fps!", will it notice 300 fps? 600 fps? Not if it's dead, so let's all own 7-30 Waters - much less muzzle blast as well (which neither the deer, nor the shooter will notice in the heat of the moment).
I entered this thread because disinformation was being spread regarding the effect of short barrels on 'magnums'
People have different priorities. People have different tolerances.
You are trying to present subjective opinions to support a loss of performance.
I've never told anyone they need a 16" 7mm STW. I merely pointed out that cutting 2" off a 7mm RM does not make it into a 280 Remington, and that, if a person is interested in getting the most while carrying the least, a short barreled magnum isn't a bad way to fly.
faster than what, exactly?
Jordan Smith
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
This is not consistent with my experience with both cartridges in 21.5-22" barrels. The felt recoil between my 7lbs 7RM and my 8.5lbs .280 is non-discernable to me. It's all about fit. The 7RM stock fits me like a glove, and the design of that stock just seems to soak up the recoil, as where my Ruger Hawkeye .280 feels like it kicks me just as hard as that 7RM. Muzzle blast is also being SERIOUSLY exagerrated here. The difference in blast between the two rifles is barely noticeable. Certainly not twice as bad with the 7RM.
You should also realize that whatever the 7RM was "designed" for has changed dramatically with the technological advances in smokeless powder. It gets along just fine with 22-26" barrels. It all depends on your priorities. If you want to squeeze every last fps out of the cartridge, then slap a 30" barrel on the rifle. If you're more concerned with balance and portability, then going with 22" and sacrificing 100-150fps from a 26" barrel is no big deal at all. Again, it is a compromise of priorities. I could argue your point even further and say why stop at 26"? If you're really interested in getting all the velocity that the cartridge can offer, you could go 30". You're losing about 100fps, give or take, with that piddly 26" barrel from what you could be getting with a 30"
I killed 3 deer in 2010 with 7mmRM 180 gr VLD at 3025 fps from a 26" barrel.
I killed 8 deer in 2008 and 2009 with 270 130 gr ballistic tip 2875 fps 22" barrel.
When I am shooting, I can't tell the difference, but the 7mmRM is a couple pounds heavier, and that I can notice that when hunting.
I killed 8 deer in 2008 and 2009 with 270 130 gr ballistic tip 2875 fps 22" barrel.
When I am shooting, I can't tell the difference, but the 7mmRM is a couple pounds heavier, and that I can notice that when hunting.
