Help with 7mm Rem Mag.

[kootenayboy]

I have a Ruger #1 in 7mm Rem. Mag. For years, I hunted moose and elk, having great success with 160 gr. Nosler Partition bullets. The long barrel on #1's hits hard at long range.
When I started running into G-Bears every season, I became spooked about carrying a single-shot. (and everyone needs a new calibre once in a while!).
I now hunt mostly with a bolt-action 300 Win. Mag.

I want to get back into shooting the 7mm for long range target fun and mulies in the mountains (while making offerings to the Grizzly gods). Right now I am shooting 140 gr. Sierras with 64 gr. of IMR 4831.
I would really appreciate hearing about bullet/powder combinations which work consistently at the 300 yard mark. I suspect that a heavier bullet will carry better at long range. Would like to avoid expensive bullets (Barnes, etc.) so I can afford to do lots of shooting at the range.
Thanks in advance for your help. It's the greatest cartridge ever; haven't really understood all the short-action mania (unless you put a 26" barrel on it!)

[Dick284]

While most powders listed in any loading manual will give a pretty good account of themselves, and factoring in that what works in someone elses rifle just might work like crap in yours. I see but one option..........Loading Bench Time, Range Time, more Loading Bench Time, followed by more Range Time.............................................. .......

You might try the Berger 168VLD's if you can find them, else wise any normal 150gr. to 160gr. hunting style bullet should work just fine.

[sbtennex]

First off, the difference between a 7mm RMag and a .300 Win Mag is basically on the high end - the .300 will push a heavier bullet period. The 7mm Rem Mag is NOT what the experts will claim "not enough gun for big bears". It'll flatten anything on this continent quite nicely with the right bullet because of an incredible amount of energy and bullet penetration level envied by the 7mm haters. That being said I'd prefer the .300 Mag if bears are a real problem. For your .300 I'd be loading a streamlined 180, maybe even a 165, in an Accubond. BC is high and so is the SD. I beg to differ about the Bergers, but they're an explosive/fragmentation type projectile - they even advertise them as just that. Much better with the AB or maybe a heavier Barnes. I'm just not a believer in a frag style bullet for bigger game and I don't care to use that opinion as a launch pad for arguments to the contrary. You won't change my mind period. I'm simply not sold on Bergers except for precision paper killing....sorry.....and don't get me started on this super high speed/hydrostatic/hydraulic shock/whatever debate. Just like in a fight, a GOOD bigger guy will kick a GOOD little guy's butt every time. Tough to beat a .300 Win Mag for a "one-gun-for-everything" caliber. The 7mm Rem Mag is right there for the title......just my opinion after killing a whole lot of stuff.

[7 REM MAG]

depending on what your planning on hunting i shoot 140 gr barnes X with 69 gr rl22 and 100 gr hornady hollow point infront of 76.5 gr rl22. the last is mainly for fun with yotes and the poundin the 300m gong at the sherwood park range

[spurly]

Ialways had good luck with 162 hornady bullets, almost always in the track kills. They are reasonably priced. Lately I have been using 139 hornady interbonds . very good kills.But the 162 is a better grizz bullet for sure.

[Bobby B.]

Presently, I'm attempting to develop a load for my 7RM based around the Berger 168gr VLD. The accuracy potential is exceptional as the VLDs are match grade bullets. They also provide an exceptionally high BC of .643 so velocity retention, and its corresponding adantages, will be great. From this standpoint, the VLD should perform exceptionall well on deer.

If I were to hunt in areas home to grizzlies, I'd still hunt deer with the VLD but also carry some rounds loaded for an extra stout bullet. I see no reason why the hunter could not carry both a super deer load AND a super bear load.

Bobby B.

[raised by wolves]

Off the shelf I found the Federal Fusion, 165 grains, grouped very well and did a nice job on impacts. They hit hard and every animal was a clean kill on a single shot. I tried other loads and brands, but none shot well through my gun. It was finicky on ammo.

I prefer to carry my 35 Whelan for elk or moose, and especially so if there are a few grizzlies wandering the area. Never had to worry abot a bear yet, but it's nice to have a bigger thump if required.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by raised by wolves

Off the shelf I found the Federal Fusion, 165 grains, grouped very well and did a nice job on impacts. They hit hard and every animal was a clean kill on a single shot. I tried other loads and brands, but none shot well through my gun. It was finicky on ammo.

I prefer to carry my 35 Whelan for elk or moose, and especially so if there are a few grizzlies wandering the area. Never had to worry abot a bear yet, but it's nice to have a bigger thump if required.

That's funny no mention of a 165gr. in 7mm Rem Mag for Federal Fusion.

[kootenayboy]

Thanks for your comments guys.
I do always have some heavy partition bullets in the gun when walking in G-bear country.
Would like to hear more debate about heavy vs. light bullets for long range, say a 140 gr (which may be more pleasant to shoot recoil wise) vs. a 162 gr., etc.
Also, I have been in a rut powder-wise, sticking to 4350 & IMR 4831 for all my reloading. Is RL 22 one of the best choices for the 7mm?

(My switch to a .300 was not because of power; it was a concern about reloading the single-shot when very excited!!

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by kootenayboy

I have a Ruger #1 in 7mm Rem. Mag. For years, I hunted moose and elk, having great success with 160 gr. Nosler Partition bullets. )

So what would be the problem with sticking with what has been tried and true for you to use on the mulies? Half the other bullets that have been suggested here are 160's too.

[wayne]

The way I understand it is the 160 grain 7 mm bullet is the optimum bullet for that caliber. Because the 175 grain bullet is too heavy and loses velocity quickly, it is better suited to short range shots. And the 150 grain bullet may leave the muzzle faster, if both bullets are shot at the same time frame, but at a 300 yard mark the 160 grain bullet has caught up to and passes the 150grainer and hits harder at farther distances. This was all figured out by some real gun gurus, not me - I just read it somewhere.
wayne

[sbtennex]

Originally Posted by wayne

The way I understand it is the 160 grain 7 mm bullet is the optimum bullet for that caliber. Because the 175 grain bullet is too heavy and loses velocity quickly, it is better suited to short range shots. And the 150 grain bullet may leave the muzzle faster, if both bullets are shot at the same time frame, but at a 300 yard mark the 160 grain bullet has caught up to and passes the 150grainer and hits harder at farther distances. This was all figured out by some real gun gurus, not me - I just read it somewhere.
wayne

Surprisingly enough, few people try the 175 in a 7mm Mag. Trajectory-wise it's not all that different from the 160's and if you use 300 yds as a max distance, the advantages lean to the 175 for the bigger stuff. The SD of a BT 175 is almost hilariously high in the 7's and it's better suited for big bears and real big bull elk than any 160. Knockdown should be tremendous. But I'm guilty as well, all I use is a 160 AB - now I'm testing out a 140 Barnes TSX to see just how much speed I can crank out of it, just for the hulluvit!

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by wayne

The way I understand it is the 160 grain 7 mm bullet is the optimum bullet for that caliber. Because the 175 grain bullet is too heavy and loses velocity quickly, it is better suited to short range shots. And the 150 grain bullet may leave the muzzle faster, if both bullets are shot at the same time frame, but at a 300 yard mark the 160 grain bullet has caught up to and passes the 150grainer and hits harder at farther distances. This was all figured out by some real gun gurus, not me - I just read it somewhere.
wayne

Dont believe everything you read.
Using factory published velocities and similar constructed bullets, here is what is more likely to happen.

150gr. 0.284" Nosler Partition @ 3110fps.

Distance Path Ftlbs
100yds. + 2.5" 2793
200yds. +2.35 2414
300yds -2.61 2078
400yds. -13.14 1779
500yds -30.2 1515


160gr. 0.284" Nosler Partition @ 2900fps

Distance Path Ftlbs
100yds. + 2.5" 2597
200yds. +1.75" 2250
300yds -4.50" 1939
400yds. -17.16" 1663
500yds -37.24" 1420


All be it a 100ftlbs or less at every given distance would be pretty hard to quibble over, but the 7 inches in increased drop at 500yds, certainly makes enough of a difference to totally say who ever posted the above facts had very little of the same.

Of course some stoked up reloads would make the numbers vary somewhat, but given the diffrences in factory numbers, similar diffrences should exist even when reloading.

[Hunter Trav]

I'm not a reloader, but I do have a 7mm, and I always liked the 160-165 gr shells better than the bigger 175-180gr. The winchester fail safes were great in my gun.

[Bobby B.]

Dick, you're on thin ice pal. You start spouting facts and reason instead of good old opinion and you'll be shunned like I was, only 20 years later.

Bobby B.

[Douglas N]

I shoot a TON of 140 grain bullets in my 7mm. Great success with deer, antelope, sheep, bear, moose, elk, coyotes, etc, etc. All were good with the exception of Barnes X bullets.

My best success has been with 66 gr of H4831sc and 140 gr Nosler partions.

That load in my Carl Gustaf at 300 yards is deadly- how it would perform in your rifle- who knows.

I don't want to to get in a big pi$$ing match over barnes bullets, or whatever, just sharing my experineces.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Bobby B.

Dick, you're on thin ice pal. You start spouting facts and reason instead of good old opinion and you'll be shunned like I was, only 20 years later.

Bobby B.

[wayne]

Dick you can compare bullet to bullet the way you like, as I am sure the author of the article (that I cannot find right now) compared as he saw fit to make his point. To help out the author's theory somewhat, Winchester 160 grain Accubonds in 7 Remington Magnum fly faster and hit harder (by a small but increasingly larger margin) than 7 out of 14 listed 7RM 150 grain bullets of different manufacture at 300, 400 and 500 yards. You can cross-reference that in a 2009 Petersen's Hunting Annual, ballistics guide if you like. I used 175 grain 7 RM soft-points with great success for moose for many years also, until 160 Fail Safe and Accubond bullets became more available. They even have 160 XP3's now too. 160 XP3's in a new X-bolt in 7WSM may just be my next optimum moose gun.
wayne

[7 REM MAG]

theres only 2 things with the x-bolt in 7wsm spitting 160 XP3's
1-its a browning
2-the 7 wsm is on the decline as for availability of components and doesnt have much over the 7rem mag


to get back to the point if you had 160's shooting good in your gun then go with that they will work very well on mulie's and the higher bc of the longer 160 bullet will help retain velocity at 300yds and they will hit like the hammer of thor, as long as you know you gun who cares if its 2.5 inches or 4.5 inches drop, the end result will be a very dead deer if you do your part, the 160 would just add a little comfort in the g-bear area

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by wayne

Dick you can compare bullet to bullet the way you like, as I am sure the author of the article (that I cannot find right now) compared as he saw fit to make his point. To help out the author's theory somewhat, Winchester 160 grain Accubonds in 7 Remington Magnum fly faster and hit harder (by a small but increasingly larger margin) than 7 out of 14 listed 7RM 150 grain bullets of different manufacture at 300, 400 and 500 yards. You can cross-reference that in a 2009 Petersen's Hunting Annual, ballistics guide if you like. I used 175 grain 7 RM soft-points with great success for moose for many years also, until 160 Fail Safe and Accubond bullets became more available. They even have 160 XP3's now too. 160 XP3's in a new X-bolt in 7WSM may just be my next optimum moose gun.
wayne

You know Wayne, try two 150's of the same make, not soft points versus Accubonds. and guess where I got my numbers, right from a manufacturers website, all I did was plug them into a ballistics program.
I've seen Peterson's so dead wrong on more than a few calibers, because they cookie cuttter ballistics regardless of bullet type or shape.
Try using the real world, as Bobby B suggests, he's been there and done that, and all with 150's vs. 160's , and guess what 150's of similar design and shape do as my calculations profess, not as some magazine designed to sell, more of the new stuff on the market does.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by 7 REM MAG

theres only 2 things with the x-bolt in 7wsm spitting 160 XP3's
1-its a browning
2-the 7 wsm is on the decline as for availability of components and doesnt have much over the 7rem mag

So what if it's a Browning?

Maybe it should be put that the 7mm Rem Mag does'nt have much over the shorter more efficent 7mmWSM.

Components will always be around as long as any WSM is on the market, just size em to the proper neck diameter.
The powders, primers and bullets are as everyday, as regurgitated and paroted opinions.

[Pathfinder76]

The Browning part I get.

[citysfs]

Just started with Berger 168 gr VLDs and hit moose on friday nite with frontal shot at 250 yds. Loaded with IMR 7828 SC out of Rem 700. Literally cut heart in half and shredded lungs. Not saying other brands would not do the same.

They make a 180 gr as well and as yet, I have not tried them. Might be good for bear.