Blue Dot Range Report: 7 x 57



Bullet: 120 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip, Sectional Density: .213



Primer: Winchester Large Pistol



Case: Remington, 7 x 57, second time used.



OAL: 79.30 mm



Rifle Used: Ruger 77 Mk2 , 22 inch barrel



Results:



16 grs: 1884 fps

17 grs: 2029 fps

18 grs: NO Reading, sorry

19 grs: 2187 fps

20 grs: 2275 fps



21 grs: 2327 fps

22 grs: 2406 fps

23 grs: 2466 fps

24 grs: 2529 fps



Notes:

1. 16 grain load was like the recoil of my 223 with Blue Dot loads. According to the Nosler reload manual�s trajectory chart, this would make a decent 150 yd deer load.

2. With the 20 grain load, you get into a 200 yd load for deer. 3.5 inches high at 100 yds will be dead on at 200 yds.

3. The 22 thru 24 grain loads, are definitely good deer medicine. 3.5 inches high at 100 yds, should make it a decent 250 yd load.

4. Nosler Ballistic Tip. I just like this bullet for this type of application, as it does a good job opening up and penetrating at the lower velocities.

5. All cases extracted easily, and overall, had no powder residue around the necks at all, like with some the 100 grain Sierra Hollow Point loads. ( except was the 16 grain load).



I really liked this bullet and caliber combo for deer. I wouldn�t hesitate to use it on some of the bigger Upper Midwest Whitetails I use to hunt in Minnesota and Wisconsin.





Cheers and Good shooting

seafire

Prop Job, when you say a load is a good deer load at whatever yardage, are you including large mule deer? roger

Roger,

When you ask about large mule deer, I need to know what is 'large' from your prospective.

I have hunted Northern Minnesota where 200 pound field dressed whitetails are commonplace.

But I have seen a 650 lb Cow Elk taken with a handload I did for a nephew that was hit at 175 yds on a running broadside shot, with a 165 grain ballistic tip, with a Muzzle Velocity of 2250 fps.

The bullet destroyed both lungs, cut the esophagus and destroyed the upper half of the liver and was against the hide on the far side.

Personally myself, I would not feel undergunned if the deer I was hunting was in the 250 to 300 pound range, on the hoof, with this load.

According to the Nosler manual, at a 2200 MV the bullet will have 892 ft pounds of energy at 200 yds, and at 2400 MV it will carry 1078 ft pounds at 200 yds, and 893 at 300 yds.

So I have faith in the bullets penetration and terminal performance capabilities. I have faith in that amount of foot pounds is more than adequate, if you are into foot pound numbers ( which I am not) and the lack of recoil these loads had, are more than easy for a shooter to make good shot placement. We all know shot placement is a lot more key to good kills than is foot pounds anyday.

These figures also compare favorably to a 257 Roberts, or 250 Savage, with a 120 grain bullet at those velocities, or a 115 grain partition. Also with a 243 firing a 95 grain Ballistic Tip or partition at a MV of 2700 or so.

That has to be a personal decision, but I would carry this load afield with a 250 yd range anticipation. I think one who tries it would like the level of recoil, or lack thereof.

It also compares to a 7/30 Waters in a Contender, and not many Contender users would feel that load was under powered for a mule deer, even a good sized one.

Thanks for the question.

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire

Believe me Seafire, I understand what you are saying. There have been times in my life where I was properly placing shots on mule deer and elk and the bullets didn't do their thing at high velocity.Every time something like this happened I knew in my own mind that had I been using a 25-35 we would have had clean kills. What is so dog gone difficult for me is to give up my accepted beliefs in the face of well thought out logic.I am sencing a large degree of surprise that your minimal energy philosophy my be correct.Having seldom attempted hunting with reduced loads, I am at a disadvantage.I have killed two deer only, I think, with reduced loads. This was with a 257 Roberts and an 87gr.fp bullet at about 2600ft./sec. They were one shot quick kills but I always felt that I had been a little imprudent by using that load.It would interest me to learn from people at your exprience level what that experience has taught them about this thinking. Are you anything of a fisherman? You sure know how to throw a net. Enticing thread brother Prop Job. roger

Thanks Roger,

I am not so much an advocate of necessarily low velocity for clean kills.

What I do know is less recoil can make a lot of shooters do better shot placement.

I also know shot placement accounts alot more for kills than just footpounds.

I also know that you need a bullet matched for the velocity and impact range that you are anticipating. I prefer a ballistic tip for the times that velocity is on the lower side. I prefer a partition or similar when I am shooting at high velocity. When in doubt I will prefer a round nose first and a Semi Spitzer second.

I also know that one should have the right caliber for the job.
EG: I wouldn't haul this load on a grizzley hunt.

If this load is used for Mule Deer, a lung shot is more preferable to a shoulder shot. If one prefers to take out the shoulder, then I would up the velocity and go with a partition or a round nose.

My other 'go to" powder load in the 7 x 57 is 40 grains of IMR 3031. First it has proven to be the most accurate powder in all three of my 7 x 57s. Secondly that load has a very close MV whether I am using a 139/140 grain bullet, or a 150, 154 , 160 or 175 grain bullet. Velocity is about 2650 fps.

If you look in my bullet drawer that holds the 7mm Bullets, you will notice my preference for the following, 140 grain Rem SP, 150 Rem SP, 139 gr Hornady, 154 grain Hornady RN, 175 grain Hornady RN, 140 grain Ballistic tip and 150 grain Ballistic tip, the 160 grain Speer Mag tip and the 175 gr Speer Mag Tip. The 7 x 57 is the only 7 mm round I shoot.

I do give the 7/08 honorable mention.

I just think the 7 x 57, just like the 6.5 x 55, et al., even tho they were designed a hundred and 10 yrs ago, they still do as good if not better job than they did in those days. We have better bullets etc.

Read stuff written in the 1920s and even 1930s, the 250 Savage and the 257 Roberts were considered fine Elk calibers. I read a 1930s piece once from Jack O'Connor calling the 257 Roberts a good round for Alaskan Grizzley!
He highlighted shot placement, instead of brute force ( foot pounds).

I am neither an O'Connor disciple, or an Elmer Keith disciple, sort of middle of the road, and go with what works. Parker Ackley compliments the 33 Winchester as a great bear round.

I guess I am a product of my dad telling me as a kid, to use my head for something besides a hat rack.

There are no guarantees in the field. Stuff works somedays, and fails the next, no matter how spendy/trendy the bullet or caliber is.

If it was all perfect, we would have to put up with San Francisco yuppies showing up with their Eddie Bauer limited edition Hum Vee, with matching Eddie Bauer Weatherby.
Thank God it is not all perfect.

But that is why they call it 'hunting' instead of 'killing.'

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire/ PJ.