I agree with Dr.
The new Nikkons are very nice. Seems kind of funny the lowest power one I am aware of is the 2.5X10.
Its good of course , but on some rifles I just want a smaller scope.
I just bought a VX2 3X9. Can't beat that for 300.00. very very good.
Thats for a Roberts. Gonna get a VX2 2X7 for an 06 prety soon and the 2.5X10 nikkon for a Roberts AI...tj3006

quote:

Ok, I can understand that. But you’re talking to a man that only hunts with single shot rifles. So the “belted cartridge†complains are lost on me.

In that case I would not disagree with you. And it makes sense. In fact does the ejector/extractor on your single shot work on the belt or with a stud that protrudes into the rim groove.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

Ok, I can understand that. But you’re talking to a man that only hunts with single shot rifles. So the “belted cartridge†complains are lost on me.

In that case I would not disagree with you. And it makes sense. In fact does the ejector/extractor on your single shot work on the belt or with a stud that protrudes into the rim groove.

They’re Ruger No.1s and they pull the spent case out of the chamber by the rim.

love that stock! is that a custom jobber?

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
I love my 7mm Rem. Mag. Here's my repeat pic with 150 Btips:

quote:

Originally posted by flynbrian:
love that stock! is that a custom jobber?

quote:

Originally posted by beretta96:
Hey Doc, Great rifle, and a lefty!!!! makes it even better!

quote:

Originally posted by maddenwh: Doc- purdy rifle!

Thanks guys. The stock is the factory wood Remington sanded and painted by John Noveske in Grants Pass, Oregon. I love it. And whoever says a wood stock is less accurate than synthetic is SOOOO mistaken.

I have been fortunate to have several custom rifles and this 7mag is by far my MOST consistent/accurate I've ever owned, with the most variety in terms of loads. It is simply a sound rifle, from end to end.

7mm Rem Mag is one of my favorite cartridges. I have a Browning A-Bolt II Composite Stalker w/BOSS in 7mm Rem Mag that is my "Git 'er Done" gun. Not pretty, but it's reliable and consistently accurate. It thrives on 175gr Hornady SP and Nosler Partition handloads. Mundane or not, my gun safe will always have a spot for a 7mm Rem Mag.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
it flunked the class

It figuires the Montreal Moron would speak on this subject.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
The 7mm Remington Magnum suffers fom the American fetish...sorry guys...for an unecessary "belt", on a cartridge that by design possesses an adequate shoulder, as does the .300 Winchester Magnum, etc., etc.

Without the belt it would have been, I think, a truly great cartridge, a modern .280 Ross, of far better flexibility and utility than any .270 Winchester or .280 Remington.

The other disappointment, and why it failed long term I don't know, was the 6mm Remington/.244 Remington concept which was a pity. Far better than the .243 Winchester but handicapped by its poor start due to wrong marketed rifle pitch and bullet weight.

You are talking of the 7mmRemMag like it "failed"? mabey in europe it did, but here in North america it consistantly outsells (in rifles or ammo) all but a small handful of other cartridges... the 7mmRem didn't "fail" in any regard, short term or long term.

As for "unnecissary belt"?
For factory shooters, irrelevant.
For Reloaders, also irrelevant, because anyone who reloads sets their dies for it to headspace in the shoulder anyway, and for the record that belt is an ENGLISH fetish, not an american one.

so your point are moot and your facts are "uncoordinated"

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

I just don’t get the constant complaints about belted cartridges. It has a belt, so what?

It restricts the capacity of the magazine to four instead of five, or, requires the magazine and magazine area to be larger than on a non-belted cartridge.

If everything that was once though synonymous with powerful performance was "good" we would still be putting "fins" on the backs of cars!

Four rounds instead of five?
I contend that the one round difference is relevant only if you are being circled by a group of four or more bucks intent on gang
sodomy after they drag you out of your tree stand (and if you believe that to be the case
then you need to get back on your anti-psychotic meds).

If you feel you can't kill a game animal with four, but can with five rounds? I'd take it as a personal favor if sell your rifle(s) and take up knitting.


The 7mm is alive and well but isn't discussed because small minded elitists crawl out of the woodwork to disparage it and anyone who likes it.

In that regard the 7mmRem Mag simply fails to be "exotic" enough, and some people love the underdog like the 7x61 S&H forgetting that the "also rans" are often losers for good reasons.

Look at the cult following the 264WinMag
has? Yet the "battle" between the 264Win and the 7mmRemMag was fought and lost forty years ago.
Why? because the 7mmRem mag will toss the bullets 140gr and up faster than the 264win can
and will actually launch 175's, which the 264 win can't.

Some of these people would say the same kind of things about the 30-06 if the 30-06 defenders group wouldn't literally hunt them down for a proper lynching.

I agree that there is little that the 7mmRemMag
will do that the 30-06 won't.
But one of those things is toss 120-140gr bullets with reasonable sectional density and ballistic coefficient, and being realistic 120-140gr bullets are about ideal for the game most people shoot, Deer.

Frankly I bought my 7mmMag not to shoot 175's at elk but to shoot 120's at whitetails across
a big cornfield.
Basically to "out 25-06 a 25-06"

From a 7mmMag you can get 120's moving at varmint bullet speeds (~3500fps) and thus in varmint bullet trajectories. OR you can shoot 140's (that are really adequate for elk)
at speeds that a 25-06 can only propel 100's to
(~3350).

and before someone mentions chronographing loads? I have.

BtW, you want to denigrate the reality of the advertised speeds of a 7mm Rem versus chronographed loads?
Ok, go right ahead, but to be completely fair do the same thing with a 264Win rifle and factory ammo... the results will be "amusing" to 7mmRem Mag owners and horrifying to 264Win owners.

BTW that mob setting up a stake in your front yard? that's the 264winchester fan club getting ready to burn you are a heretic, to prevent you from posting the results of those tests.

But in the end people seem to feel the need to support their choises and insist on concensus from the others in their community.

Frankly I like both my 7mmRem AND my 30-06
I sold my 264 long ago and don't miss it

And in general while I have an opinion I don't really care enough about the opinions of others to let it bother me if they don't agree with mine.

I don't need others to agree with me to know that my choices have served me well....
Though it is nice to spend time in the company of people who agree with my opinions... it provides a more harmonious discourse.

If you really HATE the 7mmRemMag buy every one you find and send it to me and I'll be sure to give it a good home.


AllanD

My 7mm RM is alive and well! Just this year, so far, it has acounted for 9 animals in Africa, 1 Axis buck and 1 Mule deer buck at ranges fron 40 yds to 365 yards.

This 7mm RM has a home for life.

AllanD,
you broke my funny-bone
how in the world did you fugure out that,
enfieldspares was skeeming hopelessly to dee- throne our.......... Montreal moron????
regards



your post positively provoked me to procrastionate my ponderings above.
regards.

A response:

quote:

for the record that belt is an ENGLISH fetish, not an American one.

No it isn't. And if you post that, you don't understand the reason for the belt in the first place. It is a necessary part of the cartridge that it originally appeared on, the .400/375 H & H, as Holland's felt needed the insurance of a belt to prevent the round being driven forward by the firing pin and so not giving a risk of imperfect strike and poor ignition but, more importantly, after it had been driven forward, of head separation on firing.

On a rimmed cartridge you don't need a sharp shoulder as the front of the case moves forward.

And on a sharp shouldered rimless case again it is the front part of the case that moves forward.

But on a tapered case, as you haven't got a sharp shoulder or a rim you need something else. Hence the belt.

When the .400/375 first appeared chambers were often oversize to ensure reliable chambering in hot climates...Africa and India.

The .400/375 was not widely used, it was obsolete within thirty years but the .375 H & H Magnum retained the belt for the same reason because of its tapering shoulder.

That great American cartridge designer, Charles Newton did't see the need for any belt on his powerful cartridges. Nor did Ross or Jeffery whose .280s pre-date the belted Holland .275 H & H Magnum.

But it was probable that as the .300 H & H Magnum was perhaps the only large capacity case available in the USA to Roy Weatherby that he retained the "belt" as he was re-forming an existing cartridge. If he had been able to start with a blank sheet of paper, and could make his own cases rather than use what the .300 H & H, or if the .280 Ross or .280 Jeffery had been still widely available in the USA and he had been able to use them then maybe the "belt" would never have been carried by any Weatherby cartridge.

And if no "belt" on what Weatherby made...then probably no "belt" on the 7mm Remington or .300 Winchester Magnum either.

But the large US manufacturers marketing men, of more modern times did on theirs. So we have the 7mm Remington and .300 Winchester Magnum with us today but none of Newton's fine cartridges. The belt was irrelevant, save that it was wrongly equated in the minds of the buyer with a powerful performance.

The same problem, no shoulder and no "belt" that handicapped the .400 Whelen from being more widely used.

On the Remington Magnum and Weatherby Magnums the shoulder provides that stop, so the "belt" is irrelevant.

quote:

headspace in the shoulder anyway

But that isn't the reason for the belt to start with! Ask Holland's who designed the parent case if you want!

But if I accept your belief that it was there as a "headspace" aid, then, in your own words on the 7mm Remigton Magnum it is irrelevant and doesn't do anything. So why does the cartridge have it? Because of the fetish for the words "belted magnum".

quote:

Four rounds instead of five?
I contend that the one round difference is relevant only if...

In the USA maybe it's not relevant. It depends on whether you are shooting one animal or several. In Europe shooting driven game...such as wild boar, where two or three may come through the drive in quick succession...or other opportunity targets such as roe or fox then that extra cartridge is VERY relevant. Also in hind culling where four or five beast may be shot in quick succession.

Lastly the lack of a "belt" and that extra round capacity enables the shooter to carry five in the gun with the chamber empty. If I "go to the hill" I'll carry five in my rifle and two spare clips of five rounds in my pocket. Again, maybe not relevant in the USA but very much so in the UK and particularly Scotland.

The 7mm Remington Magnum is a good cartridge, but it would have been better without the belt, that as the response to my post states is "irrelevant". You'll find no criticism of the performance of the 7mm Rem Mag in my post...only its design.

It would have been better if the extra diameter that only the belt takes up had been used to make the whole cartridge body of greater diameter and therefore for the same capacity shorter. In other words something that looked like the .280 Ross or the .276 Enfield.

I note that the "new" 7mm Remington Magnum cartridges don't have the belt. But as the 7mm Remington Magnum is so well established they will have a long battle to overtake its popularity.

But there are once widely used cartridges that are now almost obsolete from the "lists". The .348 and .405 Winchester to name but two.

Last time I checked, my 7mm was locked up in my gun cabinet. There is nothing wrong with it. It's is alive and well in sales of ammo and guns and is still a great all-around choice for a one-gun big game hunter in North America.

But think about it, the 7mm Remington Magnum took the North American market by storm when it was released. A lot of its popularity came from the press and being the latest hotshot on the block. Once it got into the hands of hunters, it performed as expected. It's generally quite accurate for most any kind of hunting. It has many versatile bullet weights, capable of taking any non-dangerous North American game animals. We already know this. Everyone already knows this. Although much younger than the .30-06, it is placing itself into the "boring" category.

Nowadays, you can pick up a WSM that is "better". It is a short case, more efficient, same power, no belt, blah blah blah. The press devoted a lot of ink to the new generation of unbelted magnums, extolling their virtues and praising their inherent accuracy. Ad campaigns led by the manufacturers compare the new to the old int he most favorable way possible. So the market shifts. The buying public perceives the latest and greatest as clearly superior to the previous generation of magnum technology, when the reality is that the short magnums can't push the heavy-for-caliber bullets quite like their older brothers. But that fact is often avoided in the market literature. Velocity sells, so big numbers with light bullets is all the convincing most people need.

Think about the .300 Winchester Magnum. What a beauty. But don't you know it's bad? It's not as efficient as a .300 WSM! It burns more powder. It has a bit more recoil. It has a belt, heaven forbid! It doesn't have a short, fat powder stack which lends itself to more consistent ignition and accuracy. It comes in rifles that are longer overall and heavier. Talk about a has-been. Now try loading the WM and WSM with 200gr or 220gr bullets. Now who's your daddy? Yeah, that's right. Same with the 7mm Remington Magnum and it's short magnum siblings. When you hit 175gr, it's game over for the shorties. They just can't handle the long bullets as well as the "real deal" due to seating issues.

So ultimately, the gun makers and advertising companies want people to buy the new whizzbang magnums so they can make money. In the process, they make the uninformed feel like they're missing out on something that is "better" than what is already out there. There is nothing wrong with the old magnums, and in fact they're still as good as ever with new bullets and development.

On the other hand, the new shorties are here to stay, meaning a lot of folks who would buy the 7mm Remington Magnum to launch 160gr bullets or under will be swayed to the 7mm and .270 short magnums. Since speed sells, you can almost bet that there will be a lot of folks lining up to buy the "better" shorties over the field proven veteran that is the 7mm Remington Magnum.

I have owned 2 7MM RM's and several other belted magnum cartridges. One thing I found out for sure is that the belt harms nothing and looks good. I feel the new short mags won't outlast the 7MM RM and see no advantage to them. None. My present 7MM RM is a 1971 model 700 that looks good and shoots very precisely. I load 140 grain Partitions over 68.0 grains of RL 22 and feel prepared for just about any hunting situation.

My first centerfire was a 7 Rem on a Mauser supreme action. Cost me 110 bucks for the barreled action. Put a Richardson Classic stock on it, and a BL 2x5 Balvar. Still have it about 40 big game animals later. I thought it was jinxed on elk, but disproved that last year - broke a cow's neck at about 150. Still a relative tackdriver, tho I confess I love my 375 for elk. I planned a 7 Mashburn, but suddenly realized I am too damn old (and poor!)to be building rifles - I'd rather save the money and hunt with the ones I have. Keep shootin'. Good luck.

quote:

I note that the "new" 7mm Remington Magnum cartridges don't have the belt. But as the 7mm Remington Magnum is so well established they will have a long battle to overtake its popularity.

Enfield when you say that the "new" 7mm Rem Mag cartridges don't have the belt would you mind elaborating? Surely you are confusing this with the Ultra mag? I am a fan of the 7mm Mag and always will be. I have had 4 all together - Remingtons and Sako's and still have one of my Remi's and find that it has performed well on game and at long range. In the UK it is not used that much as the majority of rifle shooters do not go beyond the comfort zone of .243 or .308 but I do know that in the US it is used extensively and is understood as US shooters are more technically savvy (generally speaking).

the biggest 7mm i can see being needed for american game is 7x64, but then who cares whats "needed" when you have new guns to build.

quote:

Enfield when you say that the "new" 7mm Rem Mag cartridges don't have the belt would you mind elaborating?

Yes, I meant the two new 7mm Magnum, the Ultra Mag and the Ultra Short Magnum.

There comes a time when people should simply agree to disagree.

This argument gets no where. I like my belted magnums, they work for me and have been working for many years now. If you don’t like belted rounds, you have a choice now, go buy one of those and stop beating me up for “my poor choices†(in your opinion).

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
A response:

quote:

for the record that belt is an ENGLISH fetish, not an American one.

No it isn't. And if you post that, you don't understand the reason for the belt in the first place. It is a necessary part of the cartridge that it originally appeared on, the .400/375 H & H, as Holland's felt needed the insurance of a belt to prevent the round being driven forward by the firing pin and so not giving a risk of imperfect strike and poor ignition but, more importantly, after it had been driven forward, of head separation on firing.

On a rimmed cartridge you don't need a sharp shoulder as the front of the case moves forward.

And on a sharp shouldered rimless case again it is the front part of the case that moves forward.

But on a tapered case, as you haven't got a sharp shoulder or a rim you need something else. Hence the belt.

When the .400/375 first appeared chambers were often oversize to ensure reliable chambering in hot climates...Africa and India.

The .400/375 was not widely used, it was obsolete within thirty years but the .375 H & H Magnum retained the belt for the same reason because of its tapering shoulder.

That great American cartridge designer, Charles Newton did't see the need for any belt on his powerful cartridges. Nor did Ross or Jeffery whose .280s pre-date the belted Holland .275 H & H Magnum.

But it was probable that as the .300 H & H Magnum was perhaps the only large capacity case available in the USA to Roy Weatherby that he retained the "belt" as he was re-forming an existing cartridge. If he had been able to start with a blank sheet of paper, and could make his own cases rather than use what the .300 H & H, or if the .280 Ross or .280 Jeffery had been still widely available in the USA and he had been able to use them then maybe the "belt" would never have been carried by any Weatherby cartridge.



It would have been better if the extra diameter that only the belt takes up had been used to make the whole cartridge body of greater diameter and therefore for the same capacity shorter. In other words something that looked like the .280 Ross or the .276 Enfield.

.

An interesting viewpoint,but not entirely correct, I fear.

Have you not heard of the .330 BSA? It was circa 1920 that it was marketed, I believe. It was a 2.5", short cased .338 Magnum, WITH a belt AND an abrupt shoulder. And the name is because it was marketed by none other than Birmingham Small Arms, which is not a U.S. company. 1920 was several years after Newton's design work showed the belt was not necessary, no?

So, I would have to conclude that although the American companies continued the marketing fetish BEGUN by the Brits, the Yanks did not originate it.

As for saying the 7m/m Rem Mag should have been on a shorter, unbelted, but fatter case similar to the .280 Ross, the Ross is NOT as short a case as the Remington Mag already is. The Ross case is actually .111" longer (2.6110" than the Rem Mag (2.500"), if you compare CIP and SAAMI maximum specs. And, the Ross case is only .030" fatter at the base, with a .5350" CIP diameter as opposed to the Remington's .5320".

The Ross is fatter and longer, yet does not significantly outperform, if it even equals, the Remington cartridge. Nor does it allow more rounds in the same size magazine. So, once more, which one is poorly designed? And, of course, the .276 Enfield is not a magnum powered cartridge at all according to the published reports I have seen, though I doubtless have not seen them all.


N.B.: I suggest even more germaine is the .275 H&H magnum, which came years BEFORE the .300 & .375 H&Hs. The .275 H&H is exactly the same length as the Remington Mag, and had an even sharper shoulder (32 degrees) than the
Remington (25 degrees), but it HAD THE BELT TOO!! Obviously maintaining headspace was not the reason H&H put the belt on it, so what WAS the reason? Sales, perhaps? Hmmm......

First of all that’s agree that the Brits invented the “Belted Case†whether they did so because of need or fetish it’s irrelevant.

Now my question is this:
Didn’t Smith & Wesson register the term MAGNUM in the 1930s
when they introduced the 357 Magnum?
and
Did the Brits use the word before S&W registered the word,
or was the word not used until S&W registered it.
So who did coin up the word Magnum?

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
There comes a time when people should simply agree to disagree.

You are so correct, besides, we all know that the well dressed cartridge wears a belt

Belts, no belts.. Who really gives a shit... There are FOR more important issues in our rifle fraternity than a stupid argument about belts..
I have several 7mm rifles, one with a belt, the 7mm Mag. All of my 7mm rifles will shoot 3 shots into a 1/2" group at 100 if I do my bit right. I never feel bent out of joint when I decide to use the 7mm Mag vs my 284 Winchester, just because it has a belt, or one of my 7x57's.

Don

Edit to add: I just read Alan D's post and want to do a big ditto on what he said.

I have had many 7 mags, but prefer the 300 Win mag.
A trip to the range and shooting over the chrony changed my mind about the 7 mag.
A friend shot his Rem 700 7 mag with 150 grain Nosler's and got 3110 fps. I shot my Rem 700 in 300 Win mag with 190 grain BTSP Hornady's and got 2930 fps. His rifle was max loaded and I still had more than 3 grains to top out in the manual listing. The 300 wins for versatility and heavier bullets for when bigger game is encountered.

quote:

Originally posted by 303carbine:

quote:

A trip to the range and shooting over the chrony changed my mind about the 7 mag.
A friend shot his Rem 700 7 mag with 150 grain Nosler's and got 3110 fps. I shot my Rem 700 in 300 Win mag with 190 grain BTSP Hornady's and got 2930 fps. His rifle was max loaded and I still had more than 3 grains to top out in the manual listing.

quote:

Um, er, your friend needs to go back to the loading bench and try again. I could take a hack saw to my barrel and get 3110 f/s from a 150 grain pill, heck, I get 3150 from 160 grain partitions -and I know I'm not maxed out. Point is, one can't condemn a cartridge based on a few chronograph readings.

quote:

The 300 wins for versatility and heavier bullets for when bigger game is encountered.

I disagree If there were ever a 30 calibre magnum that couldn't utilize all available bullets, it's the 300 Winchester. Just try stuffin' some 200s or 220s in that short neck and see what happens to your powder space. Make no mistake, I like the 300 Winnie, but I like the 300 H&H and Weatherby a whole lot more...

I’ve always loved the versatility argument about the 30 caliber. It shoots everything from 110 to 220 grain bullets. So what!

I love the 300 Win, and I like the 300 Wby. But show me targets from the same rifle that can shoot the extremes of the bullet weights accurately. I haven’t seen it yet.

Magnum originally came from the wine industry.

quote:

Originally posted by Ingvar J. Kristjansson:
I have noticed that on various forums I regularly visit that nobody speaks anymore of the 7mm rem. mag. ! How come ? Isn’t it good anymore ? Is it out of fashion ? Gone into oblivious ? I remember when people wonted to step up from the .243 or .270 kind of cartridges, the 7mm rem. mag. was highly recommended...now it’s the 300 mag. or the short mags. ! Do AR members still use the 7mm rem mag. and do they like it ?

The 7mm Remington Magnum may not be getting a lot of hype these days, but it is still the second or third most popular round in the U.S. market this year. One of the potential problems I see with the 7mm Mag. is that it's ballistic performance with factory ammo has been cut back significantly since it was introduced. For example, its 175-grain PSP Corelokt factory load was originally rated at 3070 FPS MV. But today, that same load only develops 2860 FPS. Since this same performance level can be nearly duplicated with the .280 Remington case, it is easy to see why nobody gets too excited by the 7 Mag. any more..... It has been "wimp-ized" by the loading companies! Using powders like H4831, RL22, IMR 7828, etc., it is possible to safely improve on factroy ballistics, especially if you have a 26" barrel on yours!

quote:

Originally posted by Dan H:
I have a 7mm Rem Mag and have been quite happy with it. I was amused to find out some years ago when moving to Alaska that it was not well liked here at all. I guess the heavy bullet options available in .30 cal and larger are much favored here, so much so that the 30-06 is much more popular than the 7mm Rem Mag in AK.

I suppose the .338 Win Mag has taken over for it up here....

And I appreciate my 375 H&H when moose hunting among the BIG bear tracks....

I suppose it ultimately depends what you like. Two calibers I don't see myself ever getting rid of are the 7mm RM and the 30-06.

Cheers,

Dan

When I lived in AK, it was only the white men who lived in towns who were even aware of the existence cartridges much bigger than the .22 Hornet or .222 Remington........

quote:

Originally posted by Jon2:

quote:

I note that the "new" 7mm Remington Magnum cartridges don't have the belt. But as the 7mm Remington Magnum is so well established they will have a long battle to overtake its popularity.

Enfield when you say that the "new" 7mm Rem Mag cartridges don't have the belt would you mind elaborating? Surely you are confusing this with the Ultra mag? I am a fan of the 7mm Mag and always will be. I have had 4 all together - Remingtons and Sako's and still have one of my Remi's and find that it has performed well on game and at long range. In the UK it is not used that much as the majority of rifle shooters do not go beyond the comfort zone of .243 or .308 but I do know that in the US it is used extensively and is understood as US shooters are more technically savvy (generally speaking).

I believe that brass cases, identical in all respects to 7mm Remington magnum cases, but without the belt, would work perfectly well in most 7mm Remington Magnum rifles just headspacing on the shoulder.

I think he meant you could turn the belt off a 7MM RM case and it would work perfectly. I agree but see no reason to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by rickt300:
I think he meant you could turn the belt off a 7MM RM case and it would work perfectly. I agree but see no reason to do so.

The reason would be to placate the limeys who post here clamining that we "Yanks" (smile when you say that, varmint!!) are the ones who are responsible for all the belts around these days. We know that ain't true, the Brits invented them belts, and we just happened to design some cartridges with belts because we want the fatter cases to hold more powder, and the existing brass (British designed .300 & .375 H&H cases) came with belts on 'em. Wasn't too long before everybody decided it warn't no Magnum atall 'lest it had a belt......

I hunt with my 7 rem mag I kill my boar with it
I've hunted deer with it in other states. Could use it for hunting ground hogs also.

Hip Hip Hooray ; Long Live the 7 Rem Mag.

I never understood some peoples reasoning on Recoil !. A 700 Nitro Express DBL. Rifle Hurts when you pull the trigger , a 7 Rem Mag just tickles a little . My 06 with a 220 pill kicks a little more than my 7 using a 175 pill . So I fail to see the problem with recoil . if it bothers anyone they make 100-180 grain projectiles in .284 Cal. and nobody says you have to compress the load for them !.

Shoot Straight Know your Target . ...

quote:

Originally posted by buckshot:

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:
There comes a time when people should simply agree to disagree.

You are so correct, besides, we all know that the well dressed cartridge wears a belt

LOL Buckshot

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Most of them have been turned into the various AR big bores. We are singlehandedly trying to extinctify an entire part of rifle history.

perdactly!!

quote:

Originally posted by mstarling:
I liked my .308 and .338 mags so much that I made my 7mm Remmy into a .458 AR ... much more interesting!

See what I mean?
7rem - 416 AR
7rem SEVERAL 458 ARs
7rem 470 AR

It has been downloaded, but there is a big variation from rifle to rifle in this caliber. I load RL22 and usually shoot 175 partitions at 2907 fps in mine. If anyone can tell me the difference between that and a .300 with a 180 at 3000, I'd like to hear that argument. That said, I still shoot more game with my 7x57 and 160's at 2750, just because I can't tell any difference. If I want more gun than that I have a pair of .338 bores, a .338-06 and .338 WM.

I made STWs out of my 7mm Rem Mag rifles, and .257 Weatherbys out of the brass.

quote:

Originally posted by Ingvar J. Kristjansson:
I have noticed that on various forums I regularly visit that nobody speaks anymore of the 7mm rem. mag.
.
.
.
Do AR members still use the 7mm rem mag. and do they like it ?

Mine is still in regular use; if I'm not sure how much gun is needed, I take that one.

quote:

Originally posted by Ingvar J. Kristjansson:
I have noticed that on various forums I regularly visit that nobody speaks anymore of the 7mm rem. mag. ! How come ? Isn’t it good anymore ? Is it out of fashion ? Gone into oblivious ? I remember when people wonted to step up from the .243 or .270 kind of cartridges, the 7mm rem. mag. was highly recommended...now it’s the 300 mag. or the short mags. ! Do AR members still use the 7mm rem mag. and do they like it ?

Ingvar,
The 7mm Rem Mag is alive and well in America. It is one of what can be called the Bubbas bait and gunshop calibers. Any small gas station or convenience store that sells rifle ammo to hunters in the midwest will have the standard rifle calibers such as; .22lr, .243Win, .270Win, .308Win, 30-06, .30-30, 7mm Rem Mag and 300 Win Mag. Other calibers that are often sold at a lot of the Bubbas kind of stores are; .223 Remington, .22-250, .25-06 & 7.62x39mm Russian.

If you accidently leave your 7mm Mag. ammo at home on your hunting trip, you can very likely find some more at any place that sells ammo at all. The WSMs, WSSMs, RUMs and SAUMs haven't made it into a lot of these small shops yet.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
it flunked the class