I was thinking about trying to develop a 140gr Mulie load for my 7mmremmag. Has anyone had good or bad experiences using this grain bullet? Do I need a premium bullet?

Why a 140 ?? 7mm Mag implies that you'll be using it at long range where you should be looking for a bullet with high ballistic coefficient and high sectional density to hold velocity at long range. The ideal would be a good 160. It will really bring out the potential of the 7mmMag.

quote:

Originally posted by Westernmassman:
I was thinking about trying to develop a 140gr Mulie load for my 7mmremmag. Has anyone had good or bad experiences using this grain bullet? Do I need a premium bullet?

While some might rightfully prefer a heavier bullet the 140 will do for mulies just fine.

Premium bullets actually turn out to be cheap insurance of bullet performance but are not at all necessary for deer.

I use the 140 grain TSX in my 7 mag for mulies and antelope.

Get ya some 139gr Hornadys, some H-4831 and go get em!!

Here we go again....

160's aren't flying any flatter at any range inside of 500yards (or so) to which range the 140's are traveling faster. The thing is the 140's start off enough faster that it takes the 160's 500 yards to catch up.

a Premium 7mm 140gr from a 7mmMag will probably penetrate any deer ever born end-to-end atleast out to 400yards.
So I can't figuire out why anyone would need a 160 for DEER unless you were a member of what I'm beginning to think of as the "Heavy Bullet Mafia"...

a 120gr Barnes would probably work as well on any deer and the 7mmMag fires them even faster....

The one thing the big bullet boys seem to forget is that before energy and penetration begin to matter you have to
hit something and the flatter it shoots the easier it is for most people to hit with.

Hey, people kill elk with the 257Weatherby and the biggest bullet made for 25cal is a 120gr, so why is a 140gr bullet from a 7mmMag 75fps only slower inadequate for any deer?

I don't get it... 'splain it to me......... PLEASE?


Anyway, what do you currently use your 7mmMag for?
What load do you use?

I'm guessing you already have a good 140gr load and likely the best thing I think you could do is stick with it so you don't have to mentally shift gears from a "Fast, deer load"
to a "heavy, Elk load" you have ONE load and ONE trajectory to remember.

If there is anything you should be trying to kill with a 7mmMag that you can't kill with a 140gr Nosler Partition
I don't know what it might be... but whatever it is it's
bigger than a deer.

As for "Do I need a premium bullet?" let's be honest,
for the number of them you will fire in load development, sight checking and actually at game? the cost difference is insignificant.

Especially compared to the alternative.. a bullet "failure"

while I do most of my general "Practice" shooting with cheaper bullets (I almost literally have a rifle range in my front yard), actually intentionally using bullets and loads that aren't as accurate (practice is SUPPOSED to be harder than reality), but are cheap, plentiful and shoot to the same point of aim. the main purpose is to stay "current"
with the rifle, the feel of the recoil and the trajectory....

when it comes to shots at game I usually go with
a Nosler Partition, they have always gotten the job done for me.

I keep playing with the Barnes X-bullets, but really only use them where the Partitions are unavailable. like 120's in 7mm

AllanD

quote:

Originally posted by 30378:
Get ya some 139gr Hornadys, some H-4831 and go get em!!

That's been close to my deer load since 1975. But I'm using IMR 4350 and get 3300 fps see Hornady Vol. II. Drops them in their tracks. The only exit I got was on a deer at 500 yards.

Yes the 162 will nearly catch it at 500 yards it drops 35.1 inches compared to the 140 dropping 34.7. But your right it almost catches it. The 140 still has 1378 foot pounds left at 500 more than enough for any deer. I'm sure the 162 would catch it easily by 600 but at that point I wouldn't be shooting that far or would be using my STW.

I had good luck with 139 gr Interbond in mine, but I used reloder 22. Very accurate, no problem for deer, very flat shooting.

Why a 140 ?? 7mm Mag implies that you'll be using it at long range where you should be looking for a bullet with high ballistic coefficient and high sectional density to hold velocity at long range. The ideal would be a good 160. It will really bring out the potential of the 7mmMag.

I couldn't agree more

Personally I think you are wasting alot of this great cart's potential using a bullet under 150 grains.

My first choice would be the 162 hornady sst (cheap too)for a long range rig, that bullet should work fine at short or long range, if I was going after bigger or tougher game than the 160 accubond would get the nod.

In my oppinion the 140's are launched too fast and the possibility of bullet failure/over expansion exists at close range and I would definately be using premium bullets in anything below 150 grains for that reason.

The heavier bullets although starting out slower will soon overtake the lighter ones and provide more down range energy.

To answer some of the above questions, i am using an older M77 with tang safety and 24" tube. I currently use 160gr Remington ultra core bonded which groups the best in my rifle. This was used successfully for Elk last year, but I probably will go up to 175gr if ever I hunt Elk again.
I am just looking into a better performing (trajectory) load for my next trip out west for Mulies. I know some people use lighter bullets for deer and also have heard of bullet failure at higher velocities. Of course the proof is in the shooting and what the rifle likes best! My max shooting would be limited to 400yds.
I do use Hornady's for most of my handloading of other cartridges, but was concerned that a non-bonded bullet might fail if my planned 300yd shot turned out to be a more realistic 80 yard shot!

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
I use the 140 grain TSX in my 7 mag for mulies and antelope.

Another vote for the 140 TSX.. bang..plop.

I shoot 140 gr. Rem. CL's in my 26" Encore barrel. 3350 fps and stuff just keeps dying. The bullets hold together fairly well, although I have had one core-jacket separation. That's out of 15+ deer/antelope taken, fwiw. Expansion is good, too.

I usually buy a new rifle for an imagined niche that I need to fill. I did not buy a 7mag to hunt deer with. Altho I've killed a bunch with it. I bought it to elk hunt with. And so, I developed a elk load using a 160gr bullet. And I use that load on everything. From antelope to elk. And it works.
When I travel to hunt, I don't take an arsenal nor a ammo factory. I believe in the kiss system. I'll take (perhaps) a varmint rifle and a rifle suited for the largest game I intend to hunt on that trip. With ample single purpose ammo for each. Thus I've shot antelope with everything from a 7-08 and a 140gr bullet to a 338 with a 250.
I'm not gonna get into a pissing contest with the folks that want to use some piddly-assed bullet at boyhowdylookwhaticando velocity. But when they try to justify it by touting a flatter trajectory, they need to take their rifle out of the closet, get the rest of that box of bullets they bought in september, and shoot it at distance against an adequate bullet. At, say 500 yards, I doubt that 1% of the readers in this room can shoot well enough from field positions to discern the difference. And that includes me.

My wife and I shoot 140 gr. X's (XLC's or TSX's) at everything. They keep making two holes in antelope, mulies and elk. HTH, Dutch.

quote:

Originally posted by Westernmassman:
I was thinking about trying to develop a 140gr Mulie load for my 7mmremmag. Has anyone had good or bad experiences using this grain bullet? Do I need a premium bullet?

When I first got mine I set it up to shoot 140gr Sierra GameKings, pushed with RL19 slightly over max book, CCI Mag primers, Win cases. It shoots this load accurately.

I have only taken one deer with it though. It was about 130 yards or more, quartering away on the first shot. Bullet went clear through but the buck didn't drop. He turned and started down hill so I put another one into the crease of the shoulder. It to penetrated completely, taking both lungs. It still staggered around for a few seconds before it went down. When cleaning the buck I found the first shot caught the liver first then went through the offside lung. It would have been a fatal shot, as would the second through both lungs. I got complete penetration on a Mulie, quartering away with the Sierra Gamekings, TWICE. They'll work fine for deer.

I have since switched to 160gr Barnes XLC's for hunting this rifle as it gets used when I'm carrying both deer and elk tags. I didn't have the confidence in the 140gr standard bullet when it came to elk. I don't think heavier bullets are needed for deer, but wonder what they'll do really close up. I'd aim for the lungs or neck and avoid the shoulder muscles if it were really close. I usually aim for the top of the heart. This particular deer I was just telling of was moving and I did hit it late from where I wanted. I can't say the deer wouldn't have dropped instantly had I put it through the on-side lung and over the heart as intended. Nate

The truth is , there is no real difference in performance (on deer) with the 7 mag and any bullet weight from 139 gr to 160 s. The diff in trajectory , wind drift , and recoil is just about nil . I've use 160 gr Speers for near 30 years and got no reason to change.....

Last year (2005) I shot a decent muley buck with my 7mm using Hornady 139gr SST with a strong dose of MagPro and Mag CCI primers. The bullet went in behind the left shoulder, deflected and struck the right shoulder and never came out.

Needless to say I am now going to use either 154gr Interbonds or 160gr Accubonds for hunting because of the slightly better terminal energy. I am experimenting with IMR4350 and CCI200

Well put me in the heavyforcaliber mafia. The only reason to carry a 7mag is to use bigger bullets. If you want to shoot 140gr, a 7x57 or .280 will do. I developed a load using 160grNP. I use it for everything. My practice load is a SPeer 160gr & would use this on deer & antelope if that's all that was on the menu. You just don't gain enough trajectory from the 140gr going fast out at reasonable ranges & as has been said, way out past 500yds the 160gr are doing a bit better. If I did shoot 140gr it would be a premium just incase I got that one shot under 100yds.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
Well put me in the heavyforcaliber mafia. The only reason to carry a 7mag is to use bigger bullets. If you want to shoot 140gr, a 7x57 or .280 will do. I developed a load using 160grNP. I use it for everything. My practice load is a SPeer 160gr & would use this on deer & antelope if that's all that was on the menu. You just don't gain enough trajectory from the 140gr going fast out at reasonable ranges & as has been said, way out past 500yds the 160gr are doing a bit better. If I did shoot 140gr it would be a premium just incase I got that one shot under 100yds.

I just knew someone would embrace the "Heavy Bullet Mafia" label in the spirit in which it was intended.


That's why I load partitions, incase I get a close shot. If I were SURE that I'd only get a long range shot I might actually use a ballistic tip.

Me? I alwast thought the purpose of a Magnum was to shoot a good bullet faster, not to switch to an even heavier bullet.
I kniw it's simply a difference in philosophy, but I want to see the logic behind the choice.

I just don't get using heavier bullets when the light ones have more than adequate penetration as demonstrated by making exit holes.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I just want an explanation of why those who choose the heavier bullets do so, with supporting arguements that aren't contradicted by the science...

Like the better BC giving a flatter trajectory
when a 160gr will usually wind up considerably lower than a 140gr out to 500yards-plus

I can see a 160gr if the 140gr partition wasn't available (particularly if your only choice was a 160gr power point or speer flat base

Or is there simply a concerted effort to jerk my chain just to see how long I'll keep questioning the same statements?


AllanD

I was a fan of 140's until I had one blow up at close range. If you load or use them make sure you use a tough one. TSX, Partition. The one that came apart on me was a bonded.

I used 160 AB's only because I got the rifle fairly late last summer and didn't have enough time to work out all the kinks that I would have liked to. The 160 AB's just shot a little better than teh 140 AB's with the components I used(rl-22 and CCI200 primers). This spring and summer I will start over with a few other selections and whatever works best will get the nod. By the way I shot elk, deer and lope with that round from 100 on the lope out to about 250 on elk and it worked well with all 3 complete pass throughs.

Allen,
Put me in the Heavy Bullet Mafia also. I used to jump around from bullet weight to bullet weight and use the 140s on lighter game and switch as the game got bigger. I finally decided to simplify my life and just load the 160 Nosler. I get 3100fps with 80 grains of H-870 and that shoots plenty flat for me. Good penetration and near perfect bullet action. Don't get me wrong, the 140s are deadly, just came up with one good load and sticking to it.
Doug

No, the magnums were designed to send a greater weight of metal downrange at a velocity comparable to a standard cartridge. If your bullet is going over 3000fps, you need more bullet, not more speed.

I shoot the 140Accubonds from my 280AI at 3150. They perform really well. I shot 150BTips from a standard 280 at 2900 and had good results but few pass throughs.

The sectional density and BC are nearly identical with the Partition and Accubond in both 140 and 160 so that is a wash. The engery should be very close. Extra weight of the 160 vs the higher velocity of the 140. The 160 should penatrate deeper, I doubt if you can measure how far into the dirt on the other side of the deer. Elk would be a different story. At 400yards my data only shows about 3.5 inches of drop between the two weights. I had full intentions of doing a 175RN or a 160PT load. I decided to build a 338-06AI to shoot 250s instead. Shoot alot of what your gun likes and use a well constructed hunting bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by iwzbeeman:
No, the magnums were designed to send a greater weight of metal downrange at a velocity comparable to a standard cartridge. If your bullet is going over 3000fps, you need more bullet, not more speed.

Actually I think the BRITISH magnums were made to propel larger volumes of metal downrange...

The AMERICAN Magnums as typified by the 257Wby, 264WinMag, 7mmRemMag, 300WinMag, 300Wby, etc, were designed first and foremost to be FAST with "normal weight" bullets.

FAST increases range, heavy doesn't, because the change in BC for the extra mass doesn't increase range nearly as well as the extra speed does.

The fact that some people choose to go ever upwards in bullet weight notwithstanding that was not really why they were originally designed.

If a 140gr in a 7mmMag doesn't kill well enough for your satisfaction I'd recommend a 300Mag with a 165 or even a 180gr before I'd recommend a 160gr for the 7mm.

It's the magnum cartridges larger than 30cal
that were designed to throw more metal, mostly because they were new calibers to most shooters.

And I'll suggest that if you think you need a 180gr 30cal bullet, that you probably also need a 300mag to throw it, but if you believe need a 200gr or 220gr bullet you should probably be using a 338Mag.

quote:

Originally posted by Blueprinted:
The 160 should penatrate deeper, I doubt if you can measure how far into the dirt on the other side of the deer.

IMO This comment kinda says it all.

I've read some talk here on the thread about bullet falure fears with the 139/140 Gr 7MM bullets. My experience tells me no.

Two deer with the 139 Gr Hornady Interlock. One at 35 and one a 45 feet. Their feet didn't even move dropped them on the spot. Pretty tough tracking had to move my eyes down.

As oppose to the only deer I shot with a 160 I had to track a couple hundred yards only to finish him with a 139 Hornady of course. The 160 cut right through him and hardly expanded at all. No I'll save those 160's for Elk and other large game.

quote:

Originally posted by iwzbeeman:
No, the magnums were designed to send a greater weight of metal downrange at a velocity comparable to a standard cartridge. If your bullet is going over 3000fps, you need more bullet, not more speed.

I completely disagree with this. There's no reason in the world to use a 160 grain 7mm bullet on deer, it negates all the advantages of a 7mm mag. Any of the premium 140 grain bullets will give you complete penetration if that's what you want. All you're doing with a 160 grain bullet is giving up your flat trajectory, they sure won't kill a deer any better than a 140 grainer.

Now if you want to line two deer up and get them both with one shot the 160 gr might be a better choice.

I'm not sure why why the 140 gr users think they are gonna give up trajectory using a heavier bullet . There just isn't enough difference in drop at extended ranges to spit on......

I shoot 140 grain bullets in my 7 Mag because they shoot the best in my gun.

Boltman, you kinda touched on my thoughts: why would one buy a 7mag to hunt deer with. If that's the only purpose of the rifle. There are so many cartridges much more suitable for purely deer hunting.

And I'll toss in this little andedote: A friend used a 30-338 to hunt with. And he used 150gr bullets and bragged about his boyhowdey velocities. His deer and antelope kills looked pretty disgusting. And since he, nor the rest of our group, were the sort to put a beer can in the gaping wounds and have our pictures taken, we talked him into using 180's (I wanted a 200 but he didn't know anymore than most in this room and said he would give up too much "trajectory") Anyway, with the larger bullet, we could identify exactly what it was he had shot.
FYI, anyone that needs to track a deer shot with a 160 200 yards needs to work on their shot placement. Shoot for the exit hole.

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
I'm not sure why why the 140 gr users think they are gonna give up trajectory using a heavier bullet . There just isn't enough difference in drop at extended ranges to spit on......

Exactly right! What are you really gaining shooting a 7mag over a .280 w/ 140gr bullets? There just isn't enough diff. in traj. @ normal hunting ranges w/ a rifle sighted say 0 @ 250yds. I'll take my lt.wt. .280 for deer & antelope w/ 139-145gr bullets it kills just as well as my 7mmDakota & gives up little in trajectory to the heavier magnum.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
I'm not sure why why the 140 gr users think they are gonna give up trajectory using a heavier bullet . There just isn't enough difference in drop at extended ranges to spit on......

Exactly right! What are you really gaining shooting a 7mag over a .280 w/ 140gr bullets? There just isn't enough diff. in traj. @ normal hunting ranges w/ a rifle sighted say 0 @ 250yds. I'll take my lt.wt. .280 for deer & antelope w/ 139-145gr bullets it kills just as well as my 7mmDakota & gives up little in trajectory to the heavier magnum.

200 fps and at 500 yards about 200 foot pounds of energy that's not much but about 5 inches less in bullet drop at 500. Long range I'll take the 7MM.

quote:

Originally posted by iwzbeeman:
Boltman, you kinda touched on my thoughts: why would one buy a 7mag to hunt deer with. If that's the only purpose of the rifle. There are so many cartridges much more suitable for purely deer hunting.

Like what? I've got a safe full of about 20 rifles from 22LR to .375 H&H, and the one I've taken the most deer with has been the 7mm mag. I just haven't found anything else out there that's better on deer. To me it's the perfect deer round. I don't think the one rifle deer hunter can do any better than a 270/30-06/7mm mag. Don't get me wrong, I like my 257 roberts and 7mm-08, but I have more confidence in my 7mm mag because it's worked so well for me in the past.

I just don't follow the line of thought that a 7mm mag is somehow not well suited for deer.

iwz,
FWIW, I think a 7mm RM or a 7mmWSM are just perfect for deer hunting. 'Course, it might have a lot to do where one hunts and how one hunts. If you wanna drop the hammer on big northern whitetails or mulies at longer ranges, a 7mmMag is just about perfect.

The reason 140's are poplular,is because you have guys jerking off over muzzle velocity.

The manufacturers introduce magnums to drive heavy bullets at high speeds,because it makes for impressive ballistic charts.Especially since new cartridges are what sells guns anymore. With exception for the old standbys like the 06 and .270. The public gets ahold of a magnum and see's only the potential for high muzzle velocity from light weight projectiles. High Velocity has a calming effect for alot of shooters. It falls under mental masturbation.

If I'm going to shoot 140's,it'll be out of a .270

JayJ, most deer aren't going to tell the diff. of 200fp of energy & 5" @ 500, most shooters can't hold 5" @ 200yds. The .280 will do just about anything the 7mag will do out to 450yds & in a rifle that weighs 1-2# less. Don't get me wrong I love the 7mags, but that's waht the 160-175gr bullets were made for.

It would depend on what you call long range. I've hunted Col, Wy, and Mont and have never taken a shot over 300 yards. I have yet to see a deer at any distance in any of these places that I could not close the distance to within 300 yards. If I were going mulie hunting tomorrow, I'd take a 7-08 loaded with 140 NP's. If a 7mag was my only rifle, I'd take it. Loaded with a 160gr NP. But I would still close to within 300 yards.

Mental masterbation. Hee Hee, I like that. Kinda like the guy that put loud pipes on his VW. And then tries to tell you he did it 'cause he gets better gas mileage.

Wow, I guess I hit a hot button issue! Sorry. My 7mag was purchased for a combo elk/deer hunt and now it will be my general purpose "western " rifle, that's why I was asking about the lighter bullet weights. Like I previously posted, I will be looking at 175gr handloads if ever another Elk hunt is in the offing. By the way, my M77 7mag is lighter than my M77 308! It weighs 8.0lbs loaded with scope.
If I could get my 308 to shoot as accurate @300yds as the 7mag, I would probably use it for mulies.

Westernmassman you did rile everyone up didn't you!!

I used the 7mm mag. for several years (in the 70's). I shot quite a few whitetail from 40-250yards. I only shot one mule deer but broadside at 125 yards. He was running but fell DRT. I used 139gr Hornady's without a hitch. These days I would use premium bullets only... just in case of a quartering shot.

My 7mm was a deluxe Sako and very accurate.

It's not really a hotbutton issue, just everyone has an opinion. I have owned 2 7rm & rechambered my last one to 7mmDakota. It's more about the bullet choice than cartridge.
I have a lt.wt. .280 that gets 3000fps w/ 145grSGS or 140grNP so I really didn't need a 7rm pushing the same bullet 200fps faster. Now 160grNPs @ 3250fps, good for anything from antelope to elk, which is just about what I've shot w/ it.