Try the 140 TSX at about 3200 fps. I am positive that will kill a mulie. It's actually plenty of overkill, I like my .257 Weatherby for them. I usually shoot 175's in the 7 Mag., I like to have one load per rifle and shoot it a lot.

In the 7mm Remmag the lightest bullet I would use is the 154gr Hornady. I have never seen the slightest field evidence that a lighter bullet has any advantage. On the very rare occassions when I hunt with my 7mm Mag these days I do prefer the 160gr accubonds.

Wow. This thread is as debatable as the "270 for elk" controversy.

Here's the thing, with all of the vast experienced hunters on all of these shooting/hunting websites, this whole bullet thing boils down to personal choice, much like the color you paint your walls.

Pros/cons, advantages/disadvantages, cartridge efficiency, bla bla bla.

There's no doubt in my mind a 140 wt. bullet from a 7mag will dump a deer at distances that most hunters have to squint to see their game. Same for a 160.

I chose a 150 Btip from my 7 mag, dumped a mulie with it at 280+ yards with a shoulder/spine shot. Point 1: The bullet performed as well as any bullet out there. Point 2: it kilt that deer upon impact and dumped it.

One HUGE missing point with all this bullet wt. velocity talk is this: What if a MAX charge of powder with the 160 grain bullet is equal in accuracy to the minimal charge for a chosen 140 bullet?? I'd say the 160 flies potentially as fast and flat. But what if the adverse were true?

What if the best load from several 160 grain bullets still sucked? But the 140 printed beautiful repeatable groups? What if the 140 thrived on max loads and the best 160 was a minimum charge of a mediocre powder?

Too much talk about cartridge potential as if all of them can print acceptable hunting groups when in fact, not all can...for a given bullet or bullet weight.

I'm taking the bullet that shoots best. AFter all, it is a DEER.

My bro dumped enough deer this past season with a 110 TSX from a 270 for crying out loud. His buddy borrowed it and dumped a 200 pound 8 pt at 322 yards.

Are we to believe the bigger bullets give THAT much more advantage? I used to always be a "big bullet per caliber" guy. Not anymore.

It is simply not necessary. My wifes uncle showed me a couple of thick photo albums of all the deer he and his friends took over the past 40 years....22-250 or 220 swift at distances closing to 300 yards.

We can't deny the facts forever.

You're right Doc. I cringe every time I see a thread about 'best deer caliber'. I shoot 175's almost exclusively in a 7Mag, not because I need them for deer, but because that's what I want for big game. Deer are easily killed with .22-250's, .220 Swift, and .243's. I hunt almost all the time with a 7x57 or my .257 Weatherby(beanfields). Does I shoot with whatever I need practice with, from .220 to .416 Rigby, just to get familiar with a new rifle. Remember- anything will work for deer, they're easy to kill.

Guess I fit in the "heavy bullet mafia". I mostly shoot 175g bullets in my 7mm Mag....primary reason is that my Browning A-Bolt SS shoots heavy and lighter bullets to very different points of aim. I prefer to have an elk load that works on elk and less all the time to a rifle I have to resight just before the hunt. (I always seem to get behind in the amount of shooting I hope to do ) Just keep point of aim in mind if you don't plan to make this rifle dedicated to one critter.

Happy shooting,

Dan

Like it's been said many times. Deer are not tough to kill, use whatever bullet weight shoots best in your gun.

I agree with 30378 my 7mm T&R (7MM-338) shoots 68gr H4831 with 139gr hornady SST and it will just crumble a whitetail

One of the advantages of a premium bullet, and in fact one of their selling points, is the fact that with a premium, you can go to a lighter bullet. For example, 220gr 30 cals standard cup bullets are like tits on a side of bacon, when a 180gr TSX for example, will outpenetrate it any day. Granted, a 160 TSX will outpenetrate a 140 TSX, but for deer? give me the 140. I use them on my 7mm WBY and I've shot 200lb hogs through and through. If your rifle shoots the 140s well, go for it. My choice is the TSX and yes they will and do open up on deer. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by Westernmassman:
Do I need a premium bullet?

Probably not, but it can't hurt and doesn't cost much in comparison to the cost of gas to go hunting...

I still have two boxes of 175 grain Federals that I bought in 1983, and half a box of 154 grain Hornadys bought around 1987. The 140 grain Noslers have been just fine for everything. The Hornadys did fine for a cow elk, by the way, and I never killed anything with the 175s.

Everything else has been 140 Noslers or 145 Speer since, easier on the shoulder and hell-for-breakfast downrange. Speer is nice, both hunting and match bullets same size and trajectory, good for sighting in. I like Nosler BT for sighting in, and Partitions for hunting.

For years I used a 7MM Weatherby for white tail deer, my winning combo was 1 grain less than max of IMR 4831 with Fed. 215GM primers and 160 grain Nosler Partitions. Tried 139 & 140 grain slugs of many descriptions, I found the 160 Partition was more accurate, and damaged far less meat than the lighter slugs. Enter the 7MM WSM...the best load in this rifle is again 1 grain less than max of IMR 7828ssc with a 140 grain TSX. If I ever go back to the full length 7MM, my first effort will be with 160 grain bullets, simply because I feel the purpose of a magnum is to send heavier bullets on their way, regardless of the big game I choose to hunt.

I've seen lots of whitetails fall to my 7mm Rem Mag with 139 grain Hornady's, so I feel that the 140's will do the same for you!