took the 7 rem mag out to the range, i got handloads of 68 grains of RL22 and 140gr. nosler accubonds, and the chrony said that i was getting only 3023-3056 fps, i thought the chrony was messed up, till my buddy ran his 270 win. through it and his hit the usual mark they always do, any thoughts on why such a low velocity, my buddies 270 was out racing my 7mag.

1 - What make/model/barrel length is your rifle? Your friend's?

2 - What powder/charge/bullet is your friend using?

3 - Why did you stop at 68 gr? Were you getting pressure signs?

4 - Do you have any other loads (like factory 140 gr. loads) to compare it with that you've chronographed out of this rifle?

5 - How accurate is your load? How accurate is your friend's load?

6 - What velocity were you expecting?

When it's all said and done, each rifle is unique, possessing its own "quirks" that might result in exactly what you describe. But I think more information is needed here to answer your question.

FWIW - I get over 3300 fps out of my 26" barrel Encore with 70 gr. RL-22 and Remington 140 gr. Core-Lokts. It also happens to be fairly accurate. That load was worked up to in my rifle and it is safe. You absolutely want to make sure the chamber is dry before firing, though. DAMHIKT

The nosler book says 67.5 gr of RL 22 gets you to 3300 fps. In my experience this has never ever happened.....in many 7 mags I had. In several I had to go up to 71 gr to get 3300 fps. Again pending on rifle~

I dont think you are too far below expected velocities with this. 10 different rifles will yield 10 different velocities with any given load. Variables are barrel length, chamber dimension,throat erosion to name a very few.I believe the 7 rem mag has been overrated for many years but you obviously have taken the time and trouble to find this out firsthand. That does not make it a bad round and that bullet at that velocity will accomplish many things in the hunting world.

What POP said. If your pressure looks fine, work up to 70-71gr, you'll be much closer to 3200fps+. I used to feed my 7RM 68gr under a 160gr NP for 3100fps. http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/RecipeDetail.asp...id=1068&bulletid=241

How did it shoot? I would be more worried about how it grouped than how fast it went. Sometimes your quest for speed can take you right past a sweet load.

Terry

7Mags vary a lot. I have to load 66 grains of RL22 in mine with 175's and they just pass 2900 fps. I loaded 72 grains with the 140's and from memory they went about 3250 fps. I'd bump up the powder charge until they went 3250 fps and stop before 3300 fps. I wouldn't want to shoot the magnum at the same velocity as a .270 from a 22 in. barrel either. Many 'book' loads in this round will be 200 fps slow in many rifles, load the ammo for your rifle!

Chronograhs have made a lot of shooters realize that their favorite loads are not doing near what they thought. Even the reloading manuels. I have found that the published ballistics are pretty much optimistic about what their loads are doing due to their testing conditions and equipment. The 7mag is a good round but it is over bore. Your getting good vel. I usually get out a ballistic chart and compare my loads in down range vel. and enegry and go from there. I believe it will be hard to reach factory published ballistics in most rifles especially the mags. You can keep going up with the charge watching for pressure signs and accuracy. I usually stop when I get reasonable vel. and accuracy. If you can't hit it, its not going to matter how fast. Just my 2 cents worth.

I am getting 2850 fps for a 140gr. BST with 72.5gr RL22 and 2700+fps with a 150 BST and 71gr RL22...out of a 13" Encore bbl. so I think you have some room for improvement. Work up in 1/2 gr. increments until you get pressure signs, then back off a bit. 72.5 of RL22 is max. though with the 140gr bt bullets. The 7mm Mag is a very controversial cartridge that is somewhat mis-understood as it relates to both factory ammo and reloading manuals. Most are on the conservative side so to get the most from it you have to experiment some. Good luck.

Woody

My data shows 140 Accubond, 3292 with RL 22 67gr but my barrel is 25".Each rifle is different.

I use 69.0gr. of RL#22 in my 7MM MAG with WIN or Rem. brass A fed. 215 primer,I have used higher powder charges but the groups started to open up.And this is with A 140 Hornady innerlock,the chorny said 3134 F.P.S.and that is about what factory ammo is 3175 F.P.S. So if the groups are good, you to should be good. 6.5 SWEDE

I would talk you out of the 140 grain bullets if I could, as I believe they're a handicap in the big 7. 160s are where it's at and the 7 mag has the case capacity to push these past the 3000f/s mark. IMHO there is no need for anything lighter.

Thanks for the info, i am not concerned with accuracy as much as i am speed, i mean, of course a good group is required as an end product, but when i work up a load, i always go max, then back off to find the group, just the way i like it,

my buddies rifle was a browning a-bolt, with the boss, meaning actual barrel lenght is only about 20 inches, as we have measured with the boss off, i also chronoed 140gr. partitions and tbbc's and those registered in the high 2800's and low 2900's.

I like speed & accuracy but I learned along time ago that muzzle vel. isn't that important. The diff. in drop between 140gr @ 3200fps & 160gr @ 3050fps is almost nothing out to 400yds. Past that the 160gr carry more energy anyway. I can get 3000fps + in my .280 w/ 140gr bullets. Buckshot is right, 160gr bullets & up for the big 7s.

I quit using the 140's as well years ago in the 7Mag. 160's and 175's are the reason to shoot the Mag.

I disagree about using the 160's in the big 7, if you use a 140 at 3250, it shoots considerably flatter than the 160's, and the whole point of the post was to correct the problem of getting 280 velocity out of a big 7, i fixed the problem however,

I went up to 71.5 and averaged 3225 with TBBC's and accubonds, at 72.5, I hit 3350, i did have a slightly sticky bolt but no cratering primer or other pressure signs,

Velocity in a magnum is the most important thing, or i would just shoot my 260 rem. and be done with it, if you have a magnum, you are trying to push the bullet fast, bottom line.

It's quite easy to get 3300 with a 140, and they work very well on deer sized game.

BOmber you can disagree but the facts are the facts. The diff. between 140gr bullet @ 3250fps & 160gr @ 3050fps is about 1" @ 400yds & the 160gr arrives there w/ 100#+ more energy. Even out to 500 the diff. is only 3", most of us can't hold 3" @ 500yds. The reason to shoot a magnum is to push heavier bullets faster than you can in a "standard" cartridge IMO.
I can hit 3000fps in my little 280 w/ 140gr bullets, not far off the 7RM. I can only get to 2800fps w/ 160gr but the 7RM easily hits 3000fps. I agree, if I'm shooting a 7RM I want higher vel. than I can get shooting my .280 but the original design for the 7RM was to push a 175gr bullet as fast as possible.
Scd, please share your easily reached 3300fps load w/ us.

Fred, I use 65gr's of RL-19, a Win case, Nosler 140gr BT, Fed 215 primer, in my 26" barrel it does over 3300. Nosler list's 65.5 as max, and they got 3320 in a 23.5" barrel, Nosler manual #3, page 205. They list RL-22 as even faster, should be able to do 3400 in a 26"

With my 7mm I use H4831sc powder. and my 160gr bullet goes 3070 fps. Of course you have to work up to it as with any powder.

My 175 gr bull goes 2970 FPS with H1000. Thats fast enought for me out of my 7mm

Speed is not everything! Don't shoot a 7Mag, but I
like to use the heaviest bullet possible for the task at hand. With a 7 mag I would use a 175gr for everything. I like the KISS theory.

quote:

if you have a magnum, you are trying to push the bullet fast, bottom line.

speak for yourself

The magnum cartridges were designed to send a greater weight of metal downrange without a sacrifice of velocity.

ballistics are what kills the animal. Velocity is what you brag about around the water cooler.

Put me in the heavy for calibre camp.

Accuracy rules for the simple reason that an accurate rifle has wider error for wind (and anyone who doesn't mention wind really shoots more from a computer keyboard than at ranges past 300 yards).

Say I have a 7mm 160 gr that shoots 3100 fps but shoots groups of 1.5 inches. I have another load that is 2800 fps but shoots .75 inch groups. At 500 yards the faster bullet drifts 1.1 inches per mph of wind; the slower bullet drifts 1.3 inches. However, assuming no "wobble" error in the field, the faster load groups 7.5 inches at best. Assuming our vital area is ten inches, that leaves only 1.25 inches on either side of target for allowable drift before the bullets on the extreme right (asssuming a wind direction of left to right) hit outside the vital area. This means we must estimate the drift to within 1.1 mph or we miss. Now, the slower load shoots a group of 3.75 inches, which gives us 3.1 inches of allowable wind drift before we risk missing. Since the bullet drifts 1.3 inches per mph of wind, that means our allowable wind drift error is 3 mph, or triple that of the faster load.

Years ago I used to load 139 grain Hornadys for deer and got 3127fps with H4831. I load nothing but 175 now as it will work well on deer-elk. I get about 2800 with a load of RL22 and that is about as fast as I try to push it. I have two rifles and they both shoot the load very well. I can't understand why anyone would want a mag with a barrel shorter than 24 inches, though, unless they like pyrotechnics. You need barrel to burn the additional powder.

7mm Rem Mags in particular and 7mm's in general have always seemed to be a little more varied than most other calibers I shoot. I've had the same load shoot a couple hundred fps different between 2 different rifles, and the faster one had a shorter barrel! I've also had another 7mm shoot to listed velocities with under the listed starting loads for the caliber.
I suspect that it's because there's more than normal variance in bore diameters of 7mm barrels than is common in other calibers. One of these days I'm going to get real industrious and slug and mic a bunch of different barrels to see if this hypothesis holds water. I'm hoping someone else beats me too it though..................DJ

I have two Savages and I know for a fact that one barrel is sloppier than the other.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Accuracy rules for the simple reason that an accurate rifle has wider error for wind (and anyone who doesn't mention wind really shoots more from a computer keyboard than at ranges past 300 yards).

Say I have a 7mm 160 gr that shoots 3100 fps but shoots groups of 1.5 inches. I have another load that is 2800 fps but shoots .75 inch groups. At 500 yards the faster bullet drifts 1.1 inches per mph of wind; the slower bullet drifts 1.3 inches. However, assuming no "wobble" error in the field, the faster load groups 7.5 inches at best. Assuming our vital area is ten inches, that leaves only 1.25 inches on either side of target for allowable drift before the bullets on the extreme right (asssuming a wind direction of left to right) hit outside the vital area. This means we must estimate the drift to within 1.1 mph or we miss. Now, the slower load shoots a group of 3.75 inches, which gives us 3.1 inches of allowable wind drift before we risk missing. Since the bullet drifts 1.3 inches per mph of wind, that means our allowable wind drift error is 3 mph, or triple that of the faster load.

You left out the lower time of flight for the faster bullet, if the animal moves, it will have less effect on the faster bullet, also you didn't take into account less bullet drop, and higher energy level. Remember, "Speed Kills"

Among the 20 odd calibers I reload, the data available for a 7 Rem Mag is the most frustrating and varied of them all. The most recent Hodgdon (Annual) manual loads the cartridge below that of the new 7mm Short Mag; and just about all the reloading manuals load it 100 to 200fps below the 7mm Weatherby. The pressure data from many of the bullet and powder manufactures puts it in the class with a .280 while showing other 7mm's mags always higher. (It's no wonder that Ackley fans think their .280AI's are the equal of the Rem Mag.) I've seen in print "gun scribes" alluding to problems related to "pressure excursions", various chamber dimensions, case design, and "hocus pocus" explainations as to why one should not load the 7mm Rem Mag to max. I've often wondered how an obviously effective "world" cartridge could have possibly survived such poor "press" when the same cartridge case is used by the .264 Win Mag and is in "necked-up" form in the .338 Win Mag and .458 Win Mag. Why does these other cartidges not suffer the same pressure excursions or design problems? "Wildcatters" have be "necking" cartridges up and down for generations without reporting "spikes" caused by case design (powders and bullets, yes). Granted, the "big 7" is overbored (like a lot of other "hot rods", including the Weatherby's). The biggest problem they seemed to have with "overbored" cartridges were designing bullets that would stay together at the higher muzzel velocities they reached. I agree with Pop, that as long as you can reach the velocity published even though it is "over max" and no "pressure signs" (sticky bolt would make me back off), I'd consider it "safe" in "my rifle". I routinely load 1 to 2 grains over max with IMR7828 and RL22 with 160 and 175gr bullets and the cases last many (10 or more) times before I must discard them. (I do use the shoulder to size the case rather than the belt.) I also agree that using bullet weights of less than 160gr "seems" to be a waste; however, it is probably because if I don't need the extra weight and "power" of the Mag, I'd rather shoot a .270 Win that is lighter, kicks less, and is just as effective at normal ranges on deer size animals (300 yards or less). If the Big 7 is your "main gun" and you use it for most of your shooting, It is a versatile caliber. It is one of the few magnums I have owned (mine is a Vanguard) that seems to shoot most bullets (140 to 175) as accurately at the "starting" loads published as it does when loaded to "max". I guess that is one of the main reasons I can't seem to "part" with it, plus it is so darn accurate. Sorry for the long post; IMHO I've always thought, in recent times, this fine caliber has been treated unfairly while at the same time the "press" is praising some new "beltless" wonder that in reality can do no more. Mags

Good post, Mags. My own experience shows that my rifles shoot virtually all sizes of bullets very well and one thin that you must remember also is that the 7mm bullets are very ballistically sound. Whether it is a 140 grainer at 3100+, or a 175 at 2800+, the 7 mag will kill very efficiently at whatever range you are good enough to shoot. My rifles both approach the book velocities very easily.

quote:

Originally posted by ScudRunner:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Accuracy rules for the simple reason that an accurate rifle has wider error for wind (and anyone who doesn't mention wind really shoots more from a computer keyboard than at ranges past 300 yards).

Say I have a 7mm 160 gr that shoots 3100 fps but shoots groups of 1.5 inches. I have another load that is 2800 fps but shoots .75 inch groups. At 500 yards the faster bullet drifts 1.1 inches per mph of wind; the slower bullet drifts 1.3 inches. However, assuming no "wobble" error in the field, the faster load groups 7.5 inches at best. Assuming our vital area is ten inches, that leaves only 1.25 inches on either side of target for allowable drift before the bullets on the extreme right (asssuming a wind direction of left to right) hit outside the vital area. This means we must estimate the drift to within 1.1 mph or we miss. Now, the slower load shoots a group of 3.75 inches, which gives us 3.1 inches of allowable wind drift before we risk missing. Since the bullet drifts 1.3 inches per mph of wind, that means our allowable wind drift error is 3 mph, or triple that of the faster load.

You left out the lower time of flight for the faster bullet, if the animal moves, it will have less effect on the faster bullet, also you didn't take into account less bullet drop, and higher energy level. Remember, "Speed Kills"

ScudRunner:

The time of flight difference is less than a tenth of a second. If time of flight is concern, however, then you might as well not even shoot past 300 yards, because nearly all bullets have a TOF greater than a half second at 500 yards and beyond.

Less bullet drop is a non-issue with rangefinders. At long range you have to compensate for drop no matter what the velocity.

Speed causes misses if it comes at the expense of accuracy. Pure and simple. I would suggest that if you look at the opinions posted here you will find those that agree with me have vastly more hunting (and probably competitive shooting experience to boot) than those in the velocity crowd.

Velocity is King, if it wasn't we would all be hunting with a 45-70

I agree that "speed" is the "raison detere" of magnum shooting.

Of course the resident members of the "heavy bullet mafia" fail to consider that with 175gr bullets a 7mm Mag is only an especially noisy 30-06, because there is nothing that a 7mmMag can do with 160's that cannot be done with a
30-06 and FACTORY ammo.

So if there is no point to "fast and flat" 140's in the 7mmMag I'll counter and say
that by their arguement there is no point to the 7mmMag and (by extension) any other mag is
equally pointless...

Not that I agree with that idea, but I own both a 7mmMag and a 30-06 and each serves it's distinct purpose.

I didn't buy a 7mmMag to toss 160 or 175gr bullets, I have several 30cal rifles as well
as a 338Mag that do a FAR better job of tossing heavier projectiles.

Frankly I'd like someone to show me one of these bulletproof elk or deer.

BTW, I AM a good enough shot to take advantage of the extra range provided by a flat trajectory
and all the big game "experts" who think that it doesn't make a difference should spend more time shooting at baseball sized targets (a woodchuck's head) at 400 and 500 yards until they unlearn what they THINK they know.

I also own a 45-70 and it too has it's place.

Now as to the specific issue raised in the first question, what primer is being used? I ask because when I started working with RL22
I saw some ignition related issues that were caused by different primers.
I eventually settled on using ONLY Magnum primers with RL22, as the dual base composition
of RL22 makes it every bit as hard to light
as any other of the slow propellants.

AllanD

quote:

Originally posted by ScudRunner:
Velocity is King, if it wasn't we would all be hunting with a 45-70

ScudRunner:

So let me ask this question: what would you rather have, a rifle that shoots 20 inch groups at 500 yards with a MV of 5000 fps or a rifle that shoots 5 inch groups at 500 with a MV of 2600 fps? Which choice do you think most competitive shooters would take?

Alan: You can't hit that woodchuck if the rifle used isn't accurate. I am not saying velocity is not important, but if it means less accuracy, forget it.

BTW, I practice at 3 inch circles at 700 yards shooting sitting. I don't stand a chance at hitting that circle if my rifle doesn't shoot 1/2 moa.

If speed kills, why stop at the 7RemMag? They do make a 7mm STW and the 7RUM. Speed is but a single factor in the killing equation; as is bullet mass. The arguement here seems to stem not over which is needed, but over which is needed most. As with all things in life, the balance is what matters. The Mass versus Velocity balancing act is different for alot of shooters and each side has valid points. That is the reason we have various bullet weights and cartridges. If you want max speed, so be it and the same to the crowd wanting maximum mass. I fall into the category likes bullets with a sectional density of approximatley .250-.300 chugging downrange at muzzle velocities of 2600-3000fps. I have a few reason for this preference, unless there is some mitigating circumstance to consider. Reasoning one: today's bullet designs when pushed at these velocities perform much better at the normal hunting ranges; say point blank to 300 yards or so. Can bullets stand up to higher velocities? Yes, but, when pushed at hypervelocities, bullets start riding the razor's edge that seperates success from failure. Reasoning Two: Most hunters won't be able to use the trajectory difference to their advantage, even at ranges approaching 500 yards. What I am saying is that medium weight bullets of the same design as a light for caliber projectile will have a higher BC and therefore, at extreme ranges, hold there own well against the light bullets when comparing energy and trajectory figures. This has been alluded to by several posters already. Reasoning Three: This one is personal opinion based purely on what I expect for the performance hunting bullets I use. I want a bullet to open up well and then penetrate completely on the intended game, no matter what the angle the bullet needed to reach the vitals. I like to have an exit wound to hopefully aid me in any tracking that might be neccesary. In the end though, all the above boils down to personal preference and if a fellow hunter wishes to use light for caliber bullets I say "To each their own". However you wish to utilize your magnum is your choice. Having concluded my rant, if you are having a sticky bolt at the velocity goal you have for a certain weight bullet, why don't you try another brand of bullet and see if it helps? Maybe a bullet such as the Barnes MRX or TSX may help you get a little less pressure and and allow you to keep near the velocity level you desire. That being said, if you are having pressure indications now, they may get worse in the warmer months...depending on where you are shooting. Just some thoughts, I hope no one takes my opinions as criticisms of their personal choice. GoodLuck & GoodHunting