quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
There is IMO a huge difference !

And here it is:

THE LEED DIMENSION of the 7x57 allows for the seating and shooting of 175 gr bullets without significant compromise of the combustion chamber volume 19.2mm vs 5.24 mm of the 7-08. The 7x08 was never designed to be a "true" 175 gr bullet shooter, its more a 130 and 140 gr shooter.

So the reality is that the 7-08 with it's 52 plus minus gr case capacity is on par with the 55 gr capacity 7x57 on light 7mm bullets but when it comes to the 175 gr bullet the 57 has the 08 beat !

Alf, you make so much sense!

I basically like any family of cartridges that are older than I am and I’m almost 60.
As far as I’m considered if a cartridge is not based on a Xx57, Xx62, X-06, a H&H, or a Weatherby cases they are also rans.

Dang, I thought the discussion was 7-08 versus 7x57, not "trot out your knowledge of obscure cartridges that were complete failures in the marketplace or that never made it there".

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
Hmmmm, 7mm IHMSA 110gr 6.5 mm would lose too much BC IMHO and be going backwards for long range work. but a 110 would be low on BC and sacrifice long range potential.....

Beyond 300 yards I could not agree with you more.

Deadly Accurate shooting beyond that (Sniper Plus) Dictates another and more potent round. One of our military's biggest failings is trying to do everything with the same cartridge and a lot of nodding heads contributing to the nonsense.Sadly the US Military has had an aversion to copy what is good because it did not adhere to the "it was created here" policy. I wonder what Forest Gump would have to say about that box of candy? roger

Bartsche, yes the military wants to 're-invent the wheel' and get credit for what we do, the leg work, just like Big Green had someone from corporate years ago snooping around at a benchshoot asking an older retired BR shooter/friend of mine about what they were using and how to improve upon it, wholla, the 6BR was invented based on the info he got .......so......yes, there are many overlaps and new developments 'just because' and being more a hunter and not infantry man I appreciate the longer range potential, albeit in an efficient package, shooting bullets of good BC, not necessarily ULTRA high, but not opposite either. That said, the 6.8 likely holds its own w/in shorter distances, yet fact remains do to simplicity in inventory, etc. that the military would prefer NOT to have 1/2 dozen - dozen chamberings to manage logistics of ammo distribution.

A modest sized 6-7mm in good BC bullet loadings IMHO would do better than the 223 and as good or better in many respects as a 308, giving flatter than '08 trajectory, and lesser weight/bulk, yet substantially improved one shot stopping power then a 223 that would save lives, function well in autos as well as doubling in sniper bolt platforms. Never a one size does every job best, but a round in-between the 223 and 308 could do both 'double duty' very well I believe. Hmmm 22 + 30 = 52/2= 26 cal, split the difference? Now powder capacity......in the middle would be what? 42-45 grains I am guessing? Even the 6.5x47 Lapua is using around 39-40 grains......wholla.....I think the 6.5x47 lapua or something very similar would be great.

Seriously, just shorten a 260 Remington (sorry folks I hate to use that word), let's say instead, take the 6.5/308 and split the difference between the 308 and the BR case, use the modest shoulder slope of 20 degrees for function, having case capacity of about 40 grains loaded under a 130-142 grain bullet, a 123 open tip MKHP would be just fine for shorter range semi/auto firing weapons used up close.

SO, what would that be????? a 6.5/308 SHORT. That is my proposal for the military, make it perhaps 5 grains less than a 260, shortening the case, bringing shoulder further rear, yet leaving a case neck length about like a 6.5x55 in length for added neck tension/alignment.

NOW, that is what I call a round that can get it done well, as the 260 is a tad more than needed in 90% of the situations, and w/long bullets loaded to proper action length restrictions, a SHORT version would not have a bullet encroach on powder space.

Actually on another forum, a guy there took a 260 bbl, made a 260 'short' on a Mex. mauser. Ballistics right there w/BR case - 6.5x47 or thereabouts. It would offer more than a 6.5 Grendel, the 6.5 RLB, and the 6.8 SPC for sure, and a HECK of a lot better stopper IMHO than any 22 cal round short of a 22/250/swift (both bbl burners).........AND the above round would/should be good for 4-5K bbl life.

Just a thought for the day. I'll be sitting by my mailbox for royalty checks from Uncle Sam for my 'invention' of the next military round! Ha.

Gee, it JUST hit me, (HA!) how about we make something for the military that looks REAL close to the 6.5/250 wildcat? NOW we are talking......Wait seems Jim Carmichael did that one, the 'bobcat' like the 'Panther' or 6.5/308 aka 260 that he/editors reported he 'invented' but didn't PO ACKLEYS book (30-40 years earlier?) have one called the 263 Waters Express or something like that.....my mind is fading in my mid life...

Hmmmmm, history lost again. Heck why reinvent the wheel huh? Maybe just a 6.5x55 "SHORT" would do (using USA made brass 308 rim size of course as some do now), down to about 45mm length, named the 6.5x45, unless you wanted to do a 6.5x46 or 6.5x47, whatever sounds better, the slightly sharper shoulder would likely feed fine, yet enhance performance per grain of powder burned. I say 46mm, the Swiss have a 6x47, and Lapua the 6.5x47, and we had a 6x45 and 6x47 in the past in the USA, SO I vote 6.5x46 (with my name on the end of it of course!)

NOW we are evolving.......after over 100 years.

Ok, sorry to get offtrack on military rounds, what do you think Bartshe?

Don't ya love it when someone says the shorter action of the 7-08 is devining difference..Now that amounts to less than 1/4 of an inch bolt toss...Anyone that can't handle that cannot chew gum and walk at the same time and most .308 cased rounds are built on std. actions with a magazine block..

C'mon, lets get down to brass tacks and facts and toss all this therory out the window, but then what in the world would we talk about because all this gun stuff IS mostly opine and therory and in the end makes not one iota of difference, .
Oh Lord, I think I just broke the holy grail!! No need to reply with cursing and admonishment I done gone

Funny you say that Grenadier, all the rounds from 6BR, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5x47L, etc. make me think, Hmmmmmm someone long ago made the 'smaller mid sized' 6.5's that were 'not big enough' and looked over......the carcano, jap, MS, etc. I think in a good rifle, with good loads, they have potential to be very useful, and Lord knows the record of the 54mm M-S....impressive. Good point, thanks.

Now to comments 'nay say' on short actions, I can see how you say that, and yes, there is VERY little difference in bolt length, but when I work a short actioned 700 or model 7 (tad shorter bolt-though similar/same sized mag box) I LIKE the feel and the bolt does not nearly hit my eye when leaving the head down on the stock when working the action, like a long action tends to do.......I just PREFER, so it's more of a personal preference.

I honestly believe (yes, my opinion) that there are MANY short actioned rounds, that give similar performance of longer action 'parent' rounds. A 350 Rem Mag for instance is NEARLY what a 35 whelen is if properly done/loaded, some say identical. I have used a 7/08 EXTENSIVELY pushing 140's at 2900-2960 in 21, yes Twenty ONE inch tubes which rival 280 loads that most use. SO, I LIKE what I have/get in short actions, and feel I give up little, In THE rounds I personally use.

Now if I lived in AK and wanted ONE rifle to do it all, it would likely be a 338 Win Mag if I did not reload, or a 338/06 if I were loading. Rather the 5 rounds in the latter, and the lesser recoil, but a WM get's it done, no frills. Since I live where no bear, elk, or buffalo roam, My choice is different than yours/others. I say a short actioned rifle leaves nothing to be desired on much game w/in 300-400 yds, depending on cal. chosen. Thinking back when the 350 Rem Mag hit the scene, Cape Buffalo were dropped on the spot with 275gr Speer GS-tungsten core IIRC, but NO lack of power was seen is my point, and anything, and I do mean anything w/in say 300 yds, in North America is not going far afer hit with that round. I cannot imagine a 338 win mag, nor 30/06, etc. killing any more positively than that 350, on BIG game. Nothing against someone using/liking a long action, but for some/many applications, they either are not needed, nor offer a substantial improvement IMHO. Again, My opinion. The fact of their success speaks to the demand for what they offer, successful performance in rifles many prefer using over larger heavier guns.

As to magazine blocks, if that is single shot follower block to fill in mag well making a repeater a single shot? I don't agree, and had a slick feeding 7BR built on a factory Model 7, custom barreled, and if you shot that rifle, it might be reminicent of your 6x45 Sako L469, Sweet.

For the record, I do like, have used, and will perhaps use again certain long actioned rounds, for ltd. applications. I just sold 2 Colt Light Rifles in 7mm Mag, NIB, but I tell you THOSE 24" sporter tubes on a lighter action, in a stock that felt right, made you THINK you were holding a short actioned rifle. They were truly some of the best balanced/feeling/proportioned rifles I have handled, and ESP. given the fact they are long actioned. I am sure if others handled a 'right balanced' long action, their perception of long action rifles fit/feel/weight would change. Maybe the industry needs to go that direction for many/most long action guns.....save the real brutal recoiling African game size chambered rifles the largest big bores come in.

Had my Colt LR been in a 338/06 I'd likely never sold it. Just never was a belted mag fan, but the 7RM HAS a proven track record, yet I do far more shooting on paper, and that rifle would never have gotten as much use, out of the recoil and blast they produce. The guy who bought it....said it's going to Africa this week I believe, and he will be well served. Me, I'd been happy with a quality 260-708, but a NICE 7x57 on a gun auction recently caught my eye, great wood, but the price climbed out of sight......I was tempted before then.

Personal choice, that's all. I for one am very happy to have choices in guns and cartridges.

Ray, You have spoken the truth. Just goes to show how emotional some of us gun nuts are about which ever beloved jewel is shining in our eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
There is IMO a huge difference !

And here it is:

THE LEED DIMENSION of the 7x57 allows for the seating and shooting of 175 gr bullets without significant compromise of the combustion chamber volume 19.2mm vs 5.24 mm of the 7-08. The 7x08 was never designed to be a "true" 175 gr bullet shooter, its more a 130 and 140 gr shooter.

So the reality is that the 7-08 with it's 52 plus minus gr case capacity is on par with the 55 gr capacity 7x57 on light 7mm bullets but when it comes to the 175 gr bullet the 57 has the 08 beat !

Not only has the 7x57 a longer free-bore than the 7mm-08 to accomodate the longer 175 grain bullets, but it also has a faster twist rate of 1-in-8.66" vs 1-in-1.95" to be able to stabilize the longer 175 gr bullets. The 7x57 was originally designed to shoot 173 grain bullets, wheras the 7mm-08 is clearly not designed for shooting the heavier bullets. That is why Remington only offers 120 & 140 grain factory loaded ammo.

Warrior

I beg to differ the logic in the RP offering of 120/140 grain, at the time, it was slated as a deer round, and also was put in the varmint special 700, whereas a few people perhaps used it on coyotes and the like, but the round INITIALLY was used in Silhouette competition to 500 yds, where MANY a 700 varmint specials were used w/168's, so how it is deemed too slow a twist.....well, true the 7x57 twist was made to handle the heavies, and I'd strongly believe that the loads in those days were somewhat slower then what we have today, and spin rate 'aka- RPM"s ' are influenced by forward speed as well as rotational speed.

Here is a review of the 175 grain Sierra Matchking:

Reviews displayed for:
Sierra MatchKing Bullets 7mm (284 Diameter) 175 Grain Hollow Point Boat Tail Box of 100

anthony garguilo of staten island, NY
Rating:
Date Posted: 10/17/2004

Review:
ACCURATE BULLET SHOOTS GREAT IN MY 708. WILL BE MY SILHOUETTE HIGH POWER RAM LOAD 500 METERS


Now I would say it's 50/50 either the gun in question is either a factory rifle with 9 1/2 twist, or what most custom barrels have, a 9 twist, either way, I'd bet a 7/08 w/24" barrel as the Varmint specials were made will handle 175's, and I know the 160 class do fine in sporter length barrels.

140 grain 7mm can be stabilized in 10" and I believe someone on the board had a 1 in 11" twist in a 7/08 AI on a Sako action for using only up thru 140s for deer. Yes the leade and the twists are different, but the 7/08 will do more than most realize.

180 grain load here, .674 3 shot 100 yds...

Load 2637 in caliber 7mm-08 Remington

LoadID 2637
Bullet Berger
BulletWeight 180 grs
Powder Alliant Reloader 19
PowderWeight 47 grs
Primer RWS
Brass Make Remington
Barrel Length 24 (inches)
C.O.L (inches)
Velocity 2466 fps
Group 0.674 (inches by 3 shot at 100 yds)
Submitted Date 4/2/2002 2:25:00 AM

http://www.reloadersnest.com/detail.asp?CaliberID=43&Bu...ight=180&LoadID=2637

Yes, IF one intends/wishes to run 175 class bullets in either and thru the magazine, a 7x57 may have an advantage of not encroaching powder space.

FWIW, I sold a 7mag rifle recently to a chap going to Africa, his plains load, 140 barnes tsx, all he shoots and it works well it seems. Lots of nostalgia w/classic rounds and heavies, but newer high tech bullets from the same cases can stretch trajectory and get the job done well when they arrive.