Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Brian Pearce, Pet Loadds, 28 Nosler

Anybody else read this article yet in August Handloader?

Pretty informative and well written. Lots of good data!

I seriously do not mean to denigrate Mr Pearce. I love all of his articles and greatly respect his writing. Besides, he is a next door neighbor!

I am curious about Brian's statement that the 28 Nosler was capable of greater velocity than the 7mm RUM. The RUM has obviously greater internal volume.

The RUM ammo would have to be loaded to lower pressure levels.

Did the factory or reloading labs find pressure issues as they approached maximum in the 7mm RUM?

Once a 7mm cartridge hits the rarified atmosphere of 3200+ fps with a 160 gr bullet, it becomes a pretty moot point that something else may beat it by 50-100 fps.

Before I'd look for more speed with the bullet, I'd go heavier in bullet weight.

A shooter will never notice the difference and neither will the animals.

But I understand the urge to talk about it.......

That statement raised my eyebrow a bit too.

The On-line data has some different powders for the 28 that weren't listed for the 7 RUM. Not sure why

I never loaded for the 7RUM, but briefly owned one, and I read many reports of unexpected high pressure spikes occurring with relatively small changes in loads with the round. I recall one gun writer declaring the round to be dangerous. It is one of the reasons I did not have the rifle for long (the other reason was brass availability).

So maybe the 7RUM loads have been backed off a bit?

Owned and loaded for a 7mm RUM. IMO it is finicky and the powders that are suitable for it is limited. Using a bunch more powder for not a big gain in velocity over the 7mm STW or 7mm Dakota.

7mm RM's are plentiful on the used market as are 270's and 243's. It would seem easy to rechamber to a 7mmSTW or a 28 Nosler but as others pointed out getting the 28 to feed might be an issue. So to me the closest competitor to the 28 is the STW. That is if a person were to go cheap and rechamber the Remington, of course that would mean using a 700 or other long action.

Brian's article mentioned 101.4 gr water capacity for the 28 Nosler.

I filled and weighed ten fireformed cases for my STW tonight. They averaged 99.5 gr water capacity.

Were I so inclined it would be pretty easy to rebarrel my STW. No feeding issues involvedwih a Ruger #1.

Possibly, if I had an RUM action lying around, I would consider putting a 28 Nosler barrel on it. But I don't think I would want to deal with the issues of making the 28 feed through a model 70 or 700 originally built for 7RM.

The perfect 7mm cartridge I have always wished for would be a 28-375 Ruger. It would run with the Mashburn/STW/Dakota crowd, be an easy rechamber for any 7mm RM, and feed through any action built for belted mags.

Nosler case capacities are listed as :

7mm STW 90.6 Gr Water
28 Nosler 92.5 Gr
7mm RUM 103.9 Gr

Not sure how they measure that, but all 3 are from the same source

I have to agree that a 28-375 would be sweet. No magazine issues.

The 28/375 Ruger already exists in the form of the Gunwerks cartridge( Is that the LRM or LRH? I forget and lose track).

Point of fact is I don't think that cartridge is very much different from the 7mm Dakota except for head size. We keep bumping into new inventions of the same thing.

The Nosler loading data shows case capacity with bullets seated so useable case capacity varies with bullet weight.

It's been known for quite a few decades that once you get much beyond 7mm Dakota/ 7mm Mashburn case capacity, you run squarely into diminishing returns. I notice the velocities of the Mashburn and Dakota don't vary greatly from those shown for the Nosler, but overall the Nosler seems to definitely be the faster cartridge from a 26" barrel and at the expense of more powder.

Doubt it matters which one we use. Brass should be easy with the Nosler.

Yes, I misremembered what I read yesterday. Brian quotes 101.4 gr for the Nosler filled full to the top of the case neck. That is the same way I filled the STW, as much as I could get into he case.

So in actuality, we are only talking about 2% difference in capacity which gives 1/2% difference in velocity.

Brian's velocities from an almost identical case are reminiscent of Layne Simpson's original write ups on the STW.

Perhaps those of us who have settled for 3200 fps wih a 160 in the STW are leaving some performance on the table.

Yes, Bob.

Diminishing returns bites us right in the butt. The 264 Win is the break over point, in my mind, with the 6.5. And the bench rest boys hit the wall in 7mm years ago with the 7mm-300 Wea. Which has since been reinvented half a dozen times with slightly differing dimensions.

Idaho I used the 7 rem Mag a lot but always regarded 3200 fps with a 160,and 3000+ with 175 as "real" 7mm magnum performance. Not that it ever really mattered but I liked the numbers.

100 fps either way doesn't mean chit in the real world of shooting and hunting

I absolutely agree. My STW was loaded a bit hotter in the first couple years during the exploration phase. But I discovered it worked really well at 3200 with the 160.

The crack about "performance on the table" was totally tongue in cheek. Guess I should have looked for one of those little emoti guys.

Ken Waters calculated case capacity by filling with water up to the shoulder/neck junction.

That makes more sense than filling with water to the top of the case neck. After all, the bullet has to go somewhere ... and that's in the neck.

kd

Yeah...that's true. I never worried about it.

Mostly because seating depth varies so much between bullets and often times my throats have been set up so the base of the bullet is entirely within the neck of the case.

Of course some magazines don't allow it.