Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 7mm-08 to 7x57 comparison

I had planned to use 140s pretty much exclusively, but I bought a bunch of Hornady 154s factory seconds. They group at about an inch and so far, I've killed two deer with two shots from them, so I can't really see why I shouldnt't use them.

First of all, please understand that I do not intend to "flame" anyone. There is too much of that already.

Many folks load over published maximums in the 7x57. The problem is we are in uncharted waters as there is no reliable published pressure data. This begs the question, "What is maximum?" We cannot go by velocity because the loads are not published. The loads shown here are about the same velocity as Hodgdon's published maximum loads for the 280 Remington, but the 7x57 case is smaller than the 280. I can only assume that this means the pressure is higher than the published maximum 280 loads.

My working maximum loads are aboout 10% lower than the ones listed here. Maybe some here think I am too conservative. Doubtless, I am more conservative than some folks, but I assure you that all the animals I have killed and targets I have perforated didn't care, and I still have all my body parts after 35 years of handloading for more guns and calibers than I can remember. Stretching a rifle to it's absolute maximum potential accomplishes nothing positive. If one needs more power than can be safely produced by a given non-magnum caliber, one should buy a rifle in a magnum caliber.

To answer your question, no, I have not shot these loads. During my load development, I arrived at maximum pressures well below the level of all these loads, so I stopped increasing.

-

True, but the guidelines for those 139 grain and 140 grain loads comes from the article written by John Barsness. He said that getting over 2900 from a modern rifle was no trick with that bullet and that one should be safe in that range.

I don't believe in turning a 7x57 into a 7mm Magnum, but it is a wonderful cartridge that can get you very close to what is possible with .280 with less recoil and significantly less muzzle blast. I hate muzzle blast and that is one reason I like the 7x57 and the 6.5x55 so much.

I didn't take it as a flame.

Hodgdon's data on most all calibers is usually on the conservative side. For the .280 it's down right anemic due to Hodgdon's conservative loading combined with SAAMI MAP being low for the .280Rem. The comparison, like you hinted at, is faulty as well, because all published data for the 7x57, for liability reasons due to the plethora of old firearms out there, is likewise anemic. In comparing case capacity of the 7-08, the 7x57, and the .280...the 7x57 should, with proper powder selection, be able to run 139s/140s at around 2900-2950 at around 60K psi. I have a pretty good bit of data my father compiled loading numerous 139s/140s in my brothers M77, all running 2900 right up to 3000fps with no problems, but then like you say there's no way to know the pressures . Somebody that wants to run a Quickload on it may can give a more precise prediction if they're so inclined.

Mule Deer in his 7x57 article last year suggested a max velocity of 2900 for 140s, and 2700 for 160s. 2797 for a 160, by comparison, would be warm but not nuclear IMO.

I agree.

And he specifically stated that the 139 grain Hornady was a very fast bullet and better than 2900 could be expected.

Yep, and likewise, due to it's shorter bearing surface, it's the fastest of all the 139/140 class bullets I've ever found to shoot in my .280Rem.

I have run the 7x57 with 139-140's at 3000 fps and 160's at 2800 fps in a long throated Ruger. I have a pressure trace and had used these loads for probably 20 years here in 100 degree weather before I tested them. They show 64000 psi, case life is almost forever, but it is a warm load only used in Win. cases and in a long throated rifle. There is probably no difference in effective case capacity between a long throated 7x57 and a short throated .280. That said, I have also had 7x57's that would show 200 fps more velocity than this one with the same loads. That is the reason for the wide variation in loads for this caliber.

64K psi, while warm, shouldn't give any modern firearm any problems.

Got a good 7x57 story. I was in northern NY Adirondacks hunting at my camp private club 9000 acre lease. Anyway was out w/ my 7x57 Ruger # RSI and took a good fall, hit the scope. Just to be sure I went to club gravel pit to fire a few. Bunch a guys there looking funny at my Mannlicher stock, short stubby gun. So I shot a few w/ my handloads still right on. One guy comes over and says hey what gun is that. Told him Ruger # 1 7x57. He said, Never heard of that one, but if I were you I'd get rid of it because that gun doesn't sound loud enough to kill a deer". I laughed thinking he was joking, but by his reaction I new he was totally clueless. True story, no BS! Anyway have owned both calibers and shot numerous white tails w/ them. I do enjoy the 7x57 for its history. I also enjoy my Swede too. All great calibers for handloading, hunting, and target shooting.

#5,

#2 be a fearin them proof loads sumthin mighty.

I'll just happily putter along somewheres in mid 29's out of my stubby Shillelagh and shoot up these 120gr TSX's I have laying around.

GE

Closed circuit to #5: This thread is the REAL reason 280's are better than 270's ... the same boolits are on hand to play with 7mm08's and 275 Rigby's ... Viva 7mm Express Death Cult! (and the derivatives: 7mm Paradise Death Cult, 7mm International Death Cult, etc ...)

7mmEDC #2

BOOYAH!

#5

I have tried the first load with the 139 grain Hornady in a couple of 7x57s,worked fine for me. One of them was a custom Mauser that I sold to Jim Parsons,the husband of the lady who killed all those critters with her 7x57.

The thought that it would be unsafe in the super tough Ruger 77s with their long throats and safe in a Mauser 98 with a shorter throat doesn't add up to me. Have you actually tried working up to this load? I bet you can safely get there. It is actually listed(I think) in the old second edition Hornady manual where it was tested in their Ruger M77.

The 7x57 is a lttle like the 45-70 in that published data varies a great deal in pressures and velocity. You have to look to older sources like the second edition Hornady to get loads that give top velocity in stong actions like the Ruger,many modern manuals ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE becase of antique actions like the old Remington rolling block which were chambered in 7x57 before 1900.

Britt

What was the year/month of the JB article on the 7 x 57?

Handloader Apr/May 2007.

Good Stuff.

GE

Thanks :-)

I understand that published data for the 7x57 is held to lower pressures than modern arms are capable of handling. But when we load above the level of tested data, we are on our own. Given that, there is no folly in being careful, or even conservative. I prefer to avoid dangerous ground. Life holds enough challenges without adding blindness or lack of other body parts. I do not feel challenged or threatened when someone else's handloaded ammunition exhibits higher velocity than my own. It is no trick to load ammunition too hot. I believe my loads to be at the top end of safe, and I will never encourage anyone to exceed them. In fact, I will not tell you my loads because they too are above published data and may not actually be safe, especially in someone else's gun. One load that I thought to be safe in one of my 7x57s proved to be an overload in another, causing difficult bolt lift and the primer to be very loose. But I will say that I have worked-up loads with the same powders and weights of bullets discussed in this thread, and I reached maximum pressure (about 60kpsi) by all indications well before reaching the loads listed in this thread.

We all make our choices. Good luck to you.

-

So...where published in any reloading manual is there reliable data that would allow the 7x57 to perform as it should perform in modern firearms like the CZ or Ruger? To me its wonderful that people have produced 2900 fps etc, but as a cautious reloader I like to have reliable data that tells me where I need to stop. I don't think that anyone wants to make the 7 x 57 into a 7mm Rem Mag, but it would be nice to have data that allows the cartridge to perform in what you might consider to be a more reasonable range given modern firearm steels and designs.

Jimmy,

Unfortunately there is no easy answer. Books and Articles entitled "Overloading the 7x57/7mm Mauser/.275 Rigby to 65K PSI" aren't there.

I treat "modern pressure metrics" (7x57 and 6.5x55 in my case) like wildcats. I use Quickload and check the estimated velocities and pressures against known loads and book data for cartridges of similar capacity in the same caliber. Application of JB's "Rule of 1/4" and testing with a chrony provides a sound reality check for load development.

If you don't want to play ballistic pioneer, that is totally understandable. Either kill LOTS of things with the 7x57 loads that equal factory performance OR shoot a 270, the passe' round whose performance we are all trying to equal with our 6.5's and 7's in the first place.

GE
7mmEDC #2

The text in my Speer manual #13 states that their listed maximum loads for the 7x57 are only to be fired in modern firearms or Mauser 98s in good condition (their test rifle was a Ruger M77). They also say to NOT fire the maximum loads in Mauser 93s and 95s, and not to exceed the starting loads in those rifles. IIRC, it says the industry maximum pressure for the 7x57 is 46kCUP, whereas their maximum listed loads operate at a maximum of 50kCUP. Is this not modern loading data? The loads purported previously in this thread are WAY above the maximum loads in Speer #13. I may exceed Speer's maximum 7x57 loads a little bit in my modern Ruger rifles, but not to the level purported in this thread.

-