Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 7x57

I'm always on the look out for a Ruger No 1 International in 7X57. They just seem "right". Judging by some of the pics, I'm not alone!

I have a Classic in 7x57, it is still a good looking rifle after decades of hunting with it.

Agree.

Same w/ a few other cartridges as well.

Almost tribal.




GR

Two things are behind my thoughts on both chamber redesign and increased pressure.

First, with respect to the chamber, it seems to be common thinking that the reason most 7x57s shoot heavier, i.e. longer, bullets better than shorter/lighter ones is because of the long throat. Knowing that the CM/PRC line of cartridges also have long throats (designed for longer bullets) but also generally shoot lighter, i.e., shorter, bullets equally well, I began to suspect that something else must be going on; so what I did was make a comparison chart between the throats/leades of SAAMI CM/PRC cartridges and the 7x57. I also threw in the .284 Winchester since it seems to be making a comeback in F-Class shooting. The results are telling: it isn't the length of the throat that seems to be at issue as much as it is the diameter. All of the CM/PRC chambers have diameters at either .0005 or .0006 inches above bullet diameter. This undoubtedly keeps principal axis tilt to a minimum. The 7x57, on the other hand, is .0062 or .0063 inches above bullet diameter, quite a bit of difference. Also, the geometry of the throat/leade is considerably different; so in my mind, perhaps it is more of an issue of throat/leade design that makes the 7x57 - in general, I know there are individual exceptions - generally shoot better with longer projectiles than with shorter ones. I expect the only real way to test this would be to have a 7x57 barreled using both a tighter twist and a CM/PRC spec chamber and compare results over an array of bullet lengths. BTW, my guess is that the guys using the .284 Winchester aren't using a SAAMI chamber in competition, but I don't know anyone who shoots one, so haven't been able to ask.

Second, with respect to pressure, on another thread Mathman explained to me how increased pressures might hypothetically be determined using careful handloading and keeping a close eye on a chronograph. Ironically, using his formula, the numbers I came up with for different bullet weights are the same as those Mule Deer came up with when determining what he believes are safe maximum velocities. I have no desire to turn the 7x57 into a .280AI, but what I do want to do is shoot the lighter and mid-weight monolithics in my 7x57s with maximum performance, and that means speed, which also means pressure. Increasing the 7x57 pressure to nearly 65k would undoubtedly solve that problem. Now, since monolithics are generally longer than equal weight C&Cs, the standard SAAMI chamber might handle them well, but getting back to my first point, I also expect modern CM/PRC throat/leade specs would simply be icing on the cake, and it certainly would help with a variety of C&Cs as well. We can always load down, but can't always load up...at least not staying within the reloading manual recipes, even if using 7-08 data. As someone said, it might turn the old cartridge into the Gentle Ben of the recently released fire-breathing 7s.

Again, just my $.02.

My 7x57's. I'm a fan

I had a #1 7X57 International it didn't shoot worth a damn and it went down the road. One I deeply regret was a #1 AB that had very nice wood. This was 40 years ago and I had a friend take it to a small gun show. I almost immediately regretted that decision and figured it wouldn't sell at such a small venue. How wrong I was

Nice collection of fast handling rifles for sure. Be hard to find a better deer rifle than one of those.

I have seen some nice stuff done with Swedes, but this takes the cake.

[quote=ingwe][quote=EdM]My 7x57 Swede.



Looks effective on house cats.

Love the color co-ordination.

This is me. I bought my 7x57 when I was in my late 20’s, but had wanted one for a long time.

I built my first 7X57 in the 80s using a Mark X barreled action and a F a g e n (why did that word get bleeped) full stock 90% inletted stock. I chose to make brass from '06 stuff because factory 7X57 brass was hard to find and/or expensive. That rifle took a lot of deer and still has an honored place in my safe even though it isn't used much anymore.

There have been others since and my safe currently holds three of them. This one seems to get used more than the other two lately:


Mexican Mauser 7X57

Because it contains f a g.

It's Fajen by the way.

I’ve been thinking about this some, of late:

I, too, am strongly attracted by the enviable attributes and extraordinary history of the 7x57.

I recently sold my beautiful Ruger No.1A in .275 Rigby (7x57) ‘cause it never fit me quite right. I retained its 7x57 ammo “fixins,” though. My main hunting rifle is now my Thompson/Center TCR83 Aristocrat (which fits me perfectly and mounts like a fine shotgun) with its .30-06 barrel, and using an over-length, Garand-level (and I believe, Mule Deer recommended) load with 150 grain NBTs at just barely under 2700 fps. I have another TCR barrel in .243 Win., of which I am not particularly fond.

My question, for the dedicated 7x57 aficionados here, is: Do you see any advantage to my having that 243 barrel rebored and chambered to 7x57, using 160 grain bullets at just above 2600 fps, as sufficient to justify the effort when compared to the above .30-06?

Good grief! That's horseschmidt....just about as bad as my spelling it seems.

"My question, for the dedicated 7x57 aficionados here, is: Do you see any advantage to my having that 243 barrel rebored and chambered to 7x57, using 160 grain bullets at just above 2600 fps, as sufficient to justify the effort when compared to the above .30-06?"

I don't think it would work. The diameter of the .243 is too large to accommodate reboring to 7x57 unless you go with the Ackley improved and even that may not work. Probably be better to rebore to 7-08 and it's based on the .308 Win. as is the 243.
PJ

Edited to add: My comment on being too large is at the shoulder area of the .243 cartridge. I just do not think it will work.
PJ

It is possible to use the existing 243’s mono-block the foundation for re-barreling. But, I’m having trouble identifying much practical difference between the two rounds, as they are proposed to be loaded, of course recognizing that each could be goosed up a might, if desired - which it is not.

My answer to that may offend some. I consider the 243/6mm as adequate for small deer. I wouldn’t carry one for large mule deer or elk. I think a 160 grain bullet in a 7x57 is at least one step above the 243/6mm.

As far as comparing the 7x57 to the 30-06, well that’s a whole different comparison.

I can't see reboring a barrel vs buying one in the caliber you want.
I would hunt anything in North America except the big bears with a 7X57 and 160 grain bullets.

I agree. One could use the action and do a rebarrel. It's just the rebore not being feasible. Might be a better idea to just try and find a #1 in 7x57 and enjoy the benefits of both. That's what I did, although I got the 7x57 first and the .243 came later.
PJ

No offense take. I'm not much of in favor of using a .243 on large Mule Deer myself but a coworker I sometimes hunted with when living in Nevada was a huge fan and brought home some might large bucks. He liked to get close and was a very fine rifle shot.

I'm not all that sure one can compare the 7x57 to the 30-06. All I can say about that is the old 7x57 put down many large forms of African game in its origional configuration. Properly handloaded to modern pressure levels with todays bullets it may still not equal the 06 but I think it can come close. I might not like the idea of taking one one of the great bears with a 7x57 but, if that was all I had and I knew that I might run into a Grizzly or Kodiak Bear, I would just have one of my reloads with a 175 gr. Partition, Accubond or even a barnes TSX if the rifle handled that bullet well. The big IF is can I put the bullet where it counts. That's what will determine the outcome.
PJ