Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Lets discuss the 7mm STW and 175 Partitions

bwinters:IME it will recoil a bit more than the 7 RM, but no big deal.It may not kill a whole world better than a 7 RM but it IS faster and this means you can still get those heavy slugs moving at at good clip. I like the 140 7mm bullets a lot, but in that cartridge would use the 160's. The added velocity will help with expanding a tough bullet as well.

No doubt it will work great.

A friend of mine bought an as NIB custom sts Classic Mod.70, done by Dana Campbell of Mountain Rifles of Alaska, chambered in 7STW. I built loads for it and we shot it, no biggie in "kick", but, I have never seen any real point to this rocketship, other than "braggin'rights".

He got bored with it and had a smith slap on a Lilja, reamed to .338RUM and I built some loads for that, which went into "bugholes" at the range and made him a happy lad. He has hunted Africa, Asia, Europe and much of North America and shares my preference for larger bores and heavier bullets.

So, my choice in the 7mm bore is and will continue to be the .270W and .280R and I have a couple of 7 Mausers as well. I sold off 3 7Rem. rifles and find that I can do anything with my .270/,280 rifles that I would attempt with this size of bullet.

I will never be convinced that a 7/08 is the equal of a .338WM or 9.3x62 here in B.C., but, I am an old dinosaur and too stubborn-ornery to change now!

Sure but now we're talking paper ballistics and they are cited IMO, far too often with BC's and SD's referred to many times as if they have significant relavance, when in field condtions, they really don't...at least when we're talking as small differences between the 140 and 160 grn TSX's. The 160 TSX is a flat base and the 140 is a boat tail and it actually has a higher BC than the 160. I think both should completely penetrate an elk from a broadside shot so I'm thinking the 140 should be a better all around bullet at least in a 7-08 or 280.

Kute: You have to stop dashing my delusions about the Big 7's on the rocks We all have our safe havens....I like speed and tough boolits

I'm not in bad company,ya know....Hagel,etc

Agreed. But BC's are talked about because they do have some real world relevance, namely wind-bucking ability. There's a reason that long range riflemen/the military use heavy-for caliber bullets. You can't really compare a BT bullet with a FB bullet and call that a fair comparison. In equal bullets, the heavier bullet will drift less in the wind. I'm not suggesting that the 140 gr TSX won't penetrate enough, but simply that in a cartridge like the 7RM or STW, the 160 will still shoot plenty flat, buck wind a little better (again in equal bullet designs), and penetrate slightly better on big animals than a lighter bullet.

Not sure...Haven't run that load over a crony yet.

Mark,

I'm intrigued about the potential of the big 7's.

At the moment, I'm not confident past 400 and would like to educate myself on the possibilities, although holdover is holdover. I have mixed emotions about shooting animals at 5-600 yards - mostly because I lack the ability. I keep thinking 400 yards is a good max limit but I've passed animals that were between 4-500 yards. I keep thinking I need to up my skill level - tools are just a part of that decision.

Scope: I'm thinking a BC reticle in a 3-9 x 40 Leupie.

-- BW

I don't know who would ever opine that the 7mm-08 is the equal of the 9.3 X 62 or the .338 magnum. I'd certainly never say that.I don't think anyone on this forum has said such a thing.

I would suggest however that, after a lot of experience with the 7mm STW, that I have been unable to find it any better at killing big game than the 7mm Remington Magnum or even the 7mm-08.

But then, I never found the old 30-06 with good bullets, to be any less deadly than either the 300 Winchester Magnum or the 300 Weatherby magnum - and I used both of them quite a bit.

Lets put some numbers to this stuff. Anybody feel free to correct anything I may have misfigured. I no longer have access to my ballistics program since my old computer died, so I had to revert back to the tables in the Barnes Manual no. 2. The wind drift figure for the 160 flat base seems off, so I changed it, but here is what the tables say:

120 grain XBT, BC= 0.411, initial velocity of 3600 fps, drift at 500 yards with 10 mph wind= 16"

140 grain XBT, BC= 0.477, initial velocity of 3400 fps, drift at 500 yards with 10 mph wind= 12"

160 grain XFB, BC= 0.508, initial velocity of 3200 fps, drift at 500 yards in 10 mph wind= 11" (it said 30" in the table, but that isn't correct for the BC. I used a like-BC bullet at the same velocity to figure it.)

175 grain XFB, BC= 0.530, initial velocity of 3000 fps, drift at 500 yards in 10 mph wind= 15"

I see that the 160 grain MRX is a BT. It would have less drift than the flat base.

All the above velocities were chosen simply from the max loads listed in the manual. Anyway, I figure drift is much like trajectory in that at extended ranges, you need to know what it is in your rifle. Range finders make flat shooting cartridges less needed, like a wind meter makes drift estimate easier and fast cartridges needed less. If you use a 140 grain in the above scenario, and don't adjust for a 10 mph wind, you will miss by 12 inches. If you use the 160 XFB, you will miss by 11 inches. You still gonna miss.

The 7mm-08 with a 160 grain XFB with an initial velocity of 2600 fps will drop 45 inches at 500 yards, will drift 41 inches in a 10 mph wind and will hit with about 1150 foot-pounds of energy. That's still over the 1000 ft-lb figure that so many use for deer minimum, which is laudable. But the STW will drop about 28 inches at 500 yards, will drift 11 inches in a 10 mph wind, and will hit with 1850 foot pounds. That's nearly the 2000 ft-lb that many elk hunters use as a minimum energy. At long range, the 7mm-08 certainly could be used, but knowledge of trajectory and wind drift become even more critical. Still, with both cartridges, again, one must know trajectory and drift to use either at extended ranges.

P.S. I use the 140 grain Nosler Partition in my Rem Model 7 20"-barrel 7mm-08 at a bit under 2700 fps. It kills big whitetail bucks real good. I've never killed anything with it past 200 yards.

I understand your point, but again, we're talking paper ballistics which IMO, are quoted too often as having a larger role than they actually do....at least at normal hunting ranges. If we're talking extreme range hunting, sure, I think the impact takes a more important role, esp with the larger 7mm's. But with modern bullets, esp the TSX, I don't think they're as important a factor at normal hunting ranges as most would think...kinda like the flat base vs boat tail argument at the same normal ranges. I just don't think it would have much impact for me and the ranges I would take a shot and I think I would be better served with the lighter bullet in my 280. But I can't disagree that they wouldn't be better served in a larger 7mm at ranges further than I'd be comfortable shooting. But there is a thread about going lighter with the TSX's and getting quicker kills that's an interesting read.

I guess it's just a subjective debate. It depends on which cartridge is being used, what range the shots are being made at, and which bullet is to be used.

I also saw that thread, it's got me thinking about trying out the 120 and 140 gr TSX's and compare them to the terminal effects of the 160 grain that I've always used.

Agreed. And that's exactly what got me to thinking also. Particularly if I shot an elk (or deer) at 100 yards and knowing both a 140 and 160 TSX would fully penetrate through and through...which one has more effective killing power? The lighter one with more velocity or the slower one with more weight? Now THAT's a stumper to me and based on what some of the others have said in that other thread, I'm leaning towards the faster bullet in that scenario.

It was just a personal observation as I think that some tend to overdo the small bullet-placement-bullet performance theory (as others do the big bullet,etc.), that's all. I PREFER to use medium bores with heavy bullets as I THINK they tend to be more effective in B.C. hunting, overall. Can I "prove"this, of course not and I wouldn't waste my valuable time trying to.

Now, as to the .30-06 and the .300 Weatherby, I would tend to disagree and think that you are being a bit tendentious here. The .30-06 has about the same, slightly more, speed over the .30-.30 as the .300 Roy has over it; while I would agree that the increasing gains in velocity do not translate into equal gains in lethality in a direct, linear fashion, I do not think that the .30-30 is anywhere near a .30-06 in "punch" and doubt that even you would say it is.

SO, it follows that the .300 Weatherby IS more lethal than the .30-06, exactly how much so is to be determined by those with hundreds of animals to their credit. The point here is, obviously, that NO B.C. hunter can ever have enough experience killing game to REALLY state objectively that a certain type of cartridge is/is not equal to or greater than another....even among differing bore sizes.

Can we REALLY say that the 9.3x62 IS better/worse on slavering Grizzlies than the .338WM or that a 7-08 is equal to a 7STW on 6-pt. B.C. legal Elk? IMHO, the most realistic answer is NO, we cannot. This, my friend, is WHY I tend to choose the middle of the road, premium bulleted, pretty standard rounds and probably always will.

I agree wholeheartedly.
If both bullets penetrate clean through, and both are the same diameter, then the bullet that opens up fastest and transmits the most energy while going through the animal should kill quicker. We'll see I guess!

Kute,
You are absolutely correct is saying that a LOT of experience is required to deduce any reasonable conclusions on the matter of killing power adequacies with firearms, due to the fact that animals are individuals, just like we are. The problem with animals is that they are living organisms, who are composed of more than just raw elements and physical characteristics. There is a certain "will power" involved, which I have witnessed more than once. Some animals are just plain harder to kill than others. While guiding up in the NWT I've seen many caribou bulls soak up SEVERAL good, lethal hits before going down. This usually happens after they realize something is wrong and their adrenaline level gets pumped up. I've also seen animals die without an apparent cause. No bullet holes found, etc.
So, I believe there is a certain point along the "firepower scale," so to speak, when enough is enough. Would it be accurate to say that because the .50BMG has a LOT more "thump" than the .300 Weatherby, it has more lethality? I don't believe so. Perhaps, in Brian's experience, the 7mm-08 and 30-06 are "enough" killing power for the animals he hunts. Perhaps, according to his experience, any more (the .50BMG, as an extreme example) is just overkill. Not trying to start an argument, just adding my point of view.

In my experience, lethality hinges on the first shot; once the adrenaline flows, all bets are off, with the exception of a CNS hit.

338 RUM or bust...........grin

RO

LOL, once the animals are a little spooked and adrenaline is up, even without being shot already, they are hella-hard to bring down

I had a double on caribou this last season. Once the first bull was down the second started running, I put my first shot through the lungs. He kept going, unphased. I put another through the liver as he ran. Finally he stopped to look back for a second, and I put one through the crown joint, which finally brought him down. Here's a pic for reference.

This makes sense and is also my opinion because with heavier bullets of the same caliber, the difference is a longer shank and not a larger diameter mushroom. At least for something like a TSX, the big IF is will the lighter one fully penetrate.

I think we're all in general agreement here.

I'd say, that IF a shooter can handle a bigger rifle (within reason) it would generally be better for self-defence from a charging animal. If it's a CNS hit, it won't matter - any caliber (within reason) will work equally well.

Each person has to decide what is BEST for their own application. If a .375 is BETTER for grizzlies than a 30-06, then is a 458 BETTER than a 375? If that is true, then a 577 Tyrannosaur, a 600 or a 50 Browning must be better still. And yet - MOST grizzly hunters choose smaller calibers. I submit - this is because it makes more sense - to most people.

Obviously, after a certain point - most would agree - bigger is NOT better.

Many of the biggest rifles weigh far too much to swing quickly and they are too heavy to carry in rugged country without undue fatigue. In Africa, the heaviest "elephant guns" tended to be used by hunters who employed "gun-bearers" for this very reason. A fatigued man doesn't perform as well in an emergency.

If one were faced with a charging grizzly - it might be very important to get additional shots of quickly. Have you viewed the videos of men shooting the 577? It's hilarious to watch. It also shows the impossibility of getting of second or third shots as quickly as one could using much smaller cartridges and calibers.

I note that most rifles in the bigger calibers don't carry five in the magazine. I, personally, prefer having five rounds in grizzly country.

I feel perfectly comfortable in grizzly country with a six shot 25-06 loaded with 115 grain Barnes TSX's. Such a combination would not be my CHOICE to HUNT grizzlies - but I feel perfectly comfortable in carrying such a combination in grizzly country, and I have done so for much of my life.

My Dad was very accurate and very fast shooting his Remington 760 pump. Even on running game, it was a pleasure to watch and listen to him as his rifle went boom-cachunk-boom in rapid succession, as he shot until the animal was down. He found, that he never needed more than a 30-06 on grizzlies, and he believed, it was more important to have a rifle one was good at using quickly. He loved the pump action, and even went so far as carrying an extra clip in his pocket. A clip that, as far as I know, he never needed.

I, on the other hand, I am more comfortable with bolt-actions, as that is what I've used the huge majority of my own life.

I personally would choose a bolt action for that one reason - muscle memory.

I'd also prefer a light rifle, with a capability of five rounds in the magazine. The biggest round available in the rifle I think I would own as a "dedicated grizzly gun" (The Sako Model 85) is the new 9.3 X 66. and for that reason it would be my own first choice for that purpose. But, due to the cost and availability of ammo, I would be quite content with a 9.3 X 62 too.

But, as I think I'll never hunt grizzlies enough to justify one rifle for that sole purpose, I'll probably continue to use rounds I consider to be a bit more "versatile" - for all-round use.

And for me, that means if I ever choose to shoot a big grizzly (and I wouldn't personally shoot one that wasn't big - unless I had to) it will be more likely than not - that I'll be using a 30-06, and it will probably be loaded with 220 grain Nosler Partitions - or 200 grain Barnes TSX's.

But, that's just me.

Jordan,
What cartridge did you use on the caribou? STW? 160 grain X?

And why were you screwing around? You coulda just shot him in the head the FIRST time.