Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting ??? for BobinNH Opinions on 7 mm 140 Swift A frame for elk

Point taken.

It's a cognitive-dissonance thing for me.

I'd not load a big 7 magnum such that it can be easily beaten by (say) a .308 with hunting bullets... or a measly 7mm-08 with a 140 NBT running five hundred fps slower, in terms of wind drift. It'd be like putting a throttle regulator on a Ferrari to make it slower than a Camry. But, if the Ferrari is just going to be used for trips to Safeway, I must concede the point.

I'm really resisting the urge to toss up a chart showing just how bad the 140 AF does in this regard. Must... not...post...gack...chart....

No Jeff! Not the chart! I know it takes a licking in that regard....but I'll bet it kills

Yep and yep.

I'd take the word of experienced hunters who have BTDT over a ballistic chart any day of the year. Just MO.

I'd take both sets of data and integrate them, personally.

.... which sounds smartass <grin>.

I just mean, chit, there's no shortage of BTDT guys who sing the praises of heavier bullets in a 7-mag, right? And my own experiences support that in general. So, I listen to them, run numbers, shoot a bunch, and decide that there's lots to gain and virtually nothing lost by running a sleek 160-gn. Especially when compared to the spudlike 140 AF.

You'd never hear me say a 140 AF ain't lethal. That blunt tip and high velocity have got to kick some butt. But there's a price that comes with a .325 BC. At longer ranges, say 400 on out, something like a 160 NAB is going to just kill the blunt 140 as far as getting hits. I'm of the mind that hits, kind of matter.

Therefore with all due respect to the "blunt 140's" BTDT crew, I'll heed the "sleek 160's" BTDT crew instead.

If a guy has trouble hitting and killing elk, with a 140 gr SAF at 3300 fps,he should stay home and take up knitting....

Thinking that a person is somehow "handicapped" with an STW and a 140 SAF is sort of humorous..

Cognitive/dissonance is a condition brought on by over-thinking (over analyzing)and looking at charts,as opposed to actually killing things,and that will disappear by actually "doing" instead of "thinking"...too much ballistic hairsplitting is responsible for this..but you are not alone....it goes on a lot today.

Lol, ok, guilty as charged and well said as usual but in my own defense here my opinion is based on actually shooting various bullets "out there". For instance the difference between a 165 NBT (.470) and a 200 NAB (.588) both at 2900 fps is not subtle. You'll hit more reliably with the latter.

But it's important to add that what I'm talking about takes place further than the OP plans on shooting. So yes, this is mental tallywacking to some degree here. Luckily we are in a place (ye olde Interweb) where discussion is easy, expected, and even appreciated by some. I know I've learned a bunch by paying attention to what people say then testing it in the field, starting with the old rec.hunting days.

The dissonance here, for my admittedly dissonance-prone brain <grin>, is taking one of the finest rigs ever made for hitting things a ways out there, and turning it into something a 7-08 or .308 or ... can "beat", in terms of getting hits. I'm proud to say you and Dober have been mentors to me in the realm of Big 7's; I've seen the light. I just feel that it bears some discussing when someone asks what the OP was asking because for many, the depth of their ballistics knowledge is that "light bullets shoot flatter, so they are better for longer ranges"; this crops up on the LR forum regularly. It just ain't so, and this is a particularly egregious light bullet example. I get the appeal of "flat" if we are keeping things closer-in, and I get the appeal of the lower recoil, and that an Aframe driven by an STW will be a hammer is indisputable.

Anyways...., I gots some firewood to cut then some contracts to wrangle (much prefer the firewood, lol) so I'd best git. I think what you are saying is true, Bob. I also think what I'm saying is true. No dissonance there!