Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Factory Loads: Then & Now

This will apply to reloading as well, so I'll post it there.

I have just completed a move. After unpacking books and research data I haven't examined in years, I have found very interesting reloading data. As it applies to the 7MM Rem Mag, in the July-August edition of "Handloader, Bob Hagel explicates the difficulties of reloading the 7MM Rem Mag. In his article, he wrote of surpassing 3,000 FPS with 175 grain bullets.

In my journal, I got better than 3,200 FPS with factory 150 grain Core-Lokts using my Sako. While I will admit that they were older factory cartridges, more importantly they did chrono as advertised or once advertised.

Equally astounding were factory loads fired from my Featherweight .308 Win. 165 grain Hornady Light Magnums chrono'd above 2900 FPS. Factory 150 grain Core-Lokts zoomed along at better than 2900 FPS.

It is apparent that at one time the 7MM Rem Mag was loaded to its potential. And as the argument goes, there's not a lot to howl about when it comes to comparing the .308 Win to the venerable '06.


Good Hunting,

R

How does a 150 grain bullet at 3200 fps compare to a 175 grain at 3000 +/- fps? I'm just trying to figure out your argument on how they are comparable when they are totally different loads. Either load would probably work for me if I owned a 7mm RM, because there is a lot more to cartridge performance than velocity IMO.

I can beat the velocities you posted for the .308 as well with the old 06 with my handloads. I haven't bought much factory ammunition in years and rarely run it over my chrony. It doesn't make one cartridge better than the other, just different but again I don't get too wrapped up about speed.

Hi taylorce1,

Don't focus on loads but loading potential of the 7MM Rem Mag.

I am not too much a velocity wonk as well. I prefer accuracy. However, as loaded today and as manuals prescribe, the 7MM Rem Mag isn't much better than a .280 Rem. However, were one to carefully work up loads that are safe in one's rifle, the 7MM Rem Mag is the real deal.


Take care,

R

BTW,

I have been told that I have a "fast" .308 Win barrel. I am not convinced of that theory. Instead, I believe the .308 Win is a very efficient cartridge that when using practical hunting bullets is every bit the equal of the '06.


Take care,

R

i have no idea whaat the point of this post is... I mean, i dont understand what you are trying to convey. Are you forign and using a translation program? Drunk, perhaps?

ringworm,

I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Check recent copyrighted loading manuals for 7MM Rem Mag load data. Then find the aforementioned Hagel article. That way you'll have a more lucid interpretation of my post. However, those who are familiar with loading the 7MM Rem Mag understand the gist of my post.

R

I've been a fan of the 7mag since 1970, and I understand perfectly what you're saying. Todays reloading manuals seem to only offer 'watered down" recipes. I ask lots of questions around here and the good members here have helped me know how to reach, or at least approach the potential of this great cartridge.

I dont care what a load manual says. I am looking for accuracy. If the starting load is accurate why keep pushing it? You work till you find accuracy and stay withing pressure signs and keep notes. FK what reloading manuals say max is. max is when the primers start flatning out or the bolt is hard to lift. each rifle finds its max.
For me, I could care less if you can push a 308win to 3000with a 150 if its grouping 3" at 100 yards.
if its grouping .5" at 100 and only running 2600 which load are you gonna want?
You guys need to quit trying to piss up.

I think the meat of Raisuli's post is that we used to get better velocity than we do today. Part of it was factory hype and part was real. I bought the better part of a case (all that was left in that lot number at the LGS) of Light Magnum .30-06, many years ago, because it was pretty accurate and advertised the 180 @ 2880. My 24 inch FN Mauser turned over 2900 with that load.

I am sure that powders have changed over the years and we may have been pushing things back when. I do not see that OP is comparing the .308 with the 7 mag, he is just stating old load data velocity for both. Things change for the better and sometimes not. jack

A little history might help. Both the factory ammo and handloading books were/are tested in dedicated "pressure barrels" that are usually longer and of much better quality than the usual factory barrel.

Modern reloading information will educate you that the "pressure signs" used back in the day mean very little. If you can afford it, a pressure transducer attached to your gun will tell you what is really happening. If not a Chrongraph is a decent second. Start any new load at least at minimum and run it through the screens. Work up until you reach (if possible) the desired velocity provided by the manufacturer of the bullet, seated to the suggested length and using the EXACT brass, primer and powder specified. Then STOP.

Obviously, if you can't easily eject the empty before reaching that level, QUIT. You might have a tight bore, it might be 120 degrees out and so on.

If you want a 300 Win Mag, buy the rifle, don't try to make your 308 Winchester into one.

As an aside, if you want to really scare yourself get some of the very early Speer reloading books or read Roy Gibbs exploits. Secondly, today's big game premium factory ammo is so good, it really makes handloading a hobby or an economic choice.

Today's, rifles, optics, factory ammo, reloading components and equipment are far better than they were 10 years ago, not to mention 50. If they were not worth so much, I'd love to pull a sealed box of my 1929 National Match 30-06 ammo and shoot it against a modern handload using today's top grade components. From the same "as issued" 1903 Springfield National Match rifle handed out in 1929 at Camp Perry, I'd wager the group sizes could be cut by 50%, especially as the ranges got longer.

Yep, spot on.

There is no replacement for displacement as they say. The 7RM is the real deal when loaded properly. The 280 nor it's AI variant will touch it. It's not an STW, nor an RUM, it's just the great old 7RM, one of the best of all time IMO. I love many carts ond own more than I should, but there will always be a few slots in my safes for the great 7.

I dont know, I shot a 1942 built, 8x57 bring back a few months ago w/ kraft box ammo and iron sights. It out shot a new hawkeye 270 wearing a 3-9 and shooting hornady ammo. And I mean out shot it by a good margin.

I just got back from the range this morning running some 7mmRM loads over the chronograph. I'm 5 grains over max and still 50fps slower than Nosler #5 says. Same case, primer, powder, bullet etc. So the OP's point is a valid one and I suspect anyone who ever worked up loads on a chrony agrees. By the way before anyone says I just have a slow barrel, this is pretty common with other big 7's I've loaded too. The point is if you work up loads that are safe in YOUR rifle, the 7mmRM can become the firebreathing dragon it was born to be. If you load it to book max you have a 280Rem at best.

+1

Compare some of the older manuals, of course they don't include many of the modern powders, but the old Hornady manual I was using back in the early '70s had 7RM 139 with 73/H4831. You won't find a modern manual with a dose of H4831 close to this. My brother's Savage 110 shot this load very accurately, but my M70 would get a stiff bolt uplift if I loded more than 70 grains.

Hornady has gone the other way with their generally accurate loaded custom ammo. I tried some in a 30-06 at 300 and 400 yards it dropped way more than it wass suppose to with a 200 yard zero. And I could tell from the light recoil it was very downloaded. I agree with the point the original poster was making that factory .308 Win and factory 30-06 probably are not very far apart.

Yep Stray Dog, what are manuals pushing with H4831? 68g tops? It takes about 69 to get over 3200 with 140s IME. R22 is where it's at if you must see 140s scream. With powders like 7828, R22, and R25, you can make 140-160 pills really perk in the cart. One of my 7s with only a 24" pipe will hit 3100 with 160s ahead of 66g R22 well before pressure signs show. OTOH I have some slow pipes as well that take more gas to get there. I'm all for safety, but manuals are guidelines IMO, you start mid range and see what YOUR rifle tells you. Some will top out before listed max, some beyond. I've seen well known rifle builders build up loads that would give some folks a heart attack. With wildcats, it's the only way to roll.

I have gathered most of the older manuals from Sierra, Speer, Nosler, Barnes and Hornady and have noticed similarly that more recent manual listed loads seem to be milder than older manual loads for same weight bullets and cartridges. Cannot tell if the powder formulation is different even if named the same however.

+1, I couldn't agree more!!!!!! Not that I dislike my 7mm rem mag, it just dissapointed me the first time I ran my loads over the chrono........it was back to the drawing board more than a couple of times...

I won't get in to too much detail of the Bob Hagel article on loading the 7MM Rem Mag that's found in the July-August 1975 edition of "Handloader". But it does benefit exploring a few important aspects that affect 7MM Rem Mag performance, and these concepts apply to all cartridges, especially older ones such as the 7x57.

First and most crucial is that not all rifles are identical. Especially in the bygone era, some rifles were of poor quality. Hence, a lot of loading data had to consider rifles in which loads might be used. A perfectly safe 7x57 load in a Model 700 might have exploded in a surplus military rifle.

In reference to the 7MM Rem Mag, not all manufacturers marketed rifles of consistent specifications. Hence, loads were not universally safe. Therefore, and again, data had to consider rifles in which loads might be used.

History is valid only when considered in the context in which an event occurred. The 7MM Rem Mag was designed to be a long range big game rifle that working men could afford and buy from local department stores. Hunters of that era bought the 7MM Rem Mag because they wanted much more than surplus 7x57's could deliver. And buy them they did. For years after its introduction, Remington was unable to keep up with demand. Ergo, lots of manufacturers rushed to capitalized on 7MM Rem Mag demand. And it was because of plethora of rifles of dubious quality that flooded the market that design flaws became an issue. Thus, loading data had to consider rifles in which loads might be used.

ringworm wrote that he was unconcerned with velocity. I am not so sure he was being candid, for if it didn't care about velocity he'd hunt with the vaunted .30-30 Win. The fact is hunters wanted a reasonable rifle that would harvest all North American big game are distances that caused them to question the efficacy of rifles upon which they had then relied.

It's ironic that the vaunted and proven 7MM Rem Mag's popularity caused its disease of cartridge performance anemia. Hunters bought 7MM Rem Mag's because they wanted 7MM Rem Mag performance. As circumstances now present themselves to hunters, there really isn't a lot of difference between the 7MM Rem Mag & the .280 Rem, and the .280 Rem and 7-08 Rem. So why would a hunter want to lug around a heavy rifle that fires a cartridge that's suffering from a severe case of anemia?

Properly hand loaded and fired in good quality rifles, the 7MM Rem Mag outshines by a long shot the .280 Rem. And don't incorrectly infer that I do not like the .280 Rem. In fact, I believe the .280 Rem to be the best cartridge for most North American big came. In contrast, a properly loaded 7MM Rem Mag is one of the best cartridges for ALL North American big game.

While velocity is immaterial to ringworm, it was and remains motivation to design better cartridges. It was the quest for higher velocity that replaced the 7x57 with the 7MM Rem Mag. If hunting fields had been dominated by hunters like ringworm, they would have shunned the 7MM Rem Mag's high velocity and retained their .30-30's & 7x57's.

The 7MM Rem Mag perfectly matched high velocity with high sectional density projectiles that provided excellent penetration on all game harvested at long range. That's a proven and difficult combination to beat, especially considering recoil of a 7MM Rem Mag won't knock a hunter back into last year.

This was a winded way of writing that properly hand loaded, the 7MM Rem Mag might just be the best hunting cartridge ever designed. However, mileage will vary.



Good Hunting,

R

I did and have. .30-30, 7x57, and .30'06 do all that needs doing in the 48 and most of the rest of the world.

Very good info Raisuli. I do believe the 7mag is at it's best with a 160 'ish gr bullet at 3100'ish fps.