A few days ago I was perusing the Hornady #9 manual at Sportsman's Warehouse. I was quite perplexed by a glaring discrepency that I figured I needed to pass along.

In their 7mm Rem Mag data for 162 grain bullets, the data for IMR7828 is wierd. They list way above max loads for the "starting" points and then get to where it is 5 grains or so less at "max".

So...please be careful out there.

FH

Hate to admit it but I only look at start loads when looking for something reduced.
The manual lists the order...65.5 68.9 61.4 63.8
It would appear they meant 55.5. 58.9 61.4 63.8

After staring at the data the item that jumps at me is the Max load for re22 is 62.9......but Max load for re25 is 69.3. Now that seems like way too much gap.
No matter who's 7 mag data you look at these days it seems the recommended charges are all over the board.

Their data for H335 is hotter for 222 loads than for 223.....

Hornady appears guiltier than most of pimping out certain powders on the max loads and velocity. There are many loads for good powder that appear prematurely capped when competing agains something like super performance or lever action. JMO.

62.9 is a pathetic excuse for max R22. I don't appreciate paying for a loading manual that's so watered down.

Yep, I feel the same. Like kracky111 says don't seem who's book you buy, charges for the 7mm rem are not what they should be. With todays modern powders and such everything should be better across the board, but is completely backwards sometimes. This sue happy climate we live in today really sucks....

Some manuals make you think why own a 7mm rem when a .280 rem is so close.... I shoot/own both, and the .280 is a STELLAR round, but the 7mm rem leaves it in the dust when push comes to shove. Best to gather information from as many manuals on a particular powder/cartridge/bullet as possible so not to limit ones self to one idea...

For wanting the truth of velocities and charges one must own a chronograph, work up from minimums, watch for pessure and you just might find yourself safely above listed max and one hell of an accurate and velocity appropriate load.

Rifles are individuals with individual likes, Not just what one company says it will and will not do.

Can you be a bit more specific by chance? You say they list way above max loads but according to who's max loads are you referring to?

Reason I ask, is I've found 7828 in the 7 RM in other manuals to be incredibly low on their max's. Guess I find myself wondering if they're incredibly high or if they're just stepping out and saying what actually can be done...?

Point in case, I've loaded for quite a few 7 RM's and have found all of them capable of a lot more 7828 than the books say.

Thx
Dober

It just plain pays to keep those old manuals around. Between old manuals, having quickload, internet data....there's tons to cross reference. I also have a hard copy of all my shooting data going back 20 years.
Btw...one modern day data source that still hasn't gone weanie is Barnes.

Dober, I was merely referring to their own data exactly as Kraky suggested. They list the lower charge data as significantly higher than the "max" load data in their book.

That said, I am having a really hard time getting IMR7828 to get to "max" pressures for a 160 Accubond and Nosler's #6 manual max. I am starting to see cratered primers and flattened primers about one grain less than max. Velocity the one an only time I have shot it over the chrony was 2957 and 2917 which seems on the low side for a 26" barrel and pressure signs.

Anyway, I now make a habit of checking the "other" books anytime I am in SW or Cabelas just to see how different the charge weights are. I have older manuals and I can't even come close to "those" max charges with the above combinations. Weird things with that rifle and barrel. In fact I am coordinating getting it to a gunsmith right now to see if I have something else going on. I have tried a few other things that have been recommended and still can't get things to "settle" down where I would think it should.

I just ordered my first chrony and look forward to seeing what is "really going on".

FH

Good catch!!

I just pulled the #9 manual, and see that you're absolutely correct.

I probably wouldn't have caught that, as I generally look at the max loads in all my loading books, average them out, then start my load work-up's at 2 grains below the average max. That being said, there are some books that call for max loads that are way out of line with the others, so those loads are discounted.

Respects,

Richard

The manuals load the 7mag,introduce in 1962,like it has E.D. or something.It's time they give it a shot of Viagra and load it like it used to be loaded.With all the powders we have today,the 7mag should be one hot tamale!!!It's really sad,it is a far better round than the books make it out to be.I blame it on Remington.They loaded it down when they introduced the 7STW,then they loaded the 7STW down when they introduced the 7mm Ultra Mag.Has anybody heard of the Weatherby 7mm magnum?It's a great round too.I've loaded for the 7mag for twenty years now,it is still as great as it ever was,if not better.