Hi guys,

Tell me about the 7mm STW. It appears to run bullets 150-200 ft/sec faster than the standard 7mm RM. I ran into a guy who usually tells it pretty straight and claims the above speeds and states that his STW (8.25 lbs, 26� barrel) recoils noticeably less than his 300 WM. Have you guys found either of these things to be true?

A 175 Nosler Partition at 3050, 160 Partition at 3150, 140 TSX at 3350, 120 at WARP+ would be sweet��������

I�ve always used 7mm for deers and 30�s for everything bigger but am seeing an advantage to the big 7mm�s. I�ve been playing with the 7mm RM for 25+ years. I never thought there was enough difference between the 7 mm RM and the 06 to amount to much. But the 175 Partition with its huge BC (0.519) may make a big 7 a more better hammer than the 06 � especially if you can get it going faster than the 7mm RM can drive them ~ 2900.

Any and all thoughts on the STW and 175 Partitions?

Can't speak to the 175 NPs, but I can tell you that the 120 gr. NBTs at max plus via a 28" tube (rechambered 1885) is the finger of God on varmints...... if you want to see what that combo does on groundhogs at a quarter-mile..... take a rake for the pieces......

I don't have any experience with the STW but I do know that 175 gr 7mm bullets do great work on big animals like moose. You could kill anything on this continent with them. If I had a STW that is the first bullet I would try.

B-I've done a lot of work with the 7 Mashburn Super using 175's and the 7 Rem with 175's and the STW with the same slug.

They'll all work and they'll all do things just fine.

Perosonally, I feel that the STW with the big slug has a quick and torky kind of recoil and is way more like the 300 Win than the 7 Rem is.

Imo it is just enough faster than the 7 Rem to make it more like the 300's. My tests have shown it'll normally be between 100-150 fps faster depending on tubes and depending on how a loader attacks his loading of ammo. Now if I wanna make it 200 faster have no doubt about it I can get it to do that. Now it has been my experience that I shouldn't but that's a whole nuther topic.

You will find many shooters of the STW to be running them to the nuts, kind of like a fella driving a red vette has to drive it as hard as it can go....

Tis a good round no doubt about it, it's popularity has been waining for a long time every since that one gun writer sort of layed off the pimping of the round. And by the way, I could never get even remotely close to the kinds of speeds he could. Isn't it amazing to see what people will do to make "their round" run the way they want it to...

Dober

I would look at a 140 tsx/ttsx in the STW and 3400-3500fps. The tsx has always shot well out of all my big 7's and the 140's will penetrate as well if not better than the 175 noslers along with being quite a bit flatter. Just my thoughts,

Brett

I use 150gr Nosler Partitions in my STW.Fast flat and very accurate..Plus great terminal performance.Couldn't be happier..

7STW What kind of speed are you getting from the 150's?

Using Beartooth Bullets - Ballistician's Corner - Recoil Calculator - I punched in these numbers for you, (using the fastest data from the latest Nosler manual) and here's what came out.

300 Winchester Magnum
8.5 lbs. rifle
180 grain bullet
73 grains of powder
3160fps
36 ft.lbs of recoil at 16fps

7mmSTW
8.5lbs rifle
175 grain bullet
89 grains of powder
3047 fps.
Recoil 38ft.lbs @ 17fps

If anything - that particular comparison - is conservative, when it comes to 7mm STW recoil. In other loads, it is even worse than the 300 Weatherby. In my own rifles the recoil is worse than both the .300 Winchester and the 300 Weatherby. It's definitely not milder - that's for sure.

I've owned a 7mmSTW cartridge within months of Layne Simpson's first articles about it in 1989. I shot game that same year. I've used it almost every year since. I had a stainless 26 inch barreled Browning A-Bolt that was a Remington 7mm Magnum re-chambered for the much bigger cartridge. I've shot a wide variety of B.C.'s big game with that cartridge. A lot of blood has gone under the bridge, so to speak.

I came to a few conclusions.

One, was that with the rather extreme velocities available - this cartridge, more than most, benefited from the Barnes X and TSX bullets. The normally great Nolser Partitions, weren't quite so great, when the lighter ones were driven at extreme speed. I think Nosler Partitions work best at "standard" velocities.

Secondly, I found that the huge powder capacity of that cartridge was wasted on lighter bullets - as they only flew a few inches flatter at 400 yards away. So, I, for the most part settled on 160 grain bullets as being the best in my rifle, with the long 175's being my second choice. I couldn't find animals big enough to stop even the 160 grain X's - or for that matter - even the 140's.

I would not do the conversion again.

Except for the muzzle blast, recoil, excessive consumption of powder, shorter barrel life, and what we imagine it can do - in our mind - the 7mm STW does nothing better than the plain old 7mm Remington Magnum can do on game - and the smaller magnum can do it with a lot less fuss and bother.

Finally, and you probably don't want to hear this - but you asked about experience with this cartridge - and I have a lot.

What I'm going to say isn't something you probably want to hear -as I wouldn't have, when I was lusting after huge cases, high bullet speeds and the lure of the big magnums. But I'd be remiss if I didn't pass on what I've learned in the last 20 years.

I don't think either of the 7mm magnums can do a single thing better than the 7mm-08, other than fly a few inches flatter a full quarter mile away. This is why my 7mm-08 has largely taken it's place, regardless of what I'm hunting, the last few years.

In almost 20 years of using the 7mmSTW, and almost 40 years of using other big high-speed magnums - I've found a few things out. There is a reason these days why the 7mmSTW usually stays in the vault while I reach past it - for the little 7mm-08.

With the little 7mm-08 the game (even the biggest) just keeps on falling the same way it always did,and I now use half as much powder when I reload, I get a third of the recoil when I pull the trigger, a lot less muzzle blast when the round goes off, and the rifle, being a full two pounds lighter is just so much more fun to pack and shoot.

And, miracle of miracles - the animals just keep on falling - like they always did.

The Germans were on to something when they devised the 7mm Mauser over 100 years ago, and of course, the 7mm-08 is just a modern version of the same cartridge. I think they'll both be in use long after the 7mm STW is but another forgotten footnote in rifle cartridge history.

The Germans understood the concept of "optimum case capacity" when they designed the 7mm Mauser - and that concept is as valid now - as it ever was.

I had one STW and it kicked harder than I wanted a 7mm to kick!

For that level of recoil I would prefer a 300 Win or Weatherby.

I've had my Rem 700 Sendero SF 7mm STW for about ten years now. I've settled on the 140 grain X-bullet for deer and I would go for a bit heavier in an MRX if I was to use it for larger game. With the 140, this cartridge is truly a friggin' laser. This beefy rifle fits me very well, as I'm 6'3" tall with long arms and big hands. I don't mind the 8 pounds or so, and the recoil is well tamed.

If you run the cartridge with bullets from light to heavy in a ballistics program, using like max ordinates and max velocities fitting each weight, you will see that at 500 yards the 120 grain X (for example) will not have dropped as far (a couple inches less)as the 140 grain (for example). Its not until 1000 or so yards that the heavier, higher BC bullet finally catches up to the 120. Basically, all the bullet weights seem to fly very similarly to great distance. When it comes to trajectory to 1000 yards, I'd be happy with any of the bullet weights, befitting the game hunted.

The magazine length is really the determining factor for cartrige length in my STW. My rifle lets me seat the 140 grain X-bullet without filling more than the neck, while still fitting into the mag. Longer bullets must be seated farther into the case, replacing powder capacity. (I have the same gripe about my 6mm Rem in a short action.) My Sendero's magazine would allow a 7mm Rem Mag to be loaded to great length, using very little powder space with even the longest bullets.

What I'm getting at is (at least in my rifle), If you want to use the heaviest and longest bullets in the Rem action, you might be better off chambering the rifle in 7mm Rem Mag and perhaps even lengthen the throat (if needed). The extra long Rem Mag cartridge, with a heavy bullet seated to not intrude on powder space, would still fit into the magazine. Configured this way, the REm Mag could be a truly long-range rifle; cheaper brass too. I think it may even tend to be more accurate. A Rem Mag, with heavy bullet seated way out comes close to the powder capacity of the STW with heavy bullet seated into its powder space. (Its the same with the 243 Win compared to the 6mm Rem in a short action.)

If I were to buy the same rifle again for long-range work (and I do love the rifle) I'd go with the rem mag, not the STW.

I've never owned an STW, but shot more than a few, always felt they just gave a push when it came to recoil, not much of anything. Along the lines of an 06.

Now I have a 7x300 wtby, need to buy dies, its about the same as the stw, mine has a 28 inch #6 tube, I don't expect it to recoil, in fact it is on a donor 300wtyb action, that gun had recoil, I suspect this one won't.

I would not shoot anything lighter than a 140ish x series, don't get hung up on flat for a long range round, what you want is wind resistant, thats usually with a less flat but heavier bullet... 150-160 area X bullets are probably exactly whatt I''ll start with for small deer.

Jeff

Nice post with a lot of experience. What's your bullet of choice in the 7-08?

I've tried most every weight.

In B.C. you never know what you are going to run into - so I stick with the TSX's now. I've tried all of the bullet weights, and with the penetrating ability of the TSX's (and the fact the heavier ones seem to mushroom to the same diameter) I do believe it's valid to drop down in weight, as Barnes recommends.

Over time, I've gone from the 175's, to the 160's, and now I'm mostly using the 140's (on everything) including the big stuff. I may even try the 120's on the big stuff, but it's really just an exercise in trying to learn more about how much the rules have changed with all-copper bullets. I suspect even the 120's will penetrate a bull moose most of the time. I can honestly see no real reason not to keep things simple, and if your rifle likes them, use the 140's on everything.

Using my 7 Mashburn Super I've shot elk with the 140 the 150 and the 160 TSX, when directed properly they all died rather quickly. Same as any other bullet I've used in the gun.

I've shot a fair amount of stuff with the 120's and I do know that they'll kill elk just fine, and I am also sure that one will have more than a few times when the bullets will not exit.

Take your pick and run the bullet you wish and that your rifle likes.

I tend to run a 150 NBT a lot and about need to use the 140 TSX at a bit more speed just to keep the trajectory's a bit closer as the TSX with the challenged BC's tend to drop a bit more.

Dober

That's exactly what I'm debating. I bought some 160 TSX's for my 280 Mountain Rifle but am seriously considering exchanging them for the 140 or 120s and going with the faster speed, esp when I've seen the same in other rifles, they all open to the same diameter and great penetration so why not go with the faster one. Not to mention I want to keep one load for everything in this rifle.

Because of a higher BC with the heavier bullets. They buck wind better and only shoot a couple inches "less-flat" than the lighter bullet at extreme range.

Interesting. I've had a 7RM for the ast 25 years, I'm on my third. I've also had a 7-08 for a good 20 years at least, I'm on my third one of those. My most recent 7-08 is a M700 Mtn rifle. The 22" barrel is long enough to really get your money's worth from any load, and still portable enough to leave the 7mm Mag in camp if you have to walk very far.

On deer size game, there is a very small difference, maybe no difference, on how fast they go down.

Used a 7mm Rem mag for some years, often with the 175 Nosler Partition or the 175 Sierra SPBT Gameking. Thought that was a very good combination at about 2900 fps. Accurate, modest recoil and wonderful results on game.

Considered bumping one of my 7mm RM's to 7 STW... But never did it. Just didn't have any problem with the performance of the standard 7mm Rem mag.

FWIW, Guy

Spent much of the day sitting in airplanes and putting out brush fires at the office..................... I need a sanity break

Seems most don't feel the STW is not a big step up from the 7mm RM - at least not at the expense of recoil incurred. I'd like to shoot one to measure for myself. The round does look like it has laser potential.

As to recoil, most of my calculations indicate it should recoil less than a 300 magnum. Most loads I'm looking at burn 75-80 grains of powder under 160's or 175's. An 8lb rifle should recoil ~ 28-32 ft/lbs at ~ 15 - 15.5 ft/sec. An 8 lb, 7mm RM, burns ~ 65-70 grains powder under most 160's and 175's and recoils at ~ 26-29 ft/lbs. An 8 lb full stoked 300 shooting 180's should do ~ 34-36 ft/lbs recoil.

I've had a 7mm RM for 25+ years but have never used it on anything bigger than deer of which it is overkill. I do like the laser trajectories of the big 7's though..............

So B, what would you be using the STW for?

I kind of look at the gains from 7 to STW like I do the gains from a 7/08 to a 280.

And, what are you running for a scope?

Thx
Dober

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.

It was my 7mm Rem Mag loaded with 160 gr TSX's.

Well, sometimes you have to choose between two evils, and try to pick the lesser. In this case the two evils were: a) ruining the cape
and
b) the bull was running AWAY from camp. I was already past the invisible land mark we call "stupid" and had just shot 2 bull caribou that I would have to pack back over the hummocky tundra.

You can tell which evil was the lesser

Jordan,
Wise man.

bwinters,
See, you don't need no stinkin' STW.

Hey D,

I never said I needed an STW...........

But a 140 TSX from a STW drops ~ 21" at 500 yards, 26" for the 175 Partitions. Thats hairline on most big critters with a bullets capable of doing the job when it arrives and buck the wind on its way.

It doesn't get much better than that with any combination of projectile, cartidge or sane rifle combination. All at a reasonable level of recoil.

There is always the matter of diminishing returns beyond the 7mm RM but the numbers posted above should be attainable. That's damn attractive and what prompted me to start this thread. Being a math geek, I love ballistics and gacking.

What's an extra 6" at 500 yards?

I have owned three 7mmstws and still own two.I drive the 140gr mrx at 3500fps for all of my elk and moose hunting and would not even consider a heavier bullet.Between myself and my hunting partners,we have used the 140gr tsx,140gr mrx and 160gr and 175gr partitions,and the 140gr barnes bullets provide as much or more penetration than the heavier partitions.

Funny you mention that, Stubble, I think I may give the tried and true 160 gr TSX a rest and try out the 140 grainer and see how it shoots. Maybe even the TTSX if I'm feeling spendy

Do you mean the difference between the STW and the RM version?

You have a point but when did common sense come into the equation?

Seriously, I'm not sure it does make a huge difference but I've always liked the potential of the 175 Partition but also thought the 7RM at 2850 or so wasn't a huge step up from the 06. 3000 ft/sec with the 175 seems serious but I do not have much experience with big game and the 175. The conversation I had with my buddy intrigued me to the point of asking folks on the 'Fire - there the best source of info.

Yeah, I was referring to the 6" difference in trajectory at 500 yards between the STW and the RM.

If you can accurately place a bullet within a couple of inches at 500 yards, then holding 6" higher won't break the bank.

It's funny that you are going the opposite direction of the current trend, which is to shoot lighter TSX bullets faster, flatter, and with ample penetration.
I'm not sure why you would want to shoot a 175 gr Partition when you could penetrate whatever it is you're likely to shoot stem to stern with a lighter bullet?
2850fps for the 175 out of the 7RM is a little conservative if you ask me...I would suggest that 2900-3000 fps is a common max load.

The TSX is a great bullet but I've not abandoned the Partition. All my rifles shoot either TSX's or Partitions. Some shoot Partitions better than TSX's.

The last several deer I've shot with TSX caused me to pause though. I shot 2 whitetails last year with 25-06 shooting 100 TSX's. They basically drilled nickle-dime size holes right through the deer. One deer took 2-3 minutes to die from a lung shot (quartering to, center of near lung, rear of far lung). I posted the thread last fall. Deer # 2 was shot through the shoulder blades - died instantly but the hole through both blades was the size of a dime - maybe. Internal damage was fair but neither deer bled well. In fact, downright poor.

Both deer died, had sufficient (re not excessive) internal damage but very little blood outside of the body cavity. Others on the 'Fire have had sufficient "bleeding holes" shooting identical loads - 100 TSX, 3300 ft/sec. Maybe I'm unlucky, but I'll explore all possibilites.

I'm thinking part of the issue is the fact that deer are not very big to start with so my experience may reflect that fact.

On the other hand, 2 of my buddies over the past 2 years have shot bulls with 7mm RM and 175 grain bullets at 2860 ft/sec. Both elk died quickly, left large blood trails and did not ruin large amounts of meat. I helped quarter both bulls so did the "autopsy". I know the 175 works well.

Push it fast enough and it won't lose much to the 140/160 TSX - the 5-6" you mentioned in your last post. Seems like a viable alternative to the 140/160 TSX.

Would also note, I've never come close to 3000 with a 24" 7mm RM using 175's. To me, 2850-2900 is what I've seen in 3 - 7mm RM's with the 175 but would like to see the load if you have it handy.

I hear ya, not all guns like the same bullets. If you look at that pic of the Caribou I posted above, you can see that the TSX left about a 1.5" exit wound on the body shot and about 1" on the head/neck shot.

Those bulls were about 400lbs on the hoof.

In my 7RM I use loads that are quite a bit above book max, so I won't post the exact load here. I've talked to several other people who've had the same results from 175's. I typically can load my rifle with 5gr of IMR4831 over book max before I start to see pressure signs...

bwinters,

Cut and pasting my post from another thread...

"My favourite rifle over the past 8 years has been my custom 7MM STW.
I did not build it, or choose the chambering...it kinda found me. Was built in New York, but by who, the salesman at the gunstore could not tell me.
It is a left handed Sako AV action, mated to a 24" stainless, fluted MacLellan barrel (anyone have any info on this barrel maker?), bedded in a Fajen nutmeg laminated classic style stock. Without rings, bases and scope, the rifle weighs just a bit under 7 lbs.
Up until last year, it wore a Leuplod Vari-X III 3.5-10 x 40 scope zeroed at 200 yards.
My first trip to the range with the rifle, and Federal's Premium 160 gr Sierra GameKing ammunition, it produced 100 yard groups of 3/4", and a 400 yard group of 3". Attempts at handloading the 150 gr Scirroco could not even come close, so I haven't attempted again.
In 7 years it accounted for 15 animals - elk, moose, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, mule deer and whitetail deer, at ranges from 35 to 475 yards. Not all were one shot kills, but none required any tracking.
Last year, when I found out that Federal had stopped loading the Sierra GameKing, I was very disappointed. The first trip to the range with their new 160 gr Nosler AccuBond ammunition did not live up to my expectations. But, that improved with a really good cleaning of the barrel (Wipe Out works pretty good). The next couple of trips to the range, with a rigorous cleaning between three shot groups, brought the group size down to .7", and the 300 yard groups to 1.6"! (great little lesson)
I had also mounted a Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-14 X 40 with the Boone & Crockett reticle, in gun metal gray on it. Looks great on this rifle.
It accounted for another elk and nice whitetail buck this past season.
This rifle is joy to shoot, light to pack, versus my 300 WSM or 338 Win Mag, and extremely accurate. Kills like lightning at short range, and shoots very flat to way out there, without any holdover, and still provides quick, clean kills."

I have not used the 175 gr Partition in this rifle, as the factory loadings have worked so well. The 160 gr Sierra is running @ 3100 fps and the 160 gr AccuBond is @ 3220 fps from my rifle. On animals that bullets completely penetrated, there was good expansion and plenty of blood, had trailing been necessary.
When I had my 7MM Rem Mag, it shot the Federal 165gr Sierra GameKing (a great bullet that was only available in this factory load @ 2950 fps) into 1/2" groups consistently, and worked wonderfully on moose, elk, mule deer and mountain goat from 20 to 220 yards.

As for recoil, I don't find it any worse than my 300 WSM shooting 180 gr bullets @ 2980 fps, with a similar type stock, and definitely less felt recoil than my 338 WM Model 700 BDL LH shooting 200 gr BT's @ 2950 fps.
Stock design makes a definite difference on felt recoil.

I really like the performance I get out of my STW.
I don't regret selling my 7 Rem Mag at all (especially since it was a right handed rifle).
I don't feel that I would be gaining anything by moving up to the 175 gr bullets, and I'm not inclined to fix what ain't broke on this rifle and it's proven performance.

But, don't take that as my saying that the 175 grainer wouldn't be a stellar performer in this cartridge. If you want to use it, then go for it!

As a side note, I'm saving the lightweight TTSX and TSX experiment for a rechambered B-78 270 Wby with a 28" barrel. Looks as if the 110 gr bullets should get about 3700 fps! Can't wait to start that experiment (and going to try the 110 gr AccuBond's as well). Shoot be alot of fun for shooting laser flat to way out there for coyotes, and deer in the wide open spaces!

blk - thanks for the input. I've had several other folks indicate similar things. The reason I keep coming back to the 175 is the monster BC. In looking long, the long range crowd shoot heavy for caliber bullets due to the ballistic advantages inherent. Their definition of long range is different than mine but all bullets start dropping like rocks somewhere around 350-400 yards. Fast bullets with big BC's make a difference between 400 and your personal limit. I'm also trying to not use turrets. My thinking and associated goals has been to dream up a rifle combination that:

- shoots a high BC bullet pushed fast enough to reduce drop to the mimumum possible
- retain less than a 3.5" inch mid-range maximum rise
- use a stadia wire scope
- comfortable recoil

Plus, I do have concerns about Barnes bullets expanding at long range. I have a handful of non-expanded TSX's taken from my moist clay "bullet test media" (aka dirt pile). Add my experience from last fall with 100 gr TSX from my 25-06, a similar experience with a 140 TSX from my 7mm RM and I'm concerned. I may have gotten bad batches of TSX's but in conversations with Ty, he's seen TSX's fail to open when striking something hard. My dirt pile is not hard, nor does it contain rocks but I still keep finding un-expanded TSX's. Dirt piles are not animals but it is more than a little discomforting to find so many unexpanded TSX's, and very small exit holes in the critters slain. I'm confident they expand in animals but can't explain some of my recent experiences.

I still think TSX's are the ticket for high velocity, smaller for caliber bullets. Noslers peel off the front portion and I've seen ugliness generated from broken bones resulting from close range shots. The trade off is simple: Weight retention (TSX) smaller exits, or Weight loss, larger exits, chance of making a mess (Partition). I'll usually go with weight retention but in looking long, I also want to know my bullet will expand reliably. I'm comfortably on the fence with the TSX and long range.............

You want a monster B.C take a look at the 180gr Berger 7mm hunting bullet.

I always think it interesting, after reading through a bit... That folks say you don't need anything more than a 7 rem mag. The STW only nets a bit more speed.... but then why do we need the 7 rm instead of the 7/08.....

BTW I"ve had full expansion on the X series out past 800 yards. By expansion I mean caliber in, IE 338, and double out, Not any larger. I don't like large wounds but we do need the bullet to open a bit generally. I"m not spooked at all with a 1000 yard TSX shot.

I bet a TSX would not open if it hits something hard that closes the nose cavity, how would it not? Any bullet can do that depending on what it hit and at what angle.

Jeff

BTW due to the BIG bullets like the 160-180 I had mine twisted a bit faster just in case... 8 twist.

i have since sold both of my 7 STW's but both seemed to prefer the 150 NPs right at 3300 fps. I currently run a 7 RUM with the 150 NPS at 3400 and am seriously thinking of playing with the 140 x's as i pretty much only use the rifle for long range deer in open wheat fields and occasionally for bear in huge clearcuts with no options to stalk closer.

Now THAT'S a real 7mm

Yup, me too. But I got one anyway. You know, to bracket the slower 7mms in my battery. I wanted something better different.

I imagine that you have looked at some of the "latest", perhaps beltless cartridges? The STWs seem a bit out of style already.

I have no experience with the 7mm STW but quite a bit with the 7mm Ultra Mag. which is very similiar. In fact, I am one of the few people who will admit to liking the round. I use mine in certain long range situations exclusively for Mule and Whitetail Deer and have settled upon the Nosler 160gr Accubond as it really does the job. I did use some 175 Partitions in testing but didn't see the need. My rifle is a Sendero and recoil has not been a factor at all. I have never viewed it as a general purpose rifle but after over 800 rounds the rifle still shoots MOA and I can't imagine a better long range caliber or rifle for my purposes though an STW would do as well. Honestly I bought the rifle just to get something different not expecting to like it nearly as well as I do. In fact, I had heard it was touchy to load for and hard on barrels and bought it anyway. Glad I did. There are always legitimate differences in opinion but I'll bet that many critics of both the 7mm STW and Ultra don't have much experience with either.

Any chance you can hang a pic of some of those TSX's? I have yet to see any pictures of unexpanded TSX's.

Appreciate it much.

A few years back I had a 7mm stw built with a M70 action and Hart barrel, great cartridge, mine shot incredible groups. I wanted the best long range performance out of it also and had heard all the theories about how heavier bullets with superior ballistic coefficients shot flatter than light fast bullets. It didn't quite make sense to me so one evening after a few too many beers I sat down at my computer with a ballistics program and started plugging in numbers. The conclusion I came to after playing with the numbers for a while was that there is a point where the superior BC of a heavy bullet will let it retain enough velocity to shoot flatter than the lighter fast bullet. That point was, in almost every scenario, between 700 and 800 yds. In other words, inside 750 yds or so your 175 gr 7mm bullet is going to drop more than a 140 gr bullet shot at an appropriate velocity for the cartridge (300 or so fps faster than a 175 gr for a 7mm stw). If you plan on shooting farther than 750 yds then then heavier bullets will give you a flatter trajectory, inside 750 yds the lighter bullets will shoot flatter. Since I don't plan on ever shooting at a game animal over 750 yds I choose to use the lighter bullets and take advantage of the flatter trajectory they give. I can't envision any scenario where I'd want to use a 175 gr 7mm bullet. If I need that much bullet weight because of the size of the game then I have a 300 mag, 338 mag, and 375 H&H. I personally see no reason to use anything other than a 140 gr bullet of good construction out of a 7mm stw. Using anything heavier slows it down and takes away the flat trajectory.

I wondered how long it was going to take before someone brought that up.....

Crowhunter:What you say about the trajectory issue is true enough IME shooting out to 600 yards.Neverthless, a 160 from an STW at 3250+, or a 175 at 3100, is no slouch in open country. And for those disinclined to own a bunch of calibers,and use the big 7 for everything,either the 160 or 175 are handy items when the game gets up to elk in size, or above.

I'm waiting on a 7mm Dakota right now; if it shoots them, the only bullet I'll need to use for anything is a good 160 at 3200+.

Handy perhaps,but totally unnecessary.

Just in case this post got missed the first time...

Stubble: Yes, I know you like 140 TSX. Bullets have changed the equation somewhat...I am not a Barnes fan at the present time.

I'm in DC at the moment. I'll post when I get back.

Crow,

I don't disagree with the ballistics surrounding heavy vs light weight bullets and have no need to shoot 700 yards. The difference between a 140 TSX and a 175 Partition is less than 4" at 500 yards, 1.4" at 400. The question we're tap dancing around is reliable expansion, not trajectory. At 500 yards, the 140 TSX is moving at 2050 ft/sec, the 175 2215 ft/sec. Here's the difference between your position and my current thoughts: I know the Partition will expand to 1.5 x its starting diameter at 2200 ft/sec, I have concerns about the TSX, regardless of what Barnes says. My experiences seemingly contradict common thought on the lightweight bullet theory.

I do find it curious that many/most folks shoot 180's (many Partitions) in 30 cals for elk. I'd venture that the "Standard" 30 cal load is a 180 Nosler Partition in a 30-06, 300 WM or WSM traveling between 2750 to 3050. A 175, 7mm shoots just as fast as 180 grain 30 cals, has a higher BC, and slightly less recoil. Somehow a 175, 7mm is hugely different than a 180, 30 cal. I'm thinking not.

I'll post a pic or two of unexpanded TSX's and could re-post my experience with my 2 deer from last fall. I realize I'm in the minority but I can't explain my TSX experiences. Suffice to say, the Partition has been killing stuff for 50+ years. Again, I'm not throwing the TSX under the bus. I still shoot them. It's the nagging question in the back of my mind that I can't definitely explain.

Well, I think the fact of the matter, as has been stated before, is that any bullet will eventually fail. Yes, my friends, even the beloved partition has failed (if by fail, we mean that it has behaved in a way other than how it was designed to), and will undoubtedly fail again. The TSX is no "wonder bullet," nor is it supernatural in design or manufacture. It will also fail from time to time (again, it will behave differently than it was designed to, regardless of whether or not it kills the animal it's shot at).

I just picked up a box of 7mm 140 gr TTSX's today to test out. That may be your answer bwinters, flat shooting AND supposedly even more reliable expansion than the standard TSX.

Bwinters,

I don't use the barnes TSX because I've seen such awful performance out of their original X bullets. Many say they've improved the TSX design, I'll take their word for it but I'm not going to be the guinea pig when there are so many other excellent bullets out there. If you're not confident of the TSX expanding at long ranges then I'd personally switch to a bullet I have confidence in instead of jumping through hoops to make that bullet work.

I think there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of guinea pigs to test the TSX's on, you're not the first, believe me.

Fair 'nuff.

Well b,
I know a hard-headed gun nut when I see one.

Please copy this intire thread to a Word document or something; save it or print it out for future reference. Go out and get yersef' a $1500 (or so, with good scope, etc) STW, load 'er up with 175s and kill some stuff. After about three years, read this thread again. You may be surprised at what was written.


Good luck on your STW project.

I read something addressing why some TSX's aren't expanding. I wish I could remember where...Handloader magazine maybe? Anyway, it said that if the HP tip hits just right, instead of opening up, the HP get's pinched shut, therefore it doesn't expand like it should. Is this why the tipped TSX's came out? I don't know, but it's interesting food for thought.

I�ll apologize up front for the length of this post���� It�s bound to stir a few comments so I�ll try to explain my reasoning in 2 posts.

I found some unexpanded TSX�s but not the ones I was looking for. I have at least 2 more that look like the unbent TSX in the pics. I had 3 unexpanded, unbent TSX�s, laying loose on my bench before I moved but have obviously been put some place for safe keeping. I�ll find them when I fully unpack ( I moved ~ 18 months ago and have not fully unpacked all my loading stuff, pending finishing my basement this summer/fall/winter). A couple of things to note. The two pics are the left and right side of the same bullets.





I�ll answer a couple of questions before they get asked:
A. These bullets show no signs of hitting anything hard � no marks, no scratches, no flat spots - nothing. In fact, they retain a sandblasted texture from the silt/sand dirt pile they were shot into. You can pick up the texture in the pics. I can�t recall ever finding any rocks in this pile even though I�m sure there is � somewhere.
B. The �dirt� pile is found in an abandoned sand pit behind my previous house. The pile�s been abandoned for 20+ years. The pile in question is ~ 50 feet long, 12-15 feet tall and was placed by man � likely some sort of washing operation. The material is a very fine grain sand to silt for those geologically inclined. I�ve shot hundreds of bullets into this particular pile.
C. I had this happen on at least 2 different occasions with 2 different boxes of 168 TSX�s.

Empirical observations from shooting into this pile for 5 years:
1. The only bullets to ever display weird behavior are TSX�s � almost exclusively early 168, 30 cal TSX�s shot at high velocity (3000 � 3200). I�ve shot Noslers - Partition Gold and regular; and Bal Tips, Sierra�s, Hornady, Speer � Hot Cor and GS, Barnes � TSX and original. Only high velocity TSX�s displayed this non opening behavior.
2. Shot at velocities of 2800 or above, only the Partition�s and Barnes stay together. All others range from 20-30% weight retention to large pieces of shrapnel.
3. At velocities below 2800, most stay together although still lose a lot of weight, except the Speer GS. They seem to retain 65-70% when kept below ~ 2700.

Possible explanations for TSX behavior:
� Conversations with Ty Herring (Barnes) indicate the bullets need �something� to start them opening, most likely some form of liquid � muscle, guts, something. The issue may be that I shoot into the pile during spring/summer/fall months. It is possible that the �pile� was not moist enough to initiate opening, leading to the bends. I have other TSX�s that are mushroomed but also bent pretty good. This is the main reason why I�ve never posted these pics before, even though this all happened 3-4-5 years ago, when the TSX came out. I also think the opening initiation failures I experienced is why Barnes came out with the TTSX. The tip will now initiate expansion.
� The early TSX were slightly harder than they are now. I�ve not had this happen since, despite shooting many TSX�s in 0.257, 0.284, 0.308, 0.338, 0.416 calibers into the same pile.

TSX's taken from the same lots as the unexpanded, note some are bent: