Bob, I'm taking my son elk hunting this fall. He has a 7mm STW. I know you have lots of expierence with the big 7s on game and I don't. His rile shoots a 140 Swift A frame extremly well. What are your thoughts on that bullet for elk. others who have expierence with this bullet feel free to chime in. Thanks, 163bc

163bc:The answer is "no", I have never used the Swift Aframe on anything because I have Bitterroots in 7mm 140 and have used them,on mule deer, whitetails black bear, antelope and elk.Mostly the BBC's (which Aframes were made to emulate although construction is slightly different) will come through an encounter with any of them expanded to .60-.65 caliber,and retain about 90%+ weight retention.

Based on what I know of the Swift AF,they are similar. I would not hesitate to use them on elk, or much of anything else for that matter.

Hope this helps

Thanks Bob. I know you are a 7mm fan and have used them a bunch. I've always sort of gravitated towards the 30 cal for elk and so I have only taken 1 elk (well over 20 years ago) with a 7mm. My sons 7STW shoots those 140 SAF into tiny little groups and he shoots it well !!

140's give me the heebie-jeebies a bit on elk but that's just me being over-cautious I guess. Heavier-for-caliber bullets usually float my personal boat. But, as they say, don't cry over spilt boats, every boat is an island, and all that.

Without even checking I can promise that that A-frame has a cruddy BC. If your son is using the light bullet so that he can "shoot flat out to way out there!" it MIGHT be worth some ballistics gack. Again,

I've not used the 140 SAF but if it works as well as the 139 Horn flat base then I'd say he's Golden..

Dober

Ok, I checked. BC is .335. Awful.

Giving the 140 Aframe 3300 fps and a 160 Accubond 3100 fps, the Accubond actually shoots FLATTER out past 400 yds or so, and the difference up till then is tiny. And the AB totally kills the Swift for wind drift.

IF your son intends to shoot very far with his STW, and I mention this just because that's sort of the whole point of an STW for most folks, the 140 Aframe is actually a poor choice.

I'll put up one of my much-maligned ballistic charts if you'd like to see it graphically illustrated.

I offer this in the spirit of friendly conversation and me ass-u-ming that he has some longer-reach aspirations might be totally wrong.

Going retro here but if the fella went with the old 3" high @ 100 he'd be right on @ 300, then 8" down @ 400 and 23" down @ 500. This is @ 45 degree and 7500'.

Pretty easy to sort on an elk. It's the way I did it for years pre dotz.

Dober

Jeff if I had not killed so much stuff out to 400 yards or so with those awful Bitterroots and their lousy BC numbers... I would sit here and agree with your contentions, entirely.

But I have seen too much stuff have their legs jerked out by those "Low BC" bullets (as in crunch ),that I don't give it a second thought....I just load them up and go hunting...

Of course this is entirely for fun conversation,I agree...

BTW, what is the BC of the AB if the tip busts off in the magazine....

Only kidding, only kiddding.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dober spot on....took the words right outta me mouth.....

Those numbers are not far off back here a bit above sea level....as I have shot many times at range to confirm...

He won't have ANY problems at all from any angle. That is a tough bullet to say the least. I have killed a pile of elk with 140 ballistic tips and they work well. So Jeff, bullet weight doens't mean squat under 400 yards Put the bullet where he lives and it will be rainbows and unicorns. Flinch

Or just add dotz and rock on!

Dober

I suppose a long shot is always a possibility but my son and I both will be working hard to get close. 300 yds & closer is my comfort level but I've hunted elk enough to know it can stretch out farther sometimes. Son & I are gonna be shooting a bunch of the 140 SAF and some 160 Partitions at 300 + yard targets soon and see how things stack up. He has used the 140 SAF outta his STW for a bunch of whitetail and mule deer and they are real thumpers!!! Thanks for all the feedback. Sam

....you and your polka dot hunting outfit...sheesh Flinch

Gaa!! I'm surrounded!

Obviously, since the two bullets I mentioned shoot essentially equally flat out to 400 before the Accubond runs away, a person could also sight in 3" high at 100 yds with the AB and have everything the 140 Swift is giving them... so there's really no advantage there.

Let me put it this way. I was shooting bullets with a BC around that of the Swift, at a speed about what the STW would do, just the other day from my new .223. Conditions were fairly blustery but nothing crazy. I was also shooting my other rifles, running much higher-BC bullets at speeds from 2800 fps to 2950 fps.

With the .223 I was screwed past about 300 yards. The wind was just blowing things around too much to get reliable hits.

With my other rifles I was doing fine out to 460 yards, and ok at 500 yds.

So... if a guy wants to take a bitchin' "wind drill" like a STW COULD be, and turn it into something that's pretty severely handicapped if it's breezy, I suppose that's their business. But I'd like them to at least be aware of what they are accepting, you know?

Again just talkin' here, not trying to kick anyone's dog. Rancho will show up soon enough and that'll be the end anyway... grin...

Course one slight advantage is the SAF's the bullet he's choosing to use..

Dober

Elk will be no match against a 140 gr Aframe, even at the velocity the 7 STW is capable of driving them they will hold together and penetrate, I have only used 30 cal 200 grainers on deer but you will not be disapointed!

I will say, Dober convinced me and I am getting to 600 rather easily with the Mashburn,160-175 gr,and the 6x36 with the Dotz.

But I have only killed elk to 450-500 or so with the old retro system....so I am not too worried.

I think Sam's boy will be fine. He has a good teacher.

Dotz do rule and make life oh so easy...grin

Dober

In need of some education on "dotz". Are you talking about additional load specific aiming points added aftermarket by Leupold Custom Shop, Premier Reticle, etc. or mil dot scopes?

Thanks!

Jeff,
BC and other numbers do not kill elk. I have shot a bunch of african plains game with a 270 Win and 130 Swift's both Scirroco and A-frame. They will knock the life out of eland, wildebeast, gemsbuck, etc so I am certain the 7mm 140 AF's will kill elk provided one can hunt and shoot. Unfortunatly these skills are not learned on the internet or from reading gack on posts. I have shot the 140 BBC's out of a 280 and a 7RM and they produced the same outcome.

I totally agree!

Next time I'm field dressing an Elk, I'm gonna ask that Elk if he cares about B.C. numbers.

Yea, this worked for years and years-- and still works! I'm whining a bit here and I know it's a minor point (pun warning) but when you develop a bullet with the pointy end like the blunt end of a carrot, I'll probably go pick another for this application. I know, set it up with dots, a turret, or what have you, and you're fine, but your 7mm mag at 400 yds has become a 280 or 7mm-08 with a real pointy bullet in it which isnt all bad but You've given up something you initially went to the magnum for. Same was true with the old TBBC which now has grown a nice pointy plastic tip IIRC.

Oh, I know it will kill elk just fine but I'd take a hard look at the 140-gr TTSX or the 160-gr Nos Part for two examples.

I shoot the 300gr SAF's from my .375 H&H and they shoot very well out to 300 yds (1.5"). Blew up a Cape Buffalo last summer in Zim. I love the bullet and think it will perform very well.

Are there better choices for long range accuracy? Yes. Will it matter out to 400 yds? No.

Now if you have aspirations for 500 plus yards then you may want to consider a higher BC bullet for the possible winds that you may encounter.

Good luck. You'll have fun

That's a better way of putting it than my ham-fisted typing <g>. That's all I'm saying. Hobbling a 7STW with a .325 BC bullet just seems wrong to me when there's no real reason to do so.

BUT, if the hunting is ~400 yds or closer, then I must concede that there's no reason NOT to, either!

Wait till I tell you about the time I ran round nose Horns in my Mashburn...

Dober

Lol... sounds like forming loads I used one time to get usable brass for my 300WM... flat-nose 150's I bought to load in a 30-30!

I once bought 3 boxes of old 200 Horn flat point 338's for my .340 and man were they accurate! And they were adequate on the chucks as well...grin

Dober

Isn't there a man-law about 7-mags getting pointy bullets? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'..........

Lol... look at my Levi's brand sandbag in the picture there... and I'm bustin' balls over BC...

163-bc, I used a Swift A Frames in a 7mm magnum model 70 rifle that my wife and I have both shot while hunting big game. I have used the 140 grn bullet on mule deer and it was a good bullet. However, I liked the 160 grn bullet better for bull elk and the wind out West. The Swift A-Frame is the #1 big game bullet in my eyes you betcha!

I should add that I think the Swift-A and TBBC bullets are fine premium bullets; I did my own penetration test in the early 90's with most of the premiums available then and the Swift did well almost matching but not quite the same weight Nos Part out of a 340 but with a bigger "mushroom".

I just didn't like the truncated nose; again not that they aren't just fine. Just my opinion.

The B.C. of an A-Frame won�t matter much until you get a ways out there � further than I�ve ever attempted a shot. I figure its about like the Grand Slams I used for 20+ years and their �poor� B.C. never cost me an animal.

Much more important to me is the construction. While I only load the 120g in my Bob and have never taken game with it, I have used North Fork quite a bit and my hunting buddy has used Trophy Bonded. All are similar in that they have a bonded core up front. The North Forks and Trophy Bonded have performed without any issues.

In 2007 I switched from 160g North Fork in my 7mm RM to the 140g version. One of the 140�s went from the lower right ham to the sternum on a forkhorn mulie. That kind of penetration I can live with and I wouldn�t hesitate to use that bullet on an elk � same with the Trophy Bonded or A-Frame bullets.

Hard to imagine many, or any, reasonable big game situations that an A Frame would be a bad choice.

The trophy bonded bear claws were a great bullet, but Speer acted like they were selling gold, and didn't seem to want anyone to use them!

[bleep], I'd use that bullet/cartridge combo on a grizzly bear if I crossed paths with one.

Yeah.

It's just... it's a 7 STW, ya know? A .325 BC bullet in a big 7 mag just hits me wrong.

I'm sure it hammers chit like a big dog, within it's limitations. The limitations bug me though.

Jeff the limitations are really few,if they exist at all......and likely beyond the distances most should be wailing away.I'd expect to see a dead elk to 500-600 yards,if the guy knew the rifle and how to manage it.

There are a couple of good reasons for using the Swift, or similar bullets (tough premiums)in a fast cartridge, and not all of them have to do with just flight characteristics.Of course one is flatter trajectory,and IME a SAF stays with a Nosler Partition to 400 yards.

One other thing I have noticed with such bullets is that the faster you drive them, the better they expand to provide that tissue crushing action that goes with a good sized frontal area,and the higher velocity and rpm's help them expand more fully to distance.If they are at all like a BBC in this regard(reliable people with lot of experience say they are,including Bill Steigers)they should be wicked killers.

Been corresponding with a knowledgeable guy from Down Dnder who has sent some photos of recovered Barnes bullets driven at 3500+ from a 300 Weatherby and they look like a whole different animal from those I see here, driven from standard cartridges.

In short, speed kills.Any handicap with a Swift Aframe is hard to imagine in the real world.

Well, as a simple statement of fact I could hit better/more consistently with an equally accurate bullet of much higher BC than this A-frame. A .325 BC really is getting into the realm of where (I think) BC can be said to become relevant even just for the more casual intermediate-range hunter.

Hell, I can see this shooting 140 NBT's and 162 Amax's from my 7-08 on the same day- like I did yesterday and today. And the 140 NBT has a BC of up around .470 if memory serves. It just has a considerably bigger "dispersion cone" in variable conditions. More error. You've seen this, right?

But let me add, a guy with a big 7 running very accurate 140 SAF's would have one wicked killing machine in his hands- that's for certain! I see the appeal. Sort of a precise, blunt tool <grin>.

It's been perfect shooting conditions here... Mid-60's and calm...

You make it sound like shooting an Aframe is like throwing rocks.....

Got a picture somewhere,of a group fired a few months ago with a 7 mag...at 300 yards(yes, rock throwing distance),4 shots...3 of them with a 140AB...and the 4th,cold barrel,with a 140 Bitterroot,into the same group.Same/same.

This truly is all I need to know....the other crap at further distance has already been worked out.....I'd substitute a 140 Swift AF,check zero, and go hunting.

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!