300 RUM vs 7 mm rem mag
I am used to a 7mm rem mag, until some scum sucking.....stole it. So...looking into a new rifle. Specifically a Christensen Classic with a Nightforce scope. I still have a box of reloaded 7mm, 139g Barnes TTSX, with 65gms of IMR4350. I get the bullet on bullet @ 300 yards and a 6" group @ 800. I have turned very lazy in my old age so long distance hunting is now my thing. Derr, bear Elk @ 700 to 1000 yards is good.
So one of my options is to shoot a 300 Remington Ultra Mag with a 130g Barnes @ 3900 fps. or stay with the same. There are a lot of pro's and Con's to both.... what do you guys think? |
I will tell you that brass is expensive for the rum and hard to come by it seems.
|
Long range? 1000yards? 130g? Barns? Ya ok
|
Quote:
|
For me, the 300rum is over my comfort level for shooting without a brake. And I did the brake thing for one hunting season and that was all I could take. This limit is of course different for everyone.
Just my $0.02 |
Quote:
|
130g is 3990 fps....@ 1100 yrds we still have almost 900 ft/lbs. very flat very fast.
BTW 139g shoots @ 3450 https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady...alculators/#!/ Figure it out for yourself |
Quote:
|
.284 beats a .308 all day long and every day
|
I have owned several 7mmremmag rifles, several 7mmstw rifles and two custom 300RUM rifles. You don't have ammunition loaded with 139gr TTSX for your 7mm remmag, because there is no such bullet. As for using the 130gr Barnes in a 300RUM for 1000 yard shooting, you would be hard pressed to pick a less suitable bullet for that distance.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Barnes 130 grain TSX load data is 3600-3700 feet per second in my manual. Not 3900. At that velocity you have a workable shooting range of out to 625 yards as they need to have 2000 fps to reliably expand. Even if the velocity safely got up to 3900, your workable range would stretch out to about 685 yards. There is also no such thing as a 139 grain TTSX from Barnes so something is amiss there too. Even if you did have a box of that ammo, there is zero guarantee that it would shoot safely in a different rifle. That being said, if you want to shoot long range with a RUM I would be shooting bigger bullets with higher BC's. Look into the ELD-X bullets for instance. Maybe 208, 212 or 220 grain bullets. |
If you get the right powder charge behind the 130gr TSX it might be possible to see the 3900 and beyond ft-per seconds.
Super flat and fast. http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/...omment-page-1/ Good on you for pushing the limits, a little bit of tweeking to get them going. Skies the limit for those that choose to push the envelope. Don PS: It would be crazy to see the 4300 ft-per second thing as its really clipping along. |
Quote:
Quote:
I was at the time running 102 grs h1000 at around 3500 fps if I remember correctly. Hit animals hard a long way out but honestly I have killed at same distance with half the powder half the recoil in other calibers and just as dead. Accuracy and practice beat hp and recoil all day long. These days I'm stuck on my 270wsm but if I stray again to further than 700yrds I will go back to 7mm rem mag. Best bang for buck in my eyes. High BC easy to find brass and powder and bullets manageable recoil and will put anything in North America on the ground. I cant see the gain in the ultra that makes it better anymore now that I am older and smarter (depends on who u ask lol). If u wanna go big then step up to a 338 lapua and never look back. Otherwise I would pound away with the 7 rem JMO |
Quote:
I do not understand why folks like weight for rifles and archery. remember E=velocity squared times mass. I still have boxes of TTSX Barnes bullets in 139. My experience has killed deer out to 930 yards (=- 5yrds) and bear to 425. All of them just dropped nary a twitch. I did try 168 Bergers originally, then 220 Berger. At 100 yards they were all over the place and the 220 were even worse. I was at Marksman in Lethbridge picking up powder. we discussed my dilemma and sold me a box of TTSX 139. After some adjustments started to nail drive out to 300 yards bench of course. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Its now a LRX, for 2017... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But whatever you prefer we all have out own preferences and know what works for us keep us posted on your new setup |
Quote:
|
Sniff, sniff.
I'll just walk on by before i step in it. |
it's poop
|
Quote:
|
I would say that the LRX has more in common with the TTSX, than it is different.
But they are not the same. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I never understood this line of thinking. If you are routinely taking pokes at animals over 700 yards, you will put on more miles recovering animals than you ever would have getting closer in the first place. |
Quote:
Seriously, you shoot the 7 now, are good at it, it does the job... why change? The animal isn't going to get deader. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.