Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum

Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/index.php)
-   Guns & Ammo Discussion (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   300 RUM vs 7 mm rem mag (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=332849)

Blackwolf 11-05-2017 04:11 PM

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?

Norwest Alta 11-05-2017 04:16 PM

I will tell you that brass is expensive for the rum and hard to come by it seems.

ROA 11-05-2017 04:19 PM

Long range? 1000yards? 130g? Barns? Ya ok

EZM 11-05-2017 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3660738)
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?

If you are getting bullet on bullet groups with your 7mm rem mag at 300 yards and routinely hunting and killing deer at 1000 yards - you don't need anyone on here's advice..... you are doing just fine.

double gun 11-05-2017 04:25 PM

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

Smokinyotes 11-05-2017 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROA (Post 3660745)
Long range? 1000yards? 130g? Barns? Ya ok

X2. Why would you shoot a 130 gr out of a 300rum??? I would consider a high b.c 200gr bullet to be the minmum to use out of a 300rum.

Blackwolf 11-05-2017 04:35 PM

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

dogslayer403 11-05-2017 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3660759)
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

And wont expand barnes are many things a long range bullet they are not

colt-44 11-05-2017 04:39 PM

.284 beats a .308 all day long and every day

elkhunter11 11-05-2017 04:40 PM

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.

JD848 11-05-2017 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 3660762)
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.

x5

Cowtown guy 11-05-2017 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3660738)
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 think you have been given some bad info or are assuming your own erroneous information.

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.

Don_Parsons 11-05-2017 07:43 PM

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.

runnin'wild 11-05-2017 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons (Post 3660958)
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:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3660738)
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 had one for awhile. Terrible recoil for what is gained on a 300 win. Hard on powder, hard on shoulder (no brake i hate em) hard on barrels and hard to find brass. I traded mine. Shouldn't have ever bought it to be honest, was gonna do 1000 yrd shooting but better options available than it and never got around to doing it ( I was young and dumb lol)

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

Blackwolf 11-05-2017 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowtown guy (Post 3660878)
I think you have been given some bad info or are assuming your own erroneous information.

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.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/bullets/lrx/

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.

elkhunter11 11-05-2017 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3661042)
http://www.barnesbullets.com/bullets/lrx/

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.

Barnes never sold a 139gr TTSX. They do sell a 140gr TTSX. Hornady sells a 139gr GMX .

Blackwolf 11-05-2017 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 3661050)
Barnes never sold a 139gr TTSX. They do sell a 140gr TTSX. Hornady sells a 139gr GMX .


Its now a LRX, for 2017...

elkhunter11 11-05-2017 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3661054)
Its now a LRX,

The LRX is not a TTSX. Barnes still sells a 140gr TTSX.

Blackwolf 11-05-2017 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 3661056)
The LRX is not a TTSX

yup...and a 139 grain....

dogslayer403 11-05-2017 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3661042)
http://www.barnesbullets.com/bullets/lrx/

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.

High BC and weight is more effective terminally that cant be argued a 300winmag with 212g eldx at 2800fps has nearly double the energy and about 200fps faster at 1000yds than a 300rum shooting 130g barnes at 3800fps and yes the light weight in the rum has about 5moa less drop but if your dialing your dialing whats another 1/4 turn
But whatever you prefer we all have out own preferences and know what works for us keep us posted on your new setup

elkhunter11 11-05-2017 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3661060)
yup...and a 139 grain....

139gr LRX, they don't sell a 139gr TTSX. You are talking two entirely different bullets, designed for different purposes.

rem338win 11-06-2017 01:08 AM

Sniff, sniff.

I'll just walk on by before i step in it.

ROA 11-06-2017 05:33 AM

it's poop

Cowtown guy 11-06-2017 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3661054)
Its now a LRX, for 2017...

Not new at all. A totally different bullet.

DiabeticKripple 11-06-2017 01:50 PM

I would say that the LRX has more in common with the TTSX, than it is different.

But they are not the same.

Cowtown guy 11-06-2017 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3661042)
http://www.barnesbullets.com/bullets/lrx/

I do not understand why folks like weight for rifles and archery. remember E=velocity squared times mass.

You need to think in terms of fps for the Barnes bullets. Not energy. They need 2000 fps to reliably expand.

brendan's dad 11-06-2017 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3660738)
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 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.

Okotokian 11-06-2017 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwolf (Post 3660738)
I have turned very lazy in my old age so long distance hunting is now my thing.

Do you send someone else to collect the animal? LOL You are still walking there...

Seriously, you shoot the 7 now, are good at it, it does the job... why change? The animal isn't going to get deader.

mgvande 11-06-2017 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROA (Post 3660745)
Long range? 1000yards? 130g? Barns? Ya ok

It would seem that any bullet 200gr or more would be a little more ideal. Especially with a 300 ultra. I think the Barnes 130 would be going fairly slow at that range. What is the minimum velocity to expand with these bullets?

Cowtown guy 11-06-2017 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgvande (Post 3661523)
It would seem that any bullet 200gr or more would be a little more ideal. Especially with a 300 ultra. I think the Barnes 130 would be going fairly slow at that range. What is the minimum velocity to expand with these bullets?

Barnes recommends 2000fps


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.