Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:11 PM
Blackwolf Blackwolf is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: southern Alberta
Posts: 302
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:16 PM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,507
Default

I will tell you that brass is expensive for the rum and hard to come by it seems.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:19 PM
ROA ROA is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your stairs
Posts: 488
Default

Long range? 1000yards? 130g? Barns? Ya ok
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:23 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:25 PM
double gun double gun is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,952
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:27 PM
Smokinyotes Smokinyotes is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: onoway, Ab
Posts: 3,961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROA View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:35 PM
Blackwolf Blackwolf is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: southern Alberta
Posts: 302
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:38 PM
dogslayer403's Avatar
dogslayer403 dogslayer403 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rocky Mt. House
Posts: 1,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:39 PM
colt-44 colt-44 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 122
Default

.284 beats a .308 all day long and every day
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-05-2017, 04:40 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 29,519
Default

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.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-05-2017, 05:38 PM
JD848 JD848 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-05-2017, 06:43 PM
Cowtown guy's Avatar
Cowtown guy Cowtown guy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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.
__________________
"The Internet doesnt make you stupid, it just makes your stupidity more accessible to others." Huntinstuff 2011
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-05-2017, 07:43 PM
Don_Parsons Don_Parsons is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 881
Default

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.

Last edited by Don_Parsons; 11-05-2017 at 07:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-05-2017, 08:10 PM
runnin'wild runnin'wild is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don_Parsons View Post
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 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:22 PM
Blackwolf Blackwolf is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: southern Alberta
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowtown guy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:32 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 29,519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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 .
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:36 PM
Blackwolf Blackwolf is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: southern Alberta
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Barnes never sold a 139gr TTSX. They do sell a 140gr TTSX. Hornady sells a 139gr GMX .

Its now a LRX, for 2017...

Last edited by Blackwolf; 11-05-2017 at 09:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:42 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 29,519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
Its now a LRX,
The LRX is not a TTSX. Barnes still sells a 140gr TTSX.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:46 PM
Blackwolf Blackwolf is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: southern Alberta
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The LRX is not a TTSX
yup...and a 139 grain....
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:54 PM
dogslayer403's Avatar
dogslayer403 dogslayer403 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rocky Mt. House
Posts: 1,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-05-2017, 09:59 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 29,519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-06-2017, 01:08 AM
rem338win's Avatar
rem338win rem338win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cowtown, agian
Posts: 2,227
Default

Sniff, sniff.

I'll just walk on by before i step in it.
__________________
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. - Sir Winston Churchill

A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.
-Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-06-2017, 05:33 AM
ROA ROA is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your stairs
Posts: 488
Default

it's poop
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-06-2017, 01:46 PM
Cowtown guy's Avatar
Cowtown guy Cowtown guy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
Its now a LRX, for 2017...
Not new at all. A totally different bullet.
__________________
"The Internet doesnt make you stupid, it just makes your stupidity more accessible to others." Huntinstuff 2011
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-06-2017, 01:50 PM
DiabeticKripple's Avatar
DiabeticKripple DiabeticKripple is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Red Deer / Calgary
Posts: 4,704
Default

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

But they are not the same.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
I would gladly take "terrorism" over our regular crime in that case...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-06-2017, 02:23 PM
Cowtown guy's Avatar
Cowtown guy Cowtown guy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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.
__________________
"The Internet doesnt make you stupid, it just makes your stupidity more accessible to others." Huntinstuff 2011
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-06-2017, 02:40 PM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 1,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-06-2017, 02:43 PM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
In this case Oki has cut to to the exact heart of the matter!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-06-2017, 03:06 PM
mgvande's Avatar
mgvande mgvande is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Western alberta
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROA View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-06-2017, 06:36 PM
Cowtown guy's Avatar
Cowtown guy Cowtown guy is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgvande View Post
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
__________________
"The Internet doesnt make you stupid, it just makes your stupidity more accessible to others." Huntinstuff 2011
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.