Why the Berger 7mm 180's?

Discussion in 'Long Range Hunting & Shooting' started by cross, Mar 26, 2011.

  1. cross

    cross Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    258
    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    All,

    I've been messing with my 7WSM the past few weeks trying to get the Berger 180's to fly for me. I'm not having terrible luck so far but it appears to me that my rifle might prefer sending them at the 2850 or 2900 fps range.

    I got to checking on my ballistics software and discovered that I need them to fly in the 3000 fps range before they'll buck the wind with my 168 Bergers that are happily buzzing out there into little 1/2MOA groups at 3100 fps.

    Do I even want to mess with the 180's? Why does anybody mess with the 180's at 2900 or 2950 if they can get better results with the 168's?

    I think I might be better off sticking with the 168's.

    What do you think?

    Cross
     
  2. Nieko

    Nieko Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    95
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    I think your on the right track. The 168 at the higher velocity will be very similar ballistically. I would definitely go with the most accurate one in your gun. We have a group of 7mag shooters that have had excellent results on elk and deer with 168's at 2950-3025. No reason to go with 180's and it seems alot of other guys that have been shooting the 180's have gone back to the 168's(maybe lighter recoil?)
     

  3. cabinfever

    cabinfever Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    77
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    I started with the 180 bergers in my 7wsm, but only because I'm headed to AK for moose and grizz. Otherwise the 168's will work for anything in the lower 48. I am getting great accuracy with 69 grains of retumbo pushing the 180's at 3007 fps. I believe they will buck the wind better than the 168's, but jeesh, the 168's are awesome too. FYI, I'm shooting the 180's .010 off the lans. IMO, finding the right seating depth is the most important factor in getting bergers to shoot well. The bench rest shooters sure prefer the 180's over the 168's. Good luck!
     
  4. cross

    cross Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    258
    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Thanks Nieko and Cabin (or are you Fever for short?),

    I've killed 5 or 6 bull elk with the 168's but was thinking that because the benchrest shooters prefered the 180's they had something to offer so that's why I was pursuing them.

    0.010 off the lands with 69 grains of Retumbo? Cool! I'll try that one. How is your ES / SD with the Retumbo? In the past I've had only mediocre results with the Retumbo but I see enough folks around here referencing it to know that it delivers.

    Thanks guys!

    Cross
     
  5. cabinfever

    cabinfever Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    77
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Es and Sd has been pretty low if you find the right seating depth. Just so you know, 69 grains of retumbo is a compressed load but I never saw any pressure signs si I went with it. I also used a compressed load using retumbo in my 6.5-284. This powder rocks if you find the right combo.
     
  6. cabinfever

    cabinfever Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    77
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Es and Sd has been pretty low if you find the right seating depth. Just so you know, 69 grains of retumbo is a compressed load but I never saw any pressure signs so I went with it. I also used a compressed load using retumbo in my 6.5-284. This powder rocks if you find the right combo.