7mm reloading

Alrighty, went to range yesterday with two boxes of 150 gr fusion ammo factory. The guy next to me had 8 inch and 3 inch ar500 steel at 220yds. Not far at all, he said try to hit the small one, so I steady my bag and wacked it, so he said lucky shot, so I tried again and whacked it.. I hit it 10 times out of 10. The last one I ended up hitting the plate so hard it broke both chains and threw steel 11 yds behind. . Love accuracy, this rifle is made in 1987. .. my 168 match serria game king touches lands at 3.359, so last night I loaded 40 rounds of imr 4831 62gr in all ranges from lands.. lets see what happens..
Also I measured the factory fusion ammo and it came short at 3.190.. ?? When the cook book states min aol length 3.270
 
Go 1:9 if you plan on shooting 160-180gr bullets. And 1:8.75" if you plan on shooting the Berger 195's...If they ever come out.
 
I ll wont like anything heavier than 168 for 7mm mag. I like long range flat shooting bullets. I heare lots of talk on 139 or 140 gr for 1000yds plus. . I ll stick to 1-9 twist. 30 inch barrel 11 degree crown straight taper 1.350 tip to tip.. I like heavy rifles and dont mind at all carrying them in mountains. .
 
Anything less than a 168 berger is just a fasterb kill inside of 400 yrds due to hydrolic shock, but whoever told you that 139s and 140 were great for 1000yrds is full of ****! The 168s and 180s are much better choices, and velocity will not be an issue with a 30" barrel.
 
Anything less than a 168 berger is just a fasterb kill inside of 400 yrds due to hydrolic shock, but whoever told you that 139s and 140 were great for 1000yrds is full of ****! The 168s and 180s are much better choices, and velocity will not be an issue with a 30" barrel.
Agree completely. You won't see 139 and 140 reaching 1K with as much energy. Whether it's faster or not it loses kinetic energy VERY fast and doesn't have the weight behind it to retain it at that distance. Which is WHY the 180's were invented in the first place...The heavier the bullet with the higher the BC, the better long-range capabilities it will have.

Yeah, whoever told you the 139 and 140's were better at long range than the 168's and 180's is a moron. I wouldn't listen to them ever again.
 
Umm explain why not

See the first part of my last post...

Agree completely. You won't see 139 and 140 reaching 1K with as much energy. Whether it's faster or not it loses kinetic energy VERY fast and doesn't have the weight behind it to retain it at that distance. Which is WHY the 180's were invented in the first place...The heavier the bullet with the higher the BC, the better long-range capabilities it will have.

Yeah, whoever told you the 139 and 140's were better at long range than the 168's and 180's is a moron. I wouldn't listen to them ever again.
 
Although somewhat extreme think ping pong ball and golf ball....you may be able to throw the ping pong ball faster but what does that really accomplish???
 
Jewell, Timney, or Jard will all be fine for the 700. And if your smith is good, an older style ( pre X-Mark) trigger can be tuned nice and crisp with low pull safely.
 
I know well about the old styles. I've tuned alot of them myself. I've become quite handy with them. The X-Mark and X-Mark Pros are junk, in my opinion. Remington should have never strayed from the old style.

Also if you find a Remington 40-X trigger, that will be an excellent alternative.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top