RE: which is more powerful?
 

I've been working more on my muzzleloaders this year and am just getting around to loading for this years hunts. While getting ready to load some 7mm rounds I noticed that the 3400fps figure was for the max load tested which did have some pressure signs. The final load I use is closer to 3350fps. Sorry for any confusion.

RE: which is more powerful?
 

well at closer ranges the 06 is the more powerful due to its larger bore diameter and heavier bullet grns. but at longer ranges the 7mm is a better choice cause it has more fps and ke.

RE: which is more powerful?
 

I think you may have something a little off in your ballistics program to get the downrange energies that you quoted earlier. The 140 Grain load would have be travelling at 3445 FPS and that is faster than the IMR velocities for the 7MM RUM (3290) with 7828 powder.

The same is also true of the 160 grain load which calculates out to 3250 FPS when the 7mm RUM is only pushing 3140. That is with more powder than the 7mm Rem case can hold and is also above its pressure limit. The only 2 variables I can think of that would account for the performance you are gettingis: pressures are quite high, or you have a long barrel/custom barrel, or probably a combination of both. At any rate it apparenty seemsto have beena safe load in your gun andthat is all that that really matters.

RE: which is more powerful?
 

In case you haven't noticed,even remington factory loads quote 3425fps for their 140gr factory load.And that factory load is quite mild.
The 7mmRUM will easily produce 3550fps to 3600fps using 140gr bullets.If you use tsx's or coated bullets such as the barnes xlc the velocitywill likelybe even higher.Even my 7mmstw's produce 3500fps with 140gr bulletswith less case capacity than my 7mmRUM.My own 7mmremmag would produce 3250fps with a 24" barrel.I have personally witnessed a 7mm remmag with a 28" barrel exceed 3350fps.
The numbers that Iam postingare actual chronographed velocitiesand not merely estimations or calculations.

RE: which is more powerful?
 

I think the numbers you are discussing are with 26 inch, custom barrels are they not?

The 140 Grain load is a bit of a stretch unless barrel length is at play. The load that seemed to be most out of the norm was actually the 160 grain.

I just mentioned the 140 was also high to point out that the program he was using to calculate downrange energies do not add up his stated muzzle velocity. At 3350 FPS the downrange energies@ 450yds are 1906 FPE not the 2026 he stated based on the .485 BC of the Nosler BT. This is less than the 06 load that his post was trying to better.

PS: Just remember how his post started "Not to stirr this up anymore" I have a feeling DMurphy is cracking up that we are butting heads by beating on this dead horse again.

RE: which is more powerful?
 

My rifles have 26" barrels,and remington does quote the 7mmRUM data with 26" barrels.After all,26" is the standard barrel length for the 7mmRUM and the 7mmstw,so data for 26" barrels should be used in a comparison.I didn't see you ask the man just what barrel lengthhe was using,or what elevation he was using for his data.High elevation and thin airdoes have an effect on trajectory and velocity remaining.That might have been the proper thing to do before questioning his data.By the way,what barrel lengths are listed for the loads that you keep quoting?Could they be for 26" or longerbarrels?Just how many factory 30-06 rifles come with 26" barrels.Perhaps to keep all comparisons realistic,all data should be based on the standard barrel length for each cartridge.Perhaps we should also only use data that we ourself have seen verified by a chronograph andthat use thestandard length barrels for the cartridge.Otherwise this data is nothing more than unproven theory.

RE: which is more powerful?
 

Here is the information you guys are discussing in regards to my numbers.

My gun is a factory stock Winchester 70 with a 26" barrel. The shooting results were from an F-1 Beta (I think, it belongs to a friend) measured at 15 feet in front of the muzzle. Tests were done at 6500 feet ASL with a temperature of around 80 degrees. The friend with the chrony was testing the same basic load in his Rem 700 with a 24" barrel and was getting about 120 to 170 fps less than I was. The ballistics program I use is the Point Blank program which is available on the web. It may not be perfect but so far my shooting results at various ranges out to 200 yards have been nearly identical to the calculated results of the program.

The results I posted were based on the velocities I recorded but with the altitude adjusted to 1000 feet since that is the elevation mentioned in an earlier post. At 6500 feet the 140 load calculates 2076fpe at 500 yards. That is based on the Point Blank program using .485BC, 140GR BT at 3350fps, 70 degrees. My neck sized only cases will hold about 74 to 75gr of 7828. The load uses 71.5gr of 7828 and a CCI LRM primer.I had tried the Win LRM primers but the velocity spreads were larger and the CCI's gave me tighter spreads and on average about 15fps more velocity.

The 160 Accubond load I am still working up. The posted info was based on 3200fps, all else was the same except the BC. I also have a load for the 175 Corlokt(?) that averages about 3000fps using 69.5gr of 7828. At 450 yards it still has 2100fpe, again all else as stated.

I hope this answers your questions.

RE: which is more powerful?
 

There you go.Two sets ofcalculations based on the same bullet and velocity and two different results.Since neither can be proven correct both must be given equal credibility.If you really want to know the ballistics produced by your gun and load,chronograph your gun with the given load and shoot it to the distances that you want and see the real trajectory,not a calculated trajectory that often differs from the trajectoryproduced in your rifle.Since the trajectories differ,it is only logical that the velocity and energy will also differ.That is why I prefer to post data based on loads that I have actually chronographed myself.There is enoughquestionable data being passed around in loading manuals and ballistics charts,that we don't need to add tothe collectionhere.

RE: which is more powerful?
 

And would someone explain why they develop both a .270 and a 7mm wsm cartridge?