The new 300 Remington Ultra Magnum?
03-27-2011, 11:43 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,081
Yeah, I guess it has just gotten slower over the years. LMAO!!! Give it another 10 years it ought to be about the same as a 280!
Last edited by fritz1; 03-27-2011 at 11:48 AM.
03-27-2011, 04:05 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,081
Maybe you could explain, why is it that no modern loading data shows those levels of performance? Even Layne Simpson isnt posting those numbers.
03-27-2011, 04:28 PM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,081
This is the kind of velocities that I have seen in all of my data, granted that I dont have a sierra manual.
According to the fifth edition of the Nosler Reloading Guide the 160 grain spitzer bullets can be given a MV of 2950 fps with 69.0 grains of RL22 powder, and a MV of 3121 fps with a maximum load of 73.0 grains of RL22. The 160 grain bullet hits harder than the 175 grain bullet at all ranges out to 400 yards. Remington cases and Federal 215 primers were used for these loads, which were chronographed in a 26" barrel
According to the fifth edition of the Nosler Reloading Guide the 160 grain spitzer bullets can be given a MV of 2950 fps with 69.0 grains of RL22 powder, and a MV of 3121 fps with a maximum load of 73.0 grains of RL22. The 160 grain bullet hits harder than the 175 grain bullet at all ranges out to 400 yards. Remington cases and Federal 215 primers were used for these loads, which were chronographed in a 26" barrel
03-27-2011, 04:47 PM
#26
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ****ifornia
Posts: 5,052
Fritz, remember that Remington lowered the max pressure on the STW when the RUM came out to make the RUM look a lot faster then the STW...
03-28-2011, 12:53 PM
#27
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 7,437
Thread has gotten off topic
8. Do not engage in "flame-wars" or excessive exchange of confrontational postings. Debate is important, but users should not try to "pick a fight" with one another.
and then this
5. No discussion or challenge to our editing policy are allowed within the forums. If you disagree, or want clarification as to why a particular topic, post or individual was removed, you must email [email protected]. HuntingNet.Com moderators, administrators and staff will NOT respond to any inquiries or challenges of these rules or decisions on the public forum. However, we will respond to email or private message inquiries.
JW
8. Do not engage in "flame-wars" or excessive exchange of confrontational postings. Debate is important, but users should not try to "pick a fight" with one another.
and then this
5. No discussion or challenge to our editing policy are allowed within the forums. If you disagree, or want clarification as to why a particular topic, post or individual was removed, you must email [email protected]. HuntingNet.Com moderators, administrators and staff will NOT respond to any inquiries or challenges of these rules or decisions on the public forum. However, we will respond to email or private message inquiries.
JW
