It is obvious we are going to chase our tails regarding this debate so I will keep this tosimple factsthat are beyond debate.
1. Regarding the velocity of the 06 and 7mm with RL22 I will prove the pressure in the 7mm was higher as follows; The formula for pressure exerted on an object is PSI x Square inches = Total Force

7mm 61,000 x .2532598 = 15,448

30-06 60,000 x .2826 =16,956

The 06 generates 9.76% more force at its rated pressure than the 7mm can at its rated pressure. Period. This is strait forward physics, the same formulas usedto size hydrolics system cylinders etc. If you dont accept this I dont know what else to say. Now in the 7MMs defense the 7MM can maintain the pressure for a longer period of time if more powder is added to its larger case. But notice it will take more powder to do so. See my comparison:

7mm 160 Barnes XLC 65 Grains IMR 4831, 2965 FPS
3006 165 Barnes XLC 62 Grains IMR 4831, 3091 FPS
3006180 Barnes XLC 61 Grains IMR 4831, 2956 FPS

Allof these are pressure limit not case limit just like you want them. The 06 wins by 126 FPScompared tojust 56 FPSfor your example with the "case limited" 06, and it is doing it with 3 grains less powder!!!!!
The 180 Grain 06 is just 9 FPS behind the 7 MM with 4 grains less powder. I dont need to tell you how bad the energy and momentum numbers are for the 7 MM in this example. The 06 is clearlymore efficient than the 7mm. Even with its larger case the 7MM can only match the 06 not exceed it.
PS: You need to get yourself a Barnes Reloading Manual and use that Nosler Manual for a doorstop.

Actually it is the barnes manual that underloads the 7mmremmag.

From the nosler fourth edition-7mmremmag using h-870
160gr bullet -3112fps
Which is faster than the barnes 30-06 load that you keep referring to.

So if you insist on using the highest velocity that either of us can find in a loading manual,the 7mmremmag does win.

Now keeping in mind that the barnes xlc loads use coated bullets that doallow for more velocity than uncoated bullets,the barnes data for the 7mmremmag is even more pathetically mild.
In fact the 160gr loads for the 7mmremmag exceeded 3000fps in the nosler fourth edition,hornady third edition,hodgdons 26th edition,speer reloading manual#9,sierra bullets second edition and lyman 45th edition.And in all of these manuals,uncoated bullets were used.If the barnes data is so good why couldn't they exceed 3000fps with a coated bullet when everyone else did it with an uncoated bullet?In all six manuals that I listed the 160gr loads for the 160gr bullet exceeded the 165gr loads for the 30-06.In most cases the difference was in excess of 100fps.That makes it six manuals against the lone barnes manual.Would you rather doubt six manuals or one?I think that it is the barnes manual that should be used for a doorstop.

Oops for got to divide the circumfance by 2 when doing the force calculation The corrected numbers are below

PSI x Square Inches =Pounds Force

7MM 61,000 x .0633149= 3862
3006 60,000 x .07065 =4239

I cannont believe my arch nemisis stubblejumper did not nail me on that one.

The last posting I made was in response to the RL22 comaprison where you tried to use a case limited 06 vs a the 7mm to show the 7 mm was more efficient.
I did not say that exampleI usedwith IMR 4831 was the fastest 7mm load in the Barnes manual. The fastest 7mm load is 3060 with 82.5 Grains ofH870. My example with 4831 was simple, to prove that the 06 generates far more velocity and energy than the 7mm when equal amounts of the same powder are used and max pressure. This was responding post #68 you made.
As far as your 160 Grain at 3112 vs the 165 grain 06 I addressed that in post #39.

Actuallythat specific loadwas not mentioned or addressed in any previous post by you.What you failed to address in your last post was the fact thatthe six manuals that I mentioned all list higher velocitiesfor the 160gr 7mmremmag load than for the 165gr30-06 load.Just prior you suggested that the barnes manual was thebest manual ,and that the nosler manual was best suited for a doorstop.Now after Iintroduce five other manuals that support the nosler data and contradict the barnesdata,you avoid addressing the manual issue altogether.When the evidence is overwhelming you choose to ignore it.

You started out with the notion that the 30-06 would deliver more velocity than the 7mmremmag with similar bullet weights based on one source that you yourself have not even verified..Once several sources ofevidencewere produced that contradicted that claim,you changed your tune to claim that it took 30% more powder for the 7mmremmag to match or exceed the velocities produced by the 30-06.Once the ridiculous 30% figurewas disproved you are clinging on to the 30-06 being slightly more efficient.You have changed your arguement because your original statement was proven wrong and you are nowtrying to win some small point to prevent total defeat.I do not know you,but my impression is that you do not have a great deal of reloading experience,and have not done a lot of chronograph testing or verification of posted trajectories.With that limited experience and very limited resources to compare data,it is understandable how you can blindlytrust the data that you have.On the other hand,I have been reloading many cartridgesfor over 25 years,have done a great deal of chronograph testing with many different cartridges and have firedseveral thousandbullets at ranges out to 500 yards to see the actual trajectories that they deliver for a given velocity.My advice is to gather as much data from as manysources as possible and thenobtain as much relatedexperience as possible before making claims,unless of course you like being proven wrong.

Look I am just jacking you around a little about the doorstop comment no need to get your undies in abundle. As you mention in post #73 "coated bullets" "do allow more velocity than uncoated bullets" so you acknowledged that as a fact. If you were at all genuine in your thinking would not you then expect the coated XLC bullets from the Barnes manual to exceed the others???????? In the Barnes manual the XLC can load 3 grains more powder and provide 100-150 FPS more velocity than uncoated this seems to be right in line with your manuals. Correct????? Now that the manual issue is addressed.
In post #39 I mentioned I did in fact mention the velocity from the Barnes manual 3091 FPS with 165 or 168 grain bullets and the fact that it had 60 ft/lbs more energy than the 160 Grain 7mm you were tauting.
While reading post #39 I could not help but notice you never got back with the BC of the 170 Grain Norma load that was supposed to be such a great 7mm load.It does not have anything todo withYou ignoring theoverwhelming facts when they contradict what you think. Is it.

This ongoing comparison is odd. To put it in real life terms you really need to first of all run your 2 candidates through a chrono. When you do that you will quickly see that your 3006 rifle likely has a 22" barrel and you are quoting from books who routinely use 24 or 26" test barrels so your real life field velocities will never match book anyway. The 7mm is always at least 24" so data is more representative. Secondly looking at muzzle velocity means little also. When selecting bullets/loads I always study down range velocities as ballistic coefficients make huge differences past 200yds, again the 7mm has the advantage here. And lastly sectional density comes into play on penetration,.the 30 cal 180 is .271 vs .283 for a 7mm 160. So again, the 7mm starts faster, retains velocity better, kicks about the same ( still a bit more ) and has bullets that penetrate like crazy. Am I missing something here? Hey I think its great that you love the 06 its a great round but again stop trying to convince people that its performance is better. Wether there is a couple more grains powder in one means nothing, its what it does when that powder is ignited that counts.

In the case of the 30-06,it is predictable that barnes would produce higher velocities with coated bullets than the other manuals using non coated bullets.Whatdoes not make sense is whybarnes could not produce more velocitywith the 7mmremmag with coated bullets than all six other manuals could with non-coated bullets.In any casewhether coated or non coated bullets are used for both the 30-06 and 7mmremmag ,the velocity comparisons should be equal.If six manuals produce more velocity with the 7mmremmag with non coated bullets,it only stands to reason that they would produce more velocity with the 7mmremmag with coated bullets.

Quote:

In post #39 I mentioned I did in fact mention the velocity from the Barnes manual

Yes but you did notmention

because I had not mentioned it yet,so you were not yet aware that it existed.

It's nice to see that someone else here understands the facts.