I agree with you regarding the barrel length. My comments were never about my $350 savage gun vs someones $1,000+ custom barreled 7mm in performance. I do not however agreed with the BC statement. 30 Caliber BC numbers are just as good as 7mm with todays bullet designs especially in big game bullets.

165 Grain .505 Barnes
180 Grain .552 Barnes
200 Grain .588 Accubond

Those BCs aretough to beat.

Also I dissagre with the recoil being about the same. 20 grains more powder in the 7MM will equate to approx 30 Pounds of recoil energy with a 7.5 pound gun vs approx 25 for the 06. Now I know the 7mm can be heavier and not recoil more but that weight is a negative also. As stubblejumper said bullet construction is as important as the numbers when it comes to terminal performance I like my lineup above for both penetration and wound path vs any 7mm bullet. I continue to repeat on this forum the 06 does not have better performance. It is equal with less powder and less recoil. They do the same thing in very different ways.

Scott,
Yes those BC figures are quite impressive but realize that they only apply to the Barnes line of bullets who due to thier construction are very long for caliber. No other jacketed bullet yield such numbers. I quoted you data from nosler partition bullets which are far more available both in components and factory ammo. Barnes are excellent bullets but why did you not include the BC figures for .284 bullets also for comparison? Lets compare apples to apples. And lastly I hope your particular rifle shoots these Barnes well because of 3 people I know who have tried them none were satifactory ( 1 Sako, 1 Ruger, 1 Browning ). Barnes are very hit or miss in different rifles. By the way a .284 175gr Partition has a BC of .519, and a 180 .30 cal Partition has a BC of .474.

I am having luck with the 165 XLC and IMR 4831 on accuracy. Seating depth seems to be important with barnes I am told, so whileyou are adjusting powder charges you may also need to play with seating depth. The BC of .284 big game bullets are listed below:

150 GrainX.529
160 Grain XLC .508
175 Grain XLC .530

The 3112 160 Grain 7mm load was mentioned by you in Post #36.
We actually agree on one thing. I also dont understand why the 7MM 160 grain xlc is not faster than it is in the Barnes manual. Again I am just pointing out the best the 06 currrently has to offer. I think that is just a sweet spot for the 06 with the right powders, friction and BC comming together.Just like the high energy powders burn rate is a sweet spot for the factory loads. I hope you realize I am mostly goating people into responses by my comments and dont mean to really offend.

Scott,
I just popped over to the Barnes website. If you compare the 150 gr .284 with a 165gr .30 you still get a higher BC and sectional density with the 7mm bullet. Oddly enough the 160 gr bullet is not offered by Barnes and is considered one of the most effecient in 7mm by most. But if you are getting 2800 fps with a 165 barnes bullet you have an excellent load that would take everything up to moose quite nicely. I personally don't like coated bullets and after taking quite a few moose and other smaller game have come to the conclusion that a Partition never lets me down.

Barnes does offer a 160 in the XLC bullet its BC is .508. I also wanted to mention that the .588 BC I had listed is a jacketed bullet.

Reply to post #77 I must have missed this one before. I assume when you wrote this there was a heavy smell of marijuana in the room. Look at my first and second postings both referring to the efficiency not velocity being higher. Throghout the posting I always say equal with less powder my tune has not changed one bit. The funny thing is when did you feelthe velocity advantage was proven for the 7mm anyway I missed that completely. You have shown lighter bullets going faster but I always pointed out the energy levels where higher for the 06 in your comparisons. As far as the 30%more powder that is correct. When you compare powder charges the 06 is approx max at 64 and the 7 MM at 82.5. 64 x 1.3 = 83.2 that is 29% more to be exact. As far as your "sources of evidence"Perry Masonthat the 7 MM velocities are higher.All those manuals as you know were for non coated bullets.Its apples and oranges the manuals are suppost to be different that is what I would expect. Correct??? Does it skew the numbers toward the 06 yes, but that is what is commercially available and that is that. As far handloading experience that is what would fall back on if I were getting pummled with logic also. It is amazing to me how distorted your perception of this discussion is. I have pummled you with logic from the get go but in your mind you are "proving me wrong" I would like a few bullet points on where I was wrong.
PS: Still have not seen that BC for the 170 grain Noma that you felt was unfair.

I belive they would say that just so that this cartrige(7mag) would get popular fast?
and i agree with fastshootingcarts with this statement he said a while back I believe the round (7mm mag) came about because hunters wanted a round more powerful than the .30-06 and with not much more recoil.

Looks like all other rifles are compared to the 06.

Everyone with a mag, want,s to compare to the 30.06. It is the one all others compare to. They just cant stand it. The old 30.06 still runs way up top no matter how hard the mags try to prove they are better.