7mm Remington Magnum using Barnes Triple Shock 160g

[rinehart0050]

PS: a better look at my rifle.

Veeerrry nice! -now there's a classy looking single shot. I'm jealous!

 

[IvW]

I'm actually not so sure on that. It's hard to armchair this one. 150 gr. at 3000 fps...that's an impact velocity around 2600 fps - I'm quite willing to argue that was a very appropriate impact velocity. A 175 would have impacted at around 2300 fps (muzzle velocity for my rifle clocked 2700 fps). I doubt the e-Tip would have over expanded...and certainly a partition would have shed the whole front of the bullet on that impact leaving a base of around 140gr to penetrate forward vs. the 148 gr. of the e-Tip (figure 2gr for the plastic tip).

A 175 TSX might have done better, particularly if the petals blew off. That's quite possibly true.

So I am willing to say maybe...but it's still a crap shoot. Hitting that big shoulder muscle, then bone (about as thick as my forearm) and then going through ribs...and then deep into the lungs, that's still serious penetration. The Zebra I hit busted two ribs on the near side, one on the far side and the shoulder bone, stopping under the skin on the far size. Some 30" of penetration there.

Any way I look at it, it's still a very serious penetration test.

Going back to 2011, I used a 300 H&H with 180 TSX's at 2900 fps. I'm not sure it would have done any better based on the penetration tests I had on a Kudu. The first Kudu took three shots to bring down with the first shot breaking ribs and a shoulder. Damn thing ran for nearly 700 yards, sucking up two more rounds in the process. The second kudu took a perfect shot through the ribs/heart/lungs exiting at 300 yards. It fell over 20 yards later.

/shrug. In the end, it's hunting. Stuff happens. In my perfect world, a .375 H&H would have been a better choice but I didn't have that with me at the time.

All I want is for people to go out and have a great time on safari.

PS: Army, I was pretty sure I understood what you were saying.

I am sure about that.

Personally I fail to understand the need for too much speed and the use of light for caliber bullets.
Why one would choose a 150 gr light for caliber bullet at 3000fps for hunting large game is beyond me.
If you use the same design 175 gr bullet at 2700 fps(which is fast) in the same caliber you will have so much more performance from the bullet and it will give you much better penetration. In doing so it will kill with more authority, especially on large heavy animals like Eland and Oryx. Two of the species the original poster has mentioned he would like to hunt. Recommending light for caliber bullets at excessive velocities is unfortunately the wrong advice, especially for these tough African antelope.

The heavier bullet, 175 grain at 2700 fps, sighted at 200 yard 0 will only drop about 8 inches at 300 yards. If you aim in the middle of the gemsbok, in line with the front leg(broadside on) at that range you will take out the top of the hart and double lungs. More than enough flat shooting and this will be the max range and probably only on Gemsbuck, Eland should be much closer. So why sacrifice bullet performance, penetration and killing ability with the lightweight high speed bullets?

Let's have a quick look at the barnes bullets.

150 gr Barnes bullet in 7mm has a Sectional density of only .266
175 gr Barnes bullet in 7mm has a Sectional density of .310 which is more than a conventional 300 gr 375 bullet.
The ballistic coefficients is also much higher for the 175 gr bullet, which means at longer range it will outperform the lighter bullet.
Higher sectional density bullets have more momentum value and out penetrate low sectional density bullets.
Higher BC bullets perform better at longer range than low BC bullets, even if they start out at lower velocities. They ride the wind better, retain velocity better and just work better.

Barnes X are great bullets. However being of monometal design, they can tumble after impact and more so at higher velocity than lower velocity(3000 fps more likely than 2700 fps). This is due to the bullet being rear or tail heavy. Conventional bonded bullets are front heavy, which make then penetrate in a straight line.(Rhino-solid rear core with bonded front lead).
This is why 5.56 military bullet is designed in the spitzer shape, so that it can tumble after impact and cause more damage as it is a FMJ.

I would much rather use the 175 gr than the lighter versions, especially on the animals the poster intends on hunting in Africa, the heavier bullet will outperform the light one every time and with much more reliability.

@brent Mc-Call Peat, Barnes are great bullets and the 7mm RM is a great PG rifle for Africa, whichever bullet weight you decide to use in the end, practice with it, make sure of your shot placement. You only need one well placed shot to kill all the animals you have listed.

Good luck, enjoy and I wish you all the best on your safari!

@rnovi- I really like your rifle, been thinking about two falling block single shots for a while now. Would love one in 9.3 x 74R and another in 7 x 65R or 8 x 68S

 

[CAustin]

Sir the 7mm will be fine. If you shoot the rifle well and practice practice practice.....200 rounds before going you will have a great hunt. Shit placement is key.

 

[IvW]

Sir the 7mm will be fine. If you shoot the rifle well and practice practice practice.....200 rounds before going you will have a great hunt. Shit placement is key.

Good shot placement is better.

 

[CAustin]

Good shot placement is better.

You are correct sir. The fat fingered typist strikes again!
Placement is also important to some people.......especially those on clean up detail.

 

[Shootist43]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that 140 Gr. bullets are considered the normal weight for a 7mm. If that is the case wouldn't anything above that be "heavy" for caliber? The choice of 150s, 160s and 175s are not necessarily good, better and best. Two shots on an Eland bull at 200 yards is not at all uncommon, there is no guarantee that a 175 Gr. bullet would have required just a single shot. The OP's question was re. the use of a 160 Gr. bullet. IMHO he is right on track, especially since he will be hunting smaller game as well. Personally I would use a larger caliber for Eland. To quote part of an earlier post, "sometimes one hunts with what one has."

 

[ArmyGrunt]

I agree. A big hole in a heart or lungs is very sure to kill. As long as the bullet get there you shouldn't have to worry. What it takes to get to that heart on bigger animals I cannot speak to, because I'm not well versed on that topic

 

[IvW]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that 140 Gr. bullets are considered the normal weight for a 7mm. If that is the case wouldn't anything above that be "heavy" for caliber? The choice of 150s, 160s and 175s are not necessarily good, better and best. Two shots on an Eland bull at 200 yards is not at all uncommon, there is no guarantee that a 175 Gr. bullet would have required just a single shot. The OP's question was re. the use of a 160 Gr. bullet. IMHO he is right on track, especially since he will be hunting smaller game as well. Personally I would use a larger caliber for Eland. To quote part of an earlier post, "sometimes one hunts with what one has."

Depends on what 7mm you are talking about. 7 x 57mm normal weight 173-175gr, 7mm08 140gr.
The 160gr TSX will be fine but I think the heavier 175gr TSX is a better option especially in the 7mm Rem Mag due to its high velocity.
You are right there are no guarantees in hunting but, using a 175gr TSX rather than a 150gr TSX on eland(or any large PG in Africa) is a much more effective combination and it would have penetrated better. We know the 150gr did not.
If you cannot kill it with a 175gr 7mm @ 2750 how are you going to kill it with a 150gr 7mm @ 3000? The heavier bullet will give you a bit more margin for error.
I also think the 7mm Rem Mag is too light for a big eland bull but you will improve the performance by using a heavier bullet if that is all you have to hunt with.

 

[Shootist43]

I know that the 175 Gr bullet is what was used originally. However over time things have changed. The standard U.S. load for the 7x57 is now 140 Gr. For a 7mm Mag. 150 Gr. is considered optimal for all-around use. I certainly concede your point about 175 Gr. being the better choice for animals as big as the Eland. More importantly we both agree that a larger caliber would be a better choice for anyone with Eland on the "menue."

 

[CLICKBANGBANG]

I'm rebedding a Win M70 7mm Rem Mag right now. It will also get the new scope (Sightron Stac 4-20x50). Then it will be off to the range to test out the factory loaded Barnes 140 grain TTSX. If they group ok, I'll just be practicing off the bench on the bipod and with the sticks from long range. If the gun doesn't like the 140s and doesn't group as needed, I'll try the 160 TTSX. This will be the first time trying the factory Barnes.

I have an Aoudad hunt booked and coming up in the fall. The outfitter said to expect many, many miles every day, a lot of climbing, and a very long shot. He said broke in hard soul boots, and a flat accurate rifle... I may die of excitement!

 

[aleli]

I have been using the 156 gr and the 170 gr Norma Oryx as well as the 140 and 160 TTSX Barnes in my Tikka 7 mm RemMag.

Mainly on different deer and a few wild boars. Honestly, haven't noticed ANY difference in ability to kill animals quickly.

The only bullet I've had problems with in the 7 mm is the 154 gr Interbond that acted like a splitterbomb when it hit a boar shoulderbone.

I now just load the TTSX that I find first in the gun safe, adjust the scope to the load and fire with confidence...