Back to the Future: Reloading Again for the 7x300 Weatherby

[gitano]

Since I have decided to take my 7x300 Weatherby to Colorado next week to hunt mule deer, AND since I MIGHT need to take some shot at or slightly over 300 yds, I thought I might look into loading some bullets other than my "go to" 115-grain Speer HP, with which I have killed a LOT of critters. Trouble is, while it starts out 'smartly' with a MV of over 3300 f/s, it's BC of .250 causes it to shed that velocity (and more importantly, ENERGY), pretty quick. By the time it's out at 300 yd, the energy is down to ~1200 ft-lb. It drops to 1000 ft-lb at 380. Like I said, I've shot lots of critters with this rifle and bullet combination, and I do not want to shoot at big game beyond much over 325.

I was 'talking' with JaDub, sakorick, and Hunterbug here: http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?p=151741#post151741, and got to thinking about other bullets. (I LOVE the 115-grain HP. It shoots like a laser and they DIE RIGHT THERE! Inside 300. ) As a result, I went out and bought some 140 Accubonds and some Retumbo powder.

I'm going to relay the gory details of working up a load using some "longer range" bullet for this rifle. One I can confidently shoot out to 350 yd and know it will both have the energy I want AND shoot precisely enough to be confident to put it where I want it to go at that range.

First in what will likely be a bit of a "saga" is a picture of all of the 7mm bullets I have in hand. I will follow this with a data table of some of the important specifications of each bullet. From that will follow some comparisons of external ballisitics, and ultimately a final choice. I will get a load worked up and ammo loaded for Colorado. All in less than 7 days. Let's see if my theory and understanding of QuickLOAD will allow me to achieve this goal.



Paul

PS - There is only one bullet among those you can see in the picture that is ABSOLUTELY "out". It's the Hornady 162-grain BTHP. That is a target bullet with a TINY, CLOSED meplat. It is not suitable for use on big game. I WOULD use it on coyotes and smaller game though. Also, I notice that I have used up all of the Hornady 154-grain bullets that I used to have 'plenty' of.

Paul

[gitano]

I just spent the past hour running all of the above bullets through QuickLOAD, and there were some very interesting results. Many of them have very similar external ballistics. As it turns out, Hodgdon's Retumbo is THE powder for the 7x300 Weatherby (according to QL). It gets higher velocities and lower pressures than my long-time fave - 4831. Retumbo was not available in the 70s, 80s, and I don't think the 90s either. It's odd to me that it "works" for every bullet weight from 100 to 175.

The first priority, (tomorrow), is load up some CHEAP bullets in front of Retumbo, and calibrate it's burning rate. Once I have that accomplished, I can start looking at "real" QL loads. Loads that QL predicts the MV within 25 f/s or so. At that point, I will be able to get the timing right as compared to the 115 HPs. That SHOULD put me very close to "on" precision-wise with whatever bullet I choose. I didn't count how many of the 160 Accubonds I have. If I have enough to work up loads AND load for hunting (20), I'll probably use them. However, Retumbo has revitalized the 115-grainer!

Assuming the real burning rate is not too far off the QL value, Retumbo ups the MV of the 115 HP to 3450 f/s. That means that the 400 yd energy is over 1000 ft-lb. Drop at 400 with a 2" max above line-of-sight is 16". That's "off hair", but I've never shot at a big game animal over 320 yards, and I don't INTEND to start now. At 320, the energy is 1300+ and the drop is 6". Impact velocity is 2270 f/s which I know from personal experience will "hit like a hammer" with that fat meplat on the HP.

There will be more tomorrow.

Paul

PS - I might mention that since this rifle was my first wildcat, I have ALL of it's specifications: Chamber length, barrel length, case capacity, the bearing length of most of the above bullets (and I'll have the rest tomorrow). This is partially why I think I can achieve the goal of getting a precise "heavy" bullet load in the 7 days between now and when I leave for Colorado.

Paul

[gitano]

After a couple of hours of measuring and cypherin', I loaded 3 cartridges with a 139-grain Hornady flat-based bullet seated 0.355" deep (0.050" off the lands), and 85.6 grains of Hodgdon Retumbo. QuickLOAD predicted a MV of 3118 f/s. After pulling the trigger 3 times, I got 3394, 3399, and 3399 f/s. (I LIKE that spread - 5 f/s!) That's almost 300 f/s faster than QL predicted. Now, I adjust the burning rate of the Retumbo powder based on these MVs, load three more with a slightly different charge, (same powder of course), and check to see if QL gets the MV correct after the adjustment.

Making the adjustment to the burning rate of Retumbo, the QL predicted MAX pressure is 73,892 PSI. That's 10,000 PSI over the SAAMI max! I examined the cases closely after firing, and the primers aren't 'flattened'. (There is a bit of extrusion into the firing pin hole though.) No head separation of course. So... I'm not sure this adjustment is correct. I don't like the simplistic way that QL users and the QL author say "Just adjust the burning rate until the QL-predicted velocity matches the actual velocity". There's SO MUCH more to the internal ballistic equation than just the burning rate of the powder.

Moving the charge back to the desired timing node, the charge is reduced by 9.7 grains. That's a lot! I'll try that charge, (75.9 grains), and see if QL predicts the correct MV - about 3070 f/s. That will reveal whether the burning rate adjustment I made is appropriate.

Paul

PS - The change in burning rate was 20%. That's 5% more than author of QL recommends for  the MAX change to the burning rate spec. I'll check the bulk density of the powder too. In the past, actual bulk density was occasionally significantly different than the QL spec'd bulk density.

Paul

[gitano]

The QL spec'd bulk density is 0.925 grams per cubic centimeter. I measured the bulk density of the powder I have in hand at 0.962 g/cc that's a difference of 4% denser. While adjusting the 20% change in burning rate down by 4% gets to almost the max recommended change in burning rate of 15%, the actual effect on the QL prediction cause by changing the bulk density by 4%, was negligible.

Paul

[gitano]

Sumpin' funny goin' on.

Have a look at this article by Layne Simpson. http://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/ammunition_st_7mmstw20_200812/100178 (Simpson is the creator of the 7mm Shooting Times Western cartridge which is the ballistic twin - almost - of the 7x300 Weatherby. The Weatherby has about 5 grains more case capacity.) The charges he gives with Retumbo are close enough to the 85.6-grain charge I used, to indicate that such a charge should not be producing pressures of 75kPSI.

More investigation needed.

Paul

[gitano]

The 79.5-grain charge produced a MV of 2995 f/s. The predicted MV using the adjusted specs (burning rate and bulk density), was 3068 f/s for a difference of 73 f/s. Too far off for what I want, BUT, better than the 277 f/s difference of the unadjusted powder. I will make another adjustment, and shoot another. I want QL to be less than 50 f/s off of the observed value.

Paul

[gitano]

The last adjustment resulted in a predicted MV of 3092 f/s and the actual was 3082 f/s. A difference of 10 f/s. That's close enough.

Maybe I should reiterate here that I am NOT looking for a MV. I'm looking for a specific TIME. The time I'm looking for AFTER I calibrate the powder, results in a predicted MV. Since I can't measure exit time, but I CAN measure MV, I infer (calclate) the timing using the MV.

So what I now have is the calibrated "new" powder, and the known timing of this rifle. Using the known timing of the laser-straight 115-grain bullet, I can use QL to calculate charges for 140 and 160 grain Accubonds that put me "on" the correct timing node. That SHOULD make the loads "right on" with regard to precision. I might be able to test-fire the new 140 and 160 Accubond loads for precision this evening. If not, I will do it tomorrow. IF, and it's a pretty big if, these loads shoot MoA or better, I'm finished with the workup.

Next post should be dead targets.

Paul

PS - Took me 6 shots to calibrate the powder. The bullets I used are some that I will never otherwise use (139-grain, flat-based, Hornady, spitzers) that cost me 12 cents apiece when I bought them. Each charge cost roughly 40 cents, for a total powder cost of $2.40. Let's call the primers 5 cents a piece for a total of 30 cents. So the total cost so far is $3.42. (And the @#$%^&* powder was the killer!)

Paul

[gitano]

By the way... I made all of these "intermittent" posts because many people don't like to read "the whole story" in one bite. I'll summarize when I get finished.

Paul

[recoil junky]

Before you "waste" money on Retumbo (ptooey) and if you have some 7828 I'd go that route first.  It's by far the most accurate load in 3 overbore rifles I currently own. The 300RUM, 25-06 and sevumag.

I tried Rutumbo (PTOOOEY) in the 300 and sevumag and groups were ****. If you were closer I'd give you about half a pound of Retumbo (PTOOOEY).

Of the bullet selection I see one that I would load and that's the 140 grain Nosler solid base boat tail. When those are gone the Accubond is hard to beat. If not those then Sierra's 140 grain Gameking.

I'd go for accuracy first.

(whispering) if it was me, I'd go with 150 grain Gamekings, but that's just me

RJ

[recoil junky]

P.S. I'm getting over 3000 fps with the 150 grain GK and a hatfull of 7828 from the sevumag. Apples n carrots I know, just saying.

RJ

[gitano]

The Retumbo ship has sailed. We'll see how it shoots tomorrow. I have some 7828, but I've never gotten that to work for me for a precision load. But I've never worked very hard at it either.

The 150 is a good-looking bullet, but with the long case and the short (24") barrel, it just doesn't 'pencil out'. Both the 140 and 160 Accubonds will be the 'bullets of choice' as long as they shoot straight. I know this rifle is capable of 0.5 MoA, so any bullet I work on will have to get at least MoA. If Retumbo works, I'll probably give it a whirl with the 115-grain HP. It might push the MV another 150 f/s. I have US869 and H1000. I could try either or both if the Retumbo doesn't work.

Paul

[recoil junky]

I've taken more elk with the 150 from my 24" sevumag than any other rifle, that's why pencils have erasers



Recovered from under the hide from my last Montana bull. I trust the 150 to do the job out to 350 yards easily. 500 if I were pressed.

I don't trust myself alone when hunting with the sevumag. If I take it hunting I always kill an elk even though I was just thinking about it. Then there's the phone call.

"Hey Gunter, you busy?" :o

RJ

[gitano]

I would have to look through my records to recall what bullet I used most in my 7mm RM. I shot a lot of critters with it before I made the 7x300. I know I wanted to shoot the Barnes 195s, but because of their length, the 9.5 twist rate wouldn't stabilize them. Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside with those. (That was the beginning of my distaste for Barnes bullets.) It seems like I shot Hornady 154s most.  I know I also like the Hornady 162 BTSP. When I was doing a lot of experimentation, I loaded the 162s backwards. They shot straight, but they didn't perform well terminally. The butt-end of the bullet wasn't designed for "mushrooming". Ultimately, I went to the 115 in the 7mm RM. It was actually an accident. I went on a 10-day fly-in sheep hunt and brought my "regular" bullets (probably the 154s) and thought I would bring the 115s just in case we got sheep early and wanted to hunt some wolves. We flew in, unpacked the plane, put all the base-camp gear up in a tree, and headed off up the glacier. We hadn't gone but about 100 yards when I said, "We should probably load our rifles." I about passed out when I realized I had left my ammo on the front seat of my truck! I knew I had stashed the 115s in the cache in the tree. I was a little nervous about using them on big game, but I didn't have a choice. When I shot a ram right at 220 yds, and the 115 'hammered' him, I was hooked. I've never used another bullet in my 7mm Mags. I load my wife's 7x57 (ptooey) with the 139s. The 7x57 kills caribou, but not as good as a .308 Win does.

As long as it shoots straight, the 140 will be my bullet of choice. When I get some actual target time, I'll post some ballistic numbers.

Had I known what I know now, when I made the 7x300, I would have put a new, 28", barrel on it. That extra 4 inches makes a difference in these big-cased cartridges. Also, while I love the 7x300, for all the extra hoohah I have to go through to make ammo, it's not materially a better cartridge than the good ol' 7mm RM.

Paul

PS - I did use the 175-grain Partition quite a bit in both the 7mm RM and the 7x300 before I discovered the 115.

Paul

[gitano]

7x57 Mauser, 7mm RM, 7x300 Weatherby, 7mm Shooting Times Western. The 7mm STW looks bigger than the 7x300, but in fact, the Weatherby case has about 6 more grains of volume (97 for the STW vs 103 for the Weatherby). The 7x57 has the Hornady 139 Spitzer; the 7mm RM has (I think) the Hornady 162 BTHP, and the 7x300 has the Speer 115 HP.

Paul

[gitano]

By the way, I still have the 7x300 reamer. It has cut exactly one chamber. A gunsmith in Fairbanks did the work, and I must say that I have always been pleased with the result. I often get a hankerin' for that extra four inches, but when analyzed objectively, there's simply no good reason to scrap a rifle that shoots like a laser just to hope to get 150 more MV.

Also, the 7mm RM shoots that 115-grain HP with the same level of precision that the 7x300 does. It's just a good bullet design. Unfortunately, it has a poor BC. The 7mm RM and the 7x300 are Remington model 700 actions. The 7x57 Mauser is a model 77 Ruger. The Ruger has a HORRIBLY out of round chamber, but it shoots sub-MoA. It just occurred to me that I should scrap that 7x57 barrel and put a .308 Win barrel on it. Again, though, if it ain't broke... and this rifle ain't broke.

Paul

[Paul Hoskins]

Quickload is something I don't fully understand but at this stage of my life it's not that important to me. I'm not an electronic or physics minded person  but from what little I do understand about Quickload it's much like the MECHANICS of a sewing machine or cam operated Swiss screw machine. It's all about motion & timing.. If everything is adjusted right it will work. If not adjusted right you get garbage. The parts of a sewing machine ALL have to work together. Same thing with a screw machine. Both are rather simple but marvels of ingenuity. With firearm accuracy it bears  a similarity but has to do with barrel whip or vibration & bullet exit time from the muzzle. I can relate to mechanics but not so much with physics even if they do have parallels. I may be wrong but it seems to me most any bullet can be consistent if the right  powder & load can  be found.  .......Paul H

[gitano]

Your analogy is pretty good, Paul, and offers an opportunity for me to point out something about "science".

QuickLOAD is a computer program that implements a mathematical model that describes a specific phenomenon - shooting a bullet out of a modern rifle. Too many scientists, (actually they are not TRUE Scientists, but rather priests of the religion of science), like to point to the infallibility of scientific "fact". They are, like most priests, con artists. As such they lean heavily on a FEW Truths (like the law of gravity, the motion of the planets, the laws of chemistry, etc.), to weave their CONS.

A sewing machine addresses a specific task: AUTOMATICALLY joining two pieces of fabric. HOWEVER, it is the skill of the tailor/seamstress that determines the quality of the PRODUCT that the machine produces. You cannot throw fabric at a sewing machine and expect a three-piece suit to magically appear. Even when the tailor/seamstress is highly skilled and experienced, they understand that each PIECE of fabric (not "type") has its own characteristic that must be accomodated. It is their skill and experience that allows them to adjust to the vagaries of each piece of fabric (LIKE EVERYTHING IN LIFE).

Computer models only get us "close", and that is ONLY true if the model is 1) VERY good, and 2) is used PROPERLY. The reason so many people believe that computer models "MODEL" a given phenomenon EXACTLY is because the priests of science have LIED about the capabilities of computer models TO MAKE THEIR PRIESTHOOD APPEAR MORE POWERFUL.

I have been at the business of computer modeling for my entire professional career. I have seen arrogant scientist claim that they are going to model "this" or "that" LIFE PROCESS. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ONLY ONE of the following two outcomes have I seen:
1) They tuck tail and slink away from the project after decades of time and BILLIONS of dollars spent, or
2) The model is so complex that it is completely meaningless. In order to not get garbage out, the input is sufficiently complicated that by the time all the variables are filled in, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER! Making the model meaningless. Think about our "weather" models. Except for very general application, they are useless. They can save neither time nor money NOR LIVES.

Too often, we look at ENGINEERING 'things' (like sewing machines) that WORK, and EXTEND the technology that developed that SPECIFIC TOOL to "What Man Can Do". Computer Numerically Controlled lathes and mills would be a good example. "Look what "science" can do!". And THEN we ascribe that ability to ALL our "machine-making" efforts. THAT IS WRONG. And the people do that are con-men, charlatans, voodoo priests, and snake-oil salesmen.

Mathematical models, implemented on computers, are only useful IF they can save us time and/or money. QuickLOAD is a good enough model that, if implemented correctly, can save time and money.

I should close by saying "Science, TRUE Science is not only not 'bad', it is the revelation of The Creator - TRUTH. The PRIESTS of science, just like the priests of EVERY religion, are responsible for corrupting the TRUTH."

The sermon for October 12th, 2018,
Paul

[Paul Hoskins]

I guess I didn't explain my train of thought properly. Maybe it wasn't very clear. I'm somewhat familiar with computer controlled milling machines & lathes. I like them but for general work I prefer manual mills & lathes. I like programming them. I know they'll do their part if you program them right & don't put in the wrong tool. Been there, done that. Makes a 3,000 dollar part into scrap iron. ......Obviously Quickload will get you close. From there it's up to you to fine tune. It may be tweaking the powder charge a bit or adjusting the bullet seating depth in or out or both. I can relate to it's purpose & what it does but can't get it in  my head just how it works. It isn't all that important to me but I'm curious. My mind just doesn't grasp electronics. I'm a mechanical nut but computers just won't register in my brain. I can't even grasp how computerized sewing machines work but understand mechanical machines fully. Quickload is fascinating but above my comprehension. Mechanical sewing machines & automatic screw machines are all about timing moving mechanical parts & synchronizing them regardless of their speed. .......Paul H

[gitano]

Well Paul, I think I was the one that wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that anything you wrote was 'off'. On the contrary. I thought your analogy was 'spot on'. I just have a hobby horse (corrupt science) that I am prone to climb up on with very little provocation.

Programming CNC machinery yields GREAT (and repeatable) stuff. But it's a VERY specific task. "Modeling" biological systems, or even VERY complex systems like firearms internal ballistics, is VERY difficult to do. The author of QL has done a commendable job, AND he cautions people to "do the work" and not rely on "the math". You can't ask for much more than that. Nevertheless, QL is an "estimator" that gets you close, it's NOT a "producer" like a CNC lathe that produces a finished product.

I've learned a lot about internal ballistics since I bought QL some years back. What I have learned is not new mathematical techniques. Rather I have learned where the variability lies in the system, and how big those variances are. Most importantly, I have learned where manufacturers of bullets and powders "blow smoke".

If I had more time before I left for Colorado, I would attach one of my pressure sensors to my 7x300, and check the REAL pressures instead of guessing at the max pressure based on MV. I just don't have the time to do that. Maybe when I come back I'll hook up my pressure gear. Of course, by then, the only reason to do that would be to 'get numbers'. The precision (and MV) of the load will already be known.

Paul

[gitano]

For those wondering about the "hammer effect" at 300 yd and my comments about the 115-grain HP, have a look here http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16867&page=6, and specifically post number 55.

Paul

[gitano]

It's been raining steady for the past two days, but tomorrow it's supposed to "not rain". If that turns out to be correct, I'll get these preliminary 140 and 160 grain loads tested.

Paul

[Paul Hoskins]

Looking forward to the action & results. .......Paul H

[gitano]

Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.

Today, I ate the bear. :D

It was a very hectic day, BUT...
1) I got the winter tires put on the Toyota,
2) I shot the 7x300 to test the 140 and 160 grain Accubonds,
3) Tested the "tire silencer", AND
4) Made it to my wife's concert.

All before 3:30 PM!

Here's the range report on the 140s.
To briefly recapitulate the salient points:
1) The rifle shoots the 115-grain HP bullet VERY precisely, but it runs out of 'gas' much beyond 300 yd,
2) I thought I might be confronted with a shot between 300 and 350 yards on my upcoming deer hunt in Colorado.
3) I decided to try Nosler's Accubond bullet in 140 and 160-grain weights.
4) I had to change powders to use the Accubonds. (Actually, I didn't HAVE to change powders, but I wanted to because QuickLOAD suggested that Retumbo would give higher velocities at lower pressures than H4831.)
5) I 'calibrated' QL based on the timing of the 115-grain bullet's timing, AND adjusting the burning rate of Retumbo so that QL's predicted MV was close to the observed MV.
6) I loaded 5 each of the 140s and 160s.

The plan was to shoot three shots for group without the MagnetoSpeed chronograph bayonet attached, then shoot the last two shots with the chronograph attached to the muzzle of the rifle. I followed that plan. There was no need to 'zero' the rifle, as it was zero'd with the 115, and "hitting the bullseye" wasn't important. Group size (and MV) was all I was interested in.

Here are the first three shots of the 140-grain Accubond:


Point of Aim on both 140s and 160s was the lower left corner of the solid black square seen in the right-hand side of the picture.

You can bet your sweet bippy that I was VERY pleased with those three shots! AND the first one out of a "cold barrel"! No "first shot syndrome" with this rifle. Never has been one.

Here's the picture of the group with the final two shots, after I strapped on the MagnetoSpeed.


Isn't that interesting! Confirms my concerns (and Jamie.270's) about the bayonet affecting point of impact! That's really too bad. I assume that on a bull barrel the effect wouldn't be so dramatic.

But... back to the "good stuff"! The velocities for the two rounds were: 3113 and 3111 f/s. THAT ain't too shabby either, even if it is only two shots! QL predicted MV for that charge was 3093 f/s. A difference of about 20 f/s, with the observed being higher.

It is difficult to express how pleased I was with those numbers and that group. By the way, the group size was 0.87" which translates to 0.89 MoA. You can rest assured that I'll "take" that!

I'll spare you the gory details and cut right to the 'chase scene':


As you can see, this was not nearly so 'inspiring'! I didn't bother shooting the last two shots at the target (but I did get the MVs). Predicted MV was 3017, actual MVs were 3010, and 3043 f/s. A spread of 33 f/s but about 'on' wrt the predicted.

Here's what I think explains the discrepancy between the 140s and the 160s: If you recall, I "calibrated" the burning rate of the powder using the muzzle velocity readings from various charges behind A 140 GRAIN BULLET. With increased experience, what I have begun to see is different "calibration" requirements for different WEIGHTS when the weights are "significantly" different. Which begs the question: "What is a "significant" weight difference?" I wish I could tell you. However, I think when you change bullet DESIGNS as well as weights, I think the exacerbation increases. HOWEVER, it must be acknowledged that while the group size of the 160 was not 'comparable' to either the 115 or the 140, the PREDICTED MV WAS ESSENTIALLY "on". Therefore, the timing SHOULD have also been "on". This will warrant further investigation.

Given the impending departure for Colorado, I am not going to fool with trying to get the 160s to shoot straight. (Although, I have some optimism about achieving that goal without TOO much effort. Just not enough time before the hunt.) I AM going to load up 20 rounds of 140 Accubonds with the above charge of Retumbo. If I get the chance to shoot both the 115 and the 140 before I leave, I'll how they compare in point of impact. The rifle was most certainly sighted in for the 115-grain bullet. Therefore, it is appropriate to assume that the above group represents how far off the POA of the 115, that the 140 would be. Maybe, shooting them at the same time will reveal something I can "do" to make both of them hit the same POA. Or near enough.

The next "win" was the "tire silencer". For that story go here: http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19964&highlight=tires

Again, I'll cut to the chase: The whole system had not yet been tested. Today, Roy came by to help, and we got all the tires stuffed with fiberglass wool insulation, and the whole shebang lined up so I could shoot through them. IT WORKED GREAT! I actually shot without ear protection! There was still the sharp 'crack', but the 'boom' WAS GONE! Even Roy was impressed, and he had been dragging his feet over using the thing because he was skeptical about its efficacy. He's a believer now!

Finally, when we drove over to his place to set up, this was right in the firing lane:




We literally had to throw rocks at her to get her to leave.

So... All in all, even with the poor performance of the 160s, it was a grand day, and I achieved the goal of getting (at least one) of the "new" bullets, with the "new" powder, to shoot straight enough to take on a long-distance-from-home hunt. And... did it with a total of only 11 rounds being fired! I'd call that "good".

Paul

PS - Here's a picture of how the 7x300 shoots the 115-grain bullet. http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18477

Paul

[gitano]

By the way...

Here's the external ballistic table for the 140 at 3112 f/s.


I should also point out, that this the "low" node. Estimated max pressure for this load that produces the average MV of 3112 f/s is 50,622 PSI. That leaves considerable pressure 'headroom' to go to the next fastest node. That estimated MV is 3312. Exactly 300 f/s faster. I don't know if I want to try to get there or not.

Here is the external ballistic table for the 140 doing 3312 f/s:


Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

lucky moose

[gitano]

Very lucky moose.

Paul

[Paul Hoskins]

Lucky moose indeed. I could almost taste the gravy.   ......Paul H

[gitano]

Wow. Pull off a fairly amazing (to me only, clearly) feat of reloading, and the only interest is in the pictures of the moose in the shooting lane.

I suppose, this is a HUNTING site, after all.

Paul

[JaDub]

When all of this is said and done Paul , I have , at your disposal,  a tack driver of a Tikka T3 lite in .308 that you are more than welcome to shoot.  It`s my go to gun for deer.  This might also eliminate the hassle of gun transportation on the airlines with subsequent damage.  You also have the `pick of the litter` of anything in my arsenal.

  Looking forward to your arrival.

 JaDub

[gitano]

As sakorick would say, "I'm leanin' forward in the foxhole".

I sincerely appreciate the offer JaDub, but I'm fine with the 7x300. Maybe Pat and I will stop by the range as we head home from the airport. We've done that before, but I'm pretty comfortable with the 115 out of the 7x300, and I'm very pleased with the 140 Accubonds. I just don't have the 140s "on target". To do that, I'd have to take the 115s "off target". I'm disinclined to fixing what ain't broke. THAT SAID, if I "feel the need", I'll use "whatever works". A Tikka .308 tack driver would beat the dickens out of a .30-06. :D

Paul

[JaDub]

Don't know your plans, but I`d enjoy seeing you at the shop after Pat picks you up. I`d enjoy `opening up the vault` for your inspection.

 Cheers,  JaDub

[gitano]

Give Pat a jingle and work out the logistics with him. I'd love to stop in!

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

[gitano]

"Hee laugheth best that laugheth to the end." From The Christmas Prince - 1608.

Paul

[recoil junky]

A Tikka .308 tack driver would beat the dickens out of a .30-06. :D

Paul

RJ

[branxhunter]

Looks like you have that load well sorted out Paul. It is amazing to get onto it so quickly, really does show the value of quick load. I know I have burnt tens and tens of rounds trying to find a load for some of my rifles - the .243 has probably had over a hundred rounds and I still haven't found a load I am happy with.

Looking forward now to seeing how the hunt goes.

Marcus