Post by: bcrawford on July 20, 2007, 06:09:27 PM
Post by: Halo on July 21, 2007, 07:19:16 AM
Post by: bcrawford on July 21, 2007, 01:03:23 PM
Post by: BlackTail on August 07, 2007, 11:33:08 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on August 08, 2007, 05:54:20 AM
Post by: GoldTip on August 08, 2007, 09:40:41 AM
Post by: littletoes on August 10, 2007, 01:59:03 PM
maybe i can get it started a bit....
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa369%2FLitoD%2F308boxsmall.jpg&hash=2218ccd4f8e8a51149fdf8ff282d187d50bcb5ed)
Post by: ICEMAN on August 10, 2007, 04:09:55 PM
Post by: Ray on August 10, 2007, 04:21:31 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on August 10, 2007, 10:42:07 PM
Post by: BlackTail on August 16, 2007, 11:13:12 AM
I've been hearing good things about the 150 sciroccos. They were back-ordered everywhere I checked, for about 6 months, but I finally tracked down a box. I haven't shot any yet, but a couple of my friends that have 300 rum's shoot the 180 sciroccos and have had good results. Also bought a box of the 175 gr A-Frames. Looking forward to seeing how both those rounds shoot. Although, it's hard to argue with the 160 gr Partitions I have that shoot into 3/4" groups.
I'll try and take a picture of my gun today and see if I can figure out how to put it on here (this will be my first ever attempt at posting a pic anywhere).
Post by: jackelope on August 16, 2007, 11:24:19 AM
Quote
this will be my first ever attempt at posting a pic anywhere).let me know if you have a problem, i 'll walk you thorugh it, very easy....there's a help section too.
Post by: GoldTip on August 16, 2007, 01:00:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 16, 2007, 01:45:10 PM
Post by: littletoes on August 16, 2007, 07:00:35 PM
The 175's in 7mm are hard to beat for BC (wind cutting ability). Lighter bullets may be faster out of the muzzle, but velocity will erode much faster in a lighter bullet than a heavier/higher BC projectile.
Post by: ICEMAN on August 16, 2007, 08:18:22 PM
Maybe in Feb I will try reloading the RUM. Too many hunts coming up right now..., no time now...end of duck, oops, thats not going to work either..., my coyote trips...then Turkey, crap!!! No time, maybe I should give up reloading? :bash:
Post by: tlbradford on August 16, 2007, 08:36:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 16, 2007, 08:38:52 PM
http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
Post by: BlackTail on August 16, 2007, 11:46:58 PM
Goldtip - Yeah those 150's look like they are some flat shootin' sunofaguns from the ballistic charts I've looked at. I'm excited to see how they shoot in my gun. Pretty cool to sight in 2" high at 100 yards and be about dead on at 300!!
Bobcat - Very good points. I really like the idea of shooting the 175's. And from everything I've read about the A-Frames, they are a premium bullet. I really think between 150 scirocco's, 160 partitions, and 175 A-Frames I really can't go wrong. I'll probably just go with whatever shoots the best out of my gun!!
Iceman - My buddy has a 2 300 RUM's and he used load 180 scirocco's. He has since switched to 200 AB's but if your still interested I'll give him a call and get some loads for ya.
Post by: ICEMAN on August 17, 2007, 05:54:41 AM
Blacktail, that would be great. The only reason I was thinking 180's was because of the performance I have had with them so far. I have only shot the 180's and 220's. The scirrocco 180's were/are awesome. I will read up on the lesser weights, see what I learn...
thanks to both!
Post by: Curly on August 17, 2007, 07:48:28 AM
I can't locate my load book right now, it is fairly new and I think I remember seeing loads in it for Scirrocos and the 300RUM. If I find the book I'll post the load info for you.
I don't have a RUM but I do remember reading where most guys swear by Retumbo for the RUM. I really like H1000 in my 300 Win Mag, but the slower burning Retumbo may be better with all the case capacity that the RUM has. (Although, I think H1000 might be better with bullets less than 180gr.)
Here is some load info from the Hodgdon site: (what is really cool with their site is that you can email the load data to yourself (or someone else for that matter) and then print it out.
Hodgdon Powder Company
Cartridge Load Recipe Report - 8/17/2007
data.hodgdon.com 300 Remington Ultra Mag
Load Type: Rifle Powder: Retumbo
BW: 180
Cartridge Information
Case: Remington Barrel Length: 24"
Twist: 1:10" Trim Length: 2.840"
Primer: Remington 9 1/2M
300 Remington Ultra Mag
Cartridge Load Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullet Weight (Gr.) - 180 GR. SPR SPBT; Powder - Retumbo; Bullet Diam. - .308"; C.O.L. - 3.530";
Starting Grs. = 94.0, Vel. 3,182(ft/s) Pressure 58,400 PSI;
Max Grs. = 100.5C, Vel. 3300(ft/s) Pressure 62,400 PSI
Instead of getting a new reloading manual that has every cartridge listed, you might take a look at getting a "loadbook" for the 300RUM. If you do a search on Cabelas for "loadbooks usa" you should find the loadbook. I have one for my 300WM. It only costs about $7 and it has almost every bullet made and just about every powder listed for whatever cartridge you're interested in.
Post by: littletoes on August 17, 2007, 07:56:59 AM
We have hunting season coming on strong, so I'd rather be out in the woods that on the shooting range (not by a whole lot more, I DO like being on the range). But I have got to get my son on the range more so he can practice, and try some load work at the same time, but "set-up" kills me on the range too.
What good is a "load" if you don't have "come-ups" for it? For my .308 I have come ups out to 850 yards, that have actually been "tried & trued" in the field with 168 MK's, but I need to get the same out to 1000 with some 175's, and THATS the part that is killing me....no time, and a 1000 yard range is hard to come by.
My 300 mag I'm happy to 500 yards with some 180's...but everything takes time, especially when I can be out in the woods looking for some bear.
Another thing killing it for me...I start teaching nights in Sept. (and working days), and that will just KILLL the time for me....so here real soon, if you don't see me anymore, thats why.....
Post by: BlackTail on August 17, 2007, 03:47:48 PM
(http://C:\Documents and Settings\Frank\My Documents\My Pictures\2007-08-17\DSCN1875.JPG)
And here's a picture of my last group with 160gr Partitions.
(http://C:\Documents and Settings\Frank\My Documents\My Pictures\2007-08-17\DSCN1876.JPG)
Post by: BlackTail on August 17, 2007, 03:50:49 PM
I guess I need help.......jackelope???
Post by: ICEMAN on August 17, 2007, 05:23:47 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 17, 2007, 05:24:51 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on August 17, 2007, 05:26:36 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 17, 2007, 05:31:53 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj139%2FBAILEYDAD%2FTHEKILLINGMACHINE.jpg&hash=98da07f79f264b6e2790c069ff2f204b489d6ea2)
Post by: ICEMAN on August 17, 2007, 05:35:26 PM
Post by: jackelope on August 17, 2007, 05:44:53 PM
it's a browning a-bolt stainless stalker in 30-06. i just thought you needed to look at a pic of a gun to hold you over.
it must be the picture, because you're not the first person to think it's some sort of long range weapon. factory rifle with leupold 3x9 glass and a harris bipod, thats all.
Post by: BlackTail on August 20, 2007, 11:42:38 AM
Post by: bcrawford on September 06, 2007, 07:40:24 AM
Post by: jackelope on September 06, 2007, 01:13:15 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj139%2FBAILEYDAD%2FDSCN1875.jpg&hash=ff76e22a0d61566d6fcb6b34eed830ffe3d7509d)
Post by: GoldTip on September 18, 2007, 02:13:30 PM
Either bullet will more than do the job for virtually any hooved animal in the US, but if you really want to take advantage of the 7mm Ultra, the 150gr Scirocco is where it's at.
Post by: BlackTail on September 20, 2007, 10:30:29 PM
Goldtip, looks like you got your ballistics off the remington site. While it's pretty easy to assume that the 150 sciroccos will shoot flatter than the 175 A-Frame, it also says that the 150 has more energy. Even out to 500 yards. Does that sound weird to anyone??? I would have thought the 175's would pack more punch :dunno:
Post by: GoldTip on September 25, 2007, 01:32:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2007, 01:42:16 PM
Post by: GoldTip on September 25, 2007, 02:14:30 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2007, 02:37:27 PM
How about a 160 Nosler Accubond? I bet it's got a higher BC than the 150 Scirocco.
Post by: GoldTip on September 25, 2007, 03:47:52 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 25, 2007, 04:04:57 PM
http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=11&b=5&s=3
Post by: Ironhead on October 01, 2007, 10:35:49 PM
It is one of the best big canyon rifles I have ever owned. If I wanted to shoot a heavier bullet I would shoot my 300 RUM. The 7mm's are meant for a lighter faster bullet. The recoil is no problem, I just want a flat shootin deer machine and this is definately what the doctor ordered. Only bad thing I can say about this gun are ammo prices, factory loads are around 60.00 a box hand loads are a must in my opinion.
Post by: ICEMAN on October 02, 2007, 07:08:08 AM
Post by: littletoes on October 02, 2007, 07:56:28 AM
Ironhead-but once you try the heavies (like the 175 grn 7mm!) at longer ranges, and you see your impact, you won't go back to the light stuff for longer ranges. Plus your come-ups are less, and boy do they cut the wind.
Post by: bobcat on October 02, 2007, 08:32:45 AM
The 7mm's are meant for a lighter faster bullet. The recoil is no problem
Who told you that? :dunno: And for some, recoil is a problem. But yeah, I'm sure with the 150 grain bullet recoil isn't bad, that's why I said that would be one good reason to use the lighter bullet. But if it were me, and I was going to use a lightweight bullet, I'd go with the Barnes TSX. At least with that bullet if you were to shoot a deer at relatively close range, say within 200 yards, it probably wouldn't rip the deer completely in half, like I'm sure the Scirocco might have a tendency to do. Truth is any reasonable weight bullet will work, in the 7mm I'd say anything from 140 to 175. I just prefer heavier bullets, like in my 270 I like 150's whereas a lot of guys love the 130's. And in a 30-06 I prefer 180's. There is very little difference in drop at long range between the lighter bullets and the heavier bullets, contrary to popular belief.
Post by: Ironhead on October 02, 2007, 09:05:03 AM
http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/results/default.aspx?type=centerfire&cal=24
Post by: bobcat on October 02, 2007, 09:33:54 AM
http://www.remington.com/Products/Ammunition/Ballistics/comparative_ballistics_results.aspx?data=PR300UM5*PR300UM3 (http://www.remington.com/Products/Ammunition/Ballistics/comparative_ballistics_results.aspx?data=PR300UM5*PR300UM3)
Post by: BlackTail on October 02, 2007, 11:03:57 AM
Since you shoot the same gun I thought I would see if you have had similar results. I went out to shoot some 150 sciroccos in my 7mm RUM for the first time. First, I shot at 100 yrds and was shooting about a 1" 3 shot group, 3" high. I then backed up to the 225 yrd range (that was the farthest you could shoot at this range) and took 3 more shots. It was about an 1 1/2" group but it was 6" high :dunno: My buddy, who also shoots the 7 RUM happened to call right then and I was telling him about shooting at the 225 yrd range and was about to tell him where my gun was hitting and he finished my sentence..."it's hitting 6" high". His gun apparrently did the same thing. I've looked at a couple different ballistic charts and none of them have shown a 3" spike between 100 yrds and 225 yrds. I know i could dial it down some but I will be hunting with 160 gr Partitions this year (I found 8 boxes of shells @ $30.00 a box and my gun loves them) so I don't want to be playing with my scope a week before the season. Just wondered if you have seen anything similar to this?
Post by: Intruder on October 02, 2007, 11:25:14 AM
Post by: bobcat on October 02, 2007, 11:31:51 AM
Take a look at this ballistic calculator:
http://www.biggameinfo.com/index.aspx?page=/balcalc.ascx
I just estimated the numbers, but it should be pretty close.
Post by: Intruder on October 02, 2007, 02:18:56 PM
That's the same Bal Calc I use. It's awesome!
Post by: BlackTail on October 02, 2007, 11:05:45 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 03, 2007, 06:43:13 AM
Post by: Ironhead on October 03, 2007, 08:21:05 AM
Post by: BlackTail on October 03, 2007, 12:43:07 PM
The ranges have all been verified. I have both paced them off and checked them with a range finder. My gun is shooting just under a 1" group at 100 yards so I'm pretty sure that I can say my gun is 3" high at 100 yards. It's shooting and 1 1/2" group at 225 yards so I'm pretty sure I can say my gun is 6" high. If I was spraying bullets all over the place I wouldn't even be asking. The fact that my friends gun did the same thing, is just too weird. I'm going to try and get out to the 400 yard range this weekend (if it's not a monsoon) and see where my gun is hitting out there. At this point I don't know what to make of it??
Thanks for all the responses, though!
Post by: littletoes on October 17, 2007, 08:54:35 PM
Which would also indicate that they indeed have a higher BC? Perhaps all that is printed by bullet manufacutes isn't ture???
Doesn't it stand to reason, that if a bullet doesn't need as much "come-up" that that same bullet is flying flatter? Makes sense?
And for a previous answer, the 175 I was talking about was the Sierra Match King 7mm 175 grn.
http://sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=reloading&page=coefficients
Post by: BlackTail on October 18, 2007, 11:17:19 AM
That makes sense to me. I was just asking if people had used those ballistic calculators and then went out and matched them up with in the field shooting. I really didn't have time to shoot the sciroccos or the A-frames as much as I like before the season, so I'm sticking with the 160 gr partitions. I've shot a bunch, they shoot great in my gun, and at this point of the year if I have time off, I'm in the woods and not at the range. Playing with those new rounds will give something to do in the spring, though!
Post by: littletoes on October 18, 2007, 09:43:40 PM
Hope you have some great luck, and me too.