I recently read an article in F&S whose author castigated the Remingtons 7Mag of not really being a "Magnum" cartridge, yet the writer elevated the 7mm Weatherby Mag to be a true Magnum worthy of the title. He also felt the 7RemMag barely surpassed the .270 Winchester in velocity and effectiveness (an argument Jack O'Conner actually stated more than once!). Warning, this post may be long!!!
Being an ardent follower of O'Conner, I took most of what he had to say about rifles and calibers to be gospel, and found most of his opinions valid. What won me over to the 7Mag (Rem. version) was its accuracy, "sleek" bullets, and lack of recoil. It did not require one to hire a "porter" to carry and its recoil was scarcely more than a 30/06 (although louder!). I found its powder capacity reasonably economical for its power; however, it was its accuracy that won me over (evidently it also captured the eye of the Secrete Service in the late 1970's as well).
My first, and only 7Mag purchased, was a Weatherby Vanguard Classic II. While I've shot and help load for various friends for this cartridge, I found my particular rifle required a grain or two more to reach the same velocity as others. I was soon to discovered my rifle had the same barrel twist of 1:10" and "Free bore" as the 7mm Weatherby Mag! I never expected to be able to shoot bullets heavier than 160 grains accurately, but found that it did. The first data published for the 7Mag marketed 175gr ammo at 3070fps (probably with a 26" BBL, plus a lot of marketing embellishment). I could not achieve those "lofty" figures even though "max" loads were still incredibly accurate, while brass life was not. I found by "partial resizing" the case where the shoulder was barely touching extended brass life considerably. I also shot for a more realistic target of 2900fps with a 175gr bullet. Wow, pay day! Then reloading manuals started reducing their loading maximums for this cartridge into the range of the .280 Remington, which was already reduced due to being used in "pump" and "semi-auto" rifles. I didn't follow this logic; for this cartridge was virtually the same, except bullet diameter, as the .264 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester, and .458 Winchester! If those cartridges could contain 63,000+ psi, why was the 7Mag reduced to 61,000psi? It was here that I had to look more seriously into the differences of my shooting "platform" vice the original Reming 700, Savage, Winchester, etc.
What I concluded was all but the Weatherby Vanguard had shorter leads (no free-bore) from their chamber to the "leads", just as the 7mm Weatherby which allowed for a pressure drop during the bullet "jump" to the riflings. According to Weatherby, their justification of using a 1:10 rifling twist was because they theorized that a "steeper" twist of 1:8 or 1"9 would make accuracy harder to achieve than a slower twist; thus 1:10 rifling had worked for the 7mm Weatherby round and the same was used on their Vanguard model. In other words, apparently, Weatherby just re-chambered their 7mm Weatherby barrels for the Remington round for the market! The 7mm Rem Mag was selling like "hot cakes", but the Weatherby version was not.
The final insult, to me, for the 7Mag was when the pressures for the cartridge was reduced below that of the .270 Winchester, which is a fine cartridge in its own right. I would suggest that data for this cartridge has been reduced in velocity and pressure due a multitude of factors possibly unrelated to sales of newer cartridges, but possibly liability caused by the various firearms manufacturers trying to out due Remington marketing "wonder"! My Vanguard just "muddies the water" because using most data reduces velocities even more and handicaps my Weatherby barrel. Reloading data for the 7mm Weatherby cautions use if a Ruger or Remington firearm is chambered for the round when working up max loads because of chamber dimensions - no caution has ever been issued for the 7Rem Mag chambered arms!
While I do not advocate reloading beyond the max printed in current reloading manuals, I do wish SAMMI would adjust the max pressure standards of the 7Mag to the same as that of the .264Mag, .338 Mag, and .458 Mag to at least 63,000psi. If done, maybe those of us that are convinced that it does not take "proprietary" Weatherby case to make the 7mm Remington back into the "Magnum", as intended, would not make the new "belt-less wonders" as appealing. Until the .270 Western was introduced, there had not been a .270 loading with a bullet over 150 grains that could match a .284 diameter, 175 grain bullet at 2900fps IMO.
In this day of scarcity of components, maybe it's time to put new life into an old cartridge that is just as capable today as when it was introduced in 1962. My .02 - your thoughts solicited.
Being an ardent follower of O'Conner, I took most of what he had to say about rifles and calibers to be gospel, and found most of his opinions valid. What won me over to the 7Mag (Rem. version) was its accuracy, "sleek" bullets, and lack of recoil. It did not require one to hire a "porter" to carry and its recoil was scarcely more than a 30/06 (although louder!). I found its powder capacity reasonably economical for its power; however, it was its accuracy that won me over (evidently it also captured the eye of the Secrete Service in the late 1970's as well).
My first, and only 7Mag purchased, was a Weatherby Vanguard Classic II. While I've shot and help load for various friends for this cartridge, I found my particular rifle required a grain or two more to reach the same velocity as others. I was soon to discovered my rifle had the same barrel twist of 1:10" and "Free bore" as the 7mm Weatherby Mag! I never expected to be able to shoot bullets heavier than 160 grains accurately, but found that it did. The first data published for the 7Mag marketed 175gr ammo at 3070fps (probably with a 26" BBL, plus a lot of marketing embellishment). I could not achieve those "lofty" figures even though "max" loads were still incredibly accurate, while brass life was not. I found by "partial resizing" the case where the shoulder was barely touching extended brass life considerably. I also shot for a more realistic target of 2900fps with a 175gr bullet. Wow, pay day! Then reloading manuals started reducing their loading maximums for this cartridge into the range of the .280 Remington, which was already reduced due to being used in "pump" and "semi-auto" rifles. I didn't follow this logic; for this cartridge was virtually the same, except bullet diameter, as the .264 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester, and .458 Winchester! If those cartridges could contain 63,000+ psi, why was the 7Mag reduced to 61,000psi? It was here that I had to look more seriously into the differences of my shooting "platform" vice the original Reming 700, Savage, Winchester, etc.
What I concluded was all but the Weatherby Vanguard had shorter leads (no free-bore) from their chamber to the "leads", just as the 7mm Weatherby which allowed for a pressure drop during the bullet "jump" to the riflings. According to Weatherby, their justification of using a 1:10 rifling twist was because they theorized that a "steeper" twist of 1:8 or 1"9 would make accuracy harder to achieve than a slower twist; thus 1:10 rifling had worked for the 7mm Weatherby round and the same was used on their Vanguard model. In other words, apparently, Weatherby just re-chambered their 7mm Weatherby barrels for the Remington round for the market! The 7mm Rem Mag was selling like "hot cakes", but the Weatherby version was not.
The final insult, to me, for the 7Mag was when the pressures for the cartridge was reduced below that of the .270 Winchester, which is a fine cartridge in its own right. I would suggest that data for this cartridge has been reduced in velocity and pressure due a multitude of factors possibly unrelated to sales of newer cartridges, but possibly liability caused by the various firearms manufacturers trying to out due Remington marketing "wonder"! My Vanguard just "muddies the water" because using most data reduces velocities even more and handicaps my Weatherby barrel. Reloading data for the 7mm Weatherby cautions use if a Ruger or Remington firearm is chambered for the round when working up max loads because of chamber dimensions - no caution has ever been issued for the 7Rem Mag chambered arms!
While I do not advocate reloading beyond the max printed in current reloading manuals, I do wish SAMMI would adjust the max pressure standards of the 7Mag to the same as that of the .264Mag, .338 Mag, and .458 Mag to at least 63,000psi. If done, maybe those of us that are convinced that it does not take "proprietary" Weatherby case to make the 7mm Remington back into the "Magnum", as intended, would not make the new "belt-less wonders" as appealing. Until the .270 Western was introduced, there had not been a .270 loading with a bullet over 150 grains that could match a .284 diameter, 175 grain bullet at 2900fps IMO.
In this day of scarcity of components, maybe it's time to put new life into an old cartridge that is just as capable today as when it was introduced in 1962. My .02 - your thoughts solicited.
