doubleA

I would think it's because the STW uses a bigger case and thus uses more powder....DOH![&:]


DG,I have had a 7MM STW since 1989,and a 7mm REm Mag before that, and added a 280 Rem to my battery several years ago. The ballistics of the STW are nothing new to me.( some, like yourself are a few years late) I still stand by my first post, out to 400 yards the plain old 280 Rem will do anything that the bigger mags will do, maybe with a little less glamor and powder. When you start going beyond that, yes, the 7mm STW and 7mmUM have merit.

doubleA

eldeguello

If you fire a 140-grain, 7mm bullet with a B.C. of .490 @ 3400 FPS froma 7mm STW and zeroed @ 200 yards, it will hit -14" @ 400 yards. If you fire a 140-grain, 7mm bullet with a B.C. of .490 @ 3000 FPS from a .280 Remington, zeroed @ 200 yards, it will hit -19" @ 400 yards. So we're talking 5" of difference between the two @ 400 yards. Since BOTH rounds will require you to hold above the desired POI at that range, neither is better! You'll still have to know the distance to the target, and your rifle's trajectory, to do the job!!

The 7STW will give you 2098 ft/lb at 400, and the .280 carries 1600 - both have plenty of energy to kill deer at that distance! But the .280 will do this with just a little more than 60% of the powder the & STW needs, and the barrel will outlast three 7 STW barrels. You pays your money and takes your choice......

stubblejumper

So using that logic the 300ultramag is no better than a 30-30 for 1000 yard target shooting.

Timbawolf98

What companies still chamber for the STW? I like it better over the RUM just because I'm not limited to Rem ammo. My reloading stuff isnt set up yet, and i dont know how long it will take me to get it set up, but I do have a die for a 7mm Mag because my dad used to shoot one. Thanks for the fast replys,

Timba

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

doubleA

DG, you are miscalulating again.

A 140 grain Ballistic Tip fired at 3000 fps from a 280 Rem has a time of flight of .463 of a second, that's at 400 yards. Now, driving the same bullet to 3400 fps from a 7mmSTW the time of flight at 400 yards is .404 seconds.

OK, now we take .404 and subtract that from .463 and we get a difference of .059.

That's a mere fifty-nine thousandths of a second. Is burning 15-20 grains more powder worth the gain, some may think so some not. It's your choice. Dont get me wrong, the STW is a fine round but truly not needed for 400 yard shots.


bigger is always better....NOT!!!!
doubleA[:-]

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

James B

My old 700 Bld 280 Rem. clocks out a 3140 with the 140 gr Ballistic tip. That over both of my Chronographs. This is about 40 FPS more than I can get from my 7Mag winchester model 70. Both have 24 inch barrel. In my other 280 which is an NEF with a 26 inch barrel. I load the 120 grain Sierra pro-hunter. It loaded to only 2950 FPS because the 120 Pro-Hunter is a bit fragil. I sold my 7MM STW to my gunsmith. It was a great gun. I think very soon we will see a couple new powders that will load the 7 MM Ultra to well over the STW. I read an artical about them. Both the 300 and 7mm Ultras are handicapped right now for a lack of a slower powder.

stubblejumper

I wonder what kind of chamber pressure you are producing with this load.

James B

I don't know but there are no signs of excess pressure what so ever No extractor marks no difficult bolt opening and I am still using the original 50 brass I started with about ten years ago. I have only loaded that one load in the NEF the one with the 26 inch barrel and that was 2950 with the 120 grain Sierra. I have an Idea with the 26 inch barrel it would develop good velloocity. I do not however load either to the max and backed off to about 2900 on the Remington BDL. I like the lighter bullets and they do not need to be driven beyond 2800 fps. The load for the NEF just happen to be extremely accurate so I left it alone. I have some 140 grain Ballistic tips loaded for the NEF but have not had any decent weather to go out and give them a try.