7 lrm Thoughts

[louis f]

You should consider the 7-300 Win Mag. I have owned a SAUM, WSM, Rem Mag, 28 Nos, and two 7-300s. My 7-300s would push 180s to the same node as the 28 with 5 grains less powder.

One more vote for the 7-300

 

[Wild Monkey]

.

 

[Predator 22]

Predator 22 said: "Not many people shoot or even know about the 7x61 super!" Hmm.. well I'd say you are dead wrong on that assumption. I'd add a hell of a lot more folks out there are shooting the Super than the LRM for sure. The 7x61 was buried from Remington's Marketing for it's own 7RM, more powder rooms sells Cartridges. Just another sound Cartridge that has fallen out of favor with the masses. Newer is Better right? 7-30 Newton could be considered the Father of all these Modern 7's & nobody has ever heard of it because Newton himself hated it.

Their may be more people shooting it, but it has fallen so far to the wayside it's all but been forgotten. My 7x61 is the only rifle that I've ever seen chambered in it. By the way, the 7x61 was not designed by Norma. They produced the ammo and brass for it, but it was designed by Sharpe and Hart while rifles were built by Shultz and Larson. The original brass headstamp was 7x61 S&H.

 

[Wild Monkey]

.

 

[WildRose]

Shoot, maybe compared to some of yall old timers...

But I'd say 16+ years is a good start, especially for someone who was only 16 when he purposefully bought his first STW, and actually knew about the cartridge and its history.

I fell in love with it as soon as i read the first article by Simpson and immediately went down to the local gunshop and ordered a custom from Remington because nobody else was chambering a factory rifle in the caliber yet. I can't remember for sure but I think that was 92-94 as SAAMI hadn't even yet standardized it.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I said the first .308 caliber magnum, not the first "belted magnum". I could still be wrong, but I do know that Newton beat the .300 H&H by 12 or 13 years. Its too bad his design didn't catch on, the belted cases on the H&H magnums were probably needed, but for all the other derivatives (Weatherbys, Win Mag, ect.) the belt served more as a marketing ploy than anything else.

You're right... It had absolute nothing to do with positive extraction for dangerous game in Africa or anything like that...

 

[MudRunner2005]

I fell in love with it as soon as i read the first article by Simpson and immediately went down to the local gunshop and ordered a custom from Remington because nobody else was chambering a factory rifle in the caliber yet. I can't remember for sure but I think that was 92-94 as SAAMI hadn't even yet standardized it.

It it was '92, you only beat me by about 10 years... 2002 was when I ordered my first one.

 

[WildRose]

It it was '92, you only beat me by about 10 years... 2002 was when I ordered my first one.

It's been a growing infection every since.

 

[MudRunner2005]

It's been a growing infection every since.

Yep! You still got the 5R .260?

 

[gregsjt]

You're right... It had absolute nothing to do with positive extraction for dangerous game in Africa or anything like that...

Actually, you're right, the belts didn't have anything to do with extraction. The original h&h cases didn't have much of a shoulder and a lot of body taper; this made it possible for the cases to get jammed too far into the chamber. The belt was added so the case could headspace off of it instead of off the shoulder.

Modern cases that have more pronounced shoulders and less body taper can headspace off of the shoulder which makes the belt useless.

 

[WildRose]

Yep! You still got the 5R .260?

I do indeed.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Actually, you're right, the belts didn't have anything to do with extraction. The original h&h cases didn't have much of a shoulder and a lot of body taper; this made it possible for the cases to get jammed too far into the chamber. The belt was added so the case could headspace of it instead of the shoulder.

Modern cases that have more pronounced shoulders and less body taper can headspace off of the shoulder which makes the belt useless.

But do you know WHY the cases had low shoulder angles and lots of body taper?

It's so they could use cordite powder. It's a long stick-like powder that looks like uncooked spaghetti and it's cut to length. That's why the original H&H cartridges had hardly no shoulders.

Also, the belts had EVERYTHING to do with positive extraction, and headspacing. I'm not pointing out the holes in your argument for my own sake...I'm doing it so that correct information is presented, not some personal opinion. If you have an issue with what what I'm saying, do your own research, and then go complain to Chuck Hawks, and hop in your time machine and go back to the turn of the century and bitch at Holland & Holland of London.

 

[gregsjt]

Show me where I said something incorrect? You didn't read one of my statements correctly and tried to make a sarcastic reply that was wrong. My original statement about Hornady setting things straight was a joke but my info was still correct.

If you had said h&h were trying to get a cartridge that fed smoothly and headspaced correctly then I would have let it go because that would be true. But, if all they were trying to do was get a cartridge to extract properly h&h would have been better off to stay with a rimmed case.

 

[FURMAN]

You two need to take this behind closed doors. This has nothing to do with the LRM. You're hijacking the thread.