7mm 169 Hammer Hunters BC

[Jtgraham01]

When I was shooting the 169's I shot them out of a 28 Nosler at 3260fps. I had them up to 3330 at one point, but my throat was eroding extremely fast causing a loss in velocity. I killed 2 buck and bull with the 169's last year. I would not hesitate to use them within their 1800fps impact limitations.

I only got away from them this year because I wanted to start shooting truly long range, and the low BC really is a factor in that. But 6-800 yards with the right cartridge pushing them fast enough, they're legit bullets.

using 2950 fps as a min and .237 G7 BC, it looks like I would be at 650 max yardage. That corresponds with about 1200 ft/lbs of force at 650 yards and 1300 ft above sea level. If I can't get to 2950 fps then I'll probably sell my projos back out to the market.

 

[Huntnful]

using 2950 fps as a min and .237 G7 BC, it looks like I would be at 650 max yardage. That corresponds with about 1200 ft/lbs of force at 650 yards and 1300 ft above sea level. If I can't get to 2950 fps then I'll probably sell my projos back out to the market.

The 155's gave me a .22 G7 in two different rifles and go about 130-150fps faster than the 169's if that helps your goals at all.

 

[Jtgraham01]

The 155's gave me a .22 G7 in two different rifles and go about 130-150fps faster than the 169's if that helps your goals at all.

It helps a lot. I was wondering if I could get anywhere close to published BC in a 155. If so, it makes more sense than the 169 for my use.

But…. If I use .22 G7 for 155s and figure 3100 fps then they are both 650 yard rounds.

 

[Huntnful]

Yeah they all kind of honestly equal out to about 700 yards. Unless you're WAY up at altitude.

Unless you use one the largest cartridges for the given caliber and one of the larger hammers for that given caliber also.

 

[JakeC]

For what it's worth the stated value for the 7mm 140 AH turned out to be absolutely dead on for me out to 530. I understand things change as the bullets begins to slow down drastically but it was so accurate that when partner took a range and said "510" but it was actually 527 I was off by exactly that amount. That said, I know they have "estimated" values and "calculated" values and they can be very different. I can see being annoyed by that, but it seems like most folks understand the big picture limitations and work with them, with the exception of a few crybabies who were probably looking for an excuse anyway.

At any rate I did months of drop chart work and decided on the flattest point blank range, because past that they really wind up the same no matter how you slice it between 400 and 700 as Huntnful and others have stated.

 

[Korhil78]

Yea. I got .237 G7 BC for the 169's. I am pushing them at 3070 fps. Don't worry so much about foot lbs of energy. Just worry about the minimum velocity that it takes for proper expansion of the bullet when it hits the animal. 1800 fps is what velocity they advertise for proper expansion and I have tested that and it is a good and valid number.

 

[Northkill]

Thank you for the feedback. I had hoped I could be really effective to 600-800 yards. If it's consistent that's obviously a big part of the equation.

How fast are you pushing it and in what cartridge?

We were getting well over 3,000 fps with those out of a 7-LRM so I'm sure you'll easily meet your goal. Might consider trying a Lee Crimp die (ButterBean method) for more velocity potential and possible accuracy increase if you get inconsistent results.

 

[RB II]

Reverse engineered that G7 at .237 to G1 at .475. In case anyone needs that info for their ballistics calculator.