7mm mag elk bullet

[1300meters]

Be interested in seeing down range energy on those light bullets.the 160 and 168 to me are the best as far as delivering the smack down especially if your marginal on a longshot .but shoot what works best for your rig.good hunting and good shooting.that's why there's fords and caddilac's

 

[mcseal2]

I've never seen an accubond fail on anything yet. A friend did take a nice 6pt bull a few years ago with his 7 mag at and that bull absorbed several of the 160gr accubonds before going down. The bull was at 350yds when he hit him the first time, and then we hit him several more times before he dropped. He never traveled over 150yds from the first hit but was close to a steep canyon so my buddy kept shooting, and I joined in. We recovered all the bullets and they were mushroomed perfectly and retained 60-70%. It was a big bodied bull but I was still a little surprised that none of the bullets exited even on lung shots. The bullets performed perfectly, the 7 mag just didn't have enough energy to punch them out the other side in this situation. The bull was dead from the first shot through his vitals we just didn't want to have to pack him out of that canyon if he tumbled down into it. I'd not be afraid to use the 160's again but would want to be careful of my shot angle. This experience got me thinking I would want a 30 cal magnum capable of 2900fps with a 200gr accubond for my ideal elk rifle. The 7 mag was enough gun, I'm just a big fan of exit wounds.

The only elk I've shot fell to a 175gr corelokt and was under the hide on the far side on a mildly quartering shot at 468yds. I'd have to see if a 175gr Sierra Gameking or Partition shot well at a decent velocity if I was taking a 7 mag on another elk hunt. The "applied ballistics for long range shooting" book I have rates the real world G1 BC of the 175gr bullets as follows.

175 TSX .397
175 Partition .453
175 Sierra Gameking .579
175 Hornady Interlock .461

On a side note I'd love to see a real high BC 175gr accubond, I'd start thinking of a custom 7 Dakota twisted for it and a lighter recoiling elk rifle.

 

[cross]

I've never seen an accubond fail on anything yet. A friend did take a nice 6pt bull a few years ago with his 7 mag at and that bull absorbed several of the 160gr accubonds before going down. The bull was at 350yds when he hit him the first time, and then we hit him several more times before he dropped. He never traveled over 150yds from the first hit but was close to a steep canyon so my buddy kept shooting, and I joined in. We recovered all the bullets and they were mushroomed perfectly and retained 60-70%. It was a big bodied bull but I was still a little surprised that none of the bullets exited even on lung shots. The bullets performed perfectly, the 7 mag just didn't have enough energy to punch them out the other side in this situation. The bull was dead from the first shot through his vitals we just didn't want to have to pack him out of that canyon if he tumbled down into it. I'd not be afraid to use the 160's again but would want to be careful of my shot angle. This experience got me thinking I would want a 30 cal magnum capable of 2900fps with a 200gr accubond for my ideal elk rifle. The 7 mag was enough gun, I'm just a big fan of exit wounds.

The only elk I've shot fell to a 175gr corelokt and was under the hide on the far side on a mildly quartering shot at 468yds. I'd have to see if a 175gr Sierra Gameking or Partition shot well at a decent velocity if I was taking a 7 mag on another elk hunt. The "applied ballistics for long range shooting" book I have rates the real world G1 BC of the 175gr bullets as follows.

175 TSX .397
175 Partition .453
175 Sierra Gameking .579
175 Hornady Interlock .461

On a side note I'd love to see a real high BC 175gr accubond, I'd start thinking of a custom 7 Dakota twisted for it and a lighter recoiling elk rifle.

There are a lot of people who will swear that a 300 magnum is a better elk gun than a 7mm Rem magnum and their arguments have their merits. However, I don't think that a 200 gr Accubond is going to guarantee you exit wounds. 2 cases, neither with 200 Accubonds so they're not exact comparisons but they bound your example. 1st was a spike bull I killed about 4 years ago. He was about 65 yards broadside feeding and I plugged a 225 Accubond into his ribs with a 338 Winchester with a starting MV of ~ 2900. The bull ran up the hill about 30 yards and stood, turned wobbly and crashed back down the hill. The bullet was up against the hide on the opposite side of the bull. Last year, my Dad shot a calf at about 250 yards with 180 Accubonds with a MV of ~3050. At the shot, the calf trotted about 10 yards and stood, got wobbly and crashed down the hill. We found that bullet in the shoulder on the opposite side of the elk as well.

A 300 with 200 gr Accubonds leaving ~ 2900 fps is great elk medicine, but I'm not sure that you're going to see anything different than what happend with your 7mm. I was hunting with both a 338 Win and a 7mm WSM for several years and after killing 4 or 5 elk with each, determined that it didn't seem to matter. The reaction after the shot appeared to be about the same with both guns so I started hunting exclusively with a 7mm.

Now, I will say that I'm hunting mostly in open country these days and that the 7 is performing well, however, in open country I generally have more time to shoot so I'm setting up and making good shots. If I were back hunting the thick stuff, I would consider going back to the 338 simply because when you're taking running shots or hard angle shots through brush or branches I would have more confidence in the 338 giving me a bigger and deeper wound channel. A 300 with 200 Accubonds would probably accomplish this about as well as the 338 so if I had a 300, that would be a good choice as well.

Good Luck!

CRoss

 

[1300meters]

Dead is dead what I like about berger' 168 it goe's in doe's it's job inside on vitals doesn't ruin alot of meat.just had to much good luck with em I live at the mouth of a canyon lot's of wind set on my deck play with 30 cal's 7 mms 338 . Out to thousand plus yards when I have a spotter love the little 7 . Good shooting good hunting

 

[mcseal2]

There are a lot of people who will swear that a 300 magnum is a better elk gun than a 7mm Rem magnum and their arguments have their merits. However, I don't think that a 200 gr Accubond is going to guarantee you exit wounds. 2 cases, neither with 200 Accubonds so they're not exact comparisons but they bound your example. 1st was a spike bull I killed about 4 years ago. He was about 65 yards broadside feeding and I plugged a 225 Accubond into his ribs with a 338 Winchester with a starting MV of ~ 2900. The bull ran up the hill about 30 yards and stood, turned wobbly and crashed back down the hill. The bullet was up against the hide on the opposite side of the bull. Last year, my Dad shot a calf at about 250 yards with 180 Accubonds with a MV of ~3050. At the shot, the calf trotted about 10 yards and stood, got wobbly and crashed down the hill. We found that bullet in the shoulder on the opposite side of the elk as well.

A 300 with 200 gr Accubonds leaving ~ 2900 fps is great elk medicine, but I'm not sure that you're going to see anything different than what happend with your 7mm. I was hunting with both a 338 Win and a 7mm WSM for several years and after killing 4 or 5 elk with each, determined that it didn't seem to matter. The reaction after the shot appeared to be about the same with both guns so I started hunting exclusively with a 7mm.

Now, I will say that I'm hunting mostly in open country these days and that the 7 is performing well, however, in open country I generally have more time to shoot so I'm setting up and making good shots. If I were back hunting the thick stuff, I would consider going back to the 338 simply because when you're taking running shots or hard angle shots through brush or branches I would have more confidence in the 338 giving me a bigger and deeper wound channel. A 300 with 200 Accubonds would probably accomplish this about as well as the 338 so if I had a 300, that would be a good choice as well.

Good Luck!

CRoss

Can't argue with any of that. An animal's hide, especially a thick hide like an elk has a heck of a lot of elasticity to hold that bullet. It takes alot of energy to make it that last little bit and it shows by how many bullets get recovered there. Kinda like dropping a shotput on a trampoline, it absorbs the shock and rebounds. Like you said though, a bigger and deeper wound channel doesn't hurt and a deeper wound channel improves your chances of an exit.

I have nothing against a 7 at all, if I could only have one rifle for everything I do it would be a 7. It is one of my all time favorites. I have kinda gone away from it recently because I had my old standby rifle re-barrelled to a 264WM and also am building a real light 270 win. I plan to use 140gr accubonds in the 270 and already use them in the 264 so I was thinking I should step up past the 7 mag to the 300 when I draw an elk tag again someday and get a new rifle. I can tell a significant difference in recoil when I start trying to push a bullet over 140gr to 3000fps, and I'm trying to get rid of my flinch. My old Colt light rifle in 7 mag really showed a difference in recoil between the 140 and 160's. Once the 270 win is done my next project will be a 300WM in a Browning A bolt TI with a brake to shoot the 200gr AB.

 

[elkaholic]

The AB's will often exit at longer ranges but that isn't necessarily good news. It occurs because they mushroom much less, if at all, if your talking 800 yards or so. They act quite differently than the old partitions. The partition has a much more violent "early" expansion and then the partition "slams the door" so to speak. I personally believe that the partitions put game down faster, but each to his own experience. The AB's use an alloy lead to help control expansion which, IMO, isn't the best approach. Both have killed lots of game though.....rich