Why do companies keep producing new 7mm Magnums?

[Oldtrader3]

I look at my safe and nearly every rifle in it, except the .338 Federal, was available in 1964 when I turned 21 years old. Also all of the belted magnums, including the 6.5 and .350 Rem were out by 1965. Just like Bill said earlier, once the .270 Winchester came out in 1934 and add a few belted magnums in the 1954-1965 era, there were not a lot of gaps left in the caliber ranges available.

I shoot a .280 Rem and a 7mm Rem Mag, handload for both and also own a chronometer. The real live, handloaded difference between these calibers with most bullet weights up to 160 grains, is more like 100 fps in real life. The long neck on the .280 Rem allows loading up pretty close to the 7mm Mag. Factory loads are somewhat anemic for the .280 also.

 

[FOTIS]

As long as there is a demand....

 

[onesonek]

I agree with FOTIS, JD and other's,,,,it's marketing more wants, as need has little to do with it!!!

 

[efw]

A but kicking to me is a 223 rem. Over a 22 Lr thats a real difference, 125 grn rn compared to a 180 bt over 500 yrds , that's a but kicking, 200 fps with the same bullet, sorry , but yawn. :wink:

The same bullet 200 fps slower makes me yawn. :idea:

The same bullet 200 fps slower will put big game to sleep never knowing what they "missed," too...

By this logic you'd carry a 7mm-50 BMG or something... that is to say, speed ain't everything and there are a lot more important considerations to make than a couple hundred fps.

 

[BK]

Maybe, but if the speed is available, and IF YOU CAN HANDLE IT, why not?

 

[SJB358]

Maybe, but if the speed is available, and IF YOU CAN HANDLE IT, why not?

I agree with that alot. Why not. Doesn't really cost more in the grand scheme. Scotty

 

[Oldtrader3]

This is why they keep making the 7mm Rem Mag. These are 100 yard groups with 160 grain AccuBond handloads at 3060 fps (.625 and .688 respectively). Any deer within 400 yards is in serious trouble.

 

[WYcoyote]

A but kicking to me is a 223 rem. Over a 22 Lr thats a real difference, 125 grn rn compared to a 180 bt over 500 yrds , that's a but kicking, 200 fps with the same bullet, sorry , but yawn. :wink:

The same bullet 200 fps slower makes me yawn. :idea:

The same bullet 200 fps slower will put big game to sleep never knowing what they "missed," too...

By this logic you'd carry a 7mm-50 BMG or something... that is to say, speed ain't everything and there are a lot more important considerations to make than a couple hundred fps.

I guess if you are shooting a whitetail out of your garden, maybe so.
But a cross canyon shot at a rutting herd bull elk on a breezy evening, I'll take the couple hundred fps every time.
But there is a law of diminishing returns, so no, it is not logical to pack a 7mm-105 Howitzer.

 

[efw]

Maybe, but if the speed is available, and IF YOU CAN HANDLE IT, why not?

I agree with that alot. Why not. Doesn't really cost more in the grand scheme. Scotty

I've thought pretty seriously about a 7mm Mashburn Super or a 7-300 Win, personally.

I guess what I was pointing out there was the fact that if I were to look through my gun cabinet to choose a rifle for a particular hunt, speed wouldn't be my first consideration. I have a couple of "general purpose" rifles that'd do anything that needs doing pretty well, like my 257 Roy or mountain weight 30-06, and I have a couple on the lighter end of varmint/big game like my 6mm-250 and 257 AI, along w/ a heavier one in my 338-06. Weight will be more important to me than 200 fps on a mountain hunt, while when stand hunting it doesn't much matter so depending upon the shots expected those 200 fps might be more important?

That is all I was trying to say.

 

[BK]

Well, I guess I should admit I am looking for a 7x57 and a .250 Savage.

 

[Greg Nolan]

If there weren't new, un-necessary, things to look at lust over and argue about we'd probably be extinct as a species from a pandemic called 'BOREDOM". :|
Greg

 

[DrMike]

I am looking for a 7x57 and a .250 Savage.

At least they are oldies, Kurt.

We don't want to die of boredom, do we, Greg?

 

[BK]

Should go well with the 'ooch and ooch', huh Mike?

 

[DrMike]

Should go well with the 'ooch and ooch', huh Mike?

They will fit right in. There really is nothing new under the sun!

 

[Oldtrader3]

I only own two game rifles that are lesser calibers than a 7mm Mag. All the rest are .30 to .338 caliber rifles, ranging from the .30-06 to the .340 Weatherby. I guess that since I started out years ago with a .300 ouch & ouch, plus a .375 ouch & ouch, I have always expected a game rifle to cause some commotion when I pull the trigger, Just my flavor preference, I guess.

Nowadays, there are lots of rifles available with pretty capable cartridges that are smaller than the 7mm Mag.

 

[Elkman]

But there is a law of diminishing returns, so no, it is not logical to pack a 7mm-105 Howitzer.

Do they make one?????? Is it on a long action, I don't want the extra weight! Suppose that you would need a slower burning powder. Boreddddddddddddddd I am painting again.!

 

[BK]

Ruger Number 1, Elkman, Ruger Number 1.

 

[onesonek]

If there weren't new, un-necessary, things to look at lust over and argue about we'd probably be extinct as a species from a pandemic called 'BOREDOM". :|
Greg

And that's about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth !

 

[wildgene]

...the real reason there's so many 7mags is so no one really has to go be embarrassed go into the field w/ a .270, unless of course you have some deep-seated need for the humility... :roll: :twisted: :grin: :mrgreen: :lol:

 

[DrMike]

the real reason there's so many 7mags is so no one really has to go be embarrassed go into the field w/ a .270, unless of course you have some deep-seated need for the humility...

Touché! Good one, Gene. Very good.