7mm Rem Mag 139 gr. vs. 160 gr. thoughts for Moose?

[VernAK]

Way too much thought being wasted on this matter.......start putting rounds down range so you know the capabilities of you and your rifle.

 

[mooster]

Way too much thought being wasted on this matter.......start putting rounds down range so you know the capabilities of you and your rifle.

Headed out Sunday! Practice regularly

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Sorry a 7mag bothers you so. Was my first rifle bought after college. Been good to me for 30 yrs. I am lusting for another caliber tho, and expect another gun in my future. What else do you hate? so I can make sure I pick the right one!

40sw with be a great companion to the 7mm.

 

[JGRaider]

Maybe some 7mag advocates were picketing his house, using megaphones, beating cymbals and protesting his hatred outside his house or something when he was young?

 

[hodgeman]

"I assumed the lighter bullet would be faster, but have less energy at impact. The velocity is 12% higher with the 139 gr. @ 2851 f/s with 160 gr. @ 2536, for example at 200 yds. The energy is actually 6% higher with the 139 gr. =2413 ft.#, vs. 160 gr. = 2286 ft. lbs. At 400 yds, the velocity of the 139 gr. is 2520, the 160 gr. 2158. At 400 yds, the energy of the 139 gr. is 1961, vs the 160 gr. at 1655."

I'm the last guy to say math doesn't matter...but no moose on earth can tell the difference between those two rounds.

I'd spend my energy on something productive like rain gear, tents, and boots.

 

[mooster]

"I assumed the lighter bullet would be faster, but have less energy at impact. The velocity is 12% higher with the 139 gr. @ 2851 f/s with 160 gr. @ 2536, for example at 200 yds. The energy is actually 6% higher with the 139 gr. =2413 ft.#, vs. 160 gr. = 2286 ft. lbs. At 400 yds, the velocity of the 139 gr. is 2520, the 160 gr. 2158. At 400 yds, the energy of the 139 gr. is 1961, vs the 160 gr. at 1655."

I'm the last guy to say math doesn't matter...but no moose on earth can tell the difference between those two rounds.

I'd spend my energy on something productive like rain gear, tents, and boots.

Thanks for your thoughts. I figure if they’re shooting them with .30-.30’s then the 139 would be more than adequate.

 

[Low_Sky]

Thanks for your thoughts. I figure if they’re shooting them with .30-.30’s then the 139 would be more than adequate.

This year a woman self-reported negligently killing a moose up here with a .22LR, trying to haze it out of her bird feeders or something like that.

They have great big lungs that aren’t hard to poke holes in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PA Hunter]

Check out history of the 7mm magnum by The Real Gunsmith on YouTube.

 

[Michael54]

7mm would be my last choice for literally anything, I absolutely hate the 7mm. That being said, I'd use the larger bullet.

Im the opposite i use my 7mm mag for everything lol

 

[steffen707]

So prepping for an AK moose trip in Sept. I'll be on a lake w/possibility of long range shot across such. I have a 7mm Rem Mag dialed in w/139 gr. Barnes VOR-TX LR, LRX Polymer Tipped Boat Tail, proficient and regularly practice at long range.

Thinking of the moose' body mass, I decided to research a large bullet weight. So w/in the Barnes family since I had more consistent accuracy w/their bullets, started comparing the 139 gr. vs. their largest offering for 7mm Rem Mag at 160 gr. TSX Hollow Point Boat Tail Lead-Free.

I assumed the lighter bullet would be faster, but have less energy at impact. The velocity is 12% higher with the 139 gr. @ 2851 f/s with 160 gr. @ 2536, for example at 200 yds. The energy is actually 6% higher with the 139 gr. =2413 ft.#, vs. 160 gr. = 2286 ft. lbs. At 400 yds, the velocity of the 139 gr. is 2520, the 160 gr. 2158. At 400 yds, the energy of the 139 gr. is 1961, vs the 160 gr. at 1655.

Does this mean I'm really not gaining anything by switching to the 160 gr. I'd prefer to stay w/the 139 gr. as I have tons of ammo and confidence in the load. Last year it dropped a caribou and > 300 lb. black bear. What am I missing?

What did you end up going with? Sticking to the 139, or going the bigger 160? Did you get your moose?

 

[mooster]

What did you end up going with? Sticking to the 139, or going the bigger 160? Did you get your moose?

The 139 did fine. We did shoot him multiple times to make sure he fell where he stood and not run into a nasty burn area. Same this year,buddy took 3 shots w/.300 win mag, 180 grain to tip over his moose where it was on solid ground instead of making it into the water where he was headed. Been two good years for us DIY.

 

[steffen707]

The 139 did fine. We did shoot him multiple times to make sure he fell where he stood and not run into a nasty burn area. Same this year,buddy took 3 shots w/.300 win mag, 180 grain to tip over his moose where it was on solid ground instead of making it into the water where he was headed. Been two good years for us DIY.

That's awesome. I'm building a 18" 7RM and also thinking of just going with the 139 LRX for Deer-Moose. I'll have to check muzzle velocity and calculate where 2000fps is in distance so I don't ever shoot past that.

 

[mooster]

That's awesome. I'm building a 18" 7RM and also thinking of just going with the 139 LRX for Deer-Moose. I'll have to check muzzle velocity and calculate where 2000fps is in distance so I don't ever shoot past that.

We also found we could paddle easily within 200 yds without getting them too spooky. This year used the paddles to call a 62” to 50 yds for the shot.

 

[Super tag]

Those numbers are surprising. Love the Barnes Bullets and love the 7mm, in my opinion it is the ultimate caliber for all around one rifle hunting, there isn’t anything it won’t do. I shoot the Barnes 160 and shot my elk at 557 yards, the bullet performed flawlessly. Looks just like the recovered bullet in the above photo.

 

[Joseph2186]

I took a moose this year with a 160 partition. Crushed both lungs and complete pass through He made it maybe 60 yards.