7 SAUM Velocity Check

Hawk in WY

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Sep 20, 2013
809
464
Jackson Hole, WY
My go to powder for 7 SAUM has been Reloder 26. Time to find an alternative.

MagPro looked to be a good, available option for the Barnes 168 LRX.

Barnes does not provide load data for the 168 but published 63 to 68 grains for the 175 LRX.

QuickLoad has the 168 gr bullet and shows maximum, safe pressure at 61.7 gr for 2,926 fps which also happens to be an OBT node.

The big surprise was actual velocity of 2,660, COAL 2.78, 22 inch barrel. This is close to Barnes' data.

I have been using QuickLoad for a long time and often see differences in predicted versus actual velocities, but never anything this big.

Has anyone seen this big a difference or have experience with this combination?

I plan to switch to Ramshot Hunter and to work up to the Barnes recommended loads slowly.

Thank you for sharing your experience.
 
Last edited:
No experience with your particular cartridge, but for my 300 & 7 PRC’s, I was using R26 as well

I found H1000 and N565 to be the closest in regards to velocity and still multiple nodes.

Im shooting heavies in the 7PRC, so there will be some variables, but if chasing velocity and have been using R26, prepare for a bit of letdown, especially with your short barrel.
Nothing I have found comes within 125-150fps of R26
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk in WY
anyone have any idea what the deal is with r26? Are they going to keep making it or?…
Alliant Powders either did or did not tell dealers that they were canceling all retail orders due to a nitrocellulose shortage.

In other words, a likely made up or misunderstood notice has created a consumer induced shortage.
 
QuickLOAD was indicating maximum pressure and 2926 fps at 61.7 grains of Magpro. Actual velocity of that load was 250 fps slower. I have tested up to 66 grains without pressure signs and velocity within Barnes data with a 175 grain bullet.

This tells me something may be seriously wrong with the burn rate for the latest lots of Magpro powders assumed by QuickLOAD.

I believe the OP may have been seen the opposite, far more dangerous, QuickLOAD assumption with the powder he was using.

I always cross checked QuickLOAD data against other published data. This experience tells me that is more important than ever now that QuickLOAD may not be keeping up with powder burn rate changes over time.
 
Last edited: