9.3x64 wrote:Hi mate,
Just curious if you or anybody else has done anymore testing with 2213 in the 7x64 / 7x65R?
Short answer is not a lot.
I changed from the 160 North Fork to the 160 Partition, but wasn't able to significantly increase my 2213sc charge weight.
I am getting over 2800 with 59g of 2213sc. My notes don't mention compression, but this would be very close to 100% load density - maybe very, very slightly compressed. If I increase the charge, accuracy deteriorates. This load is just on 1" for three, which, to me is not up Blaser standards, but is certainly good enough. The old load shot slightly smaller groups (much smaller when pushed to the ragged edge).
I plan to seat the 160 out a bit further (currently 3.47LOA) and try bumping up the charge a little. I have been lacking motivation to do this, because it is all working so well as is.
I view 160s in 06 size and larger 7mm cases as being a classic big game weight, and I have certainly never needed more penetration on sambar. OTH the longer, heavier 175s seem to align more closely with Euro thinking.
I wouldn't bother with 2217 and 160s unless I had 2217 in the cupboard. If I wanted to try 175s, I would definitely give 2217 a run, but only after I had tried 2213 - because I have 2213, but not 2217
I am having a play with 168 LRAB and RL22 in the 7x65 K95. I picked up the bits on a whim, remembering that when I was researching 280Rem, the keen people who were right into 280 seemed to agree that RL22 was the one for speed. Early days yet, but I think case capacity may be a limiter with that projectile. RL22 is bulkier than 2213sc and I'm sure would be even more so when compared to 2217. I need to shoot some groups, but I don't seem to have much room to chase it up. At this stage, I am hoping for around 2800 and well under 1" for 3, but the jump is going to be awfully long, so who knows ?
If it doesn't work I might try RL22 with the 160s, but as I said, when it is all working so well, the motivation to experiment is not strong.