I went to Africa in August and came back deciding I needed a new setup…bigger caliber, suppressor, etc. Settled on a 7mm BC with a 16” barrel and a titanium suppressor. I love it. It’s quiet, short, and packs a lot of punch. I’m selfishly hoping the caliber takes off. Anyone else got one and have thoughts so far? Or don’t have one and think it’s the dumbest thing in the world? What do y’all think?
7mm Backcountry thoughts?
- Thread starter jhbaker12
- Start date
-
Join our community of outdoor enthusiasts! Subscribe to Field Ethos Magazine to unlock full forum access and connect with fellow adventurers sharing their stories, tips, and experiences.
If you are already a subscriber, log in here.
robmcleod82
Member
I think its a cartridge that was built to fix a problem that didnt really exist. I dont see it catching on in a big way or ammo availability ever being good for it. As far as reloading the steel cases all kinds of questions there. Now all that said if it works for you and you love it thats all that really matters. Lord knows I have all kinds of odd cartridges in my safe that people question why I have them.
Here's my thoughts on the many of these cartridges that are reinventing the wheel... Not much out there does anything any better than what's been done before. Lots of hype, marketing and sensationalism... I have the inside scoop...
The next miracle caliber is going to be the .29 Nirvana. If you keep reading Gun Porn Magazine it will be revealed that the .29 caliber is the diameter of ballistic perfection, causing Gun Porn readers a majestic erection.
Ammo makers are realizing that by reducing .308 bullets by .018" creates ballistic Nirvana, hence the name of the new greatest cartridge ever!
There will follow a whole series of .29 caliber cartridges, reviewed in breathless prose by worshipful gun writers looking to score a big paycheck. Trust the science, and believe everything you read...
Of course, it'll be replaced by the .288 TSE (This Solves Everything) in about 5 years...pre-order yours now.
sawyer.campbell210
Member
I worry about reloading living up to the hype, solid concept
Steven Donovan
Well-known member
Broad opinion:
I don't really think it will make much of a difference "in the field" as compared to the general line-up of other 7mm.
A lot of ammunition manufacturers, especially in America, naturally have to stay competitive from a business perspective, and have to "innovate" within the market. But the reality is that we (the human species) are basically at the general 90%-95% level of bullet/cartridge optimization within our current understanding of metals and propellant. In other words, cartridges/bullets have basically, broadly, been roughly within the same general size/design ranges since 1900ish - and unless the earth's gravity changes, a "completely new" style/chemical makeup of propellant is discovered, or a "completely new" type of firearms metallurgy/material is developed, the current broad category of bullets/cartridges probably won't change for some time.
I think many developments, right now, are going to be incremental rather than decisive... they are going to be seen in optics, actual bullet material composition/tip design (not specifically overall dimensions), and incremental improvements to the propellant itself. I think the 7mm BC is along this general developmental trajectory... it's not bad, but it's basically splitting hairs with other existing cartridges.
I don't really think it will make much of a difference "in the field" as compared to the general line-up of other 7mm.
A lot of ammunition manufacturers, especially in America, naturally have to stay competitive from a business perspective, and have to "innovate" within the market. But the reality is that we (the human species) are basically at the general 90%-95% level of bullet/cartridge optimization within our current understanding of metals and propellant. In other words, cartridges/bullets have basically, broadly, been roughly within the same general size/design ranges since 1900ish - and unless the earth's gravity changes, a "completely new" style/chemical makeup of propellant is discovered, or a "completely new" type of firearms metallurgy/material is developed, the current broad category of bullets/cartridges probably won't change for some time.
I think many developments, right now, are going to be incremental rather than decisive... they are going to be seen in optics, actual bullet material composition/tip design (not specifically overall dimensions), and incremental improvements to the propellant itself. I think the 7mm BC is along this general developmental trajectory... it's not bad, but it's basically splitting hairs with other existing cartridges.
Last edited:
fletcher8732
Member
My wife is big on caliber development. She gets excited about weird shit like .30 SC and 6mm ARC. I am the opposite. .308, 30-30, 12 gauge, and other simpleton calibers fit my needs just fine. Bullet selection is equally important to ballistic coefficient. Not much in North America is going to shake off a hit from a bonded .308......just saying.....
We jokingly used to say .30-06 was for civil reenactments. The old tried and true calibers are hard to beat though.
Steven Donovan
Well-known member
It's tough... because a lot of these new cartridges/calibers are not bad at all - many are actually very good.
The key question is generally the same - are they decisively better enough to motivate the rifle/ammunition companies to actually invest in the production, design, and sale of ammunition and rifles (in said new cartridge) at a level that will actually be profitable. It's really hard to overcome the field effectiveness and economies of scale (raw profit) of existing cartridges...
The key question is generally the same - are they decisively better enough to motivate the rifle/ammunition companies to actually invest in the production, design, and sale of ammunition and rifles (in said new cartridge) at a level that will actually be profitable. It's really hard to overcome the field effectiveness and economies of scale (raw profit) of existing cartridges...
Steve Johnson
Well-known member
Amen to that... the amount of actual objective improvement probably wrapped up a century ago with the 300 H&H, let alone the "this changes EVERYTHING" claims of the past couple decades. From 40,000 feet, it sure seems like the majority of domestic cartridge development post 1930; both commercial and wildcat, really boiled down to "how do we duplicate [insert British or German cartridge here] performance, but in a 3.400" or worse, a 2.835" magazine...or a wildcat for some other very nuanced ballistic trait for a specific purpose - varmint, bullseye, etc. Regarding the 30-06 being "antiquated" I always like to suggest people take a look at the published ballistics of the "Precision Hunter" loads from H for the 30-06 and the 6.5 Creedmoor...then consider the perception that the public has for both cartridges. The longer I hunt, the more I appreciate the old '06.
Steven Donovan
Well-known member
I think so much of this conversation depends on your frame of viewing the subject.
If you look at cartridge dimensions/design like automobiles or motorcycles, you tend to view bullet designs like "models" of engine (in isolation), and therefore something like the ".30-06" looks "old" and 7mm Backcountry is seen as "new."
If someone looks at cartridge/bullet dimension/design in a more ballistically-driven fashion (with the bullet/cartridge as part of an overall system), they tend to view .30-06 or 7mm as "dimension sets" that have been developed based off the same surrounding variables, with one being another experimental "jab". One dimension/design simply has a larger amount of data/refinement over time than the other.
If you look at cartridge dimensions/design like automobiles or motorcycles, you tend to view bullet designs like "models" of engine (in isolation), and therefore something like the ".30-06" looks "old" and 7mm Backcountry is seen as "new."
If someone looks at cartridge/bullet dimension/design in a more ballistically-driven fashion (with the bullet/cartridge as part of an overall system), they tend to view .30-06 or 7mm as "dimension sets" that have been developed based off the same surrounding variables, with one being another experimental "jab". One dimension/design simply has a larger amount of data/refinement over time than the other.
Steve Johnson
Well-known member
Totally agree. I would only add, that in the absolute sense of using a tool to complete a task, will a new 16" 7MM BC OBJECTIVELY do a better job/offer true advantage over an old 24" 30-06?? Objectively...I believe that answer is pretty subjective, depending on the level of magnification being used to determine the answer. One of my buddies likes to say, rhetorically... "is it the bow.... or the Indian??" To his point, I believe that if folks are actually interested in increasing capability in the field...it might not hurt to slow down, pick a good rig, set it up right and really focus on learning to use it to its full potential; I suspect then some folks might find what they seem to be looking for...regardless of what rifle/cartridge/scope they choose to use. But to your point, it is easy to perceive new cartridges to be doing things different, or better, I just get stuck for a second on how relatively few fundamental elements have changed since the 7x57 and smokeless propellant...I'm probably just getting old tho... haha
Don’t sleep on 8.6BLK for cartridge development. Introducing significant improvements for rotational velocity has been a serious game changer for lethality.
Steve Johnson
Well-known member
I know that you guys really like it, and I respect that. (how's that for being a mid-westerner??
)
Have you tried it? Subs and supers?I know that you guys really like it, and I respect that. (how's that for being a mid-westerner??
Steve Johnson
Well-known member
I'll ping you in the DMs....
safetekk
Active member
I got into shooting PRS (Precision Rifle Series) in it's early stages back in 2010-ish. That sport created an explosion of new calibers. As a business owner at the time, I didn't have the time that the top shooters had to make it big in the sport at the national level, but did quite well regionally which in itself is a feat. It seems to me that all this new cartridge development isn't necessarily driven by ammo manufacturers. Its driven by those that make guns, gear, whatnot. After all...what good is a cartridge that affords decent barrel life, excellent accuracy/ballistics, and gets the job done? It's no good for the manufacturers at all. Once the market is somewhat saturated people stop buying them, particularly if the equipment lasts. I watched first hand as some of the best gun plumbers in the country teamed up with ammo makers like Hornady and Federal to legitimize the next Wildcat. (Remember the .224 Valkerie?)
Every time the field/scores started tightening the PRS would change the rules, change the sport, change the stages, reduce the target size , increase the difficulty per stage , all in an effort to get you to buy new equipment to keep up. It's a sport driven by ego and machismo and everyone chases the trophy. If you're good enough to get a sponsorship you may be able to get gear at cost and even some of it for free. You get the coolest trophies on the planet and the prize table can hold thousands of dollars in high-end equipment, including a check for severel $k to the winner.
Gear manufacturers drive all of this shit including all of these new calibers. Anyone that says otherwise is lying to you. To be clear, I'm not saying this innovation or new calibers are bad, but to repeat someone else above... they're often solving a problem that doesn't really exist, and some of this new shit is splitting hairs at a level that is just plain dumb.
Every time the field/scores started tightening the PRS would change the rules, change the sport, change the stages, reduce the target size , increase the difficulty per stage , all in an effort to get you to buy new equipment to keep up. It's a sport driven by ego and machismo and everyone chases the trophy. If you're good enough to get a sponsorship you may be able to get gear at cost and even some of it for free. You get the coolest trophies on the planet and the prize table can hold thousands of dollars in high-end equipment, including a check for severel $k to the winner.
Gear manufacturers drive all of this shit including all of these new calibers. Anyone that says otherwise is lying to you. To be clear, I'm not saying this innovation or new calibers are bad, but to repeat someone else above... they're often solving a problem that doesn't really exist, and some of this new shit is splitting hairs at a level that is just plain dumb.
Milo'sSyndicate
Well-known member
I know nothing about it whatsoever, it's your rabbit hole and sounds like you built a cool gun. Which one did you get and what ammo are you using, and which Ti can?
I think I just felt a quiver down below! Oh wait, It’s early and it could just be morning wood.
Steve Johnson
Well-known member
That is a fairly accurate assessment. The concept goes way beyond the shooting industry tho. It probably exists in just about every enthusiast industry/markety out there...from mountain bikes, to fishing, to archery, to golf and on and on.... It just comes down to how long one wants to participate in the "arms race."
