7mm Federal Backcountry

[TTE]

With the mention of the new case material, ..... if it's cheaper to produce than brass cases, it will stick around. All the ammo manufactures may be going to these cases if it is.

 

[kojaone]

I have had the bench in the area for 45 years.Hunting folks are reloading less.Folks are hunting less.
I have less people coming to bench that have real world experiance when they come use my range. Fanboy,theory types.......I say nope a lot and don't come back.
My 16" 28 nosler handgun with Retumbo has no muzzle flash,single digit es and sd. 162's over 3000, 180's at 2850..... 1/2 MOA,It hurts chit at 1000 yards,the word "potential" does not apply,been there done that does.
There is a lot more intrest in the 7BC short and suppressed now than when the 7prc was annouced at my bench and my LGS.
I know a dozen 7RM owners,not one has "replaced" their 7RM with a 7PRC.More like replace 7wsm,maybe,I know of one,me.
I like the 7PRC as a reloader and handgunner.It may replace my 16" 7WSM barrel.Maybe 7BC,wait a bit.

 

[wboggs]

Federal has released a new cartridge that looks suspiciously similar to the .280 AI, but outperforms 7mm PRC. The kicker is its a new steel alloy that will reload similar to brass, but handle an operating pressure of 80,000. Basically, it makes a 175 gr bullet run 3175 in a 20" barrel.

Is this the future of ammo?

What will barrel life be on such a contraption? If the new alloy is much more expensive than brass, will it be prohibitively expensive? A lot of questions remain.

How do you resize steel cases or do you shoot it once and throw it away?
True velocity cases with a steel base and plastic upper are not reloadable. It seems it will.be a very specialized cartridge with limited applications.

 

[drop_point]

How do you resize steel cases or do you shoot it once and throw it away?
True velocity cases with a steel base and plastic upper are not reloadable. It seems it will.be a very specialized cartridge with limited applications.

Federal says its reloadable and soon dies will be available from a major manufacturer.

 

[bozo699]

Didn’t have to. That’s my definition as well as some others’ too.

^^^^^^^
Wayne

 

[bozo699]

Your words, not mine. I’m fine with new cartridges as long as there is merit. As already mentioned before, 7 PRC is justified as it replaces the belted 7mm Rem Mag with some improvements.

This thread is regarding 7BC so why are you talking about 16-18” rifles? 7BC would need a minimum of 20” to reach its potential. Otherwise it would be pointless to run this caliber on barrels shorter than 20”.

As already explained earlier, there hardly is much difference in lengths between suppressed 20” and 24” rifles.

FYI long range shooting is not hunting, it is sniping. Hunting is about stalking your game, typically within a few hundred yards or so.

Again, Federal has created a problem that did not exist.

^^^^^^^^
Wayne

 

[dellet]

This thread is regarding 7BC so why are you talking about 16-18” rifles? 7BC would need a minimum of 20” to reach its potential. Otherwise it would be pointless to run this caliber on barrels shorter than 20”.

As already explained earlier, there hardly is much difference in lengths between suppressed 20” and 24” rifles.

FYI long range shooting is not hunting, it is sniping. Hunting is about stalking your game, typically within a few hundred yards or so.

Again, Federal has created a problem that did not exist.

People hunt with barrels shorter than 20” all the time. So it’s relevant when a company basically limits barrel length. In this case it certainly has nothing to do with the performance of the 7mm Backcountry. When a 20” barrel will attain the same velocity as the comparison cartridge in a 24”, that gap will likely only widen at shorter barrel lengths given the extra 20,000 psi. So why not promote it?

The cartridge is promoted as a short barreled hunting rifle designed to shoot suppressed. That adds other considerations. Such as muzzle pressure, heat, and rate of fire.

Marketed as a hunting cartridge, there is no expectation of long strings of fire. That aligns with testing the cartridge using a “hunting” suppressor. Besides being shorter and lighter these suppressors for the most part are of inferior materials. One clue is that they are generally not full auto rated. Most say, big deal I don’t hunt with a machine gun. The truth of the matter is “full auto rating” is a temperature rating. Generally around 800 degrees. Someone locked into a prairie dog town isn’t likely to need a full auto rating of 900 rounds a minute for 30 rounds, but a 15 second 5 round string would not be out of the question. When bench shooters can break below 10 seconds.

There is no practical reason to market this cartridge with the shortest barrel at 20” unless……..
Below 20” the muzzle pressure and heat are greater than say a 308W at 14”. Many suppressors are rated at 16” minimum barrel for the 7PRC and 300 WSM and 7SAUM.

For the short barreled crowd, 20” is still pretty long. So until some muzzle pressure and heat numbers are published, the rule of thumb should probably be this cartridge eats suppressors in short barrels, and is worse on those designed or marketed as “Hunting” suppressors.

Besides since this cartridge is not designed for “sniping” you really don’t need the extra 150fps difference between a 16” and 20” barrel and getting 20” velocity’s from a 16” barrel would be very attractive to a lot of back country hunters that have to carry their rifle vs haul it on a vehicle.

 

[drop_point]

I believe they are selling 16.5" barrels for this cartridge already, including the companies Federal partnered with.

 

[dellet]

I believe they are selling 16.5" barrels for this cartridge already, including the companies Federal partnered with.

That was expected I think. Rifles off the shelf that might face liability issues might take time. Or I’m just being overly cautious and a chicken little.


From what I’ve seen, Federal did their testing with Banish, specifically the Banish Back Country. I could not find any barrel length requirements for that specific suppressor. It seems that 20” is the number, but not clear. Other companies it’s too early for published info.

The Banish Back Country is a different design that most of their other line. The Banish dedicated 223 model is only rated to I think 14”, where many other companies minimum is 11-12”. The Back country is not full auto rated. So the flip side is that if a suppressor not designed for a heavy load was chosen for testing, it only gets better.

I would be interest in a barrel length restriction for 5” Thunderbeast.

I’m sure the 7mm Backcountry will have a place, but @FrankG posted some issues they found in test barrels due to either pressure or case material, makes you wonder what’s gone unpublished concerning damage in blast chambers or first baffle?

Until there are numbers for muzzle pressure at 16” or blessings from suppressor manufacturers, I personally would not be shooting suppressed from a 16” barrel.

 

[drop_point]

That was expected I think. Rifles off the shelf that might face liability issues might take time. Or I’m just being overly cautious and a chicken little.


From what I’ve seen, Federal did their testing with Banish, specifically the Banish Back Country. I could not find any barrel length requirements for that specific suppressor. It seems that 20” is the number, but not clear. Other companies it’s too early for published info.

The Banish Back Country is a different design that most of their other line. The Banish dedicated 223 model is only rated to I think 14”, where many other companies minimum is 11-12”. The Back country is not full auto rated. So the flip side is that if a suppressor not designed for a heavy load was chosen for testing, it only gets better.

I would be interest in a barrel length restriction for 5” Thunderbeast.

I’m sure the 7mm Backcountry will have a place, but @FrankG posted some issues they found in test barrels due to either pressure or case material, makes you wonder what’s gone unpublished concerning damage in blast chambers or first baffle?

Until there are numbers for muzzle pressure at 16” or blessings from suppressor manufacturers, I personally would not be shooting suppressed from a 16” barrel.

Most suppressor manufacturers give a rating. Many of which are rated for F/A fire in 7" barrels. Its usually related to amount of powder burned from what I've read. For instance, I know my Surefire will go down to automatic fire SBR .308s, .300 Norma in like a 16" barrel, etc.

Regardless, the Backcountry is going to perform in a 20" barrel like a 24" 7mm PRC. That is what is appealing to me. I often hunt with a 18" .308 Winchester with a 6" suppressor or a 26" magnum with a brake. I think I could live with a 20" with a 5" suppressor pretty handily; bringing the total barrel up to 25 1/2" and still giving me unsuppressed 24" PRC performance.

 

[CJ6]

Do you plan on loading for it then?
Or strictly factory?

 

[wboggs]

Federal says its reloadable and soon dies will be available from a major manufacturer.

I will await the die specs and experience in resizing the cases.
Thanks.

 

[Old Navy]

From the article above.

None of that sounds like this will be a reloadable case so far, and the powder is also unobtanium so far as well.

Keep in mind, the DoD could care less about reloading, so if they are targeting the DoD requests with a steel cased higher pressure round, then let it roll.

Not sure how this unfolds for civilians with carry weight hunting rifles but time will tell.

View attachment 1621105
View attachment 1621106

Excellent!

 

[drop_point]

I will await the die specs and experience in resizing the cases.
Thanks.

I'm looking forward to how the reloading turns out. I have a friend who is an industry engineer who tells me it is the real deal. He has parts on the way for his personal rifles. If the reloading process isn't insane, I'll probably grab a barrel. A hunting rifle like this is designed to be won't be a high-volume shooter anyway.

 

[wboggs]

I'm looking forward to how the reloading turns out. I have a friend who is an industry engineer who tells me it is the real deal. He has parts on the way for his personal rifles. If the reloading process isn't insane, I'll probably grab a barrel. A hunting rifle like this is designed to be won't be a high-volume shooter anyway.

Let us know what you find out.
Thanks

 

[Old Navy]

Extruded primers should tell you all you need to know about reloading steel cases.

 

[jonbearman]

Yet another fad to deal with. How many more cartridges do we really need.

 

[drop_point]

Let us know what you find out.
Thanks

Will do!

 

[3Ackleys]

Yet another fad to deal with. How many more cartridges do we really need.

It is a free market economy, there are none better on planet earth. The best part? You don't have to participate- that's the "free" part!

 

[dellet]

Extruded primers should tell you all you need to know about reloading steel cases.

Why is that?

If I understand the meaning of an extruded primer, it’s simply backed out of the pocket. Having a primer back out of the pocket is a sign of low chamber pressure compress to case strength.

Enough pressure for the case to stick to the chamber wall, but not enough to stretch the case back to the bolt face. Leaving room for the primer to back out, but not be reseated by the stretching case.

If your saying that a case that doesn’t fully fire form at 80,000 psi, will be difficult to resize with a conventional die, it makes sense.

Is there something else I’m missing? I’ve never even shot steel cases ammo, so have no idea what special treatment is required to reload.