Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Outdoor Life.

The 7mm PRC made quite a splash when it was introduced by Hornady just four years ago, with some calling it the “modern magnum” of 7mm cartridges. That’s because it embodies the same modern cartridge design principles used in rounds like the 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5 PRC, and 300 PRC. In some ways, it outshines all of these, and delivers more efficient performance than the 7mm Rem. Mag. It does so from a standard-length action without using a belted case.

Based on a shortened .375 Ruger parent case, the 7mm PRC uses long, heavy-for-caliber bullets in rifles with fast rates of twist (most often 1:8). As a result, it shoots flat, bucks the wind, retains velocity downrange and is inherently accurate. Using Hornady’s 175-gr. ELD-X bullet, the round stays supersonic past 1,800 yards, and energy doesn’t drop below 1,000 foot-pounds until nearly 1,200 yards. That’s overkill for the whitetail woods, but it makes the cartridge a great choice for Western hunters pursuing mule deer and elk at longer ranges. It is also very much at home on the African plains.

Rifles chambered in 7mm PRC generally produce great accuracy — especially when compared to some of the traditional magnum cartridges. PRC stands for Precision Rifle Cartridge, and the entire family of PRC cartridges was designed from the beginning to produce superior accuracy at distance.

The 7mm Rem Mag was not. It was designed to perform well on game at a time when 1.5-MOA accuracy was considered very good for factory rifles using factory ammunition. This isn’t to say that the 7mm Rem Mag is an inaccurate cartridge. Over the years, my average 3-shot groups with most 7mm Rem Mag rifles were fairly close to one MOA, or a little better with loads those rifles preferred — a few guns occasionally did better. This, of course, is just my anecdotal experiences shooting the cartridge, not the end-all-be-all commentary on its accuracy.

The rifles I’ve shot in 7mm PRC have seldom failed to print 3/4-MOA-or-better average groups and half-inch-or-better best groups at 100 yards (these were 3-shot groups, again take this as anecdotal evidence).

I think this all depends on the weight of the gun and the ammunition you shoot. Frankly, I don’t really like the Hornady ammunition. In my 7mm PRC rifle I find that Nosler does better.

You will often hear that the 7mm Rem Mag produces more recoil than the 7mm PRC, but that’s not necessarily the case. Yes, the 7mm Rem Mag can produce a punishing level of recoil, especially out of lighter rifles with heavier loads. However, many hunters commonly shoot 7mm Rem Mag ammo loaded with lighter 140- to 160-gr. bullets, which can produce less recoil than shooting the 7mm PRC’s heavier standard bullets.

Those fast, light loads came in handy at a time when hunters were mostly using the holdover method for longer shots (before laser rangefinders were invented). Part of the 7mm Rem Mag’s appeal, especially with Western hunters, was that it shot relatively flat.

On average, the 7mm Rem Mag produces about 22-25 ft-lbs. of recoil energy, while the 7mm PRC produces average recoil energy of approximately 25-29 ft-lbs. However, those average numbers can be misleading because recoil energy varies greatly depending on factors like rifle weight, bullet weight, and powder charge.

With heavy rifles, recoil with both the 7mm Rem Mag and 7mm PRC is manageable for most shooters. Drop the rifle weight down, and recoil can become a problem for either cartridge.

You need a muzzle brake. At one time in my shooting career, I would have considered this amount of recoil to be punishing. That was true up until I shot the 444 Marlin, which honestly isn’t so punishing either when you’re hunting. It’s quite manageable — right up until you’ve shot 15 or so rounds bench rest. And then I begin to look for opportunities to rest and regroup between shots. There is no point to shooting that many rounds of 444 Marlin anyway. Sight it in and be done. It’s a hunting round.

As I’ve mentioned, I am profoundly impressed with the 7mm PRC.

Why does everyone always ignore me? I get that some of these rounds are higher pressure rounds, but Rossi is able to handle the design. Henry could too. Or S&W. Or Marlin.

Caliber? I don’t understand. I’ve harassed Henry for years to build us a 460 & 500 Magnum S&W rifle. Also 454 Casull. Finally had to just get a Rossi 454.@HenryRifles

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) March 8, 2026

Jerry gets to have all the fun.

I didn’t know S&W had ever worked on a military shotgun. If this idea was floated today, I expect it would get stiff competition from the Beretta 1301 and Benelli M4.

I don’t really think this is all that difficult. Recall that I mentioned a few months ago I managed to put a 7mm PRC round on IPSC steel at 1000 yards, and was shooting with a friend who did the same thing four-rounds-for-four at 1000 yards with the 5.56mm? This isn’t magic.

And then, you can always use the same lowers and replace the M4 uppers with 6mm ARC uppers. That would make the job of engaging at 1000 yards even easier and more effective.

Longer term, if the US is going to have a professional military, it might make sense to (a) raise entrance ASVAB scores, (b) make enlistments 5 years instead of 4, (c) revamp the Scout Sniper program to ensure many more personnel could go through it, (d) add more schools for the infantryman such as high altitude shooting, cold weather combat and survival skills, etc., and in general make the American man a more effective, intelligent, well-training fighting machine.

To do that would require that they continue to dump DEI programs, limit combat to males and eject females from the infantryman MOS, and manage their money much more effectively.

But a change to 6mm ARC would be simple, cheap, and relatively painless. Or just teach infantrymen to shoot at 1000 yards with the use of Kestrels or some ballistic application.

This is an interesting, fairly short and well-done test. I was frankly a bit surprised that the 7mm PRC, which I shoot, has more recoil than the 30-06 (and more than every cartridge tested except 300 Win Mag and 300 PRC). But my rifle has a muzzle brake on it and makes it quite a pleasure to shoot.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen a rollout pushed this hard. It looks like a very nice gun, but a bit pricey for me.

Also see here, here, here and here.

Wow. It looks like great training – something that would benefit any one of us. And it sure would be nice to be given a Kestrel and Eberlestock backpack to use.

When he talks about pre-loading the rifle bipod, I wonder if the instructors (and shooters) took into account POI shifting? The problem is basically that the guard is connected to the barrel at the barrel nut. The authors of this video show a very good free body diagram of the problem.

This is certainly something we’ve seen before, but I’m always down for another gel test with 5.56.

And here’s another reason a change of the main battle rifle for the U.S. military was stupid. But I’ve told you that before.

Outdoor Life.

Why was the Kentucky rifle such a success? Probably because here, for the first time, was a firearm that evolved in direct response to America’s needs. Rifles brought over from Europe were of little value in the American wilderness. Loading was a slow, difficult job. The noise of hammering a tight-fitting ball down the length of the barrel often scared off game or attracted attention at the wrong time. Construction was ugly and ungainly; trigger guards were bulky yet frail; sights were useless in dark forests or in any spot where accuracy was vital; calibers were large; and the rifles as a whole were heavy and unreliable. Little wonder that for many years the smoothbores reigned supreme.

[ … ]

No frontiersman wanted to carry a heavy weapon on his long treks in the wilderness. The weight was steadily reduced until the average Kentucky hunting rifle weighed between 9 and 10 pounds. (Those made for match shooting averaged about 19 pounds.) Similarly, using a large-caliber rifle meant that the lone pioneer had to carry a heavy load of bullets. So the caliber was reduced from the .65 and .70 common in Europe to about .45. The pound of lead that once yielded sixteen .70 bullets now gave forty-eight .45 balls — three times as many shots.

[ … ]

George Washington had learned the value of Kentucky riflemen in the French and Indian War. When the Revolution began, he urged the Continental Congress to put in a call for them. So it happens that the first troops raised by a central government on this continent were companies of straight-shooting backwoodsmen — and this might be called the beginning of the U. S. Army!

From the far fringes of the frontier the colorful, independent hunters flocked to their meeting places. One group of ninety-six men, recruited in Virginia by Daniel Morgan, marched 600 miles in 21 days to join the army facing the British at Cambridge, Mass. And some of these tough customers had walked 200 miles through the wilderness in order to enlist!

The bulk of the fighting in the Revolution was done with smoothbore muskets, so inaccurate that nineteen shots out of twenty would miss an 18-foot-square target at 350 yards. This performance was so poor that Benjamin Franklin urged the authorities to equip the Continental Army with bows and arrows.

Like every other improvement in arms, from the longbow to the atom bomb, the rifle was denounced as barbarous and uncivilized — by the side that didn’t have it. After Bunker Hill, the British tried to alibi their heavy losses by charging that the Americans used rifles with slit bullets that broke in four parts when fired. As a matter of fact, the frontier riflemen hadn’t arrived at the time of Bunker Hill; according to a writer of the time, the New England farmers who fought there were armed with muskets, mostly without bayonets. But he adds: “They are almost all marksmen, being accustomed to sporting of one kind or another from their youth.”

Soon, however, the men with the Kentuckys were pouring northward, amazing townspeople with their marksmanship as well as with their outlandish garb and swaggering manners. Newspapers were filled with stories of their feats — many of which obviously gained in the telling. From Lancaster, Pa., a townsman wrote of seeing a man take a 5 x 7-inch piece of board and hold it between his knees while his brother put eight bullets through it in succession from a distance of 60 yards. Another chap offered to shoot an apple off a man’s head at the same range, but the timid spectators declined to watch any such fool stunt.

After they joined the army at Cambridge, the backwoodsmen made life miserable for the British. Their specialty was picking off officers and sentries. Soon a Philadelphia printer was writing to a friend in London: “This province has raised 1,000 riflemen, the worst of whom will put a ball into a man’s head at the distance of 150 or 200 yards. Therefore advise your officers who shall hereafter come out to America to settle their affairs in England before their departure.”

British General Howe is said to have offered a large reward for the capture of a Kentucky rifleman. When one finally was taken, Howe sent him to London to show what the redcoats were up against. A few demonstrations of his skill brought British enlistments practically to zero!

It sounds like the assault weapon of the revolutionary war. The British didn’t want the colonists to have rifled bores any more than your government wants you to have the weapons they have.