Either 7mm Mag or 300 Win Mag will do the job. I considered both calibers a while ago and (after setting aside what would be nice in favor of what needs I had) decided to keep things simple with a 30-06.
37 replies [Last post]
Fri, 2005-08-05 13:54#11
Sat, 2005-08-06 23:59#12
I have both, and also a stable of weatherbys. Seriously, the 7 mag will pretty much handle all of your shooting needs. The Federal Premium spitting out a 160 nosler partition will flat out put an elk or mulie down,.
If you're looking at the short mags, I'd opt for the 300wsm. It all comes down to personal preference. Ask your buddies what they shoot and why.
Sun, 2005-08-07 00:41#13
EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE DENSITY OF A BULLET IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ITS OVERALL WEIGHT IN BALLISTICS,IF ITS MORE IMPORTANT WHY DONT WE RELOAD BASED ON THE BULLETS DENSITY RATHER THAN ITS WEIGHT,VELOCITY AND WEIGHT DICTATE AN OBJECTS BALLISTIC MEASURE,DENSITY EFFECTS WEIGHT BUT ITS STILL THE WEIGHT AND SHAPE OF A PROJECTILE THAT DETERMINE HOW IT WILL FLY.
Sun, 2005-08-07 09:42#14
People do reload that way, whether they realize it or not. As I recall, my previous post says that sectional density and the bullet's ballistic coefficient or more important than weight all by itself. For expample, a 130 caliber .270 Winchester bullet has been proven to outperform 150 grain 30-06 bullets because of it's more streamlined shape and higher sectional density. In fact, performance-wise, it is approximately equal to a 165 grain 30-06 bullet.
It is the same thing with the 160 grain .7mm Magnum and the 180 grain .300 Magnum bullet. The fact that the weight of the 175 grain .7mm projectile is within 5 grains of the 180 grain .300 is irrelevant. THEY DO NOT WORK THE SAME WAY! The 175 grain bullet is the heaviest for-caliber bullet available to .7mm shooters who do not reload. It is applicable for maximum penetration from that bullet diameter, favorable for brown bear, lion, and similar game. Performs identically to the 200 grain .300 Winchester Magnum.
True too, is the fact that the 160 grain Federal Nosler Partition actually edges the velocity, energy, and trajectory of the 300 Win Mag 180 grain NP at 300 yards and stays that way for the rest of the chart. This is not due to the bullet weights, but rather the higher ballistic coefficient of the 7mm Remington Magnum 160 grain NP. Performance on game such as deer and elk by these bullets is identical.
Another thing that has been made into a bigger fuss than it actually is is the diameter of the wound channel. In an elk that has been struck through the lungs or heart, any difference in the wound channel from a .284 cal bullet and a .308 cal bullet is insignificant.
Choosing between these two cartridges is really a matter of choice and preference. To top it all off, the 7mm Remington Magnum delivers to the shooter roughly 20-23 ft-lbs of recoil in an 8-1/2 lb rifle, depending on the bullet weight and powder charge. Stout handloads may push it up to around 25, but it stays in the realm of the 30-06, which also delivers about 25 ft-lbs of recoil with a 180 grain bullet that starts at 2800 fps MV using IMR-4831 podwer in a handload.
On the other hand, the 300 Winchester Magnum belts the shooter with anywhere from 26 to 32 ft-lbs of recoil in a rifle of the same weight, and that's just with factory loads. Shooting 180 grain bullets loaded to more than 3000 fps MV and we're getting into the realm of 300 Weatherby Magnum recoil.
Sun, 2005-08-07 11:33#15
Most hunters don't even know anything about a bullet's SD, let alone take it into account (along with the bullet's construction and weight) when buying ammo for the hunt.
They just go to their local Walmart and buy a box of Core Lokts or Power Points, while maybe considering the weight of the bullet and choosing something after a 21 year old suggests it.
I agree with the Captain that Sectional Density does matter and using his example on 270 Win 130-gr. loads, most gun nuts who're on the Forums wouldn't even realize that the 130-gr.'s SD is comparable to a 165-gr. .308 caliber (actually about 162-gr.'s).
Sun, 2005-08-07 15:02#16
Where are you guys going with this.
I thought he was asking about a 7mm mag or a 300 wm.
In the lower 48. you won't be able to tell any difference in killing power.
The 7mm mag will be easier to shoot. Less recoil.
They both can be loaded with bullet for any game in the lower 48, large or small.
They both have bullet available that have very good sectional density. The 7mm bullet reign in the ballistic coeffient.
Sectional density has everything to do with weight. Sectional density is the weight times the square of the diameter.
Construction and material used has everything to do with the length. Which has a direct relation to barrel twist.
Sun, 2005-08-07 17:27#17
Fuzzybear, what I was trying to get through is that comparing the 175 grain 7mm to the 180 grain .300 is comparing apples to oranges because the two bullets do not work the same way.
Sun, 2005-08-07 20:42#18
If we loaded for sectional density. We wouldn't need anything except the heaviest for caliber bullet that would hold true to flight at the rifle twist designated for that particular round.
Hence, 175gr in the 7 rem mag and 220gr in the 300 win mag. Everything else would be inferior. This would make the 300 mags superior to the 7mm mags. Seeing as how the 220gr bullet has a far greater sectional density.
Sun, 2005-08-07 20:46#19
Ok, what I was trying to get across is the comparison of two bullets that function entirely differently from one another is not valid. All ballistic information derived from such a comparison is meaningless. The 175 grain .7mm functions like the 200 .30 cal.
The 160 and 162 grain .7mm bullets operate like the 180 grain .300 bullets both ballistically and in terms of penetration on large CXP-3 game.
Sun, 2005-08-07 21:32#20
my 160 gr Nosler accubond out of my 7 mag performs like a god****** superstar!!