BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[therookie]

OK, yeah I know most of you generally don't like to answer these types of questions, but here goes anyway. Upon my wife's suggestion (yes, y'all read it right), I'm going shopping!!!! Anyway, my debate is between 7mm Rem Mag and .300 Win Mag. The jist of it is that it's my understanding that the 7 mag has a narrower shock/bruise channel through the animal, but there is a broader spectrum of rounds for the .300 win mag. (7 mag - 139 gr. to 175 gr.; .300 win mag - 150 gr. - 200gr.) Just curious as to what y'all thought. Thanks for any input.

Kupe

[rather_be_huntin]

It really depends on what you're looking for so I'll give you a list of pros for each rifle compared to the other.

7mm Rem mag
Pros - Lighter, less recoil, cheaper ammo, less meat damage due to less shock and smaller hole, trajectory indentical

300 Win mag
Pros - More energy at short and long range, bigger caliber which means bigger hole, heavier bullets with identical trajectory

This is a basic list just to give you an idea. Between the 2 I prefer the 7mm mag for the pros above and its enough gun to take everything I hunt which includes elk.




[ This Message was edited by: rather_be_huntin on 2003-06-09 12:20 ]

[bitmasher]

Don't forget recoil. If recoil is not an issue for you then go for the 300 because you will be able to use it on the biggest of biggame.

If recoil is an issue for you go for the 7mm. There is no need to sacrifice accuracy (flinching) for the sake of shooting a bigger round. A 175 grain bullet in 7mm will be lethal for elk, like RatherBe said.

If you are looking for greater range of rounds in a 7mm, think about:

Win Short Mag
Rem Ultra Mag
Rem SA Ultra Mag

all are available with 100 grain to 175 grain rounds as opposed to the Rem Mag.

[Guest]

Well most guides I know in the states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho use a 7mm mag with either the 160 or 175 grain bullet.

It is a great caliber and less recoil, which has already been mentioned, that can mean the difference between scoring on a bull elk or missing at the 300 yard or further out mark. I have used both and find the 300 mag to be more to my liking on big bulls far out across a canyon, it hits harder and quartering shots are never a problem with a good premium bullet.

If your NOT recoil shy, then I say latch on to a good 26 inch barrel 300 Win mag, 300 Ultra has a lot more kick per pound to offer you. I like the 300 win mag using the 200 grain Nosler partition bullet, hard to beat for taking big game. The 300 mag has a lot more energy to deliver to the animal over the 7mm mag, but one must be able to handle it's roar when the trigger is pulled.

[moosehuntinkid]

well i looked into your selection the .300 mag and the .7mag well i have a .270 and a .300 as well as a .30/06. For up to brown bear id rather use an ought six- because i believe the .7 mag has more recoil in the rifles that i shot it out of vs. my .30/06 i have a tikka t3 and the .7mag i shot was a savage. you can get ammo any where for an 06 and it has plenty of energy for all but an elephant even know they been killed with an 06- im not an advocate of any caliber cause im only 15 and have not seen all the rounds take down game in the field how ever i have shot every current production cartridge there is and i have had a few i liked and the .300 was one of them until i got my ought six.

[147 Grain]

Reduced Recoil Loads are available in 300 Win Mag, 7mm Mag, 30-06, 308 Win, and 270 Win.

[Captain_Obvious]

Another comparison is in terms of penetration on big game. A 7mm Rem Mag 160 grain bullet departs the muzzle (fired from a factory load) at 2950 fps and 3090 ft-lbs. A typical 300 Win Mag 180 departs the muzzle at 2960 fps and 3501 ft-lbs. At 200-300 yards and beyond, they are both quite close. The 7mm 160 has an SD of .283, while the 300's 180 has an SD of .271. As far as performance on big game is concerned, there are no practical differences between the two.

[HunterJosh]

therookie wrote: OK, yeah I know most of you generally don't like to answer these types of questions, but here goes anyway. Upon my wife's suggestion (yes, y'all read it right), I'm going shopping!!!! Anyway, my debate is between 7mm Rem Mag and .300 Win Mag. The jist of it is that it's my understanding that the 7 mag has a narrower shock/bruise channel through the animal, but there is a broader spectrum of rounds for the .300 win mag. (7 mag - 139 gr. to 175 gr.; .300 win mag - 150 gr. - 200gr.) Just curious as to what y'all thought. Thanks for any input.

Kupe

Ballistic wise, a 7mm Remingon Mag shooting a 175 gr. Super-X® Power-Point bullet vs a 300 win mag shooting a 180 gr. Super-X® Power-Point, the 300 win mag is about 100 feet per second faster out of the muzzle. That is like comnparing a 30-06 to a 308 Winchester. But at 500 yards the 175 grain 7 mag bullet is travleing 140 feet per second faster than the 300 win mags 180.

The 300 win mag might have an edge for the bigger elks because of the 200 grain bullet availibility.

Below are links to both ballistics charts for both calibers.
Josh

http://www.winchester.com/prod.....N0ZXIgTWFn

http://www.winchester.com/prod.....BNYWdudW0=

[Captain_Obvious]

Comparing a 175 grain 7mm bullet to a 30 caliber 180 grain bullet is comparing apples to oranges. For the 175, we're talking about a sectional density well over .300, making it about equal to a .30 cal 200 grain bullet.

[nevadahntr]

the weight of the bullet is much more important in ballistics than its density,its pretty simple. :thumbsup1:

[Captain_Obvious]

No it's not ''pretty simple.'' They do not work the same way. They are completely different. The ballistic coefficients and sectional densities are *ahem* much more important in bullet performance than just their weight alone. :thumbsup1:

[147 Grain]

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.

[Boobzilla]

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.

[nevadahntr]

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. :thumbsup1:

[Captain_Obvious]

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.