BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[147 Grain]

IMHO:

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).

[fuzzybear]

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.

[Captain_Obvious]

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.

[fuzzybear]

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.

[Captain_Obvious]

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.

[nevadahntr]

my 160 gr Nosler accubond out of my 7 mag performs like a god****** superstar!! :thumbsup1: :cool: :thumbsup1:

[Captain_Obvious]

There's also a 195 grain bullet offered by Barnes. At 2600 fps MV, that sucker is a beast.

[fuzzybear]

That thing must look like a copper grounding rod.

[Captain_Obvious]

Yeah, I've loaded just one, but it packs a wallop like you wouldn't believe. That's your 220's .7mm equivalent.

[fuzzybear]

Have you ever given any thought to loading that 195gr in a 280 rem. It would probably come out of the barrel in the mid to high 2500's in a 22". A definite anchoring round.

[Captain_Obvious]

With that bullet at that speed, any .280 it's loaded into would be ready to take on the largest North America has to offer.

[jigman]

Well, back to your original question:

Either 7mm or 300WM are excellent choices for elk. I find it amusing that anyone seperated these two calibers by recoil as a defining issue.
I have shot 7mm's that HURT to shoot. Case in point: My friend's Sako Finnbear. When my friends and I go out to shoot, we all carry different rifles that each person gets to shoot all. I recall about ten years ago on one of out trips, between the Sako 7mm, win mod 70 .300WM, 30-06 Rem 700, 270 can't recall model & a 94 trapper 30-30 w/16" barrel shooting 170grainers, the 7mm was the consensus kicker of the bunch. And, that was a pretty heavy rifle too. But it just had a SHARP kick. it could give you a headache and none of us enjoyed shooting it (including it's owner ) who sold it in the next offseason.

Everyone to man left that day loving the 300WM for comfort, accuracy & power.
I just dont' buy the generalization (or fact) as some will say, that the 300WM kicks harder than the 7mm. Recoil is a strange thing. There is many more faactors than reading a table of recoil numbers listed for a given caliber & bullet. You have to account for a thing called "felt recoil" which can be additionally defined by things such as: Stock configuration, gun weight, bullet wt.&powder, overall gun construction/ balance & the way it fits you.

That little trip I described soured me a bit on the 7mm-and I'm acknowledging that is really stupid do to many factors as described above. Someday someone could slip me a different 7mm gun and I could be surprised at it's lack of a sharp kick. Finally, from that experience why would I select an inferior 7mm cartridge (inferior in all ways for elk) over the 300WM? I wouldnt.
Presently, I don't own a 7mm or 300WM. For me the ideal situation is to have a win model 70 338WM for elk and a 270WM, WSM, 7mm-08, 257R, 257WM for deer and thin skinners. I can only afford one gun this year (presently looking to get rid of the 270WSM in lieu of (and in a quandry over) 30-06, 7mm-08, 308,270Wm, 257WM. Maybe another option is to get a new Kimber 8400 in 270WSM, then buy a 338 next year. I just don't like the plastic/modern look on the super shadow I own. Longing for that classic walnut warmth and feel.

[jigman]

Well, back to your original question:

Either 7mm or 300WM are excellent choices for elk. I find it amusing that anyone seperated these two calibers by recoil as a defining issue.
I have shot 7mm's that HURT to shoot. Case in point: My friend's Sako Finnbear. When my friends and I go out to shoot, we all carry different rifles that each person gets to shoot all. I recall about ten years ago on one of out trips, between the Sako 7mm, win mod 70 .300WM, 30-06 Rem 700, 270 can't recall model & a 94 trapper 30-30 w/16" barrel shooting 170grainers, the 7mm was the consensus kicker of the bunch. And, that was a pretty heavy rifle too. But it just had a SHARP kick. it could give you a headache and none of us enjoyed shooting it (including it's owner ) who sold it in the next offseason.

Everyone to man left that day loving the 300WM for comfort, accuracy & power.
I just dont' buy the generalization (or fact) as some will say, that the 300WM kicks harder than the 7mm. Recoil is a strange thing. There is many more faactors than reading a table of recoil numbers listed for a given caliber & bullet. You have to account for a thing called "felt recoil" which can be additionally defined by things such as: Stock configuration, gun weight, bullet wt.&powder, overall gun construction/ balance & the way it fits you.

That little trip I described soured me a bit on the 7mm-and I'm acknowledging that is really stupid do to many factors as described above. Someday someone could slip me a different 7mm gun and I could be surprised at it's lack of a sharp kick. Finally, from that experience why would I select an inferior 7mm cartridge (inferior in all ways for elk) over the 300WM? I wouldnt.
Presently, I don't own a 7mm or 300WM. For me the ideal situation is to have a win model 70 338WM for elk and a 270WM, WSM, 7mm-08, 257R, 257WM for deer and thin skinners. I can only afford one gun this year (presently looking to get rid of the 270WSM in lieu of (and in a quandry over) 30-06, 7mm-08, 308,270Wm, 257WM. Maybe another option is to get a new Kimber 8400 in 270WSM, then buy a 338 next year. I just don't like the plastic/modern look on the super shadow I own. Longing for that classic walnut warmth and feel.

[nevadahntr]

"infrerior in all ways" to the 300?,7mag that kicks so bad it hurts?,why dont you shoot a few elk with a 7 then call it inferior to anything for hunting elk,in no way is the 7 inferior to anything for elk hunting and if you have a 7 that kicks so bad it hurts either the rifle is a POS or you have a very low threshold for pain,i have never heard that about a 7 before.There are quite a few cartridges that are great elk rounds and of these I wouldnt call any of them inferior to each other,a dead elk is a dead elk ,putting a softball size hole in em dont make em any deader!!1lol :thumbsup1:

[jigman]

nevada: With respect to the recoil issue: I was just trying to illustrate a couple of things:
1. If you can handle the recoil of the 7mm rem Mag there is a good chance you can handle the recoil of the 300WM
2.Felt recoil can vary (sometimes alot) among rifles based on factors other than caliber.
3.I need to shoot more 7mm's to truley learn it's recoil.

finally, at the end of the day the 300WM is superior in it's ability to hurl a heavier projectile at greater speed, thus producing more knockdown power.
That is just a fact.