7 Rem. Mag. vs 300 Win Mag.

[jagermeister]

I know this question may be old..... :mrgreen: ...and debated already....my apologies

For long range hunting (and occasional target practicing...) on big game, up to, let's say, your bull Elk, in a 24" sporter barrelled bolt action rifle, which one would you choose and why ?

Pros and cons of each ?

I'd say the 7 has a slightly better ballistics (let's say....168 grainer.....175's at most ?) but the Win mag (let's say ...180/190 grainer...out to 210...) has probably a bit more "punch" when the reach is a looong way out there :mrgreen:

I am particularly interested in the accuracy and "wind bucking" factors....along with enough energy to cleanly do the job, of course :wink:

Waiting to hear your bell....

Thanks

 

[FOTIS]

I assume you handload?

 

[jagermeister]

Yes, I do ! [WINKING FACE]

 

[Partisan]

Both are fine cartridges. I would feel comfortable hunting 95% of the game in the World with either cartridge.
The 300 Win with 180 gr and heavier bullets has more retained energy at extended ranges but at the cost of considerably more recoil. The 7mm does have an edge in Sectional Density with available bullets than the .308 caliber in similar bullet weights. That has some significance with on game performance. Depending on the loading the trajectories are with-in 1.5" of each other give or take.

In reality most of us spend more time target shooting (or should spend more ;-) ) than occasional hunting.
For that reason I prefer the 7mm Mag with it's milder recoil...

 

[Darkhorse]

I have shot elk with both. 7 mag. first, then the .300 Win. I agree that both are an excellent cartridge and I still hunt with both, but for elk and larger game I prefer the .300 Win. with the 180 gr. The 190 is also worth looking at but I have no experience with it.
My reasoning was/is, the .300 shoots a heavier bullet as fast or faster than the 7mm. Shoots basically the same trajectory and arrives with more punch to the target.
Ideal terminal performance depends on the quality and construction of the bullet but from my observation the .300 Win. outperforms the Remington 7 mag. on elk.

 

[FOTIS]

In the 300 you can push he 190 ABLR close to 3K. Look no further IMO.
However if the 7mm is your "favorite" you will not be at a disadvantage.

 

[Guy Miner]

Mostly I've owned and shot .300 mag rifles.

Some years ago I got hooked on the 7mm Rem mag and fell hard for it for a few years. For me, the recoil reduction was significant. I simply shot it better. Not that it was a better cartridge than the .300, just that I shot it better. I could shoot it from prone with absolutely no worry about scope eyebrow.

Elk? Killed one really dead with a 175 gr Nosler Partition at about 2900 fps. Whistled right on through his chest, in one side, out the other, pretty much wrecked the internals.

Either is a good cartridge. I'm shooting a .300 WSM now for my long range cartridge, and love it too. They're all so similar, I don't think there's going to be much difference in the field.

Regards, Guy

 

[Darkhorse]

Mostly I've owned and shot .300 mag rifles.
Some years ago I got hooked on the 7mm Rem mag and fell hard for it for a few years. For me, the recoil reduction was significant. I simply shot it better. Not that it was a better cartridge than the .300, just that I shot it better. I could shoot it from prone with absolutely no worry about scope eyebrow.

Regards, Guy

Years ago before I got the .300, and when the 7 mag. was my goto, I knew a couple of guys with .300 Winny's. Both of them had multiple scars on both nose and eyebrow. Every season they'd add a couple more.
I talked to one after a bust trip to Montana and he was a mess. That scope had really tore him up. They were on a private ranch that was target rich. He had shot at multiple bull elk wounding at least one and a few mule deer also. He had shot over 2 boxes of shells at game alone.
I talked to the other after a whitetail trip and all those half rings were fresh. He hadn't hit anything either. I never knew of either one ever harvesting an animal with those .300's.
I personally don't think either one had proper form or technique. Knew how to set up a scope. Or took the trouble to practice. Both were hardheaded.
So, when I decided on a .300 Win. I considered all this seriously. If the recoil was so bad I couldn't shoot the gun then it was of no value and living where I do, actually shooting one before making a decision was not possible.
So I bought a Browning Abolt with the BOSS. Problem solved. To my surprise the .300 kicks less than my 7 mag. and shoots just as well.
Recoil must be considered before committing to a .300 mag or larger in my opinion. I could probably shoot mine just as well without the BOSS but it's got me kind of spoiled.

 

[salmonchaser]

Three of our six man elk team shoot 7mm mags, 160 grain bullets, kills elk dead. Way back in 1967, or there about, I had a chance to shoot the relatively new 7mm mag. I was 12 and our range day was cut short as dad had to take me to the E/R for stitches. I have never and likely will never own a 7 and I still hate shooting them.
I like 300 mags, but was older before I started shooting them.
I used to firmly believe a 300 was significantly better then a 7 mag, not so convinced any more. My emotional argument is elk deserve all the rifle you can handle, they are very tough. If you can hit a pie plate 5/5 at 100 yards, off hand, with either, take the 300.

 

[DrMike]

I have shot a few elk with a 7mm Remington Magnum. All died without any drama. Never shot an elk with a 300 Winchester Magnum, but I have shot a few with a 300 Winchester Short Magnum. Again, all died pretty much without drama. I have shot elk with 160 grain Fail Safes, with 175 grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claws and with 175 grain Partitions from the 7RM. All those bullets worked, doing what they were designed to do. I have shot elk with 180 grain TSXs and 180 grain Interlocks. Again, all the elk died quite convincingly. Either cartridge will get the job done. Can't say that I would enjoy one over the other.

 

[Horsethief]

The difference is.....there is no difference to the game animal as long as you use a hunting bullet tough enough for the animal. The 7mm kicks less and has some heavy for caliber BC advantages. The 300 Win hits hard and will let you shoot heavier bullets. Its a wash. Shoot well and eat what you shoot (but not paper).

 

[desertcj]

This is one of those great debates where it's doubtful that a clear winner can be established. I have a 7mag and I have thought long and hard about rebarreling it to a 300 win and I still do. Start at 160 grains with the 7mm and 180 grains with the 300 for long range shooting. The 7mm goes up to 180 grains (195 grain in the works!) and the 300 goes up to 230 grains. Both pack a whollop on both ends of the gun IMO. The 300 having more recoil obviously. I will probably stick with the 7mag for now since I already have one and I'd rather give up a bit of down range punch in exchange for a rifle that I will shoot more.

 

[Osprey78]

Just out of curiousity, how much recoil reduction is there between the 2? I shoot the 300 and am quite comfortable with the recoil. I noticed a different in recoil (which I found to be more comfortable) when I stepped it up to the 200 grain PTs, from the 180's.

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

I have used and like both, on deer and elk and targets to 1K.

Both do a great job, the 7 just does so with a little less recoil in my opinion. Cant go wrong with either.

I still like the 7's

 

[jimbires]

Just out of curiousity, how much recoil reduction is there between the 2? I shoot the 300 and am quite comfortable with the recoil. I noticed a different in recoil (which I found to be more comfortable) when I stepped it up to the 200 grain PTs, from the 180's.

recoil is a odd thing in the way it affects different shooters . rifle fit has a lot to do with how we feel recoil . here is a recoil chart for comparison .

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

 

[wildgene]

...in general, the guys around here (Gunwerks & BotW) have gone from their original super ultra magnums to 7mm's. I started w/ a 7mm RM way back when .300 & .338 WM's were more recoil & muzzle blast then I really wanted to deal w/, & have never really felt undergunned w/ one, having shot deer, elk, moose, bear, antelope, etc.etc.etc. I tend to pack a .300WSM more now, more because it's lighter & has a higher power scope on it than any real advantage in energy, ballistics, or morededderness.

 

[Horsethief]

The Lyman reloading manual has this formula for determining the foot pounds of recoil.

The bullet weight (in grains) x muzzle velocity (in ft/sec) + 4700 x powder weight (in grains), squared, then divided by rifle weight (in pounds).

 

[SJB358]

...in general, the guys around here (Gunwerks & BotW) have gone from their original super ultra magnums to 7mm's. I started w/ a 7mm RM way back when .300 & .338 WM's were more recoil & muzzle blast then I really wanted to deal w/, & have never really felt undergunned w/ one, having shot deer, elk, moose, bear, antelope, etc.etc.etc. I tend to pack a .300WSM more now, more because it's lighter & has a higher power scope on it than any real advantage in energy, ballistics, or morededderness.

Wait till you get that 7mm WSM sorted out Gene. I had an easy time parting with the 300 WSM cause of the 7mm. I liked the 300, but the 7mm WSM is a great one.

As for the 7mm Rem vs 300 Win. The 300 Win looks real good with bullets such as the 190 and 210 ABLRs BUT the 7mm Rem looks darned good with the 150's and 168 ABLRs as well. It would take a whole lot of hunting to show a difference in my opinion.

I split the difference and decided to build a 7mm Mashburn which uses a 300 Win Mag case! :grin:

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

Im with ya on that scotty, I love my 7-300 win mag lol!!!

 

[super-7]

I'm bias !!! Sometimes a quater century of shooting one biggame cal will do that to you.
Sad news 7 never got pulled from the safe to hunt this year!!