7 Rem. Mag. vs 300 Win Mag.

[Guy Miner]

Yeah, I think I wrote 1995 on a check not too long ago...

 

[DON]

Both calibers referenced here are proven Big Game killers. I owned a 7mm for years, it shot insane groups with 175 Nosler Partitions. I killed several Bull Elk with that gun, but I stepped up to the 300 RUM after that due to an experience I had killing a bull at 330 yards one year. I just wanted more thumping power at longer ranges.

My hunting partner in Colorado that has killed more Bulls than anyone I know told me there was a big difference, in his opinion, with kills he made over the years using the 7MM with 175 PT vs the 300 Win Mag with 180 PT. Hands down he stated the 300 put them on the ground faster. All shots were rib cage shots behind the shoulder at similar distances.

If you can handle the recoil the 300 would get my vote, nothing wrong with the 7mm either.
Concerning recoil I believe that depends on the gun weight, recoil pad and Powder Type chosen in the load your shooting. While load developing my 300 RUM years ago I tried H-1000 Powder, the recoil was quit a bit more compared to others.

I also have experienced a better comfort level going from 180 to 200 grain bullets, I shoot Reloder 25 Powder currently.

I don't think there is a bad choice here between either caliber.

Don

 

[Vince]

To derail the thread, I'm not a fan of the .300 Win Mag. The . 300 WSM is what I consider the better choice in .308 caliber but that's just me.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have killed elk with .300 H&H and 165 Partitions at 3150 fps. They go right through elk and kill convincingly. More so, then the 7mm Rem Mag with 160PT's at 2950 in my 7mm Rem Mag.

 

[jagermeister]

What would you Guys think about a muzzlebreak for either these two calibers, in a 24" barrel :

a) Absolutely necessary

b) Useful, it helps

c) Useless

And if you have picked a) or b), is it mainly to help manage recoil or improve accuracy ? ..or both ?

Thanks in advance.


J

 

[Vince]

I've got a 22" barrel on my 30-06 and will soon have a second 30-06 with a 26" barrel. Neither rifle sports a brake.

With that said my 6.5x284, less recoil than the 30-06, sports a brake only because it came that way. Brakes have their place but I do think they are over used these days. My .338 Win Mag has a brake as well. None of my .300 Win Mags did.

Brakes help with recoil control and accuracy. It reduces the recoil sensation which in turn reduces the flinching. Less flinching means better accuracy.

Vince

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Oldtrader3]

Also, you can shoot 150-165 grain bullets at medium velocity and get good accuracy with less kick?

 

[SJB358]

I have never had a braked 300 or 7mm Magnum. Even with the Mashburn which is a little faster than a regular 7mm Rem I don't feel the recoil is all that much either. The Mashburn goes just a little over 8lbs all up and such. Same for the 300 magnums I have owned. The only one I thought was a little more vicious was the 300 Wby and even then, it wasn't bad.

My son has a braked 300 Wby that really mitigates recoil in the lighter rifle, but the noise is pretty intense. I am not against brakes in the least, but I prefer to not have them if I can get away with it.

Elk are tough animals with big bones and the will to live.. I dug a 180 PT out of Bill's elk this fall. Crushed the near side front scapula and was buried in the ball joint of the far side. I haven't seen a PT that beat up or mangled in a long time, but that elk went nowhere. I don't suspect I'd have seen too much difference were it a 7mm Rem Mag with a 175 PT either.

I don't think anyone with some shooting time and a properly set up rifle would need a brake on a 300 Win or 7mm Rem. Both are pretty mild if you spend some time with them and make sure they fit you half way decent. Both are pretty much tops in my opinion till you step up to the larger bores and even then, the difference would have to be seen over many many elk kills to say they are better.

 

[DrMike]

Unless one is shooting competition (in which case they likely are not shooting either of these cartridges) it is difficult to imagine one needs a muzzle brake. Some may use a muzzle brake with either of these cartridges, but it really is not needed if one takes time to ensure the rifle fits them. None of my rifles are braked; I don't enjoy shooting a braked rifle except in those cases when a recoil is so vicious that it would otherwise be impossible to shoot without acquiring a flinch. Even then, I prefer to manage recoil through shooting from a standing position or ensuring that the platform has sufficient weight to tame recoil. I do not object to others having a muzzle brake on their rifles (I understand the pleasure of being able to watch the bullet impact on target). I am not certain it is necessary.

 

[Oldtrader3]

My Browning A-Bolt came with a BOSS when I bough it in 1995. I left it on because, with the BOSS setup, it is the most accurate .30-06 that I have ever owned. Otherwise the only rifle that I have ever owned that had a brake was the .340 Bee which came with the rifle used. Scotty, you have one rifle with a BOSS also, don't you?

 

[SJB358]

Scotty, you have one rifle with a BOSS also, don't you?

I used to Charlie, my 35 Newton started life as a Stainless Classic 338WM with a BOSS. When it became a 35 Newton, I lost the BOSS.

 

[Guy Miner]

What would you Guys think about a muzzlebreak for either these two calibers, in a 24" barrel :

a) Absolutely necessary

b) Useful, it helps

c) Useless

And if you have picked a) or b), is it mainly to help manage recoil or improve accuracy ? ..or both ?

Thanks in advance.


J

In general, the muzzle brake is not necessary with either cartridge. I think a lot of that decision weighs on several factors:

1. Shooters tolerance for recoil. I find the 7mm mag feels almost exactly like my .30-06 in recoil, or in other words, not bad. Most .300 mag hunting rifles I've shot produce a little more recoil, enough to make me a tad uncomfortable shooting them, but certainly not prohibitive.

2. Intended use of the rifle. If you're going to use it as a hunting rifle, firing only a few shots from it in the field every year, and perhaps a limited number of practice rounds, then it's not likely to beat you to a pulp. If however, you're using it for a long-range target rifle, and you're planning to shoot it a LOT, then... Perhaps the brake is for you. Interestingly, in some prone competition (once ruled by the .30 cal magnums) muzzle brakes are NOT permitted. Suck it up Buttercup. :grin:

3. Weight of the rifle & design of the stock. Obviously a heavier rifle soaks up more of that recoil impulse. A 20 pound .300 magnum rifle is to recoil a LOT less than a typical 8 or 9 pound .300 magnum hunting rifle. To a surprising extent, riflestock design, fit, and recoil pad are going to mitigate recoil, even in a fairly light rifle. Get a rifle that FITS you, and the reduction in felt recoil/pain can be significant.

As an example, years ago my hunting buddy and I each had .300 Win mag rifles, about the same weight. His was a Remington 700 BDL, mine an older Ruger 77. I was much more comfortable shooting HIS rifle than my own! What a situation... My buddies rifle was much friendlier to shoot than mine. Hmph. That's when I started realizing that rifle design & stock design was far more important than I'd thought. My 77, though I liked it, didn't stick around long after I discovered that the Remington stock was much better for me.

4. Can you deal with/tolerate the obnoxious factor of the brake? This is a real question... Some folks, me included, truly detest the vastly increased amount of noise and blast directed to the sides of most muzzle brakes. It makes life very uncomfortable for those on either side, at a firing range. Same applies in the hunting fields, if you're hunting with buddies nearby. They are effective in reducing recoil... And driving away your shooting buddies. Even a little 5.56 AR-15 produces a LOT of muzzle blast, to the sides. A .300 or 7mm magnum is much worse. I vastly prefer a suppressor to a brake.

5. Can the shooter spell or use BRAKE instead of BREAK? :mrgreen: One of the most common errors seen on the 'net while discussing muzzle brakes... Critical stuff here you know... :wink:

Lots of words from me. Maybe worthwhile. Maybe not. Short answer is "NO" I don't think a brake is important on any normal 7mm or .300 mag hunting rifle. Despite the recoil reduction. I think I first shot a 7mm mag (a Weatherby) back about 1975 or so, 40 years ago. Was pleasantly surprised at the mild recoil of that rifle. Now I often hunt with, and practice with a .375 H&H, with no brake. It's just not that bad...

Regards, Guy

 

[Oldtrader3]

Scotty, you have one rifle with a BOSS also, don't you?

I used to Charlie, my 35 Newton started life as a Stainless Classic 338WM with a BOSS. When it became a 35 Newton, I lost the BOSS.

That s'plaines it! Thanks.

 

[jagermeister]

.....
1. Shooters tolerance for recoil. I find the 7mm mag feels almost exactly like my .30-06 in recoil, or in other words, not bad. Most .300 mag hunting rifles I've shot produce a little more recoil, enough to make me a tad uncomfortable shooting them, but certainly not prohibitive.

I don't know "these days". I started hunting with a rifle in the late 80's and my first rig was a Mauser Europa 66 chambered in 7x66 Vom Hofe super express, firing a 175 grs. Torpedo Geschoss bullet. It didn't feel that bad back then, although I only shot it for hunting purposes...
I sold that rifle (not for the recoil....), bought a 270 Win. and sold it and now I an using a 6,5x57R Mauser Single shot break open (which does not count as a bolt Gun though... :lol: ).

2. Intended use of the rifle. If you're going to use it as a hunting rifle, firing only a few shots from it in the field every year, and perhaps a limited number of practice rounds, then it's not likely to beat you to a pulp. If however, you're using it for a long-range target rifle, and you're planning to shoot it a LOT, then... Perhaps the brake is for you. Interestingly, in some prone competition (once ruled by the .30 cal magnums) muzzle brakes are NOT permitted. Suck it up Buttercup. :grin:

At the moment, the intended use "should" be long range hunting (very few shots) and some long range practice (I'd say 100/200 shots per year...maybe).

3. Weight of the rifle & design of the stock. Obviously a heavier rifle soaks up more of that recoil impulse. A 20 pound .300 magnum rifle is to recoil a LOT less than a typical 8 or 9 pound .300 magnum hunting rifle. To a surprising extent, riflestock design, fit, and recoil pad are going to mitigate recoil, even in a fairly light rifle. Get a rifle that FITS you, and the reduction in felt recoil/pain can be significant......

Let me do some explanation here...
The rifle which will (eventually) shoot one of these two calibers will be exactly the same rifle.
It's (more likely) going to be the new Sauer 404 XT model (just presented in Germany), although I wanna see it in the flesh, before deciding on the purchase.
Anyway, specs will be as follows :
Weight : approx. 3,4 kgs. (7 lbs 8 ounces) "bare", plus another 2 lbs. for scope+mount
Barrel length : 24" (Twist rates....7 Rem.= 1:9,5" ; 300 Win.= 1:11").
I will reload, using high BC's 168 grs. for the 7 mm. and 190/210 for the .300

4. Can you deal with/tolerate the obnoxious factor of the brake? This is a real question... Some folks, me included, truly detest the vastly increased amount of noise and blast directed to the sides of most muzzle brakes. It makes life very uncomfortable for those on either side, at a firing range. Same applies in the hunting fields, if you're hunting with buddies nearby. They are effective in reducing recoil... And driving away your shooting buddies. Even a little 5.56 AR-15 produces a LOT of muzzle blast, to the sides. A .300 or 7mm magnum is much worse. I vastly prefer a suppressor to a brake.

I personally hate brakes.
Never owned one, shot them few times and do not like that "vibrating air" feeling and much less about noise...

5. Can the shooter spell or use BRAKE instead of BREAK? :mrgreen: One of the most common errors seen on the 'net while discussing muzzle brakes... Critical stuff here you know... :wink:

You got me here ! I knew it was "BRAKE" but my fingers went "BREAK".... :lol:

Lots of words from me. Maybe worthwhile. Maybe not. Short answer is "NO" I don't think a brake is important on any normal 7mm or .300 mag hunting rifle. Despite the recoil reduction. I think I first shot a 7mm mag (a Weatherby) back about 1975 or so, 40 years ago. Was pleasantly surprised at the mild recoil of that rifle. Now I often hunt with, and practice with a .375 H&H, with no brake. It's just not that bad...

Regards, Guy

Appreciate you taking the time to comment and explain your reasons in a very friendly and comprehensive way.
Please, continue.

TY
J

 

[Guy Miner]

Interesting. Particularly with your choice of projectiles. I have a real fondness for the 160 - 175 grain 7mm bullets from a 7mm magnum. Would likely appreciate a .280 AI if I ever got around to trying one. JD338 has done remarkable things with his...

For some years now though, I haven't had a 7mm mag, but have had a .300 WSM, and typically I shoot 210 grain bullets at a modest 2815 fps from it. It's a little heavier than a "normal" hunting rifle, probably around 10 pounds or so, and I find it easy to shoot, with no muzzle brake. It's my "long range" hunting rifle, and frankly although I like it very much, I don't use it very often.

Guy

 

[DrMike]

Can the shooter spell or use BRAKE instead of BREAK? :mrgreen: One of the most common errors seen on the 'net while discussing muzzle brakes... Critical stuff here you know... :wink:
Regards, Guy

True, dat.

 

[Darkhorse]

My Browning .300 WM has the BOSS. It is one of the most accurate (tiny groups) rifle I have ever owned and that is because of the BOSS.
Ever since Browning came out with the BOSS I had coveted one and decided the next rifle, regardless of caliber, would have a BOSS. I am a tinkerer, forever trying different methods in a quest for accuracy, and the potential of the BOSS just had me hooked.
The recoil reduction was, I admit, a very pleasant side effect.
I don't hunt with ear protection as down here we depend a lot on hearing an animal before we see it when down in the woods. Lately the piercing blast has started to bother me and the rifle has mostly been replaced by my 7mag.

I've been wondering lately if the BOSS should be considered a "Brake" at all. If you replace the ported part with the conventional one then it is no longer a brake but a barrel tuner, at which it excells.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Can the shooter spell or use BRAKE instead of BREAK? :mrgreen: One of the most common errors seen on the 'net while discussing muzzle brakes... Critical stuff here you know... :wink:
Regards, Guy

True, dat.

Plus using to instead of too! Nobody knows how a verb and adverb are used anymore!

My Winchester (USRAC) .30-06 Model 70 came with a brake and a 22 inch barrel plus brake. I never changed it because with the BOSS adjusted, it shoots phenomenal groups (small as 3/16 inch) at 100 yards and holds this group to 300 yards.

 

[Vince]

I speak Engrish goodly and more better than my brother.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[jagermeister]

Back on the subject.....

The scale is pending more towards the .300 :mrgreen:

Depending on final distance, bullets from 168 through 190 perform quite good, with the 190's being more likely the best compromise for all ranges.

Question on the .300 Winnie.... how big of a difference do you Guys think there is gonna be between a 24" and a 26" barrel length in this caliber ?

Something noticeable, which will slightly affect performance (speed) or not so much of a deal ?

TY
J