7 Rem. Mag. vs 300 Win Mag.

[PJGunner]

I have one 7MM Rem. Mag. and four .300 Win. Mags. Three are Ruger #1's as is the 7MM Rem. as they are part of my Ruger collection The odd .300 is a Winchester M70 push feed in what appears to be either a McMillan stock or a darn good copy. That rifle will shoot. I use a long discontinued powder (WRM) and the 200 gr. Speer Hot Core at close to 2900 FPS and they cluster in tight little groups. I had it at the Whittington range in Raton New Mexico and was ringing a IIRC 500 yard target fairly regularly even though the wind was blowing fairly hard. I used my .35 Whelen on the hunt with the .300 as back up. Nice thing about my 300's though. They all have 26" barrels and I don't find the length to be all that much of a problem. Not even on the M70.
Paul B.

 

[1100 Remington Man]

I know if I was buying a new Rifle it would be 7mm Rem Mag in a Remington Sendero with Jewel trigger. I do not have a 7mm Rem Mag as my Deer Rifle is a .264 Win Mag & my Elk & Beer rifle is a 300 H & H. Why 7mm Rem Mag over 300 Win Mag simple recoil. I can shoot my 300 H & H well but I don't like the recoil and never shoot more than a box at a range session. Good Shooting

 

[jagermeister]

Wow Guys.......this is a ton of useful information ! and now I am more confused than ever :lol: :lol: :lol:

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).

Out of curiosity (and I must say I am a little skeptical....) I have tried to compare some data, with some unexpected results :

Caliber Bullet Weight Muzzle Vel. Load weight Rifle Weight Recoil Factor
grs. fps grs lbs.
7 Rem. Mag. 150 3110 67,1 9 98,2
7 Rem. Mag. 168 2963 65,7 9 99,8
7 Rem. Mag. 175 2904 64,5 9 100,1
300 Win. Mag. 150 3271 82,6 9 104,2
300 Win. Mag. 168 3094 79,5 9 105,0
300 Win. Mag. 180 2995 77,3 9 105,6
300 Win. Mag. 190 2947 75,3 9 106,2
300 Win. Mag. 210 2567 63,6 9 101,7
6,5x57R Mauser 120 2729 45,0 7 104,9
222 Remington 52 2972 21,5 7 72,2

Assuming I have done the math correctly.....this formula is telling me that my K95 rifle, with my 6,5x57R load, gives me almost the same felt recoil as a 300 Win.Mag. ?
Noooo way......

:mrgreen:

 

[Oldtrader3]

I don't use the 7mm Rem Mag for elk after a failure early on when the caliber first came out. I think that the 175 gr early design bullet was more to blame but I switched to a .338 Win Mag. Never had a reason to even think about regretting that decision. For me the 7mm Rem Mag excels at long range deer hunting.

I can't tell any difference in recoil between a 180 gr, .30-06 and a 160 gr, 7mm Mag frankly and even a .338 WM with 225 gr bullets does not phase me. I prefer a .300 mag to the 7mm Mag and a .338 WM to the .300 Mag. Just me I guess?

 

[Gunner46]

Your math is off somewhere. Here are your recoil figures, if I read the data correctly:

7MM 150gr 22.67
168gr 24.06
175gr 24.32
300 WM 150gr 28.78
168gr 29.65
180gr 30.19
190gr 30.9
210gr 25.89 (seems a light load)
6.5X47 120gr 13.83
222 52gr 3.11

30/06 180gr 2700fps 53.5 8# 22.51 (just for comparison)
300WM 210gr 2734fps 70.0 9# 30.1

 

[Elkman]

Like many I own both, and shoot both. I bought both of the, rifles I currently have in the 70's. For shooting I prefer the 7mm, Mag. For hunting the 300WM, it just brings a little more to the table. (Pun intended). Lots of great bullets out now for both.

 

[BeeTee]

I hunted elk with a 300 Weatherby for more than 2 decades. With time I grew really-really tired of the recoil. It was replaced with a 7RM.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I still have my Mauser 7mm Mag but no .300 Mag currently. I have a .338 Federal and a 9.3x74R for heavy lifting.

 

[jagermeister]

Just out of curiosity I run some ballistic data.
The results are quite surprising.....the 7 mm. wins hands down on paper....
Much better wind bucking and energy downrange.
For the records, I have run 168 and 180 for the 7 and 168, 190 and 210 for the .300....
Are those figures going to apply to the "real world" as well ?

 

[Oldtrader3]

It is all controlled by Ballistic Coefficient and bullet weight. In real life experience, killing deer, the prize goes to the .300 mag for "for whacking and stacking" power but it is not much difference. This is with a couple dozen deer over the years. The same goes for my .270 Win. versus the 7mm rem mag.

 

[pharmseller]

I get 2975 MV with Retumbo and 168 NABLR in my brother's T3 7 Rem Mag. Recoil is plenty manageable. If I can't kill it with that load it don't need killin.'



P

 

[Oldtrader3]

I am not knocking the 7mm mag. I have one and don't have .300 Mag anymore but I don't hunt elk much anymore and have two medium calibers with heavy bullets for elk.

 

[Vince]

I don't use the 7mm Rem Mag for elk after a failure early on when the caliber first came out. I think that the 175 gr early design bullet was more to blame but I switched to a .338 Win Mag. Never had a reason to even think about regretting that decision. For me the 7mm Rem Mag excels at long range deer hunting.

I can't tell any difference between a 180 gr, .30-06 and a 160 gr, 7mm Mag frankly and even a .338 WM with 225 gr bullets does not phase me. I prefer a .300 mag to the 7mm Mag and a .338 WM to the .300 Mag. Just me I guess?

I too prefer the .338 Win Mag.
I'm leaning towards the 30-06 more and more but I think the 30-06 and .338 make a good combo.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Elkman]

i have been using, and have been around those using, some form of 300 magnum for elk since the early 70's. Their down side for most, is their very sharp, quick recoil. They have always been fantastic performers, close or far away, if I thought I could have a better "medium" for my hunting needs, I would surely own one or two. Just the ramblings of an old man!!!!

 

[Oldtrader3]

Vince, I have a .30-06 and 7mm Rem Mag. They provide me with all the horsepower that I need for mountain deer hunting.

 

[Guy Miner]

It's funny, this .300 mag vs 7mm mag debate has been going on for at least 50 years... :mrgreen:

I like them both. Slightly favor the 7mm mag, but only slightly. Have a .300 WSM now, no 7's in the house.

Guy

 

[Vince]

The .300 WSM makes the most sense, from a ballistic standpoint, in my mind between the various .30 calibers.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Oldtrader3]

It's funny, this .300 mag vs 7mm mag debate has been going on for at least 50 years... :mrgreen:

I like them both. Slightly favor the 7mm mag, but only slightly. Have a .300 WSM now, no 7's in the house.

Guy

Actually, almost 43 years, Guy. The 7mm Mag came out in Remington in late 1962. I bought the first one that I saw in Seattle (a Husqvarna) in early 1963.

 

[Guy Miner]

That's 53 years Charlie. You misplaced a decade.

I do that time to time myself.

Guy

 

[Oldtrader3]

Oops, that is what old age does to you, miss a digit and a brain!