i was playing a bit with this recoil calculator
http://www.huntamerica.com/recoil_calculator/

then i put in these values:
.300Wby: 200gr bullet, 80gr powder, 2920fs velocity, 8lb rifle weight
7mm Rem Mag: 160gr bullet, 66gr powder, 3000fs velocity, 7lb rifle weight.

.300Wby: 39fp energy, 17fps velocity
7mm Rem: 30fp energy, 16fps velocity



is the difference really so significant?

having shot both several times over the years, I cannot pick up much difference.

The recoil is significant when sighting in from a bench....but neither will bother you shooting at an elk somewhere.The eight pound rifle will buffer the recoil substantially from the 200 grain bullet.....I'd guess you will not see a large difference shooting them.

The extra pound on the 300 is the killer....drop that extra pound from the 300 and tell me what the recoil is.

I own & hunt with both Calibers. A 300 wby in a Mark V with 24" light barrel. And a Remington 700 BDL with 24" barrel & aftermarket Bell & Carlosn stock. The 300 wby kicks noticably harder than my 7mmRemMag.

300 WBY kicks much harder than any 7mm Rem Mag I've shot. Comparable to my Marlin Guide Gun...but a faster feeling recoil. The numbers aren't as high on the 300, but I'd rather shoot my 45-70.

One of the best sources I have found to get a good estimate of recoil is at Chuck Hawks site. This page compiles the recoil of various calibers, pay attention to the weight of each gun as they change slightly sometimes. It also gives the muzzle velocity of the most common loads so this table is actually very useful IMO.

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

If you compare the 7mm to .300 Roy, the Weatherby has significantly more recoil energy. That calculator program you listed appears to only calculate recoil velocity. Not very useful in my opinion because modern cartridges handloaded full power have significant recoil velocity. You are more interested in recoil energy:

7mm mag.(150 @ 3100) 8.5 lb. gun: 19.2 ft/lb's
300 Wea.(150 @ 3400) 9.25lb. gun: 24.6 ft/lb's

The .300 Wea. has roughly 5.5 ft/lb's more recoil energy than the 7mm firing only a 150 gr. bullet, in a gun that weighs 3/4 lb more. That is significant IMO. Load up a high power 180 gr. bullet, shoot it in a 8.5 pound gun, and you are probably going to be exceeding 30 ft/lb's of recoil energy. More than I can handle.

The 7mm mag. isn't that bad of a recoiling gun.

The 300 Weatherby is a different story. There is lots of gun there to handle so don't make a mistake and buy a monster. If you are concerned about recoil now, before your purchase, there is a good chance you won't like that gun.

The 300 WSM is about at my limit:

300 WSM. (180gr @ 2970) 8.25lb gun: 23.8 ft/lb's

Ripping a 180gr bullet at 3000 fps will get the job done anywhere. If I were hunting in dangerous bear country, I would probably feel safer with a .338 magnum. Other than that, I see no need for anything more powerful than a 300 WSM.

Recoil has to be experienced by the shooter.. statistics are just that.. statiitics..

Recoil of a 7 Rem Mag is pretty much a duplicate of shooting an 06 in the same sized gun...

a 300 Weatherby to me feels like a good 75 % increase in Recoil...

if you are recoil shy I wouldn't mess with it then.. it isn't for wusses...

however if you can handle recoil, then it is a round that delivers... I don't see the need for it but it will do every thing that they say it will..

the 300 Weatherby with a 200 grain bullet is the equal of a 338 Win Mag with a 250 grain bullet in similar rifles..when it comes to recoil.. at least in my experiences..

7 Mag = '06 for recoil..

300 weatherby = 338 Win Mag for recoil..

thanks for all the replies.

the .300Wby has one huge advantage over all other cartridges:
the rifle already sits in my closet.

and yes, from the bench i find it a bit uncomfortable, but not anything to talk about in the field.
however, i wouldn't have had it an oz lighter because of recoil.

the problem is just that it weighs 8lb(empty without scope).
which i think is a bit much for hunting with alot of walking.
and i'm afraid that the 7RM isnt good enough for the largest non-DG variants.
(i'm pretty sure the 7RM can kill everything, but it would not be wise to bring a marginal gun on a hunt you planned and saved for for a long time).



i just want the ideal non-DG rifle/cartridge for the man who doesnt know what or where he will be hunting.
just some thought of mine.

Well the 300 is probably it..
But there are no free lunches, get it down to 7 pounds and it will kick your molars loose, but how tough are ya? maybe you like getting punched in the nose, I know guys that do.

But otherwise the only choices I see are either get in better shape so a pound of weight makes no difference, or go with the lighter caliber.

There are no free lunches, everything costs and everything is a trade off.

A 7 mag with a 160 tsx is about perfect in a rifle under 8 pounds, the 300 for a rifle over.

Yeah, the Weatherbys can kick pretty hard in standard weight hunting rifles, I imagine it's why Weatherby rifles are a bit heavier, they soak up the recoil nicely (and balance nicely, too). I shot a custom M700 in .300 Weatherby a long time ago, using a lightweight straight-comb stock and thin 26" barrel and it was brutal compared to a Weatherby rifle. Got rid of it as it was too "super light" and too "super powerful" for one gun.

I also shoot a 7mm RM regularly and can say it recoils definitely less than the Weatherby. And am confident it can take the biggest moose/elk on the mountain no problem with the right bullet and shot placement. It would not be my first choice for a big bear rifle, but I find the 175gr Partition is absolutely devastating on elk and moose, no need for a .300 or .338. The 140's will take deer/antelope as far as anyone can shoot, too. Great cartridge.

That being said, I think one is better off going for a 20-minute jog after supper in the months leading up to a "dream hunt" than buy a lighter rifle! There is nothing in North America I wouldn't shoot at with a .300 Weatherby with confidence, but I wouldn't feel as comfortable shooting big bears or bison with a 7mm RM.

If I were to find the ideal non-DG rifle for NA, I'd probably look to the .300 Winchester Magnum myself in a somewhat lighter rifle. It'll hit with a little less force on both ends but still get the job done on all thin-skinned big game and carry it's energy farther downrange than a .30-06, which would be my "runner up".

I can't speak for game in Norway however, I don't know if you'd need something with that kind of horsepower or not.

Why not put a good lightweight stock Kevlar stock on the old Weatherby...

I'm sure you can shave a pound off of the old gal... those Weatherby stocks are made heavy anyway...

you can down load it if you need be..

300 H & H load data in that case should yield pretty much the same results in a Weatherby case... it sure does in my 300 Win Mag...

My 300 Win Mag is a Browning A Bolt.. definitely a light rifle... and shoots a stiff load, with a 220 grain bullet at 2975 fps....

it is flat shooting enough to 300 yds, I just usually mount a 4 power scope with a 44 mm objective on it..plenty field of view.. enough magnification for what I would use it for at that distance.. ( bigger than deer.. you don't need it for deer...)

entire set up is under 7 lbs..

same animal in a Savage 116 would weight the same.. although my 116 is currently sporting a 7 Rem Mag Barrel...

I had a 300 Ultra Mag which I believe is just a tad faster than the 300 Roy.

The recoil to me just plain sucked all around and was no fun to shoot from the bench. It was a factory Rem700 LSS. I had actually developed an eye twitch from it which is now healed, but was leading to a detached retina according to my doctor.

I've since downgraded in power to a 338 Fed, but all my rifles weigh alot. I like heavy guns, I don't mind carrying them all day either. My current rifle is almost 12# with scope. The way I see it, if the day comes I can't carry 12# on my shoulder for one day, then I might as well quit hunting. Of course what helps, is my tool bag at work is over 15#, so my rifle is a holiday.

Personally, I'd go with the 7mm Remmy with the 160gr TSX bullets. If you handload, the 30-06 is so close behind to me there's little difference as well. Other than the big browns, no animal will know the difference.

Honestly, I don't think a recoil calculator, whether yielding computed recoil velocity or calculated recoil energy, is going to tell you anything practical about how a particular specific rifle will kick.

A great deal of "felt recoil" depends on your body conformation, how you hold the gun, the circumstances at hand, your mental state at the time, and the specifics of the stock shape, material, pad, etc.

So basically I agree with Seafire's conclusion that you have to shoot the specific gun to determine whether you find the recoil severe or not.

I personally find the "California style" Weatherby stocks to be one of the worst fits and designs ever developed for my own shooting style and build. On the other hand, I have a Winchester Model 70 chambered by Roy Weatherby 60 years ago to .300 WBY, and I find it rather pleasant to shoot, even with a steel buttplate. I've shot a bunch of elk and deer with it, and it has never let me down.

At the same time, I have another .300 (a .30/338) on a Newton, which I HATE to shoot at the range. It has double-set triggers and just about tears my middle finger off my trigger hand everytime I shoot it. In trying to compensate for that subconsciously , I often hold it loosely with that hand, and then it kicks the snot out of me.

I also own several 7 m/m RMs in various makes of rifles. Again, like Seafire, I find them just about the same as shooting a .30-06 in the same makes and models of rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Steffen-9.3:
and yes, from the bench i find it a bit uncomfortable, but not anything to talk about in the field.

Yes, it is true that recoil isn't a problem in the field as far as feeling pain, but this is because the adrenaline rush from the game compensates and overwhelms the recoil of the gun.

It does not change the fact that when shooting at game, any flinch or fear gained from shooting at the bench does not disappear, it is merely masked. The excitment is so overwhelming though, it is less noticable. A person's field accuracy is always affected in the field from flinches or fears at the range, whether the recoil is felt or not at the moment. I believe this is a common misconception that people don't understand. Your adrenaline and tension from shooting the rifle is exceeded by shooting at the elk or whatever.