quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
If you ever want to sell the rifle I would go with a 300.
7mm mags seem to be about the most difficult non wildcat caliber to resell.

Don't know were you got that info but I think it is right on.

The 300 Win is everything that a 7mm is and more. Larger frontal area, more bullet wieght and flat shooting, in short simply perfection

Just this weekend....

I stole the scope off of my 7mm mag for my kids' rifle and it has been sitting in the safe.

I picked up a gloss Fullfield (NIB but still a USA one) for cheap a few weeks ago. Mounted it last night and ran a dozen rounds thru it to sight it in.

I was pleasantly surprised how easy shooting it was.....shooting 300, 375 and 416 re-adjusts your definition of easy on the shoulder, LOL.

Either will do fine. I am fond of 7mm bullets, but the 300 gets my vote for the one gun hunter.

Originally posted by Penetrater:

quote:

The thing im learning about long range shooting is not only the caliber but the optics, you cant hit what you cant see.

Yes. Shopping around for a scope to put on my Stevens 200 and believe putting better money into good optics for an "accurate" rifle is much better than putting common optics on a much more expensive rifle. Here's an example:

A): Tikka T3 Hunter (7MM): $750.00
Leupold VXI 3-9 X 40 : $250.00

Total: $1000.00

Wood stocked gun, pretty, smooth bolt, 70 deg. bolt, MOA., good trigger.

Solid scope, multi-X reticle, decent clarity, good field of view, good magnification.

B): Stevens 200 (7MM): $300.00
Bushnell Elite 6500 2.5-16 X 40 : $650.00

Total : $950.00

Composite stock, non-attractive, average bolt, 90 degree, MOA, acceptable trigger.

Solid scope, Mil-Dot reticle, exceptional clarity, exceptional field of view, exceptional magnification.


Both hunters just spent $1000.00 on their 7MM.
The caliber is capable of consistently shooting past 400 yards.

You may say, "Ya buddy, but a 450 yard shot happens rarely!" Well, if it happens, would rather be looking through 16X and using Mil-Dot's than squinting at a tuft of fur and holding the crosshair's up.

Both rifle are going to deliver the bullet to the same place, the place I POINT THE GUN TO.

Don't care about a fancy pretty stock. Feel guilty scratching them up in the bush.

Don't care about a 60 or 70 deg. bolt throw. Helps me none on the bench and if I crush my thumb cycling a follow-up at an elk; 1 year's worth of meat, 1 week's worth of healing.

Don't care about a "buttery smooth bolt." Again helps none at the bench and is the last thing to think about while showing Bullwinkle dominion.

What about the trigger? Well, can spend $100.00 on a Timney and equal the Tikka or exceed its trigger's quality. The Stevens trigger has no creep and that is what matters. During late season, 2 lb trigger can be too light with cold hands.

So am I going to put a $700.00 scope on my $300.00 rifle? No, can't afford to. Can only afford a $200.00 scope.

My point is that their are many hunters who spend about $1000.00 on a rifle/scope package and the rifle usually gets about 2/3rds of that.

Spending $700.00 on a high power magnified scope for big game has traditionally been a poor choice because these scopes usually start at 6X which is too small a field for close encounter bush.

Spending $700.00 on a premium 3 X 9 is again a poor choice because all that scope can offer is 3-4% greater light transmission and a perfect warranty. Helps none at 450 yards.

What serious hunters need is a 2.5-12 X 40 scope with a ballistic reticle, 87-90% clarity, 4" eye relief and hold its zero PERFECTLY for $300.00. I wouldn't care if this scope was a bit fuzzy around the edges to get the cost down. Not aiming with the tube, aiming with the reticle.

A scope like that would allow me to drop $300.00 on a solid, accurate rifle, and the same on a scope. Wouldn't feel guilty spending $600.00 on a package perfect for both close bush work and long range. A hunting package.

Why not build an 8x68 and get the best of all worlds?

Easy!

Get both! Shoot the 300 on even numbered days and the 7mm on odd numbered days.

I didn't read through the thread. Did we ever decide what we're shooting at when we get out to 400 yds?

Either cal. will manage most anything on the No. Am. continent.

I'm also in the 7mm Rem Mag fan club. The round is versatile, hard-hitting, and easy on the shoulder. My Browning A-Bolt II is exceedingly accurate with 175 Hornady SPs and is acceptably accurate with 175 gr Partitions. I have two 30-06s but my 7mm RM and is my "go-to" rifle. If I want to use something with more "horsepower" then I will use my .375 H&H.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
In general, I have a problem believing there is a difference between a 7Mag with a 175 at 2900 fps and a .300 with a 180 at 3000 fps. The only advantage is being able to use 200's. The 7Mag does have noticeably less recoil. My other side is that if I were going to shoot a bullet heavier than a 175, I'd move right past the .300's and pick up a .338 WM. My safe has several various .338 caliber rifles, and several 7MM rifles, as opposed to .30's. As someone said, if you are only going to have one, the .300 is a pretty safe choice.

Exactly the reason I do not own a 30mag. For the recoil level, I would rather go 338mag, for flat shooting, tough to beat a good 7mag in any flavor.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
In general, I have a problem believing there is a difference between a 7Mag with a 175 at 2900 fps and a .300 with a 180 at 3000 fps. The only advantage is being able to use 200's. The 7Mag does have noticeably less recoil. My other side is that if I were going to shoot a bullet heavier than a 175, I'd move right past the .300's and pick up a .338 WM. My safe has several various .338 caliber rifles, and several 7MM rifles, as opposed to .30's. As someone said, if you are only going to have one, the .300 is a pretty safe choice.

175gr @ 2900fps ???? not 2650? You could go higher than 3000fps with the 180gr in 300Win mag.The 7mmRem mag is not much more powerfull than a 3006.When I switched to 300WM from the big 7,I stopped recovering bullets in caribou and saw them go down much quicker.

I had this same choice to make years ago. After shooting the 7mm Rem Mag for years, I have come to the conclusion that the 300 win mag would have been the better choice. If range and energy are high on the list, the 300 win mag wins hands down. The superiority of the 300wm is demonstrated by the use of the 300 win mag for tactical and many long range target shooting and other applications that I have read about

Originally, recoil is what drove my choice for the 7mm mag, however, after getting used to the 375 H&H, ... the old argument sort of dies.

My 7mm mag is one of the original remington 700's with the SS barrel. It shoots good, and I will not part with it. Additionally, the bolt is locked closed with the safety on for the older models.

However, If doing it over again, the 300 would be the choice.

quote:

Spending $700.00 on a high power magnified scope for big game has traditionally been a poor choice because these scopes usually start at 6X which is too small a field for close encounter bush.
You are missing the boat a bit on the orignal poster's first post he was looking to increase his effective range out to 400 yards from 300 yards that he currently is comfortable with. A scope starting at 6x would be sufficent at that range not to mention more magnafication if reqired.

Spending $700.00 on a premium 3 X 9 is again a poor choice because all that scope can offer is 3-4% greater light transmission and a perfect warranty. Helps none at 450 yards.

You should do a little reasearch on optical glass compounds and coatings not to mention the design/shape of the lenses and overall engineering of rifle scopes. Bottom line is you do get everything you pay for and for the dollars you pay you should get an excellent warranty. And it does ring true if you can't see it you can't hit it.

What serious hunters need is a 2.5-12 X 40 scope with a ballistic reticle, 87-90% clarity, 4" eye relief and hold its zero PERFECTLY for $300.00. I wouldn't care if this scope was a bit fuzzy around the edges to get the cost down. Not aiming with the tube, aiming with the reticle.

What serious hunters need is an accurate rifle with accurate ammo with the best quality optics they can afford and gobs and gobs of range time with that set up! Shooting off the bench and shooting prone and shooting kneeling and shooting offhand. Takes me back to the old saying "beware the man with one rifle" Range time is the trump card once you go past 250-300 yards.

I've never been a fan of the 7mm Gamesaver.

No pox on the round. It's O.K. But if a feller's going to burn lots of powder, make lots of noise and generate some recoil, he may as well just get himself a .300 Win Mag from the get-go and have something.

THE problem with the 7mmMag is not:
1) that they are common as dirt on used racks is that behind cartridges like the 30-06, 30-30 and 223Rem the 7mmMag is POPULAR.

2)that they are an efficient killer of game when loaded correctly... (Don't let the "Heavy Bullet Mafia" make you
load it with 175gr bullets)

3)that you can get ammo for them ANYWHERE ammo is sold.
(read #1)

THE PROBLEM is people who buy a 7mmMag and then try to turn it back into a 300mag by loading heavier bullets into it and essentially turn it into a noisy, expensive 30-06 with slightly skinnier bullets.

I personally like the 7mmRemMag but I also think of it as a 25-06's bigger kid brother

with 160gr bullets the 7mmMag can't do anything that the 30-06 couldn't already do.

with 140's it IS a highly efficient deer cartridge.
with 120gr bullets it makes a joke out of
using a 25-06 (or for that matter a 257Wby) on Antelope.

With it's lighter recoil when used in a heavier rifle you can often observe the "splash" at 400yards-plus

I doubt that any deer will get deader than you can make it with a 120gr TTSX out of a 7mmMag
with ANY bullet launched by a 300win Mag.

I actually LIKE how common they are on used racks... it means that they are available as relative bargains.

IF I were out hunting a cow elk I'd probably rather have my 30-06, but having my 7mmMag wouldn't leave me feeling like I was hunting in my underwear (with my pants around my ankle)

As for optics? Buy the very best optics you can afford.
and if you don't need to skip lunch for two weeks after buying it you probably didn't spend enough



AD

Originally posted by Allan DeGroot:

quote:

THE PROBLEM is people who buy a 7mmMag and then try to turn it back into a 300mag by loading heavier bullets into it and essentially turn it into a noisy, expensive 30-06 with slightly skinnier bullets.

Yes, agreed.

Best to use a 7mm with 160 grain bullets, find an accurate load and get familiar with it at long range. My new 7mm will shoot the 160 TSX w/61 gr. of IMR 4350 @ .377"

The TSX 160 is the perfect bullet for the caliber. The longer copper profile is perfectly stabilised with 1:9.5" twist.

quote:

I personally like the 7mmRemMag but I also think of it as a 25-06's bigger kid brother

Actually find the 7mm easier to shoot than the -06 based cartridges. The recoil of the 7mm is a magnum "boom" and push on the shoulder. Very easy to shoot even with factory hard rubber pad.

On the contrary the recoil from the 30-06 and the .270 is much different. The recoil and blast is a quick, snappy percussive "knock" and really slap's the shoulder and gets into the skull.

Much prefer the "boom" and push from the 7mm.

quote:

with 160gr bullets the 7mmMag can't do anything that the 30-06 couldn't already do.

The 7mm can shoot flatter, and as mentioned above, has a much more pleasant, "magnum" recoil. The 7mm with 160's has the killing power of the 30-06 w/180's and the trajectory of the .270 w/140's. Good mix.

quote:

I doubt that any deer will get deader than you can make it with a 120gr TTSX out of a 7mmMag with ANY bullet launched by a 300win Mag.

7mm mag. 160 gr. @ 3050 fps or a .300 mag. 180 gr. @ 3050; take your pick for any elk, moose, deer etc.

If hunting bears, which I don't agree with because they are so majestic, then use a 338.

quote:

Originally posted by Hipster:

You should do a little reasearch on optical glass compounds and coatings not to mention the design/shape of the lenses and overall engineering of rifle scopes. Bottom line is you do get everything you pay for and for the dollars you pay you should get an excellent warranty.

Did the research and found the Sightron line. Perfect warranty, and 1/4 to 1/8 the cost of the designer glass.

Swarovski, Zeiss, Kahles, and the "Gold Ring" Leupold's equate to money poorly spent on well marketed product.

I personally like the 7 MM Remington Mag. It shoots flat and hard with less recoil than any of the 300 Mags. If you put in the trigger time, think that it will rise to most occasions.

I just brought a new gun and was going through the what caliber to buy delima. I wanted a gun big enough to go elk hunting but would primarily be used for deer. I looked at 270 wsm, 7mm mag, 300 win mag, and 300 wsm. I read everything I could find on these calibers, but really all I needed to do is look at a ballistic chart and it tells the story. I narrowed it down to 300 win mag and 300 wsm. They are nearly identical on the ballistic chart. I ended up going with the 300 wsm because it's short action round with a beltless casing. I handload so I wasnt worried about the difference in price between 300 win mag and 300 wsm ammo. I bought it in a remington 700 SPS stainless and it shoots great! If you look at ballistics 270 wsm beats a 7mm mag in muzzle velocity with the same weight bullet! With all due respect to the 7mm mag and it's popularity why would you choose it over a 270 wsm?

quote:

With all due respect to the 7mm mag and it's popularity why would you choose it over a 270 wsm?

For one reason only.....to shoot the heavier 175 grain bullets.

In my opinion if you wanted to shoot bullets that heavy you're better off going with one of the 300 mags.

What is your required top end bullet weight? 175 grains or 220 grains? Either cartridge will do just as good around the 140 to 150 grain weights. If that is all you ever need then I would look at which is the cheapest ammunition or most widely available where you live.

If you are after Elk, Moose or Bear? Then be advised by those that are more experienced in those matters. Who I expect will suggest the .30 option.

Once you take the big bears out of the equation these calibers are two peas in a pod. I would beg you not to shot at an animal more than 350 yards unless it is wounded.
As for guns I would purchase a Vanguard first and a Remington second.
John

quote:

When I switched to 300WM from the big 7,I stopped recovering bullets in caribou and saw them go down much quicker.

Maybe you should have changed the brand/weight/style of bullets you were using instead. It would have been a lot cheaper...

I've seen more than a few 175 NP's shoot completely through brown bear and that's something factory 500 softpoints won't always do out of a .458 mag... Same with moose... So that tells me you made poor bullet choises in your 7 mag...

BTW, 200NP's will also shoot through a brown bear, so i'm not dissing the 300 Win. Mag... It's just that those here that are trying to say a 300 Win Mag. is all "that", and a 7 mag. is a huge step down are full of it...

After living and hunting extensively in Alaska, i've found that at any reasonable range a person should be shooting at big game, a "properly loaded" 7 Rem. mag. will do anything the 300 Win. Mag. will do, and do it with less recoil...

DM

Neither will make one a 400yd shooter - as someone said earlier, that takes trigger time. Many of the "standard" calibers are good to 400 if the shooter has experience at it.

Originally posted by bkm:

quote:

If you look at ballistics 270 wsm beats a 7mm mag in muzzle velocity with the same weight bullet!

The 7mm Mag. ballistic charts are extremely conservative today. This caliber is a full belted magnum round. Barnes recommends 57 grains of IMR 4350 with the 160 TSX yet in load development, I was up to 62 grains with no pressure signs.

quote:

With all due respect to the 7mm mag and it's popularity why would you choose it over a 270 wsm?

7mm shoots 160 grain bullets properly and 175 as an option.

quote:

Originally posted by bkm:
I just brought a new gun and was going through the what caliber to buy delima. I wanted a gun big enough to go elk hunting but would primarily be used for deer. I looked at 270 wsm, 7mm mag, 300 win mag, and 300 wsm. I read everything I could find on these calibers, but really all I needed to do is look at a ballistic chart and it tells the story. I narrowed it down to 300 win mag and 300 wsm. They are nearly identical on the ballistic chart. I ended up going with the 300 wsm because it's short action round with a beltless casing. I handload so I wasnt worried about the difference in price between 300 win mag and 300 wsm ammo. I bought it in a remington 700 SPS stainless and it shoots great! If you look at ballistics 270 wsm beats a 7mm mag in muzzle velocity with the same weight bullet! With all due respect to the 7mm mag and it's popularity why would you choose it over a 270 wsm?

Ok you just asked a simple direct question, I will now provide a simple direct answer.

Because you can depend on a 7mmRem Mag or a 300Win Mag to feed reliably.

You can often detect a liar by someone who says that their "short fat" cartridge (whatever specific one they choose) does the same.

AD

quote:

Because you can depend on a 7mmRem Mag or a 300Win Mag to feed reliably.

You can often detect a liar by someone who says that their "short fat" cartridge (whatever specific one they choose) does the same.

AD

I've shot about a hundred rounds through my 300 wsm at the range where I usually hand feed one at a time. Firearms deer season started here a week ago and I've shot one deer with this gun so far ( dropped it where it stood ). My gun has a drop plate but I haven't been using it. Instead I've been cycling the shells through the top when unloading with no problems. I have read that there was a short mag feed problem depending on model of gun.
I do agree with you on the reliability of the 300 win mag and 7 mag. I did feel like I was taking a chance on the 300 wsm, but so far so good.

I would recommend you think first of what you plan to hunt, and then what bullet weights you want to be able to use. For example, the 7mm RM is widely considered adequate for most non-dangerous game in North America.

Those experts forget to ask what else is hunting that game....since we may end up running into big bears while hunting lesser game up here, the 7mm is not as popular in AK as elsewhere.

I guess what I'm saying is, the 300 can shoot heavier bullets, if you might need or want that ability.

If you expect to mostly shoot 150g bullets, I'd take the 7mm and the better BC. But then, I've never been one to feel light bullets were the way to go from a magnum rifle....

One of my 7mm's will probably end up a .338 WM one of these days.....

Cheers,

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by Dan H:
I would recommend you think first of what you plan to hunt, and then what bullet weights you want to be able to use. For example, the 7mm RM is widely considered adequate for most non-dangerous game in North America.

Those experts forget to ask what else is hunting that game....since we may end up running into big bears while hunting lesser game up here, the 7mm

I would not, nor have i ever felt one bit "undergunned" with a 7 Rem. Mag. in my hands loaded with 175NP's. When hunting all over Kodiak or any of the other islands in that group. Been there done that many times...

A 175NP will break down any bear you can put in front of me... I'm not guessing here, i've seen it happen too many times to be told otherwise.

DM