Took both of my Magnums out to my Favorite spot in the mountains yesterday.
These are two good rifles. I just traded into the 7 mag last week, and i had on hand some 160 grain accubonds over 63 grains of RL 22. I put 3 into abut .75 at 100, and decided that was just fine. Velocity was a minor Disappointment at 2956. But that is still a good load. But i could do that with a 165 grain 06.
The 7 mag is strange. Most manuals show its biggest advantage to be with lighter bullets. 160 and 175s don,t move much faster than 160s and 180s from an 06.
My 300 H&H Shot decently, i had put a limb saver on it since my last shoot. load was imr 4350 over a 180 grain Partition. 1 grain under max. It gave me about 1.6 inches. And 2920 Fps
That limb savor is really an improvement.
The rifle felt like a 165 grain 06.
I will add the extra grain of powder and shoot next weekend. If i can get the 300 down to 1.25 inches she is going elk hunting. if not the 7 mag load will do nicely ! ...tj3006

I used to be a big 7RM fan, but gave up on it for the same reason you state: velocities are not that great. I switched to a .300 RUM for my long range hunting rifles and have not looked back. That said, I am currently having a 28 Nosler built specifically to shoot 195 gr bullets.

I will agree the Velocity is not much better than the 30,06 with the heavy bullets, but i think with a little experimenting with other powders, i should be able to get 3050 or so.
And the 2950 load is very accurate and capable.
And 63 grains of powder is not to much more than i would put in a 30,06, recoil is about the same too.
After Elk season, i will take my time, and work up a good deer load, A 140 or 150 grain bullet at 3200 or 3300 fps with a decent BC should give a reasonable ballistic advantage of the Old 06.
Where i hunt mule deer they get pretty damn big and the shots can be pretty long.
If i get a buck at 300 yards out the less i need to think about drop the better i like it...tj3006

Your current 180gr load in the .300 H&H is more than sufficient. I would choose the 180gr .308 caliber bullet for the job over the 160gr .284 caliber bullet, even though we know they are both capable of your task. You want to pursue more velocity and accuracy - great. But consider that the 1/3" tighter group you seek at 100 yards would only be 1" tighter at 300 yards and 2" tighter at 600 yards. How far do you need to plan on shooting this elk?

Forty years ago I came to the same conclusion that a 7mm Rem mag couldn't really do anything more than a .30-06 so I just stayed with my old 06. Back then was when the 7 em em was the hot caliber to use. But that doesn't mean there's really anything wrong with it either. Which ever one you prefer is the one you should shoot.

quote:

The 7 mag is strange. Most manuals show its biggest advantage to be with lighter bullets

The problem is believing the manuals.

Most manual velocities are over stated.

I just looked at the latest greatest 6.5 velocities were taken from a 28 inch test barrel.

Good luck getting those velocities in a regular rifle.

I really like the old 300 H&H and handloaded its as good as any 30 caliber in the field, but IMO I prefer the 30-06 with a Accubond or partition, woodliegh or any super premium bullet..

For NA the 06 can't be beat IMO. I would not pick it for the big bears preferring a .338 Win, but I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a big Alaskan bear with a 30-06..

As to the 7 mag, its neither fish nor fowl, Its no better than a 30-06 and not as good as the 300 or 338..not to say it won't kill anything in NA, it will and its very popular..I think its strongest point is you get a lot with not much recoil with factory ammo..

Reloading manuals are a walking talking contradiction, neither fact, nor fiction.

I used a .300 H&H with 2,950 fps 180gr. TSX's over a case of H4831sc in Africa to take two healthy Kudu, one at 312 yards with one shot.

I used a .7mm RMag on my second safari loaded with 3,000 fps 150gr. E-Tips to take an Eland. He took two shots mainly because the first round shattered the shouldershocket and two ribs on its way into the lungs, stopping just short of the heart. The second shot finished the him.

The 7mm using the same load also took as one-shot kills Blue Wildebeest, Hartebeest, Zebra and Black Wildebeest.

I'd have no problem using either of them on Elk. Whichever I shot better or just plain wanted to use, I'd take.

I have a couple 7MM Rem mags. and 3060FPS is about all I can get out of a 24" pipe. These are factory rifles. I know putting a new "quality" barrel on one will help some in the velocity area.
I mentioned on another thread that i recently acquired a used 7MM Weatherby accumark. Been going to the range recently and testing some 160 accubonds and partitions and 3200 is a piece of cake using Norma brass, Fed 215's and 74.6 gr. of Norma MRP. It is in the Norma book. Pushing to 75 gr. did not show an issue. ~ 3240FPS (Oheler 35: 55 F).
Shooting less than 1/2" @ 100 yds.
I have a 300 ultra as well and shoot 200 accubonds out of it at +3200FPS. Great cartridge!
You want a good but "heavy weight" 7MM Mag, you might try an Accumark in a 7MM Weatherby. Would not like scaling mountains with it.

300 H&H Magnum ...

Be not a Snowflake and load it up hot with premium 200gn and 220gn bullets, and you'll forget all about the 300 Weatherby, let alone the 300 WinMag.

Don't waste your time with the 180gn and lighter bullets.

A hot-loaded 30-06 today covers 98% of that ground with modern propellants and premium bullets. Back in the day maybe it didn't, but today's '06 has closed a lot of the gap with the 300 mags, and specifically with Holland's .300, at least up to the 180gn pills.

Where they diverge is with the 'heavy-n-fast' loads topped with 200gns, 220gns, et al.

A hot-loaded .300H&H pushing the heavy-for-caliber weights ... None better.

Glad for all the solid opinions,
And there are lots of good points. Grenadier ! The reason i hand load is because i like to maximize the potential of my rifle. If i wanted to steele for good enough i would go buy a box of ammo and be happy. But i enjoy looking at my target and seeing the Holes all clustered together, and i also like put my bullets right where i want them on game !.
As for using heavy bullets in my 300 H&H i just might someday But i have lots of 30 caliber 180s on hand and even the 2925 i get already is a bit better than the 06, and should take an Elk very well. I am going to try RL 22 and some hornady 180s next. ...tj3006

I can get 3100fps with 66.0grs of Reloader-22 with a 160gr Accubond in my 7mag.I recently tried some Reloader-26 with 150gr Nosler Ballistic Tips.I think it is even better.I haven't tried it with the 160's yet,but I think I can beat the 3100fps.69.0grs gave me 3187fps and 70.0grs gave me 3220fps.Accurate 4350 works really well with the 150's.65.0grs gave me 3220fps.

I have a 7 mag and 300 mag but every time I need a magnum, I just reach for my 375 H&H.

I have 230 grain bullets at 3,100 fps, 250 grain bullets at 2,800 fps and 300 grain bullets at 2,500 fps.

quote:

Originally posted by Baldhunter:
I can get 3100fps with 66.0grs of Reloader-22 with a 160gr Accubond in my 7mag.I recently tried some Reloader-26 with 150gr Nosler Ballistic Tips.I think it is even better.I haven't tried it with the 160's yet,but I think I can beat the 3100fps.69.0grs gave me 3187fps and 70.0grs gave me 3220fps.Accurate 4350 works really well with the 150's.65.0grs gave me 3220fps.

That would work for me too.

I believe the original specs for the 7mm Rem Mag out of a 700 BDL with a 24" barrel were

150g 3150 fps
175g 3000 fps

Might have been overstated back then, but people were running hotter loads both in the manuals and factory. Liability and law suits have had a depressing influence on velocity

Here is a page from a 1967 Lyman manual.

Just picked up a Lee Manual that was revised 2016.It shows with a 150gr bullet loaded with 67.8grs of Norma MRP going 3248fps.I'm loading 67.5grs of Reloader-22 with a 150gr Nosler Ballisic Tip @ 3170fps.

quote:

Originally posted by Baldhunter:
Here is a page from a 1967 Lyman manual.

I would argue that 70 gr of H4831 with a 175 gr bullet is way too hot, at least in any 7RM rifle I ever owned. The first Hornady book I have lists 74 grains of H4831 at 3400; I never could get that without excessive pressure.

I remember when I was in high school and had just purchased my first big game rifle (7RM) a guy at the range said, "If I had that I would load the 139 gr at 3400 fps."

He had a lot to do with me getting into reloading a few months later.

I have to agree with you.Some of this older load data is a bit hot for the 7mag.During that time period there wasn't as many powders to work with as we have today,plus the 7mm Weatherby was the round the 7mag was competing against because it was the BIG 7 magnum of the day.The Weatherby still is a great round and more efficient than some of the largest 7 magnums.Freebore is what makes it able to produce the higher velocities and really surprises me nobody seems to cashing in on that other than Weatherby.Every rifle is different,but with the selection of powders we have today,most 7mags can safely do a lot better than what most data books show today.Most of the load data is kept at standard pressures and usually it's around 58,000 psi or so.

I found this.I think I'll try 67.5grs and 68.0grs of Reloader-26 with the 160gr Accubond and see what I get with those loads.



Cartridge : 7 mm Rem. Mag.(SAAMI)
Bullet : .284, 160, Nosler AccuBond 54932
Useable Case Capaci: 72.296 grain H2O = 4.694 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.290 inch = 83.57 mm
Barrel Length : 26.0 inch = 660.4 mm
Powder : Alliant Reloder-26

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 1.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-10.0 88 63.00 2880 2947 45444 11583 100.0 1.433
-09.0 89 63.70 2912 3012 47145 11639 100.0 1.409
-08.0 90 64.40 2943 3078 48904 11694 100.0 1.386
-07.0 91 65.10 2974 3143 50721 11749 100.0 1.363
-06.0 92 65.80 3005 3209 52600 11802 100.0 1.341
-05.0 93 66.50 3036 3275 54547 11855 100.0 1.319
-04.0 94 67.20 3067 3341 56566 11906 100.0 1.298 ! Near Maximum !
-03.0 95 67.90 3097 3408 58660 11957 100.0 1.277 ! Near Maximum !
-02.0 96 68.60 3128 3475 60832 12006 100.0 1.257 ! Near Maximum !
-01.0 97 69.30 3158 3543 63085 12055 100.0 1.237 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 98 70.00 3188 3611 65423 12102 100.0 1.217 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO

Quick load data at 65,000 psi.



Cartridge : 7 mm Rem. Mag.(SAAMI)
Bullet : .284, 160, Nosler AccuBond 54932
Useable Case Capaci: 72.296 grain H2O = 4.694 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.290 inch = 83.57 mm
Barrel Length : 26.0 inch = 660.4 mm

Predicted Data for Indicated Charges of the Following Powders.
Matching Maximum Pressure: 65000 psi, or 448 MPa
or a maximum loading ratio or filling of 110 %
These calculations refer to your specified settings in QuickLOAD 'Cartridge Dimensions' window.
C A U T I O N : any load listed can result in a powder charge that falls below minimum suggested
loads or exceeds maximum suggested loads as presented in current handloading manuals. Understand
that all of the listed powders can be unsuitable for the given combination of cartridge, bullet
and gun. Actual load order can vary, depending upon lot-to-lot powder and component variations.
USE ONLY FOR COMPARISON !

193 loads produced a Loading Ratio below user-defined minimum of 90%. These powders have been skipped.
Powder type Filling/Loading Ratio Charge Charge Vel. Prop.Burnt P max P muzz B_Time
% Grains Gramm fps % psi psi ms
--------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Vihtavuori N570 109.6 77.0 4.99 3253 97.9 65000 14217 1.199 ! Near Maximum !
Alliant Reloder-33 109.9 80.5 5.21 3238 98.2 65000 14028 1.200 ! Near Maximum !
Alliant Reloder-26 97.5 69.9 4.53 3183 100.0 65000 12094 1.220 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP30 108.8 72.5 4.70 3182 99.9 65000 12729 1.216 ! Near Maximum !
Norma MRP 2 108.8 72.5 4.70 3182 99.9 65000 12729 1.216 ! Near Maximum !
PB Clermont PCL 517 103.3 73.5 4.76 3180 100.0 65000 12485 1.200 ! Near Maximum !
Vihtavuori N560 100.5 68.5 4.44 3179 99.6 65000 12790 1.207 ! Near Maximum !
SNPE Vectan SP 12 103.1 73.4 4.75 3178 100.0 65000 12456 1.200 ! Near Maximum !
Accurate MAGPRO 100.8 71.4 4.63 3172 98.9 65000 12935 1.214 ! Near Maximum !
Norma MRP 98.7 68.6 4.45 3172 100.0 65000 12267 1.214 ! Near Maximum !
Alliant Reloder-25 106.6 70.6 4.58 3169 100.0 65000 11793 1.204 ! Near Maximum !
IMR 7828 SSC 99.4 68.0 4.41 3167 99.8 65000 12351 1.196 ! Near Maximum !
IMR 7828 105.0 68.0 4.41 3167 99.8 65000 12351 1.196 ! Near Maximum !
ReloadSwiss RS 70 95.9 68.1 4.41 3165 100.0 65000 11897 1.198 ! Near Maximum !
ADI AR 2213 100.5 67.7 4.39 3155 99.8 65000 12275 1.194 ! Near Maximum !
ADI AP 2214 104.3 72.2 4.68 3152 99.9 65000 12069 1.192 ! Near Maximum !
Hodgdon H1000 109.7 72.3 4.68 3149 99.9 65000 12033 1.192 ! Near Maximum !
ADI AR 2217 109.7 72.3 4.68 3149 99.9 65000 12033 1.192 ! Near Maximum !
Alliant Reloder-22 100.8 67.9 4.40 3148 100.0 65000 12186 1.213 ! Near Maximum !
Raufoss RA15 100.8 67.9 4.40 3148 100.0 65000 12186 1.213 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP5/NP ~approximation 100.8 67.9 4.40 3148 100.0 65000 12186 1.213 ! Near Maximum !
Winchester WXR 103.5 68.3 4.42 3148 100.0 65000 12213 1.213 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP15 103.5 68.3 4.42 3148 100.0 65000 12213 1.213 ! Near Maximum !
ReloadSwiss RS 80 110.0 79.5 5.15 3146 97.7 58793 13742 1.252 ! Near Maximum !
ADI AR 2218 110.0 78.1 5.06 3136 96.5 57961 14131 1.246 ! Near Maximum !
Ramshot Magnum 100.5 73.0 4.73 3125 100.0 65000 11570 1.209 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP5 NT ~approximation 104.2 70.8 4.59 3125 98.8 65000 12243 1.197 ! Near Maximum !
Rottweil R905 102.1 67.6 4.38 3120 99.6 65000 12014 1.212 ! Near Maximum !
ADI AR 2225 110.0 73.7 4.78 3111 100.0 57762 12322 1.259 ! Near Maximum !
Hodgdon Retumbo 110.0 73.7 4.78 3111 100.0 57762 12322 1.259 ! Near Maximum !
ADI AR 2209 97.4 64.6 4.18 3108 100.0 65000 11598 1.201 ! Near Maximum !
Alliant Reloder-19 97.9 65.3 4.23 3106 100.0 65000 11657 1.209 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP14 ~approximation 98.7 65.8 4.26 3099 100.0 65000 11577 1.209 ! Near Maximum !
Alliant Reloder-23 103.1 67.2 4.36 3093 100.0 65000 10926 1.224 ! Near Maximum !
PB Clermont PCL 511 90.5 64.3 4.16 3091 100.0 65000 11177 1.217 ! Near Maximum !
Ramshot Hunter 93.5 64.4 4.17 3089 100.0 65000 11162 1.217 ! Near Maximum !
Hodgdon H4831 103.2 66.8 4.33 3087 99.4 65000 11630 1.206 ! Near Maximum !
Hodgdon H4831 SC 99.2 66.8 4.33 3087 99.4 65000 11630 1.206 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP4 ~approximation 96.1 64.0 4.15 3084 100.0 65000 11388 1.209 ! Near Maximum !
Norma 204 93.0 64.0 4.15 3084 100.0 65000 11388 1.209 ! Near Maximum !
Raufoss RA4 96.1 64.0 4.15 3084 100.0 65000 11388 1.209 ! Near Maximum !
ReloadSwiss RS 62 91.9 64.2 4.16 3082 100.0 65000 10928 1.231 ! Near Maximum !
Somchem S385 98.1 66.1 4.28 3064 100.0 65000 11061 1.229 ! Near Maximum !
Vihtavuori 24N41 110.0 78.1 5.06 3063 91.5 61048 12638 1.232 ! Near Maximum !
Vihtavuori N550 90.5 61.6 3.99 3063 100.0 65000 10838 1.226 ! Near Maximum !
Norma URP 93.1 61.4 3.98 3061 100.0 65000 10695 1.223 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP19 ~approximation 93.1 61.4 3.98 3061 100.0 65000 10692 1.223 ! Near Maximum !
Rottweil R904 97.0 63.7 4.13 3058 99.7 65000 11185 1.209 ! Near Maximum !
Winchester Supreme 780 96.6 67.9 4.40 3057 100.0 65000 11087 1.216 ! Near Maximum !
Accurate 4350 92.1 61.4 3.98 3055 100.0 65000 10631 1.241 ! Near Maximum !
Somchem S365 94.7 62.8 4.07 3054 100.0 65000 10360 1.232 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP4 NT ~approximation 93.7 63.4 4.11 3053 100.0 65000 10871 1.222 ! Near Maximum !
Vihtavuori N165 103.2 68.1 4.41 3049 100.0 65000 10826 1.221 ! Near Maximum !
Lovex D100 109.1 78.3 5.07 3048 93.1 65000 11875 1.216 ! Near Maximum !
Lovex S071 106.7 67.3 4.36 3042 100.0 65000 10677 1.245 ! Near Maximum !
Accurate 3100 100.9 67.3 4.36 3042 100.0 65000 10677 1.245 ! Near Maximum !
IMR 4831 97.6 62.3 4.04 3041 100.0 65000 10455 1.232 ! Near Maximum !
Hodgdon H4350 95.8 62.5 4.05 3041 100.0 65000 10708 1.212 ! Near Maximum !
Vihtavuori N160 103.5 66.2 4.29 3040 99.7 65000 10980 1.213 ! Near Maximum !
IMR 4350 94.0 62.3 4.04 3040 100.0 65000 10681 1.213 ! Near Maximum !
Lovex S070 93.1 61.4 3.98 3037 100.0 65000 10681 1.228 ! Near Maximum !
Norma 217 110.0 72.2 4.68 3029 99.9 51886 12619 1.340
Somchem S361 96.0 68.2 4.42 3028 99.4 65000 11008 1.221 ! Near Maximum !
Rottweil R907 91.2 59.7 3.87 3023 100.0 65000 10581 1.220 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP7 91.2 59.7 3.87 3023 100.0 65000 10581 1.220 ! Near Maximum !
Hodgdon H870 110.0 75.7 4.91 3019 97.0 52018 13158 1.331
Lovex S065 92.2 60.1 3.89 3010 100.0 65000 10277 1.227 ! Near Maximum !
Hodgdon Hybrid 100V 95.5 61.6 3.99 3010 100.0 65000 9868 1.226 ! Near Maximum !
Bofors RP3 NT ~approximation 90.1 59.6 3.86 3004 100.0 65000 10095 1.213 ! Near Maximum !
Alliant Reloder-50 110.0 79.3 5.14 2999 94.6 50513 13602 1.369
Vihtavuori N170 110.0 72.5 4.70 2998 95.3 59688 11870 1.274 ! Near Maximum !
Vihtavuori N150 93.6 58.9 3.81 2946 100.0 65000 9370 1.236 ! Near Maximum !

quote:

Originally posted by Baldhunter:
I have to agree with you.Some of this older load data is a bit hot for the 7mag.During that time period there wasn't as many powders to work with as we have today,plus the 7mm Weatherby was the round the 7mag was competing against because it was the BIG 7 magnum of the day.The Weatherby still is a great round and more efficient than some of the largest 7 magnums.Freebore is what makes it able to produce the higher velocities and really surprises me nobody seems to cashing in on that other than Weatherby.Every rifle is different,but with the selection of powders we have today,most 7mags can safely do a lot better than what most data books show today.Most of the load data is kept at standard pressures and usually it's around 58,000 psi or so.

The throat length of the 7mm Weatherby isn't really all that different from other 7mm magnums at .378 inch.

quote:

Originally posted by tjroberts:
But i could do that with a 165 grain 06.

Why does everyone use an apples to oranges comparison with the 7 RM to run it down? I can easily get over 2800 fs with a 200 gn bullet with my Whelen, so by this standard, I guess that makes it better than a 300 H&H.

The SD of a 160 gn 7mm is typically HIGHER than a 180 gn 30 Cal. Try comparing THAT to the 300.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

quote:

Originally posted by Baldhunter:
I have to agree with you.Some of this older load data is a bit hot for the 7mag.During that time period there wasn't as many powders to work with as we have today,plus the 7mm Weatherby was the round the 7mag was competing against because it was the BIG 7 magnum of the day.The Weatherby still is a great round and more efficient than some of the largest 7 magnums.Freebore is what makes it able to produce the higher velocities and really surprises me nobody seems to cashing in on that other than Weatherby.Every rifle is different,but with the selection of powders we have today,most 7mags can safely do a lot better than what most data books show today.Most of the load data is kept at standard pressures and usually it's around 58,000 psi or so.

The throat length of the 7mm Weatherby isn't really all that different from other 7mm magnums at .378 inch.

I think it also has a lot to do with the long taper of the lands.It reduces the pressure spike.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by tjroberts:
But i could do that with a 165 grain 06.

Why does everyone use an apples to oranges comparison with the 7 RM to run it down? I can easily get over 2800 fs with a 200 gn bullet with my Whelen, so by this standard, I guess that makes it better than a 300 H&H.

The SD of a 160 gn 7mm is more comparable to a 180 gn 30 Cal. Try comparing THAT to the 300.

You're right it is what it is.7mm's should be compared to other 7mm's and like wise other calibers compared to rounds in their caliber.When you look at it that way,you see how good the 7mag can be and why the 30-06 is still a great round after so many years.Every factory round better has magnum after it's name.If you look at when the 300 H&H was introduced in 1925,it was a step up from the 30-06 and head the reign as king until the 300 Weatherby was introduced in 1948.The 300 Weatherby was available in only expensive Weatherby rifles.It too is still a great high powered 30 cal today.Today we have a few 30 cal rounds that will equal or do better than the old 300 H&H and it seemed to die out after the 300 Win Mag was introduced in 1963.

On the only 7 mag I ever had was very disappointing with factory ammo, but so was an is the 300 H&H. However, handloaded they both shine! I much prefer the 300 mags to the 7 mags however.

Hydell about said it all as to the 300 H&H, I just love that cartridge and shot it for many years in Africa, and I could and did duplicate a 300 Wby for all practical purposes..I shot the 200 gr. Nosler partition mostly and I even use that bullet today, along with the 200 gr. Accubonds in my 30-06..

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I used to be a big 7RM fan, but gave up on it for the same reason you state: velocities are not that great. I switched to a .300 RUM for my long range hunting rifles and have not looked back. That said, I am currently having a 28 Nosler built specifically to shoot 195 gr bullets.

I can easily get 3200 FPS with 150 grain bullets, 3100 FPS with 160 grain bullets, & 3000+ FPS with 175 grain bullets outta my 24" barrelled Sako AV 7MM Rem Mag, chrono'd!

I like .308 caliber. But there's sectional density magic in .284 caliber bullets. The .284 175 grain Partition has darn close to mythical penetration ability.

I do know that 160 grain Partitions fired from a 24" barreled 7MM Rem Mag will shoot through-and-through the massive chests of America's largest big game animals.

Only on broadside shots has been my experience on pass throughs on big stuff., I suggest those that believe that to be so, test a 200 gr. bullet from a 300 H&H at 2900 to 3020 FPS against a a 175 gr. bullet of same make on wood, paper or live animals..The penetration of the 7 mag is less..the claims of the 7 mag is a fable of the gun world created by gun magazines....Just do your own test, and be fair with yourself, some folks can make a point by rook or crook in some mags. and many just repeat what they read and/or what they want to believe..

How much difference is there, depends on the bullets used etc..Not saying the 7mm mag is not a killer of game, certainly it is, but its powers are over rated a bit IMO and by comparison..those test are just a tad better than a 270 or 30-06 in my testing, all things equal.I will also suggest that the 300 and 7MM magnums require 26 inch barrels to perform better than the 30-06 for instance..

Ray clearly you are right about the 7 mag. I have heard guys make claims about the trajectory that are absurd.
You would think the projectiles had wings and a propeller !
But it is in my opinion, just we bit flatter than than the 06, and a very accurate round.
...tj3006

As other posters have written, the 7MM Rem Mag will perform as advertised. I get 3200+ FPS with 150 Ballistic Tips using a Nosler book load. This load will shoot .25". I know I could get more velocity, but I like the outstanding accuracy with what I have.

I get 3100 FPS with 160 grain Partitions using H-4831. This load will shoot through-and-through the largest deer species in North America. I have a 374 bull elk on a wall inside of my home that needed but one 160 grain bullet. He weighed better than 900 pounds. Again, I could increase this load, but have no need nor desire. I have chrono'd a 160 grain load at 3200 using RL-22, but it wasn't as accurate as H-4831.

Elk are supposed to be the toughest animal in North America to kill. My response is stop topside oxygenated blood flow, and the toughest bull elk to have ever lived will have seconds of life remaining. Nothing living remains in that condition without topside oxygenated blood flow.

I've gotten 3000+ FPS with 175 Partitions using RL-22.

I have very old Rem Factory 150 grain CoreLokts that I've chrono'd at better than 3200 FPS. I'd doubt that Rem still loads 'em to that velocity.

My rifle is a 25+ year-old Sako AV with a 24" barrel. I've often wonder what that rifle would print were I to use tricked out target loads. But I'm a hunter, not a target shooter.

The magic is in .284 caliber bullet sectional densities. You have to more far on up the caliber continuum to equal magical .284 caliber bullets. Sectional densities are good predictors of penetration.

An African culler culled hundreds of elephants using a 7x57 with 173 grain bullets. If you want penetration, 7MM Rem Mag will provide it.

It the end, the 7MM Rem Mag is merely a great cartridge among many great cartridges. It won't kill any deader than a .308 Win. Too bad I learned that fact with age.

Were I given a hunting rifle do-over, I'd buy an excellent quality .280 Rem & never need another rifle. Were we to exclude 175 grain bullets, the .270 Win & .280 Rem run neck-and-neck.

It seems hunters develop a favorite cartridges and wind up dong extremely well with them. God only knows how many head of North America's largest and meanest big game fell to the .303 British. A hunter who hunts with a .308 Win that he can shoot will be just as successful as another hunter using a mega magnum. It's all about what a bullet destroys.

BTW, were I to buy a .300 Mag, it'd be a .300 H&H. It will kill big game just as dead as a .300 RUM. Were I to need magnum, I'd use my 7MM Rem Mag. Truth be told, one of my .270 Win rifles would have killed my once-in-a-lifetime bull just as dead with the same heart shot.

Happy Thanksgiving and hunting to all.