I've got a 7mag with which I have bad karma. I'm looking to trade it for another rifle for Western Hunting and considering another 7mag or a 300 win mag. What do you guys think about the practical differences of the 7mag with 175gr and the 300 win mag with 180's, other than the 7mag might have less percieved recoil?

The .300 mag is a more versitile round. PERIOD. While the 7MM is a good round it doesn't give the versitility of the .300 in the heavier bullets.

The 7MM with a 175gr bullet really nothing more than a very slightly souped up belted 06.

I definatley give the lead to a .300mag in regards to heavier game such as elk and moose.

Just my .$02.

I second what surestrike says.

The 175 grain pill in the 7mm is heavy for caliber. The 180 in a .300 Mag is mid range, but hits like the fist of Thor.

I think the 7mm rem mag is one of the most over-rated hunting rounds of all time, and that it has likely accounted for more lost and wounded game due to hunters thinking they have a much more powerful round than they really do. I would always choose a 300 win mag over a 7 rem mag.

Not like I have an opinion on the matter or anything

I agree that the 300 is more versatile than the 7mm but unless you are hunting elk or moose alot why not try repairing your karma with a 270 WCF?

MB: I've got a light .308 which I use out east, but I was looking for a little flatter trajectory and more horse-power when I go back for Elk. Had a .270 and traded it for the 7mmag. I will admit the .270 was comfortable to shoot.

Not to be contrary, but it strikes me funny that the big 7 should suffer when compared to the 300 Win mag. The 154gr Hornady has a sectional density almost equal to the 180gr thirty. The 175gr 7 is comparable to the 220gr thirty, something that is seldom seen in the Winchester's short neck. That's why I like the 300 H&H, one can use all of the available .308" bullets without stealing powder space.

Simply... I have seen no difference in the 270,280 and 7 mag...In penetration or killing time. I now one just the 270 from the three. I do see that the 300 is a step ahead of the the 7 mag. IMO I think the 30-06 even does more dammage then the 7. Just my observations.

To answer your original question, Comparing the 175 gr in the 7mm mag with the 180 gr in the Win and you will not notice much difference, if any. If you use only these bullets there is no reason to switch. However if you wish to use a larger bullet then the 300 Win Mag shines.

This is the way that I see this, and it is from my experiences and is my opinion.

175/7--will run in most 7's with 7828 between 2900 and 3000 (some will do a bit more but 3 is a safe top end-my first one would do 3045 with 7828 and a 24" tube with good case life)

300/180's-will run in the 3000 to maybe 31 on the top end

The way I see it is that the 300 will have a bit more punch on target and on the shoulder, but not enough to mean a thing.

The 7 will have less drift in the wind at long range

The 7 will have less drop ( I think I am pretty sure)

The 7 will penetrate better

The 300 will have a larger frontal area

I really see them as two peas in a pod and not a lick worth of differences.

Honeslty I feel if you hunted two lifetimes with each combo you may be able to detect some diff but I seriously doubt it.

Just my 2 cents

Good luck

Mark D

If it were me I would each and every time take the big 7's over the 300's

For Western Hunting

Very broad statement, what are you planning to hunt is my question.

Right up front I hate 300 Win Mags, so I will subtitute my favorite 30 Mag. I shoot 30-338 I like 308 Norma's and 300 H&H's also, neutral of 300 Weatherbies.

Back to your question, if your planning on hunting mule deer and antelop in arid or semi arid country in the west no better cartridge ever existed for that than a 7 mm and better yet the mag. A mag even makes a good moose rifle if your not hunting dark timber. Also a good choice on sheep or goats, and black bear.

Where the 30 mags start shinning is on elk and grizzlies, plus its got both energy and the flat trajectory on its side. No 7mm made equals a 200 gr 30 cal @ 2900 fps. It just is a better load for big animals. The thirty mag is capable of being flexible, but I don't see the point in under 165 gr bullets though, if I want to shoot a 150 gr bullet I can do it in 06 case with lot less fuss and muss.

If your planning on hunting moose, elk, and big bears more regularly I would stay with the 30 mag and the additonal recoil. If on the other hand mulies, and antelope are going to be your main fare, with a once every ten year elk hunt, stay with the 7mm, the recoil is a lot easier to handle. Make no bones about it 30 mags with heavy bullets are kickers, my 375 is easier to shoot than my 30's. a day at the range ( on bench) with 40 rounds and a finicky rifle are all the fun I want for the day. ( no lead sled). I think the bigger bores push more to me, and the 30 mags are a sharp quick knock. The only cartridge I dislike shooting less on the bench are the 340 Weatherby and the 8mm Rem mag ( absolute worst kicking ) in order. Don;t get me wrong I shoot my 30's a lot and they don't ever both me in the field, but 30 mags and extended bench time are not fun.

Both are good choices, if I was going on a anywhere in the world hunt and I had big dollars on the line I would pack my 30 mag though.

Edit: shooting 180 gr bullets helps in the 30 mags, 200 and 220 gr bullets recoil a lot more in my experience.

I wouldn't trade my 1969 Sako 7mm Rem Mag for no other 7mm or even 300mag!
With jacketed bullets it can cause quite a lot of meat loss if your shot placement is bad, yet properly placed it is OK.

Coming hunting season, May - July 2006, I'm going to use 130gr GSC HV's and, based on my .308 experience with 130gr HV's, I'm convinced it is going to make the 7 RM even more of a hit.

I never liked the painful recoil velocity of the 300 and 338 mags. The late outfitter Les Bowman wrote that the very worst game shots were those with 300 mags and he spearheaded the 7mm RM.

Of course one must have a cannon or three and I have them too.

I leave them behind whenever I can.

As of late I find that the 270 WSM is not that bad to shoot recoil wise and it has all the range that I would use.

Sav 99- Les Bowman is no doubt one of my hero's!

Wish he'd of written a book or two.

Mark D

"7mm Remington Magnum

A number of people should be given equal shares of credit for the introduction of the 7mm Remington Magnum. There was Warren Page who had many friends at Remington and who sang the praises of a wildcat called 7mm Mashburn Super Magnum in many of his hunting articles. There was Les Bowman who also had many friends at Remington and who necked up the .264 Winchester Magnum case to 7mm and had a rifle built in what he called .280 Remington Magnum. Jack O'Connor's name probably should be on this list since his gift of a rifle in .275 H & H Magnum is what sparked Bowman's interest in a 7mm magnum cartridge.

We must not overlook Remington's own Mike Walker who took note of what was being said and who nudged Remington brass into making the right move. It was a good move too. Since the advent of smokeless powders, no more than a couple of other cartridges have been so successful so quickly as the 7mm Remington Magnum. For several years after its introduction in 1962 the demand for Model 700 rifles in this caliber far exceeded Remington's ability to produce them.

Only a small handful of other cartridges have served dual roles as well as Remington's Big Seven. It has established an enviable record as a big game cartridge and as an accuracy cartridge for 1000 yard competition. Sierra, Hornady, and Speer offer superbly accurate match grade bullets in 7mm caliber, and those firms as well as Nosler and Remington make excellent big game bullets for the handloader.

When loaded with a 140 grain spitzer, the 7mm Remington Magnum is a powerful and flat shooting cartridge, but for all use on game up to the size of elk and moose the cartridge is seen at its best with a 160 grain bullet loaded to about 3000 fps. For big game loads, the single best powder for use with all bullets weights is H4831. When loading the heavier bullets, H1000 also does a fine job. In target rifles, faster burning powders such as H4350 and IMR-4350 often produce the best accuracy with match grade bullets."

if you are comparing heavy for caliber or light for caliber bullets meaning the 175 in the 7 and 220 in the 300, or 130 in the 7 versus 165 in the 300 the trajectories are virtually the same and the energy is adequate to do the job from either. imho the 7 can do anything the 300 can do with less recoil and if you are wanting a thumper move up to the 338 or the 375.

I haven’t got an “emotional†dog in this fight, they’re both fine rounds.

I’ve owned both cartridges and with the mentioned bullets (180 and 175), ballistically there isn’t a nickels worth of difference between the two of them. There is however differences in how will they shoot. The 180-grain bullets are a “natural†in the 300 Win. In very short order you can come up with an accurate load with any number of powders and bullet makes. In my experience this is not true of the 7mm with 175-grain bullets. The 7mms I’ve worked with are at their best with 150-160 grain bullets. If your game or shooting style calls for 180-grain bullets than there is only one choice here.

I bought by first 7mm Rem. Mag. in 1977, and it's a cartridge I used off and on for the next fifteen years. I never did feel as though it hammered elk any harder than a 30-06 (although it does shoot flatter), nor that it worked on mule deer any better than a 270 Win., although I was generally happy with it.

I bought my first 300 Win. Mag. in 1980, but my experience with it remained extremely limited until 1993, when I ordered a custom 300 Win. Mag. with a synthetic stock from a custom gunmaker at SCI. I chose the 300 Win. Mag. chambering as sort of an afterthought, and mostly because the man I ordered the rifle from was an award-winning high-power shooter who had used the 300 Win. Mag. extensively for HP use out to 1000 yds. So I entered the 300 Win. Mag. camp sort of luke warm, but with an eye on Alaskan and Canadian hunting, plus elk here at home.

Even so, when I got that rifle, I started reloading for it, working with it at the range, hunting with it in earnest. I found that the old "short neck" alarum was pure, unadulterated BS, and I also found that the 300 Win. Mag. not only shot just as flat as the 7mm Rem. Mag., but it hit everything harder at all distances, and it was a more dramatic and decisive killer, beyond any shadow of any doubt. It was also less fussy to reload for, and it was easier to achieve full velocity with reasonable pressures than the somewhat fickle 7mm Rem. Mag.

Over the last dozen years, I've used the 300 Win. Mag. cartridge really extensively, for everything from Dall's sheep to moose and bears, Coues deer to elk, and Kirk's dik dik to Cape buffalo and African lion -- well over 100 big game animals, and I'm far from done with it yet.

The ONLY honest advantage that I see with the 7mm Rem.Mag. is that it kicks a little less. From every other standpoint of consideration, the 300 Win. Mag. is a better cartridge, pure and simple.

Recently, they had a program on the history of the magnum cartridge on the History Channel, which spotlighted the U.S. Army's elite high-power team at Fort Benning, GA, and its use of the 300 Win. Mag. for long-range use, mentioning it's fine accuracy, etc., with no complaints about the belted case, short neck, etc. ALL branches of the U.S. Armed Forces use the 300 Win. Mag. because of its fine inherent accuracy, widely-obtainable, high-quality brass, and consistent, predictable performance.

AD

I agree with Mark. They are both good rounds and the differences will be slight. His post regarding the differences between the two was right on.

The 300 will have around 300 ft lbs more power at the target. And 6-10 pounds more recoil energy.

The 7 will have less drift in the wind at long range due to higher BC

The 7 will have (slightly) less drop if shot at the same velocity.

The 7 will penetrate better due to higher section desnity.

The 300 will have a larger frontal area (and transfer energy to the target quicker).

I use the 7mm rem mag and my pard uses the 300win, and if there is an impact difference out to 400yds I havn't seen it yet. They are like shouting Ford VS Chevy IMO.

I like the lower recoil of the 7mag, I can see the hits in the scope better.

In the FWIW department, you see many more .308 sized rifles in the 1000 yard matches than you do 7mm. Don't know exactly what that means but it is interesting.
I own both of the cartridges and to my way of thinking, the 160gr bullet is ideal for the 7mag, while if you're not shooting something bigger than a 180 in the .300, you're wasting your time.

These are the loads I use for my 7 mag and 300 win mag

300 win mag 180 gr TSX @ 3150 fps with a BC of .552 @ 7000' altitude yields 3165 ft lbs @ 250 yards.

7 mag 160 gr TSX @ 3090 fps with a BC of .508 @ 7000' altitude yields 2649 ft lbs @ 250 yards.

I took the 300 on an Elk trip a couple of weeks ago and shot a 5x5 at 245 yds. Would the 7 mag have done as good a job as the 300? Probably but not with the authority that the 300 did.

With these loads the 300 drops less than the 7 mag and has less wind drift. I agree with Allan Day in that the 300 is definitely a step up.

Maybe it is the guns, but my 300 is more accurate and less fussy.

IMHO, the 7 mag is a great caliber and is perfectly suited for game in the +- 400 lb. range. Unfortunately, it seems like I'm either hunting 200 lb Whitetail or 800 lb Elk. That's why my 270 and 300 get used most.

Woods, try actually chronographing those loads at 250 yds. It can be an eye-opening experience.

Hey Jon

I'm sure it would be, however the point is that we were comparing the 300 win mag to the 7 mag so if the bullets fall short in performance, they would probably both fall short equally. Although the heavier 300 win mag bullet with the higher BC would most likely hold up better.

All of the data from those ballistics programs and tables are just information that is useful in gauging reality. Ballistic Coefficient is just a nebulous dynamic number also.

Exactly how much do you expect those numbers to change at 300 yards?

quote:

Originally posted by woods:
Exactly how much do you expect those numbers to change at 300 yards?

You'll find around 100 fps less than the tables tell you. It's more of a worry at longer ranges and lower altitudes.

I like the 7mm mag, it does kill better than a .270 recoils like a 30-06 and is a flat shooting wind bucking cartridge. If I want more power than a 7mm mag, I want more than a .300 win!

I picked up a Ruger 77 from 1976 mfr several years ago to rescue a guy who was busted and needed to pony up his share of the jeep rebuild. I spent $300 for a gun that looked shabby (and still does) but that shot 160 gr Partitions into .5 or better. When that barrel gave up I put on a new gun shop takeoff for $125 and it now shoots 150 gr Ballistic Tips under .5. All this from a factory rifle, un-bedded, factory trigger, with a Leupold 3X9. All the pigs, coyotes and deer it has inducted into the hereafter didn't know that it was a 7 mag, anymore than the ones I shot with my .25-06 knew either.

Bottom line, it ain't what you use so much as how you use it, assuming you are using a caliber suitable for the game. Shoot 'em where they live-let the air out of them with a double lung shot and they are headed for the freezer.

.300 win mag is a great round while I would prefer an 06 to a 7mm in most cases, I don't see to much difference between an 06 and 7mm

If your bias is towards heavier game, take the .300WinMag. If its towards medium game, take the 7mmRemMag. Your need/desire to use a 175gr in the 7mmRemMag sort of suggests a 300WinMag is the better of the two.
Cheers...
Con

Having owned both the 300 win mag and the 7mm rem mag I must say that I could tell no practical difference in killing ability on big game between the 2.

Of the 2 my preference would be for the 7mm rem mag but today it would be the 7mm WSM without doubt.I would use 160 grain bullets instead of 175's, probably accubonds or barnes TSX on close and medium range stuff but for longer ranger i'de probably pick the hornady 162 SST's
with a BC of .550

Either would do the job for you without too much fuss but probably the most important thing would be to use the right bullet that is designed to do the job you will ask of it then place that bullet in the right spot to put the animal down quickly and cleanly.

I've been doing a little research my self over this with the amount of friends that I have with 7mm Rem Mags. The number one factor I've found that they have their 7's is that they were scared to buy the .300 win because of recoil. Nothing about Bullet weights or trajectories or anything, they just were scared of the recoil.

I'm not saying that all 7mm Rem Mag owners are all afraid of recoil but I thought it was funny that that was the number one reason they came up with, out of my friends.

I love my .300 win mag and I couldn't ask for anything more, or maybe a .505 Gibbs, but I really think there is definately a difference on the receiving end with the .300 compared to the 7mm.

My honest opinion, the 7mm Rem Mag was invented to give the .270 win shooter that small amount of extra power that they just couldn't squeeze out of their 270's and why would you want to? Leave the 270 alone and get a 300 magnum or a 338 when your opinion of a serious hunt is in need of a heavier caliber such as those.

Magnum61, I agree with you on every point.

Well stated!

AD

quote:

Originally posted by MajorCaliber:
I like the 7mm mag, it does kill better than a .270 recoils like a 30-06 and is a flat shooting wind bucking cartridge. If I want more power than a 7mm mag, I want more than a .300 win!

Very true. Next level is 8X68S, 8mm rem, 338, 358 Norma, 9,3's

Cheers
/JOHAN

The way I see it is the 7mm Rem Mag is a deer rifle and the 300 Win Mag is an elk gun. I own both. The 7mm could take an elk and the 300 could take a deer.I like it the other way around. Neither one has that much recoil.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jro45:
The way I see it is the 7mm Rem Mag is a deer rifle and the 300 Win Mag is an elk gun.[QUOTE]

Close . . . .

7mm RM is a varmint rifle
300 Win is a Big Game rifle



MM

Well, let's see. The 30-06 is good for squirrels at best (and it's not even flat shooting enough them most of the time). The 7mm has a tough time taking anything bigger than a fox, but it sure shoots flat. So, yes, the 300 Win must be in order for deer. Elk or Moose? I guess a grenade is the best medicine, but distance is limited.

I sure don't know how our forefathers were able to survive using the 30-30, or in Europe, the 6.5x55. If we go back far enough, some crazy indians used a bent tree limb and an arrow!! Fortunately for us, the marketing gods have taken us to the promised land and we now have a caliber for every creature that walks or crawls. Question is, can you put those calibers in the kill zone consistently, at various distances? If not, perhaps mortars are your best bet.

quote:

sure don't know how our forefathers were able to survive using the 30-30, or in Europe, the 6.5x55. If we go back far enough, some crazy indians used a bent tree limb and an arrow!! Fortunately for us, the marketing gods have taken us to the promised land and we now have a caliber for every creature that walks or crawls. Question is, can you put those calibers in the kill zone consistently, at various distances? If not, perhaps mortars are your best bet.

Well said and totally true!!

For my type of hunting where I could fire 30 to 40 rounds a day or more, the 300 win mag is just too much and i'm now paying the price today with nerve damage, eventually I saw the light and went back to the 243 and eventually the 7mm-08, funny thing is, the game is just as dead, I just wish I had realized that you dont need a magnum for most big game earlier and saved myself alot of pain and lost sleep.

I've been using my 7mmRem. Mag. for about 15 years and really like it. It'll take anything on the continent except for possibly the big Alaskan bears which I have no intention of messing with. It's a Remington 700BDL and quite accurate to boot. It's at the upper end of my recoil ability, still comfortable enough to shoot without becoming a bruiser. I don't know your age, but you're not going to grow younger, and there'll come a time that .300Mag. starts to tell on you. Just one mans opinion. Best wishrs.

Cal - Montreal

For me the 300 Win is the ultimate compromise between hitting power and shootability. When pushing a 200Gr Partition at 2900+fps I think the 300 hits more like a .338 Win than a 7 Mag.

As others have said...The 300 Win is not difficult to get to shoot. The 7 can shoot as well but is generally much fussier.

I like the 7 Mag and I certainly respect those who aren't comfortable with the slightly higher recoil levels of the 300.
A man that shoots enough to know his own limitations will shoot circles around another packing some fancy "super magnum" that doesn't.

There is no question that the 7 will get the job done. I just happen to have drawn the comfort line at 30 cal for my lightest hunting gun.

Forget the gun recoil….I fear being chewed!

Jamie

quote:

Originally posted by jro45:
The way I see it is the 7mm Rem Mag is a deer rifle and the 300 Win Mag is an elk gun. I own both. The 7mm could take an elk and the 300 could take a deer.I like it the other way around. Neither one has that much recoil.

Really. I guess those seven one-shot kills I had on African plains game out to 300 yards or so using a 160 A Frame a couple of years ago didn't know I was shooting a seven. The gemsbok was a 300 yard bang/flop. Guess I'd better sell it and buy a .300. Darn. And I just got it back from Dakota with a new barrel, too.