7mm Rem Mag vs 300 Win Mag
- Thread starter MiG25
- Start date
The Outsider
CGN Regular
Last edited:
And those sorts of charts are always misleading. I know I get significantly better ballistics from my .300 than that chart suggests, and I also know guys who get better from their 7mm mags than that chart suggests. However, the differences in my mind do not lie in how well both shoot 165 grain bullets, but in the fact that the .300 Win can use 200 grain bullets very efficiently while the 7mm cannot go that heavy. I get a chronographed 2975 fps with 200 grain Partitions from mine, and if you plug that bullet and velocity into a calculator you will see that the .300 is something the 7mm can never even hope to be.
Now, whether or not you need that difference is the real question you need to answer. If you want a deer rifle, both are more than enough - more than you actually need. If you want a moose, elk, and maybe bear rifle, the .300 has a definite edge only because of the heavier bullets it can handle. It will also recoil perceptibly more than the 7mm as your price for the extra power.
Now, whether or not you need that difference is the real question you need to answer. If you want a deer rifle, both are more than enough - more than you actually need. If you want a moose, elk, and maybe bear rifle, the .300 has a definite edge only because of the heavier bullets it can handle. It will also recoil perceptibly more than the 7mm as your price for the extra power.
So what constitutes a "definite edge" to you? What gives the 300wm an edge over the 7rm?
A silly comparison, because of the choice of bullets The 165gr bullet is a mid weight bullet for the 300, but a heavy bullet for the 7mm. A proper comparison would use bullets of similar sectional density, say 140 for the 7mm, and 165 for the 300, or 150 for the 7mm, and 180 for the 300.
Look at the charts here. A 200 grain Partition launched at just under 3000 fps arrives at 400 yards at exactly the same velocity as the 165 grain in the chart. If you don't think a 200 grain bullet at the same velocity, and with the same Partition construction, has some "definite edge" on a 165 grain bullet for game the size of moose or elk, you are wrong.
As I said, if deer is the intended game, both cartridges are more than needed. But on big animals, enough experiences will prove there is a difference in the number of tracks made after the shot. I like to do all my tracking before I shoot, and I have never found an animal that ran to a spot that made recovery easier after it was hit. Moose especially can live in very tough country, and seem to think safety lies in VERY tough country, and elk seem to cover ground really quickly if they want. I think the .300 is better at minimizing those issues.
Hand Skills
CGN Regular
- Location
- In the 'heartland', southern SK
Agreed. The 7 also has the potential to shoot a little flatter and buck the wind a little better, if that matters.
Here is an interesting read;
What's wrong with 30 cal
I got rid of my .300 over 15 years ago. From a practical point of view I found it heavy to carry and difficult to shoot well.
Here is an interesting read;
What's wrong with 30 cal
I got rid of my .300 over 15 years ago. From a practical point of view I found it heavy to carry and difficult to shoot well.
https://ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/7mm-rem-mag-vs-300-win-mag/
I prefer the 7 mag mostly for the lesser recoil.
I prefer the 7 mag mostly for the lesser recoil.
nowarningshot
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Both are great calibers. I have said, if one had to choose a one caliber ....all around....one gun battery》》》pick between 270, 30-06, 7mag, and 300. Each is a pip up in power and recoil. It would come down to game weight, distance, and rifle each was in for my choice.
Most magnum rifles have a bit to much length of pull for me. Currently the best fitting rifles I have are; a 264 in M1917, a 270 in Browning 1885, a 308nm in Browning high power, and a 300wm in of all things a M77 Hawkeye. Since I don't have a nicely fitting 7 mag, I guess I have to pick 300 if forced to pick.
Really i could live with any of the 4 above calibers everyday. Maybe a bigger choice in the Peace.
Most magnum rifles have a bit to much length of pull for me. Currently the best fitting rifles I have are; a 264 in M1917, a 270 in Browning 1885, a 308nm in Browning high power, and a 300wm in of all things a M77 Hawkeye. Since I don't have a nicely fitting 7 mag, I guess I have to pick 300 if forced to pick.
Really i could live with any of the 4 above calibers everyday. Maybe a bigger choice in the Peace.
Last edited:
Better how? The .300(if you can hold it well) hits harder with heavier bullets and is the choice for larger game. And I own a 7mm magnum and not a .300 Win Mag. Just didn't want to trade more recoil and muzzle blast for power I don't really need. But for game larger than deer the .300 is clearly superior to the 7mm in bullet choice, power and terminal ballistics in my mind.
Why not run the numbers (or “look at the charts”) using comparable bullets? Even lobbing softballs like Partitions, 200 vs 175, there is no practical difference between either cartridge.
If you start talking about retaining velocity using modern bullet design then there absolutely starts being a difference....
Cartridges are a lot more alike than they are different. Bullets matter more than headstamps.
Sidenote, got a lot of “tough country” over there in Saskatchewan where an elk or moose needs to be anchored right now? Just askin’......
