300 or 7mm mag?
- Thread starter Riffer
- Start date
and
Sheephunter said:
Pot calling the kettle black?
Actually I have really scaled back. I pretty much hunt exclusively with a 7mm RM now, although to be quite honest I have been thinking of stepping down. I will never sell my 7 because I inherited it from my Dad. I have shot game with a .257 Wby and a .416 RM, plus a whole bunch in between.
I think optics are often overlooked, yet they are a very valuable piece of equipment. I am curious why this fellow wants to move up from his .270; is it the cartridge or the rifle?
What does he expect from the magnums? Maybe he just doesn't like the Ruger, but the cartridge is ok.
If he wants to ask our opinions then we should at least try to give him info that will steer him in the right direction, that's all.
I should add that I have no problem with someone saying I want it "just because".
Huh? I'm all for buying guns because they are newer and ###ier.......I'm the worst seagull there is for picking up shiny new calibres.....Heck, I bought a .30TC. I was just pointing out that Todd just isn't ready to admit his problem yet!
He still feels the need to justify his purchase based on practicallity but sadly there isn't any. It's new, it's ###y, it's shiny....nuff said.This man wants a bigger calibre gun than a .270.....I think he should have one....damn the practicality but with that said, I'd say the .300 is definitely a step up from a .270.....just on bullet weight selection alone. Will either kill a moose deader? Likely not but buying a .300 when you already own a .270 seems a natural progression to me.
I just wanna get another gun, something bigger. I know that a 270 can drop anything I hunt for because shot placement is everything, but I know I'd feel a lot more confident shooting something bigger.
No I don"t reload
I do a lot of bird and deer hunting, I'm just getting into moose and elk
Yeah I like shooting alot
and as far as big game, I'll be hunting Whitetails, Mulies, Elk, Moose, Pronghorn (once I get drawn, and not with whatever gun I'm gunna buy though
)I just wanna get another gun, something bigger. I know that a 270 can drop anything I hunt for because shot placement is everything, but I know I'd feel a lot more confident shooting something bigger.
No I don"t reload
I do a lot of bird and deer hunting, I'm just getting into moose and elk
Yeah I like shooting alot
and as far as big game, I'll be hunting Whitetails, Mulies, Elk, Moose, Pronghorn (once I get drawn, and not with whatever gun I'm gunna buy though
Well in that case it doesn't really matter. Go for the .300 WM and see how you like it. I guess like Bartell I am going the other way. I remember a few years back he shot a moose with a .416 RM. This year he shot a deer with a .221 Fireball.
I am starting to see the merrits of shooting TSX bullets in lighter weight and getting the same terminal performance as a heavier bullet, but with a flatter trajectory.
I really find the 110gr TTSX for the .270 interesting. It can be pushed above 3400 fps and I am certain it will out-penetrate the standard 150gr cup and core bullets.
To me this means you can have a lighter rifle, less recoil, burn less powder and kill game just the same. It just seems like a win-win situation.
But you do have to reload to get the advantages.
I haven't run it through the caculator myself but I can't see there being that much difference in recoil when they are only 100fps apart with the same grain bullet.......you sure you ran it with identical weight bullets?
shortaction
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoulin Island, Ontario
If you already have a 270 and plan on keeping it, I would go with the 300 Win Mag.
If you intend to sell the 270 and use the new gun for everything then probably the 7mm Mag would make a more sensible choice.
The 300 does have quite a bit more recoil then the 7mm Rem Mag but it does carry a lot more energy also. Nothing for free! Make sure which every one you buy comes with a good recoil pad and it will help a lot.
As far as recoil #'s using the same weight for all rifles and bullets of equal sectional density your 270 has about 16 - 17 ftlbs of recoil, the 7mm Rem Mag has about 20 - 22 ftlbs of recoil and the 300 Win Mag has about 26 - 29 ftlbs of recoil.
I am not fond of recoil and the older I get the less I enjoy it but one thing that I have noticed and maybe some others will agree with me is that the with 300 Win Mag and and also the 7mm Rem Mag but to a lesser degree don't seem to have as quick a recoil as the 270 but more of a hard shove, still wears you down at the bench though.
Best of luck on your search, you won't go wrong with either caliber.
If you intend to sell the 270 and use the new gun for everything then probably the 7mm Mag would make a more sensible choice.
The 300 does have quite a bit more recoil then the 7mm Rem Mag but it does carry a lot more energy also. Nothing for free! Make sure which every one you buy comes with a good recoil pad and it will help a lot.
As far as recoil #'s using the same weight for all rifles and bullets of equal sectional density your 270 has about 16 - 17 ftlbs of recoil, the 7mm Rem Mag has about 20 - 22 ftlbs of recoil and the 300 Win Mag has about 26 - 29 ftlbs of recoil.
I am not fond of recoil and the older I get the less I enjoy it but one thing that I have noticed and maybe some others will agree with me is that the with 300 Win Mag and and also the 7mm Rem Mag but to a lesser degree don't seem to have as quick a recoil as the 270 but more of a hard shove, still wears you down at the bench though.
Best of luck on your search, you won't go wrong with either caliber.
Last edited:
If you go to heavier bullets in the .300 yes but with both shooting 165s for example, there is only a 216 foot pound advantage for the .300 which doesn't seem to be quite a bit more energy or recoil. Go to heavier bullets in the .300 then yes, the energy and recoil curve goes up for the .300. It's all about comparing apples to apples!
Not sure why you used sectional density in your recoil calculation.....weight in grains is what you need to use. Sectional density is at best an outdated calculation with little practical application in modern bullets.
Last edited:
shortaction
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoulin Island, Ontario
Either you miss understood my post or you have a very different view of ballistics and terminal performance.
I did not use sectional density in the recoil calculations. Bullets weights of equal sectional density where used in the calculations eg. 130gr in 270win, 140gr in 7mm Rem Mag & 165gr 300 Win Mag.
I would have to disagree with your statement that "Sectional density is at best an outdated calculation with little practical application in modern bullets." If anything it is a more reliable with modern bullets than ever as they are made in a more consistent manner. A good example would be the Barnes TSX, as bullets of different calibers, weights and sectional density have very similar rates of expansion at a wide range of velocities and maintain similar percentage of original weight.
I can't recall who it was, maybe "Gatehouse" posted pictures and data from shooting 30 Caliber 130gr TSX @ 3500 fps and 180gr at 3000fps with equal penetration and very similar expansion ratio. So this is an excellent example of sectional density with the 130gr at a SD of .196 needing to be driven at 500fps or 16.7% faster than the 180gr with a SD of .271 to achieve the same penetration.
Anyway like I said originally both the 7mm Rem Mag and the 300 Win Mag are great calibers and he couldn't go to wrong with either.
I see how you came up with your recoil calculations now.....comparing apples to oranges......
SD was a huge factor when all bullets where little more than conical shaped chunks of lead but when controled expansion bullets hit the market, the way the bullet expands/retains weight/etc has much more to do with penetration and performance than sectional density ever will. It is an outdated formula with little real world application for those shooting controlled expansion bullets. There is a bit of usefullness for comparing identical bullets of different weights but as the vast majority of bullets provide adequate penetration and performance in a variety of weights at a variety of speeds, again the formula really has no practicality.
Last edited:
shortaction
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoulin Island, Ontario
Doesn't make much difference on the recoil #'s really.
If you want to compare bullets of the same weight range instead of sectional density.
Using the Hornady 6th Edition reloading manual and an 8.5lb firearm.
7mm Rem Mag
Max velocity for 154gr bullet is 3000 fps which is achievable with 65.7gr powder gives 22.2ftlbs of recoil.
300 Win Mag
Max velocity for 150 - 155gr bullet is 3300 fps which is achievable with 72gr powder gives 25.9ftlbs of recoil.
As he said he didn't reload, I thought it more prudent to use factory ammo numbers........hence the 100fps difference, the nearly equal recoil and energy.
Last edited:
shortaction
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoulin Island, Ontario
What you say is true at the muzzle but velocities of the 130gr tsx and the 180gr tsx will get closer the farther they travel as the ballistic co-efficient is much higher for the 180gr, in fact they will be almost identical at 500 yards.
So not only will the 180gr carry more energy at longer ranges it will out penetrate the 130gr bullet.
shortaction
CGN Regular
- Location
- Manitoulin Island, Ontario
Where did those #'s come from? I have never seen factory ballistics that gave the recoil?
The velocity and bullet weight are only part of the equation and even if the firearms where of the same weight, you also need the powder charge required for each. So your assumption may well be just that!
The Federal website gives the bullet weight and velocity. Through experience I extrapilated the powder charge weight and even if I was a bit off, it is a minor part of the calculation and really wouldn't change the numbers significantly. I understand how to calculate recoil...you seem to be the one having issues with it. If you'll notice above, you'll see I already specified the requirements for calculating recoil......Perhaps reading all the posts in a thread might be an idea!
Last edited:
