300 or 7mm mag?

Which one

  • 300 win mag

    Votes: 71 50.4%

  • 7mm Rem mag

    Votes: 46 32.6%

  • Other (SPECIFY)

    Votes: 24 17.0%
  • Total voters
    141
I've found the .300 to have noticeably more recoil than the 7mm when loaded with 180gr and 160 gr Partitions respectively, although I do load them close to their full potential. I've fired both in the same rifle back to back: Voere Titan II. Mind you, niether one bothers me.

I have an insert for the .300 WM which allows me to use a .32 ACP round for grouse and rabbits, and I find that quite handy.
 
I shot a 32acp round out of a 300 WM insert, into a block of firewood at 15 yards. Penetration approx 2" - not a good flattop bullet

A 7mm Mag is more pleasant to shoot all things being equal, compared to a 300 Mag. 300 Mag burns 10 grains more powder and/or pushes a heavier bullet. Physics! :)
 
todbartell said:
I shot a 32acp round out of a 300 WM insert, into a block of firewood at 15 yards. Penetration approx 2" - not a good flattop bullet
A 7mm Mag is more pleasant to shoot all things being equal, compared to a 300 Mag. 300 Mag burns 10 grains more powder and/or pushes a heavier bullet. Physics! :)
Click to expand...

FMJ? I would have guessed it would penetrate more. I've shot them though 3 or 4 inch saplings from that range. I should find a flat nose bullet to reload. The round nose FMJ zings through small game pretty quickly, so you need a head or spine shot to keep them from buggering off some distance.
 
Im pretty sure it was a FMJ, American eagle factory ammo. It was a couple years ago. I laughed when I saw how far it went into the log :D
 
todbartell said:
A 7mm Mag is more pleasant to shoot all things being equal, compared to a 300 Mag. 300 Mag burns 10 grains more powder and/or pushes a heavier bullet. Physics! :)
Click to expand...

10 grains powder difference and 100 more fps and same weight bullet....pretty minor recoil difference....physics! :D
 
sheephunter said:
Should be somewhere around 23.3 and 20.8........as I said......pretty minimal difference.
Click to expand...

Ok my #'s come in a bit higher with a bit more spread but even at your #'s the 300 Win Mag comes in with 12% more recoil which in my mind is substantial but apparently your tolerance for recoil is much higher than mine if you find it minimal.

I think we have hijacked this thread enough, to each their own, lets move on.
 
Last edited:
Unless you really get bogged own with this recoil turmoil.....I'd get a 45/70 and work on loads that can really deliver knockdown, far superior to any of the above guns. The heavier WFN and LFN hardcast bullet designs and healthy doses of RL-7, H-335, AA2015, will make you forget about those 7mms,etc. A 420 gr. Wide flat nose GC bullet at 2000fps really gets the animal's and the shooters' attention. Most moose and elk are shot at close range, and with a magazine full of those you're ready for anything.
 
Riffer said:
Thanks guys, but I dont really want a 338 I just find their to big

and Im not big on the single shots, but thanks anyways
Click to expand...

If you haven't shot a .338, I'd advise you to try one before writing it off. They don't kick nearly as bad as most people think. If you can shoot a .300 Win Mag, you can shoot a .338 Win mag.


As to the recoil differences, a 7mm Rem Mag is quite close to a .30-06 in felt recoil (its a hair heavier, but very close). A .300 kicks quite a bit harder, but not at all intolerable.

If you already have a .270, buying a 7mm Mag is only buying a pinch more. The .300 is a bigger jump up, and the .338 a bit more still. Realistically they will all kill moose and elk just fine, but the .300 and .338 offer a much bigger jump up from a .270 than a 7mm Mag does.

Instead of deciding which one to get, just buy one of each and try them all and report back on which works best:D.
 
sheephunter said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but as a means of comparison I disagree. Most modern bullets are designed to expand leaving 2/3 of the shank intact. If we compare four 160 gr bullets, of similar construction and shape; a 6.5, a .270, a 7mm, and a .308 we see that the bullets with the larger SD's are longer, thus the expanded frontal area will be larger because that section of the bullet designed to expand is longer. If each bullet impacts at the same velocity, the bullet with the highest SD will produce the largest wound volume in similar mediums.
 
Is it also true that smaller bullets at higher velocities cause an inordinate amount of meat damage because they travel a fair distance in the carcass?
Boomer said:
I see your point, but as a means of comparison I disagree. Most modern bullets are designed to expand leaving 2/3 of the shank intact. If we compare four 160 gr bullets, of similar construction and shape; a 6.5, a .270, a 7mm, and a .308 we see that the bullets with the larger SD's are longer, thus the expanded frontal area will be larger because that section of the bullet designed to expand is longer. If each bullet impacts at the same velocity, the bullet with the highest SD will produce the largest wound volume in similar mediums.
Click to expand...
 
mackillan said:
Is it also true that smaller bullets at higher velocities cause an inordinate amount of meat damage because they travel a fair distance in the carcass?
Click to expand...

Bullet inflicted damage to game is a function of construction, impact velocity, and bullet placement. If the bullet expands to .60" the shank diameter has little to do with the wound volume. GS Custom in RSA is a maker of mono-metal bullets similar to the Barnes TSX, and they have pics of game shot with a 45 gr .224 bullet from a cartridge that is essentially a .22/06 with a MV of nearly 5000 fps. They claim the game drops as if hit by lightning with less meat damage than the same game shot with 100 gr .243's. Me being a fancier of heavy for caliber bullets at moderate velocity, sees that a brave new world in bullet performance could be emerging.
 
Boomer said:
I see your point, but as a means of comparison I disagree. Most modern bullets are designed to expand leaving 2/3 of the shank intact. If we compare four 160 gr bullets, of similar construction and shape; a 6.5, a .270, a 7mm, and a .308 we see that the bullets with the larger SD's are longer, thus the expanded frontal area will be larger because that section of the bullet designed to expand is longer. If each bullet impacts at the same velocity, the bullet with the highest SD will produce the largest wound volume in similar mediums.
Click to expand...

You'll see that I did say there is a usefulness of comparing identical bullets of different weights but even with similar bullets, there are still too many variables in expansion for SD to be an accurate formula. Once we put a jacket on bullets, SD became basically obsolete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom