300WSM V 7mm RM

sureshot66 said:
Rral22, you can go ahead and shoot those 180 and 200 tsx bullets out of your 300 Win mag and I will be sticking with 140 tsx out of my 7mm mag. Personally, I don't see the need to be suffering from Raccoon eyes because I got my lights punched out by my scope only to find out I missed because I was scared of the gun and flinched badly. The original topic was to see how the 2 stacked up against each other and for the most part I don't see the clear advantage of one over the other in real world hunting situations.
Click to expand...

Really? You're that afraid of the .300 Win? Too bad.

I don't see any difference between 140 grain 7mm Rem and 140 grain .270 or .280. I DO see a difference between 140 grain from any of them, and a 200 grain from a .300 Win on animals bigger than deer. If you don't see any difference, and from your description of what you think shooting a .300 is like, maybe you're right to just stick to the 7mm.
 
Yeah, I think I will stick with my 7mm there rral22. I have owned both guns so I
KNOW that I can speak from experience-if you can say the same great but my guess is that you are one of those armchair experts who reads ballistic data tables and tells everyone what works and does not. Let's just let the initial poster of this thread make up their own mind as to which one of the 2 they like better since some good points on both have been brought up already and leave it at that.
 
sureshot66 said:
Yeah, I think I will stick with my 7mm there rral22. I have owned both guns so I
KNOW that I can speak from experience-if you can say the same great but my guess is that you are one of those armchair experts who reads ballistic data tables and tells everyone what works and does not. Let's just let the initial poster of this thread make up their own mind as to which one of the 2 they like better since some good points on both have been brought up already and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Well, just like some other guesses you seem to have made, that is wrong too. So you are suggesting that you "know" that a .300 Win cannot be shot without developing a flinch and getting black eyes? Is that right? Your "experience" proves that to you? No one with any legitimate experience shooting and hunting with a .300 Win will be so silly.

Come on, man! Reality! There are many thousands of .300 Win rifles out there being used by thousands of hunters and target shooters who cannot be identified by their nervous ticks, or their blackened eyes. YOU are the only person I know who thinks he is going to get his "lights punched out" by a .300 Win. It just makes you look adolescent. What must you think of the .338 Win? I guess no one on the planet could shoot THAT, right?

You need to stop projecting your own fears, dislikes, inexperience, and failures onto others. I agree we need to let the OP make up his own mind. What I am trying to do is make sure he has some real information with which to do just that, rather than fear mongering hyperbole resulting from inexperience and bias.
 
I know a few guys shooting 300 and they do it very well and there is no doubt on its performance. I have owned 300 mag and find the 7mm much more comfortable to shoot so yes I will stick to it. You should read your initial quote on this topic because you seem to jump around a bit on opinions. You can also keep on shooting those 200tsx bullets out of your 300mag at all those Grizzlies and Polar bears that lurk in the wheat fields of Saskatchewan-good luck.
-
rral22 said:
If you knew nothing about your gun, you could use either one for the rest of your life, and you would never be able to tell which one you owned if all you had to judge from were the results on game that you shot.

You are agonizing over a choice that is almost irrelevant. All the differences in how they "stack up" are tiny "paper differences" that will not be detectable in any hunting situation. Pick the rifle you like and live with whatever the size of the hole in the barrel happens to be.
Click to expand...
 
sureshot66 said:
I know a few guys shooting 300 and they do it very well and there is no doubt on its performance. I have owned 300 mag and find the 7mm much more comfortable to shoot so yes I will stick to it. You should read your initial quote on this topic because you seem to jump around a bit on opinions. You can also keep on shooting those 200tsx bullets out of your 300mag at all those Grizzlies and Polar bears that lurk in the wheat fields of Saskatchewan-good luck.
-
Click to expand...

You're about 19, right?

Personally, I don't see the need to be suffering from Raccoon eyes because I got my lights punched out by my scope only to find out I missed because I was scared of the gun and flinched badly.
Click to expand...

That is an absurd thing to say, and indicates irrational fear of the cartridge. I don't want anyone to think that has any connection with reality.

I also said
I don't see any difference between 140 grain 7mm Rem and 140 grain .270 or .280. I DO see a difference between 140 grain from any of them, and a 200 grain from a .300 Win on animals bigger than deer.
Click to expand...

Try using heavy for caliber bullets (175 gr. perhaps) in the 7mm, and it will have little difference in performance compared to the 180 grain in the .300 mag. If your fear of recoil makes it essential you use the 140 in the 7mm as the heaviest you can shoot, then I really do maintain there is a significant difference between the lighter bullets in the 7mm and the heavy bullets in the .300. There is a large difference in capability within the 7mm caliber that can only be utilized by using heavier bullets. A 150 grain .30 caliber bullet makes the .300 Win a lesser round as well. (Although maybe you could shoot it because of the reduction in recoil)

I think the whole point of a magnum of any caliber is to shoot heavy for caliber bullets as fast as the "standard" round shoot the lighter ones, so you can maintain excellent trajectories and deliver serious energy at range. A 7mm Mag with 140 grain bullets is just a loud mouthed .280. You are wasting its potential, especially for large game like elk and moose.

But what do I know compared with someone who is obviously afraid of the .300 Win.?
 
rral22 said:
If you knew nothing about your gun, you could use either one for the rest of your life, and you would never be able to tell which one you owned if all you had to judge from were the results on game that you shot.

You are agonizing over a choice that is almost irrelevant. All the differences in how they "stack up" are tiny "paper differences" that will not be detectable in any hunting situation. Pick the rifle you like and live with whatever the size of the hole in the barrel happens to be.[/QUOTE

Not much more I can add beyond this.
Click to expand...
 
sureshot66 said:
]If you knew nothing about your gun, you could use either one for the rest of your life, and you would never be able to tell which one you owned if all you had to judge from were the results on game that you shot.

You are agonizing over a choice that is almost irrelevant. All the differences in how they "stack up" are tiny "paper differences" that will not be detectable in any hunting situation. Pick the rifle you like and live with whatever the size of the hole in the barrel happens to be.[/QUOTE

Not much more I can add beyond this.
Click to expand...

Great. We agree.
 
Good call on the "paper differences" wasnt asking for that ####, more real hand experience, im short 170 odd cm an weigh not much more than a little whitetail doe :D

Having light guns in bigger cals definatley throws me around a bit, but my friend who is a fair bit older an built a bit bigger can shoot a 300wm no worries minute of deer out to 400 i've seen.. had it of been me with my A bolt WSM i dont think i'd have been able to handle a accurate shot under recoil for such a distance...
Of course i will try a softer recoil pad.

I handle the 35 whelen without many dramas in the field its about where im comfy enough with recoil, its woodstocked which also absorbs a tad more.
but the 35 whelen isnt what i want to be shooting deer out to 300 odd so hence the reason i bought a 300 but im now thinking of goin down to a proven distance cal the 7mm..

we got that?
 
It is primarily a Sambar Deer rig, which are quite tough animals, can soak up shots an push on. Similar to Elk..
the 300wsm is a popular sambar cartridge here, but most common is 308 an 3006.
 
silhop said:
The difference in the these calibers is close enough that it comes down to the quality of rifle from which the round is fired from. If you are a competition shooter that notices a difference in accuracy based on how much time you spent cleaning your rifle then maybe you would notice the slight difference between these two cartridges.
I shoot a 300wsm and the compact action really is a pleasure to cycle through when taking down game. If you own a 7MMrm then save your money and keep shooting it, if your looking for a new rifle all together i'd be suggesting a lightweight rifle to help exploit the short action 300wsm. My one and only gun shop more readily has 300wsm brass than 7mmRM brass, and we are way the hell north of most in canada. I see the 300wsm as the modern equivalent for the trust 300wm.
Click to expand...
Light rifles(eg T3 lite) and 300 win mag dont work well together.
 
rral22 said:
Well, just like some other guesses you seem to have made, that is wrong too. So you are suggesting that you "know" that a .300 Win cannot be shot without developing a flinch and getting black eyes? Is that right? Your "experience" proves that to you? No one with any legitimate experience shooting and hunting with a .300 Win will be so silly.

Come on, man! Reality! There are many thousands of .300 Win rifles out there being used by thousands of hunters and target shooters who cannot be identified by their nervous ticks, or their blackened eyes. YOU are the only person I know who thinks he is going to get his "lights punched out" by a .300 Win. It just makes you look adolescent. What must you think of the .338 Win? I guess no one on the planet could shoot THAT, right?

You need to stop projecting your own fears, dislikes, inexperience, and failures onto others. I agree we need to let the OP make up his own mind. What I am trying to do is make sure he has some real information with which to do just that, rather than fear mongering hyperbole resulting from inexperience and bias.
Click to expand...
The difference in recoil is quite noticeable. At the range we compared 7 mm rem mag and 300 win mag in T3 lites and the difference in recoil was noticeable. A 7mm rem mag in a T3 lite is a nice light gun. The 300 win mag's recoil is obnoxious in a T3 lite. One would expect some improved performance along with that recoil.
 
First I'll say I have owned a 7mmRM for 30 years and love the caliber.

I feel the 30cal magnums, the 300WSM a short action version of the tested and true 300WM, have more brute force on large game in short to moderate range. If the game is to be taken at long range, the higher BC .284" bullet will usually catch up, and will penetrate as deep or deeper.

Problem is this,.........the range where this starts to catch up usually is outside the range most of us can reliably shoot in the field.

Both are great killers on all NA non -dangerous game. The 7mmRM will have alot more ammo choices available locally both premium and economical. If you stock up on ammo and don't mind paying a little extra, or you reload, the 300WSM, would be a fine choice. I've seen it's accuracy displayed on this forum by many who love it and shoot it, and it seems very impressive.

A good comparison apples to apples is use Winchesters online Ballistic's calulator, select both with their heaviest Xp3, set 200 zero, press shoot, and it will give a good comparison ballistically between the two. You will notice the 300 adds 100 yds to the 7mm's energy.
I push 7mm 175's faster handloading than these Winchester factory 160's, but in factory ammo, this is a very safe comparison of both cartridges potential.

I always found this calculator to be a good representation of any particular cartridges built-in inherent horsepower capabilities. When it comes to handloadin for comparisons, the sky's the limit.:)
 
Jordan Smith said:
^Some good points, but factory ammo is that last thing I would use as an indicator of what the 7RM is capable of. Just saying.
Click to expand...

I agree fully Jordan,..... my 7mmRM handloads are way ahead of modern day factory fodder, but to bring those into a ballistic comparison, opens up endless debates over pressure's , barrel life, etc. The 7mmRM has been somewhat neutered in factory ammo for years, but in the end there is better barrel life and the cartridge will do the job fully with the throttle backed off a bit. This data and loads is what most will have to live with.

If I'm not mistaken, and please correct me if you have a link to old published factory data, but didn't the 7mmRemington Magnum factory loads in the 1960s and early 70s, drive 175gr @ 3070 fps in 24" bbl?

Seems thats what I always based the cartridge on 35 years ago, but because of throat erosion Remington reduced pressures to drive them at 2860. Can anyone prove those old ballistics true or did I dream those many moons ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom