Merits of 7mm Rem Mag Vs 338 Win Mag for long range Elk/Moose/Bear cartridge?

Here is 100gr’s of difference in bullet weight, you can see a fairly significant difference in bullet diameter but there is also a very noticeable difference in recoil. One has a noticeably flatter trajectory out to 350 yards, one makes a bigger hole. You can make both act completely differently with different bullet selection and the 7MM will always be able to have a ballistic advantage if you are choosing bullets. Does it matter at normal/common/advisable hunting distances? Probably not. Will people wax eloquently that it will? Probably. Does energy matter on big game? I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t.

I have absolutely flattened game with non CNS hits with both of them. Take your pick.

NTC1R7l.jpg
 
How many game animals would I have to shoot with both to draw that conclusion?

The bottom line? Everything you see here is anecdotal. As a late friend of mine used to say: “no cartridge kills or performs any better than ballistic calculation says it will”.

If you know something different I’d love to hear it.
 
pathfinder76 said:
How many game animals would I have to shoot with both to draw that conclusion?

The bottom line? Everything you see here is anecdotal. As a late friend of mine used to say: “no cartridge kills or performs any better than ballistic calculation says it will”.

If you know something different I’d love to hear it.
Click to expand...

It was a rather rhetorical question of agreement, not challenging you. Hence why I quoted your experience as the bottom line. Gear down, big rig :)

I don't think theres an ounce of practical difference between them. Whether one kills better than the other, we can't really ask dead animals about it.
 
I’m not sure if we can say there is no difference. Who exactly is qualified to do that? Just off the top of my head, I was thinking of two very good Mule Deer bucks that were absolutely flattened by my 7x57. One of them at over 300 yards. I had a black bear run 70 yards after taking a hit from a 375 Ruger. Another giant black bear that took a 200 gr partition through one lung, completely traversed his neck and came to rest at the base of his ear. Myself and hunting partner followed him up, he was still alive and the guy I was with shot him lengthways with a 9.3x62. When I kicked him where he lay he turned and growled at me. The list goes on and on.
 
Last edited:
About as many people as are qualified to say "there absolutely is a difference" I'd suppose.

We can keep it to "practical differences" if that makes it easier. How much money would someone be willing to bet that for their definition of practical difference, one outshines the other?

Animals react different, even with the same bullet/shot placement. And a lot of reasons one bullet may outshine another on different kinds of game.

About the only certainty at the end of the day is if your choice and shot placement means the heart/lungs stop working, they die at the same speed as any other bullet that does the same would make them die. If not, they're gonna live a while regardless of cartridge.
 
Joel, understanding the love for the debate... Bigger holes do kill better. That's why the larger calibers exist. Bigger holes at speed kill best.
Here, in Alberta, on a good year, we have the opportunity to shoot up to 5 or 6 game animals. On a bad year that number can be at least 3 or 4. That's a lot of performance data in one season. Add that up across multiple seasons, and that's a lot of sample size.
A go to rifle for years and years was a 338 with 225 grain bullets going at 2950fps. It got the nod for it's versatility, as at any one time, it could be deer to moose, at any distance. The 225 is a favorite because of the speed. There is no practical advantage in a 250 going slower.
The 7mm, in various chamberings, was also shot for a number of years. A 160 grain at 3000 fps.
Based on the number of animals shot with both, it can be said that the 338 was an absolute hammer on game. Did it kill better? That is certainly what was observed. Was it always required? Nope! Was it worth the extra recoil? Perhaps on a few occasions, with extraneous circumstances.
The 7mm should always get the recommendation over the other two because of this. 30 cals are detested... The calibres on both sides simply outperform. There isn't much in that diameter/class that will out recoil a 300 WM.
My good friend Chuck has basically said he has observed the same, and is well versed in the 7mm as well.
Would it matter to the average guy at average distances? Nope! Is it quantifiable? Nope! Is it a real thing? Definitely.

R.
 
I can nod to that, Rman. And if its what Chuck is saying, that too. Just read it quite oppositely.

With the stated proviso that it won't matter, to the average guy. That's most of the point I was driving at.
 
My hunting partner uses the 338 WM to its fullest. He has shot loads of Elk with it. He also hunts deer with it and takes two to four of them a year. For them he shoots the 225gr SST. If you want to see deer go nowhere, that combo does it.
 
Joel said:
I can nod to that, Rman. And if its what Chuck is saying, that too. Just read it quite oppositely.

With the stated proviso that it won't matter, to the average guy. That's most of the point I was driving at.
Click to expand...

What I’m saying is you are not going to convince anyone of anything. Half of them don’t want to listen anyway. They want affirmation. Not advice. None of what we say here has been proven by anything. I know what I have observed. That’s it. You can’t argue with that. I can’t argue with your observation either. We do it. It’s noise.

But when I walk around where I think a bit extra is warranted I pack my 338. I’ve also shot enough game with both the 225gr and 250gr bullet that I feel there is a noticeable difference in the impact of the 250. Again though, it’s anecdotal.
 
Last edited:
pathfinder76 said:
What I’m saying is you are not going to convince anyone of anything. Half of them don’t want to listen anyway. They want affirmation. Not advice. None of what we say here has been proven be anything. I know what I have observed. That’s it. You can’t argue with that. I can’t argue with your observation either. We do it. It’s noise.

But when I walk around where I think a bit extra is warranted I pack my 338. I’ve also shot enough game with both the 225gr and 250gr bullet that I feel there is a noticeable difference in the impact of the 250. Again though, it’s anecdotal.
Click to expand...

Got ya Chuck! Anecdotal counts.
 
Northern Shooter said:
I'm looking to add a longer range cartridge to the arsenal that can reach out further than the 308/30-06 that can still take big game.

I think I have it narrowed down to these two choices. What are the pros/cons of each? Is there anything the 7mm Mag does better than the 338WM, other than price?
Click to expand...

Hi Northern Shooter, as always when there is an honest inquiry like this it generates a wide range of feedback. FWIW I'll share my experience and opinion.

The 7mm, all of the fast 300's and the 338wm will all do what you are asking.

From my experience, recoil is highly subjective and can be vary significantly based on the rifle, stock, bullet weight, load, etc. Having said that the 7mmRM, all things being equal, will shoot the softest, with the 300 and 338 almost indistinguishable apart from the 338 being more of a push and the 300 more of a punch. Again, this has been my experience and I am fairly recoil tolerant. And in my view none of them kick hard enough to be an issue.

My only knock on the 7mm is the bloodshot, when a bullet gets over 3000fps it seems to bloodshot more, I experienced this from butchering dump trucks worth of game. On the positive, in my view, the bc and sd of the bullet is great in the higher weight for caliber end of the range. And the ballistics on paper are great.

The fast 300's and I group them all together as here really is not that much difference between them; again blood shot in the meat, ballistics on paper as good as the 7mmRM, but the bc and sd of the .30 caliber projectile is just not as good as the 6.5 to 7mm range or the .338. But if you already have a 308 0r 3006 why bother?

The 338wm, with 250's has bc and sd in the good range, mine trundles along around 2750. It doesn't seem to be affected by the wind as much, one can eat up to the hole, and I know from experience it takes game cleanly up tp 500 yards.

Someone should put a ballistics chart up pretty soon but the difference between the 3 in trajectory is not meaningful, that is the difference in holdover between 7 and 9 inches at 300 yards is not material and while I cannot recall off the top of my head the holdovers at 4 and 500 are similar. I use a ballistic reticle, too me the difference at range on the reticle is moot.

Anyway, good luck with your quest and please post when you decide. Again FWIW you can't really go wrong with any of them it should really come down to finding that perfect stock fit in a rifle or building one like I did.

If you are seeking a step up for the moose, elk, bear end of things I would offer that the 338wm is probably the best choice.
 
This debate sure comes up often. I don't have extensive experience with 7 rem mag or 338 win but given the choice I'd go with the 7 rem mag. I'm not overly recoil sensitive but I do find it easier to shoot lower recoil more accurately all else being equal.

I went through a similar debate last year after using 308 pretty much exclusively for many years. It worked just fine for moose hunting but I wanted something a little more capable at longer range.
I ended up going with 7PRC, which is more or less similar to 7 rem mag I guess.
 
If the 7RM Is being considered and the 300Win tossed in for good measure between it and the 338WM. I’m surprised no-one has mentioned the 280AI as another viable option.
 
I’ve shot both for many years and they’re both good choices.
Just how many rounds I’ve put through each became glaring evident when I started sorting decapping and tumbling my spent brass.
The smartest thing Remington ever did was pirate the 264 or 338 case and make it a 28 bore.
Guess it was payback for Winchester killing the 6mm Remington with the 243 Winchester
 
Also going back 40-45 years just about 100 percent of the factory ammo sold for the 7mm RM in my area was 175 grain CorLokt.
Great moose medicine but lots of complaints about its performance on smaller whitetail deer.
On whitetail deer 150 grain 30 calibers performed better as did the 130 grain 270’s.
Maybe it was just bad shooting but there may be some truth to too much bullet for one application.
 
Joel said:
Too slow and tough to expand well in lighter framed animals like a deer?
Click to expand...

Basically yes.
If you disregard diameter then a 175 grain 28 caliber equates to roughly a 220 grain 30 caliber.
Pretty much the same as the old 160 grain 270’s.
Not saying a 220 grain 30 cal won’t flatten a whitetail but it’s likely not the first choice for thinner skinned game.
 
I've been enjoying reading this debate.

As someone who generally subscribes to the "bigger is better" philosophy and preferring to be left with too much rather than too little in extreme scenarios, I'm leaning towards the 338WM.

As this will be used on larger game elk/moose/bear and eventually African plains game, I'd like to err if the side of caution and go with the heavier hitter.

I still like the idea of owning a 7mm but if it's primarily used for deer at range I feel likely I'm currently covered with my 6.5x55, 308 and 30.06.
 
Last edited:
The answer is always more guns!

338 win will def treat you right here and abroad so there's really no losing any way you go
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom