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

So I'm gonna just go ahead and ignore what everyone else has said so far and chime in on the original post. If you have a .30-06 in the stable already, in a package that can extract some velocity from the old girl (22-24" barrel), and you handload (this is important), I'm not sure you're going to get a ton more performance with a 7-mag. I've been loading .30-06 with newer and newer technology bullets and powders and loading well beyond published COAL and the numbers are no slouch. I like the 180gr bullet weight, and am loading the 175 LRX to 3.38" and averaging 2840fps out of a 22" barrel with StaBALL 6.5. No pressure signs (push-feed Model 70). Lots of recoil, but also a lot of performance.

That said, I'm a big 7-mag fanboy and seem to always have at least one in the safe (a T3X currently) and won't let you talk yourself out of a new gun! I've used 7-mag on moose and elk, factory 160gr partitions and 175gr power points worked fine for me. You can also throw away the loading manual with their 3.290" COAL requirements and really get the 7-mag spitting some fire.

I have to temper this with the disclaimer that I've never owned a .338 Win Mag before. I have owned many .300 Win Mags and a couple .300 Wby Mags (currently a Mark V in .300 Wby Mag) and I've just never had a scenario come up where I wouldn't take one of those instead.
 
As somebody who had the same choice, all those years ago, I say get yourself a .338WM!

I shot my first 4 bull moose with a .30-06, which I handloaded with 180gr Nos Part's. That rifle is a M700, which I still have, but mostly only use for deer now.

Then I decided I needed a larger caliber and the .338WM (to me) was the obvious choice. That was in 1987 and the rifle I bought was a M700 BDL, 24" barrel.
In the .338WM I handloaded 225gr Nos Part's. I shot another 14 bull moose with that rifle (and then 1 more with the .30-06 in between). Of course I still have that rifle also.

In 2010 I dumped a 50" bull with my .416RM, hit that bull twice with perfect center lung shots and my buddy put a 250gr Nos Part from his .338WM in it, in between my 2 shots. And it was no deader than anything I ever shot with my .30-06.

The most spectacular kill shots I've seen on bull moose were both with the .30-06. But I'd still take the .338WM over the .30-06 any day.

On top of the 21 bulls I've shot with those rifles, my hunting partners took I don't know how many other bulls. So I've seen a 'few' bull moose shot. I've 'feathered' a couple as well but that's off topic...

I don't know why people blather away about recoil. It only matters on the shooting bench. In a hunting situation recoil is never noticed.

I also don't understand why anybody wants to shoot critters at long range. Having the ability to shoot long range is a different discussion of course, and long range is subject to debate. I consider 300 yards long range. The longest shot on a bull moose that I've made was 280 paces, the closest shot was 8'... so close I simply held the rifle at my hip as it ran by me.

Personally I'd way rather call a bull moose in close, like 25 yards if I can. The closer the better.

And bears to me should be stalked to close range as well.
 
At the bench and in practice is where flinches are made though lol.

Can't say I'm in the "don't feel recoil when hunting" camp although its never been a problem. Guess I just don't hit fight or flight levels of stress or concentrate so hard that i don't feel things that happen to me lol. Since 99.9% of the time I'm not shooting at game, kinda rather just avoid some of it.

Your experiences with all of the above calibers are fascinating man, thanks for posting. Jives really well with the sig.

Never saw anything kill a moose in a practically decisively deader/faster way than a 30-06 here either, and really made me lose my interest in continuing to chase em with bigger rifles.
 
Joel said:
At the bench and in practice is where flinches are made though lol.
Click to expand...

+1 on many levels…

Every year it’s the same thing. Someone shows up at the range with a new rig touting the “Big animal, big cartridge required” mentality and once they start slinging lead down range, it’s easy to see they are or are becoming recoil intolerant in a hurry. Some of these folk are taking shots at game and distances they have no biz doing so, relying on the big bullet/energy theory a little too much.

Then again.. I’ve seen equal amounts of under-gunned hunters hoping to rely on the speed/trajectory of the latest wonder Cal and not put the bench time in for accurate and consistent shot placement. Then wonder why they’ve lost an animal because a smaller Cal didn’t do the job properly…

Six and one half doz of the other I suppose.

Simple truth is, know your Cal, know it’s drop at range and most of all know your consistent/repeatable distance.
 
Bench or shooting time cures tender shoulders. You don’t need to be abusive to yourself, but practicing fixes a bunch of shooting woes.
 
conor_90 said:
Trust me Joel, no one wants to "debate" you

I just can't resist an easy target.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Whatever you say, doll.

Love how you guys follow me around.

Still waiting for the difference between shooting em with 7mm and 338 wm. Must be so profound
 
Last edited:
ShrtRnd said:
+1 on many levels…

Every year it’s the same thing. Someone shows up at the range with a new rig touting the “Big animal, big cartridge required” mentality and once they start slinging lead down range, it’s easy to see they are or are becoming recoil intolerant in a hurry. Some of these folk are taking shots at game and distances they have no biz doing so, relying on the big bullet/energy theory a little too much.

Then again.. I’ve seen equal amounts of under-gunned hunters hoping to rely on the speed/trajectory of the latest wonder Cal and not put the bench time in for accurate and consistent shot placement. Then wonder why they’ve lost an animal because a smaller Cal didn’t do the job properly…

Six and one half doz of the other I suppose.

Simple truth is, know your Cal, know it’s drop at range and most of all know your consistent/repeatable distance.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Most of us (with heavy emphasis on "most") can agree that when meeting in the middle of those extremes, it really doesn't matter which cartridge you pick. That middle ground is up to the task and then some.


pathfinder76 said:
Bench or shooting time cures tender shoulders. You don’t need to be abusive to yourself, but practicing fixes a bunch of shooting woes.
Click to expand...

It absolutely does. And practicing with something that pushes yourself a bit too. Dry fire and 22s only get you so far, when you pick up something that has some mustard on it. Like you said, not killing yourself or being abusive but...a bit of challenge is good.

The difference becomes very apparent after putting in the work.
 
Joel said:
Absolutely.

Most of us (with heavy emphasis on "most") can agree that when meeting in the middle of those extremes, it really doesn't matter which cartridge you pick. That middle ground is up to the task and then some.


It absolutely does. And practicing with something that pushes yourself a bit too. Dry fire and 22s only get you so far, when you pick up something that has some mustard on it. Like you said, not killing yourself or being abusive but...a bit of challenge is good.

The difference becomes very apparent after putting in the work.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I’d like to see a thread on LRH setups, gear etc without a Cals involved on here at some point. Afraid it would probably derail pretty quickly with the usual this is better than that because getting thrown in..
 
Northern Shooter said:
Is there anything the 7mm Mag does better than the 338WM, other than price?
Click to expand...
IMO, no. I bought my Ruger No 1 .338 new in the late 80's and used it hunting exclusively. In the mid 90's I bought a used Ruger No1 in 7MM, shot it a little then sold it when I realize that it doesn't do anything that my .338 doesn't do better. The load I use in my .338 shoots a 225 at 2900FPS and I have to shed over 50 grains of bullet weight to achieve that with the 7. If memory serves, my .338 sighted at 1" high at 100 yards shoots around 1" low @ 300 (someone can check the ballistics on that if they like, I am going by memory from a LONG time ago). Anything I want to shoot out to 300 yards is hold where I want to hit and squeeze the trigger. Having said that, I only shot an animal @ 300 yards once and that was prone with LOTS of time in a place where I KNEW with 100 percent certainty the range. I rarely shoot game over 100 yards and prefer 50. If one is sensitive to recoil then perhaps something smaller might have an advantage. Calibre become irrelevant when you flinch so bad that you can't hit anything. I know for me that pretty much every animal I ever shot would have been just as dead if I had used a .270 but I LIKE my .338. The key, IMO is being able to hit where you aim EVERY TIME. Calibre (within reason) is secondary. BTW, IMO the .208 and 30-06 have plenty of knockdown power on big game at reasonable ranges. Nothing wrong with buying more guns for any reason but if people did more "hunting" and less "snipeing" there would be a lot fewer crippled animals limping around the bush in the fall.
 
ShrtRnd said:
Agreed, I’d like to see a thread on LRH setups, gear etc without a Cals involved on here at some point. Afraid it would probably derail pretty quickly with the usual this is better than that because getting thrown in..
Click to expand...

LRH is problematic... because "long range" means different things to different people. There is a whole crowd against it, as some think 100 yards is too far. As far as what is better, it's just like this thread... completely subjective. The chamberings involved would vary as much as the distances. It could be a good thread, but, they all could be! They just aren't.
Give the thread a go? It would be interesting to see peoples evolution, as far as chambering choices, rifles, equipment, and total rig weights.

R.
 
Agreed with you on the possible variables involved in LRH, yet that would make an interesting conversation if we could keep it within the bounds of what I suggested.

Rman said:
LRH is problematic... because "long range" means different things to different people. There is a whole crowd against it, as some think 100 yards is too far. As far as what is better, it's just like this thread... completely subjective. The chamberings involved would vary as much as the distances. It could be a good thread, but, they all could be! They just aren't.
Give the thread a go? It would be interesting to see peoples evolution, as far as chambering choices, rifles, equipment, and total rig weights.

R.
Click to expand...
 
I only wish there was that magic flat to 300 cartridge but alas try 2 inches high at 100 zero at 200 and about 8 inches low at 300
Oddly enough that applies to a lot of different rounds.
Gravity not a suggestion. It’s the law!!
 
It might be the law, but it can be manipulated.

7mgx3d4.png
 
Northern Shooter said:
For common 30cal weights, see below:

150 grain .308 has a SD of .226
180 grain .308 has a SD of .271
220 grain .308 has a SD of .331

So the more common 150-180 range of 30 cals don't have all that great SD's but once you get up into the heavies with a 30.06/300WM it has comparable SD to the .416 calibers.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. If all the successful cartridges and weights used in them and on which types of game...you start to find the patterns of what works in the numbers not the Cat method of just throw enough and you’ll be fine. Well we’ve always done that, and we’ve always had non stop discussions around what ‘enough’ is. Takes up piles of bandwidth and is good entertainment but some of us just like to plan, and just understand, from more objective info.

I’m not a 30 cal fan either although I started with 30-06 and because of what you just posted on sd is why it was 150’s for deer and grab those 165 or 180 silvertips for when we go after bear. So 1980’s. A half century later we’re getting better at this.😉
 
DOUGLAS D said:
I only wish there was that magic flat to 300 cartridge but alas try 2 inches high at 100 zero at 200 and about 8 inches low at 300
Oddly enough that applies to a lot of different rounds.
Gravity not a suggestion. It’s the law!!
Click to expand...

28 Nosler with 162gr Hornady Precision Hunter ammo zeroed at 200 gives you +1.2"@100 and -5.4"@300. If you push the zero out to 250 you get +2.4"@100 and -2.8"@300. That's pretty close to perfect for 99% of hunters in open country. Even the old 300 Winchester with a 200gr Precision Hunter bullet will stay within an 8" MPBR out to 300+ yards, though it's not as flat as the bit 7mm cartridges. 7mm really does offer the best of both worlds...flat trajectory and shootability.
 
Using Nosler's data for their ammunition: (using common bullet weights here that most people will buy for most big game as a compromise of speed, flat shooting, energy and recoil vs the heavier bullet weights with the higher Sds required for maximum penetration.)

7mm Rem Mag w/ 160 gr AccuBond:
VELOCITY (FPS)
Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
3000 2818 2643 2474 2312 2156 2006 1862 1726
ENERGY (FT-LBS)
Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
3197 2820 2481 2175 1899 1651 1429 1232 1058
DROP IN INCHES (100 YRD ZERO)
Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-1.5 0 -2.9 -10.8 -24.3 -44.4 -71.9 -108.1 -154.4
DROP IN INCHES (200 YRD ZERO)
Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-1.5 1.4 0 -6.4 -18.5 -37.2 -63.3 -98.1 -142.9

338 Win Mag w/ 225gr AccuBond:
VELOCITY (FPS)
Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
2750 2585 2427 2274 2126 1984 1849 1719 1597
ENERGY (FT-LBS)
Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
3777 3339 2942 2583 2259 1968 1707 1477 1274
DROP IN INCHES (100 YRD ZERO)
Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-1.5 0 -3.7 -13.3 -29.7 -53.7 -86.6 -129.6 -184.5
DROP IN INCHES (200 YRD ZERO)
Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-1.5 1.9 0 -7.8 -22.3 -44.4 -75.5 -116.7 -169.7
(Sorry, tables skewed a bit w/ cut and paste.)

At 500 yards, the 7mm is at 2156 fps w/1651 ft.lbs of energy and down 37.2".
Whereas the 338 is at 1984 fps w/ 1968 ft.lbs of energy and down 44.4".

With a dial or a BDC type reticle, it will just be put the reticle or appropriate drop reticle on the target and shoot. With a duplex, you are having to guess holdover to reliably put a bullet in the 10" vital zone of an animal that has a chest that averages 30" deep from top of shoulder to brisket. And easier said than done at distances under or over 500 yards (e.g., 472 or 518 yards).

The difference on game is going to be the remaining energy that will allow it to penetrate and expand reliably for a quick, clean kill.
On an elk, both can do the job; the 338 will do it with more authority! (and I have used both on elk at various ranges...the 7mm will get the job done, whereas the 338 just does it more effectively and efficiently! I have had rutting elk hit through both lungs and the heart and not even flinch, even though they are dead on their feet. I have never had an elk shrug off a good hit with the 338. They all showed immediate signs of distress.

On a bison...well the 7mm does make the grade as per the regulatory requirement unless with a 175gr bullet, and must still be packing 2000 ft. lbs of energy at the animal.
 
BlackRam,

THIS is the kinda thing I like hearing about! Thanks!

Have the 7mm RM kills traveled farther, been harder to recover, etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom