Author Topic: 7mm Rem mag vs. 300 Win mag (Read 6067 times)

jasonprox700 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 01, 2007, 07:22:42 AM »

My personel choice would be the .300. I already own a .280, my dad owns a 7mm. I would pick the .280 over the 7mm. I relaod, so I can load the .280 up to the 7mm level. But I would still get the .300 over the 7mm anyday.

Mr. Joe · « **Reply #31 on:** February 02, 2007, 03:13:22 AM »

Get some Big 7dies and cook up some loads for that baby! They get REAl hot with some of the handloads ive seen! I do like a .280 though, i have been looking for the right deal on a 77 for a while.

As far as the Big 7 and .300, pick your poison. There is nothing one can do that the other cant. Their diference is purely acedimic. I like the 7mag myself and have known of big brownies fall to its roar rather unceremoniusly when the shot is proper. It kicks alot less in the rifles that i have fired. Ill put it like this, the big 7 is one of my all time favs. The .300 can take that as a compliment because they are so so close. Take what you like, and practice practice practice!

My vote is for the Big 7.

jasonprox700 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 02, 2007, 01:45:05 PM »

Mr. Joe, my .280 is in the 77. Awesome shooting rifle. My most accurate loads were with the 140 Grain Sierra Gamekings. My only complaint was the bullet opened too fast at ranges under 200 yards when loaded hot. You will not be disappointed!

qajaq59 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 03, 2007, 04:34:57 AM »

I've owned, reloaded, and shot both. Preferred the 300 by a slim margin.

Ahab · « **Reply #34 on:** February 03, 2007, 06:01:48 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on February 01, 2007, 04:41:58 AM

NOTHING BEATS CUBIC INCHES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
300 WIN

Tell that to Honda at the Indy.

JerryNH · « **Reply #35 on:** February 03, 2007, 02:19:51 PM »

The 7 mm magnum has been my favorite since the 80's!

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #36 on:** February 03, 2007, 02:32:49 PM »

I shoot a 7mm mag and it likes 100 gr for .75 grps at 100. 139gr 1.00 at 100 and 165g 1.25 at 100. Have no stats at longer yards. However the next step is a 338 which will shoot awsome groupes with 225's. To me the 300 is a wanabee, compared to the 338, when you have a 7mm mag. Your pick if you just want one.
Jim

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #37 on:** February 03, 2007, 02:49:24 PM »

A few years ago when shopping for a hunting rifle I researched the ballistics of the 7mag and just couldn't find any real benefit over a 270win. Well now I own a 300wby for my big boomer. The 7mag is for people who just want to see a belt but don't want any of the other nastiness associated with belted magnums, recoil, blast, cost ECT

Drilling Man · « **Reply #38 on:** February 04, 2007, 05:40:22 AM »

Quote

A few years ago when shopping for a hunting rifle I researched the ballistics of the 7mag and just couldn't find any real benefit over a 270win.

On bigger animials i've seen quite a bit of difference between the 270 and 7 Rem. Mag... Ever shoot a brown bear with both??? Ever shoot a moose with both???

175 NP's in a 7 mag. out class' anything a 270 can spit out, and does a much better job breaking an animial down...

I don't care what it says on paper, i'm talking about field performance on big game...

DM

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #39 on:** February 04, 2007, 05:55:54 AM »

Quote

On bigger animials i've seen quite a bit of difference between the 270 and 7 Rem. Mag... Ever shoot a brown bear with both??? Ever shoot a moose with both???

Since I never planned on shooting a brownie terminal preformance on DG was not a concederation. Although I must say I wouldn't choose anything smaller than a .338 for bears larger than blackies.

Drilling Man · « **Reply #40 on:** February 04, 2007, 06:05:47 AM »

Well you made this statement,

Quote

The 7mag is for people who just want to see a belt but don't want any of the other nastiness associated with belted magnums, recoil, blast, cost ECT

And in my case that's FAR from the truth. All i ever cared about is "field" performance, and i could care less if it has a belt or not. For bigger game, the 7 Rem. mag. with heavy bullets out shines the 270 Win., no contest...

As for big bears, a properly loaded 7 Rem. mag. breaks big bears down, no problem! I never felt under gunned with one in my hands and i hunted browns for many years.

DM

NONYA · « **Reply #41 on:** February 04, 2007, 09:13:11 AM »

I love these guys that think you need a 300 gr slug and a .338 + bore to kill a big bear,they kill em with -06 every year,Im pretty sure the 7mag is more than enough gun to take on a big bear hunt,I have killed a 7 foot b bear with a single 300 yard shot,it will kill big bears.

Mr. Joe · « **Reply #42 on:** February 05, 2007, 11:42:02 AM »

.270 vs. 7mag...the .270 is on the loosing end every time, but i do love the .270. I personaly feel that the big 7 is the' best of the magnums. Its got the power, the range, the bullet selection. Only thing it does have is the recoil! That is why it outsells the rest of the magnums put together. Its not my favorate caliber, but its by far my fav. magnum. Probly my second or third fav. caliber though

nomosendero · « **Reply #43 on:** February 05, 2007, 04:04:27 PM »

I was simply not aware that any one magnum outsold ALL of the other magnums put together, WOW!!!!

k3yston3 · « **Reply #44 on:** February 06, 2007, 02:21:43 AM »

I went through a big 7 kick in my early 20's... The 7mm RM wasn't enough so I stepped up to 7mm-300wby. It sent those bullets out there quite fast but I bloodshot more meat with 7mm magnums than any of my other rifles combined. I no longer own any big 7s. I would pick the .300wm out of the two choices.

Mr. Joe · « **Reply #45 on:** February 06, 2007, 02:46:32 AM »

Im just going off an article i read on chuck hawks page somtime back. It may be correct, may be wrong, or may be based on reloading dies...im not sure, but i can say for sure it is the top selling magnum...no question. Im not a real biased guy when it comes to caliber. The 8x57 is my all time fav. there is just alot of other stuff i really like...like the .270, .280,.308, 7 mag...well you get the idea.

nomosendero · « **Reply #46 on:** February 06, 2007, 08:27:33 AM »

Yes, it would be incorrect & I am not that sensitive about it either & have used both alot. But no need to be grossly inaccurate. The 7RM is the top seller & is the choice of alot of people as an entry level magnum & it was for me. It is good for the very experienced as well & a great round, period.
But more than all mags combined is way out there, well, you get the idea.

jro45 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 08, 2007, 05:30:15 AM »

I like my 7mm Mag but I would take my 300 Win Mag over it because it can shoot larger bullets at a faster velocity and it is has a bigger Diameter, more killing power.

Now my 7 is better for different game then my 300. Thats why I have both.

nomosendero · « **Reply #48 on:** February 08, 2007, 05:42:46 AM »

Yep! The 7mag with a 140gr. & the 300 with a 200gr. are 2 different things & each is better suited for certain situations. It does not mean one is better, but it does mean that they are different.

Drilling Man · « **Reply #49 on:** February 08, 2007, 09:38:23 AM »

Quote

Yep! The 7mag with a 140gr. & the 300 with a 200gr. are 2 different things & each is better suited for certain situations. It does not mean one is better, but it does mean that they are different.

I agree.... AND if you load the * 7 mag. with 175 NP's and the 300 with 200NP's what ever you hit won't be able to tell you what it was hit with....

At one time i made a huge flat bottomed stock for the long action Rem 700. I filled it with lead where i could, and bedded the action with bisonite. I had numerous bbls. chambered and fit to that action in numerous cartridges up to, includeing .485 Win. mag., and i had a Weaver T-10 on it for a scope. I used this outfit as a test bed to test various bullets and cartridges as i was designing both.

One of the bbls. was chambered for 7 Rem. Mag... another was chambered with 300 Win. mag... Anyway, when i got to the above * load, the scope would just bump my eyebrow with the 300 mag., but "never" bumped me in any way in 7 Rem. mag... I had noticed all along that the 300 had more recoil than the 7 mag. and that proved it right there.

The punch line is, i couldn't see any difference on big game between the two, and the 300 had more recoil... I really don't see an advantage for the 30 over the 7 in this case...

DM

Drilling Man · « **Reply #50 on:** February 08, 2007, 09:40:20 AM »

double post removed

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #51 on:** February 08, 2007, 01:11:08 PM »

When I need a 200 in my .300 I'm getting a .338 or .375 instead!

Meanwhile my 7mm Mag will continue to shoot 160's and leave nothing standing in its wake.

nomosendero · « **Reply #52 on:** February 08, 2007, 02:00:39 PM »

Quote from: Coyote Hunter on February 08, 2007, 01:11:08 PM

When I need a 200 in my .300 I'm getting a .338 or .375 instead!

Meanwhile my 7mm Mag will continue to shoot 160's and leave nothing standing in its wake.

If I should need a 338, I will use a 225-250gr. It would take a 338RUM with a 225 or more to match the down range performance
that I am getting now with my 300.

If I used a 7mm for Elk, I would use the 160 or 175, but with a 300 that shoots a 180-200 like mine, I have no reason to do so. 7mm is
reserved for Mule Deer & down for that reason, I did not mean to start a big discussion for nothing, just stateing my own personal use.

I have done the 160gr. 7mm mag route, but a 200Accubond with a BC of .588 going 3,050 in my Sendero or 3,200 in a RUM is spectacular. Hard to believe the wind bucking ability of the 200 Accubond.

kudzu · « **Reply #53 on:** February 08, 2007, 02:42:57 PM »

My bullet choice for the 300rum is the 200accubond, however in the 7mm I like the 150 scirocco. What the heck, times are slow. Here's my line up.
270wsm- 140 accubond
7mag- 150 scirocco
7mmrum- 160accubond
300wm- 180 accubond
300rum- 200accubond
338wm - 225 accubond

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #54 on:** February 09, 2007, 02:55:45 PM »

Quote from: nomosendero on February 08, 2007, 02:00:39 PM

If I used a 7mm for Elk, I would use the 160 or 175, but with a 300 that shoots a 180-200 like mine, I have no reason to do so.

I understand. It was thinking like that about the 7mm/160g kept me from getting a .300 for 20+ years. The 7mm Mag and 160g bullets just worked for every thing I hunted, from p-dogs to elk. Finally scratched the itch a couple years ago. Bagged my first elk with it last fall, a big cow at 260 yards with a (what else) 180g North Fork, one shot. No more dead than the elk the 7mm Mag has taken though.

That .300 was my first .30. Now I have a .30-30, .308, .30-06 and the .300. Its a sickness...

wink_man · « **Reply #55 on:** February 09, 2007, 03:21:04 PM »

Quote from: Coyote Hunter on February 09, 2007, 02:55:45 PM

Now I have a .30-30, .308, .30-06 and the .300. Its a sickness...

I have the same, LOL, what kind of sickness is it, because I love it !!!!! My EX used to call it a 'disease', I guess that why I call her my EX now. I like the 7 MM Mag too, I seem to like all guns and calibers, they're all useful for something, and one can never have enough as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Joe · « **Reply #56 on:** February 10, 2007, 02:20:10 AM »

deleted

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #57 on:** February 10, 2007, 10:52:40 AM »

Quote from: Mr. Joe on February 10, 2007, 02:20:10 AM

175gr. Nosler Partitions are routinly loaded past 3000 fps in the big 7. I hit 3100 eaisly and safely in a 24 inch tube. ...

Do you mind sharing the source for your load data? I am not aware of any 7mm Mag 175g load data that hits 3000fps or even comes close. The WBY will do it with H1000. And the RUM falls short of 3100fps in the data I've seen.

Mr. Joe · « **Reply #58 on:** February 11, 2007, 06:21:21 AM »

deleted

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #59 on:** February 11, 2007, 02:37:50 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Joe on February 11, 2007, 06:21:21 AM

http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/aiviewload.cgi?sn=ffRBWBXkJG&catid=13&lid=1158556112

This load has showed no presure signs for me. In my ruger, i clock 3121 fps and it shoot pretty well. Ill dig up a couple more and post em for ya. As always though, work up to these loads.

Viewers cannot see the powder type or charge without a login. Perhaps you can enlighten us?

But I can say the fastest 175g 7mm Rem Mag load currently published by Hodgdon, the reputed source for the load on the AmmoGuide site you reference, is 2800fps using Retumbo and reaching 51,200 CUP. That's quite a ways from 3088fps.