7mm Mag or .300 Mag???

Of course that recoil depends upon bullet weight. The same model rifle with a 7mm load and 175 grain bullet will have the recoil edge on the 300 with a 150 grain!
 
I don't notice much difference in recoil on my .300 WM between the 150gr and 180 gr. I can shoot about 1-1/2 boxes on the bench before I start to feel it.
 
i had both and liked both. i sold the 300 mag because i like the stock on the 7mm mag better. the 7 mag also shoots a little flater. flip a coin, i would be happy with either. i guess things like stocks or finish, or feel when you shoulder it......oh, and price would make my mind up for me. you are comparing more apples to apples than apples to oranges.
 
I have both and I have taken more deer with the 7 MAG., only because I never carried the 300 WIN. MAG. that much. It has a bigger scope on it and I set it up for still hunting. Of course the 7 MAG. has less recoil, but neither one seems that bad. I have good recoil pads on both of them.

Like the others said just flip a coin and go with it. :)
 
Go with the .300 and never look back. There are very few advantages between the two, but the edge is with the .300. The 7mm will shoot ever so slightly flatter, not much. Recoil is pretty much the same, and every other edge goes to the .300 WM. Not knocking the 7mm, good gun. But the .300 brings a little more to the table. In my area, ammo is the same price and two of the same guns in each caliber at local gun shop are priced the same.
 
smaller bullet faster,,,, big bullet go farther.... One poster said the 300 win mag was the best all round caliber for North American game,,,, he's a little prejudice,, sounds like.... That .300 mag he used to have and his .270 SPS is all he talks about,,,


The .300 Winchesther Magnum, is a hard hitting flat shooting cartridge, and is used by alot of Military and LE groups as their "go to" sniper system caliber.
Having said that the real true difference in these two awesome cartridges is merely the circumference of the projectiles,,,,,,,

Like I said from the begining smaller bullet faster, maybe somewhat flatter, but heavier bullet go further!;)
 
I need an education as to what bullets are being shot in the 7mag that make it a better LR rifle than 300mag and this is a question for someone who actually own one.
Click to expand...
It is all about bullet aerodynamics. The 7mm bullets in the 160-175 gr range have very good ballistic coefficients. That means they are very aerodynamic. They are light enough to still be shot fast, and they expand in game well. To get a .30 cal bullet with similar BC's it would have to weigh 210-250 gr. Those bullets are good choices for long range target shooting, but not as practical for hunting. Most hunters use a less aerodynamic 180 gr bullet because it can be shot faster and they perform well when they hit game.

The 300's are a good choice for long range target shooting because the heavier bullets made for them are designed for target shooting, not hunting. In this sport you are shooting at known ranges and you only need enough bullet energy to punch a hole in a sheet of paper. Bullet drop is not a concern since you are shooting at a known range. All you have to do is adjust your scope for the range.

For hunting the 2 are much closer. As I posted earlier in this thread both are virtually equal out to around 400 yards with a slight energy advantage going to the 300 and a very slight trajectory advantage going to the 7 mag. But for long range shooting at game, and at unkonwn ranges the 7 mag has both an energy and trajectory advantage after the 400 yard mark.

Just for comparison purposes my 7 mag shoots 162 gr bullets with a BC of .550 @ 3000 fps. My 300 shoots 180 gr bullets with a BC of.480 @ 3000 fps. At the muzzle the 300 will have about a 350 ft lb advantage in energy. But at 400 yards the 2 are in a virtual tie. At all ranges after that the 7 mag has the advantage in velocity, energy and less bullet drop.

With the loads I'm using, and if fired in comparable guns the 7 mag will have around 23 ft. lbs. of recoil. The 300 around 28 ft. lbs. of recoil

I have and like both. Both will shoot farther, and carry plenty of energy farther than most hunters are capable of shooting.
 
One advantage the 30 caliber ones have over the 28 caliber ones is barrel life. For a given size belted magnum case behind the neck, 30 caliber ones get about 30 to 40 percent more barrel life than the 28 caliber ones. This is based on what top long range shooters I know who've used them. When both were popular in prone competition, the 30 caliber ones were getting around 1200 rounds of best accuracy while the 28's were getting about 800.

This is based on rifles, barrels and ammo that shoot 1/4 MOA at a hundred yards and 5/8 MOA at a thousand when new. And with 25 or so shots fired in 20 to 30 minutes.
 
Anyone that tells you the 7 does better at long range should look at 1000 yard bench rest competition. the 300 win has won many and ive never heard of one being won by a 7mag.
Click to expand...

In 1970 a shooter on the Navy rifle team named Thomas Treinan used the 7mm Remington Magnum to win the 1000 yard Wimbledon match and set a new record score at Camp Perry Ohio. He used a 168 gr. Sierra Match King bullet. His load was a 66 1/2 grains of 4831 and a Remington 9 1/2 Magnum primer with a velocity of 3050 feet per second. This is in the Sierra manual.

They are both capable of great accuracy.
 
jhgreasemonkey mentions:
In 1970 a shooter on the Navy rifle team named Thomas Treinan used the 7mm Remington Magnum to win the 1000 yard Wimbledon match and set a new record score at Camp Perry Ohio.
Click to expand...
I've known Tom since before then. I shot with him on Navy teams then. Plus I knew the guy who loaned him the rifle and ammo to shoot. Now here's the rest of the story....

Martin Hull, Sierra Bullets' ballistic manager since the 1950's, was a top level long range marksman. Had been on several US Palma Teams winning aggregates a few times around the world. He knew what was needed to make bullets shoot best. Which is why he tested virtually all bullets Sierra made shooting 'em in rail guns at 100 or 200 yards. When he tested Sierra's first prototype run of their 7mm 168 HPMK bullet, it was a super accurate lot. While only a couple thousand were made, they were set aside for quality control purposes. He had a Hart barreled 7mm Rem. Mag. match rifle made and tested it. It shot a bit better than MOA at 1000 yards. He took it to the 1970 National Matches where he loaned it to Tom Treinen to shoot; which ended up putting 42 consecutive shots in the 20-inch V-ring on the old military C target used then. That started the 7 mag "must have" rage in long range high power matches.

The next year, the Navy Team was at Annapolis training for the Nationals at the local range. The USN Small Arms Match Conditioning Unit had just built a new 7mm Mag and had shipped to us to try at the upcoming Nationals. I'd been shooting my .264 Win. Mag. with 139-gr. Norma match bullets and doing very well at 1000 yards. Sierra Bullets had given me a couple hundred of their then new .264 caliber 140-gr. HPMK's to try out, but I couldn't get them to shoot better than about 2.5 MOA at 1000. So I was given the 7 Mag to use at the Nationals. But we didn't have any ammo. Tom had used ammo the year before to set the record and the cases were new, virgin brass. So I went up town and bought 3 boxes of primed 7 Mag cases and a pound of IMR4831. Then called Sierra to ask Martin Hull to please send the Team some bullets. His comments were upsetting.

Seems the jacket material Sierra used to make that prototype batch of 7mm HPMK's was a rare, extremely good lot. Bullet jackets could be formed very uniformly, especially the long ones needed for heavy HPMK's for any caliber. He said the batch used for their prototype .264 HPMI's they gave me some of didn't shoot that great. And the last two lots of 7mm HPMK 168's weren't all that good. So I should just buy a box locally and pray they might be good ones.

At the Nationals, they shot about like the 6.5mm HPMK's they gave me. Not good at all. I walked off the 1000 yard line with my tail between my legs. 'Twas all I could do to keep those bullets inside the 30 inch 8-ring.

And this continued for several years at Sierra. While the continued making long, heavy HPMK's in 6.5 and 7 millimeter diameters, rarely did any 20 or 30 of them in a row shoot super accurate. They even tried jacket material from Germany; it was a little better, but not good enough. The 30 caliber magnums were still king of the long range hill until the 1980's. When it came available then, they finally got real good jacket material to make those smaller bullets as accurate as the 30 caliber ones, folks used the 6.5 ones in a necked down .284 Win. case and started winning matches setting records along the way. The 7mm ones were pretty much forgot about except for a rare occasion when someone just happened to do well.

The only 30 caliber rifles used since then in long range matches that took the trophies and shot scores into the record books were virtually all in the benchrest discipline. Folks shooting slung up in prone preferred the milder recoiling 6.5's that shot just as accurate. One exception's the 7.62mm NATO semiauto service rifles that have trumping the 5.56mm ones at the Long Range Agg's at the Nationals. 30 caliber's still King of that Hill.
 
Last edited:
Very cool to hear about this. Thanks Bart. I wonder how the best match bullets of today in 7mm would stack up to that Sierra batch used in 1970?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top