I want to buy a new hunting rifle and I have narrowed it down to either 7mm Rem Mag or 30-06 Sprg. I am looking at the Browning A-Bolt Medallion with the 7mm coming with a 26' barrel and the 30-06 with a 22' inch barrel. I plan to hunt mainly deer and possible elk at some point. Let me know what you think.
7mm vs 30-06
- Thread starter pdt1793db
- Start date
angeldeville
New member
flip a coin, both are great.
WeedWacker
New member
.30-06 = CHEAP!!!
7mm rem mag = not so cheap but still around $1 a round at wally world and such.
7mm STW = over $1 a round but awesome in it's capabilities
.30-06 = accurate enough for hunting out to 500 yards.
7mm rem mag = good for shooting a squirrel in the eye from 2 miles away
7mm STW = Same as above but with an extra 200 fps
Edit: .30-06 and elk - Stay around 300-400 yards. 7mm mag: 400-450. Better velocity retention over distance.
7mm rem mag = not so cheap but still around $1 a round at wally world and such.
7mm STW = over $1 a round but awesome in it's capabilities
.30-06 = accurate enough for hunting out to 500 yards.
7mm rem mag = good for shooting a squirrel in the eye from 2 miles away
7mm STW = Same as above but with an extra 200 fps
Edit: .30-06 and elk - Stay around 300-400 yards. 7mm mag: 400-450. Better velocity retention over distance.
ligonierbill
New member
Out to 300 yards, there is maybe 2-3" difference in trajectory. Beyond that, the 7 mm has some advantage with a little more muzzle velocity and higher ballistic coefficient. Also kicks a bit harder. In the real world, take your pick. The elk won't notice the difference. If you roll your own, the '06 will be a little more stingy with powder, and some say you will get better case life than the 7 mag.
ActivShootr
New member
I like the 30-06 for its versatility. There is a broad selection of factory loads and the handloading choices are endless.
.30-06 works well on both deer and elk and moose if you've a mind to.
I don't like to shoot further than 250yds (except at targets) so flat trajectory is not an issue for me.
It's kind of like comparing Chevy and Audi. the Audi has some performance edge but the Chevy has tons of after market support.
I'm willing to bet that which ever caliber you choose you'll be happy with it.
I don't like to shoot further than 250yds (except at targets) so flat trajectory is not an issue for me.
It's kind of like comparing Chevy and Audi. the Audi has some performance edge but the Chevy has tons of after market support.
I'm willing to bet that which ever caliber you choose you'll be happy with it.
davlandrum
New member
I swear by my 30-06, my hunting partner swears by his 7 mm Mag.
Both kill deer, both will kill elk.
Total coin flip between the two. I don't like the way his 7 sounds, how is that for splitting hairs...
Both kill deer, both will kill elk.
Total coin flip between the two. I don't like the way his 7 sounds, how is that for splitting hairs...
The difference between the two doen't really warrant argument unless you plan on shooting a long ways out, then the 7mm would get the nod. That being said, I purchased a new rifle(24" barrel) this spring and boy do I wish that my barrel was shorter, so much so that I'm currently researching Remington Model Seven's and Ruger frontiers. It's a bit of a pain in the rear when I get into the thick. A 26" barrel on a open plains gun is fine but If you plan to hunt anything thick I'd stick with th .30-06 and the 22" barrel. Just my two cents. Good luck in whatever you decide to go with.
Jeo556
Jeo556
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
The '06 is a slightly overbore case, and performs best with barrels of 24" to 26". The velocity loss with a 22" barrel takes it down to--or even below--.308 performance.
The choice being limited between these two cartridges in this example, then, I'd go with the 7mm.
FWIW, an '06 with a 26" barrel will perform quite as well as a 7mm Maggie, from my own experience. The difference in trajectory is trivial.
The choice being limited between these two cartridges in this example, then, I'd go with the 7mm.
FWIW, an '06 with a 26" barrel will perform quite as well as a 7mm Maggie, from my own experience. The difference in trajectory is trivial.
My .30-06 has a 24" barrel. If I know the range its going to shoot I'd trust the rifle out 1000yds. My ability as a marksman limits that down to 600yds at best.
In the field my rifle is zeroed at 200yds. Set up like that my point of aim up to 300yds is on the animal. further than that and I have to adjust my point of aim to a point above the animal. I'm not comfortable doing that.
A 7mm Remington Magnum set up the same way doesn't reach that point till after 350yds.
As the rifles get zeroed out further, 300yds, 400yds and so on, the window in which your point of aim stays on the target gets smaller. On average that window shrinks slower with the 7mm Remington Magnum than with the .30-06.
That will vary with the ammunition and with the rifle and scope.
On average I take deer at 125yds. My longest shots were about 250yds. So which round is better further out is academic.
Given the distance a normally shoot at I'd say both calibers are bigger than needed.
In the field my rifle is zeroed at 200yds. Set up like that my point of aim up to 300yds is on the animal. further than that and I have to adjust my point of aim to a point above the animal. I'm not comfortable doing that.
A 7mm Remington Magnum set up the same way doesn't reach that point till after 350yds.
As the rifles get zeroed out further, 300yds, 400yds and so on, the window in which your point of aim stays on the target gets smaller. On average that window shrinks slower with the 7mm Remington Magnum than with the .30-06.
That will vary with the ammunition and with the rifle and scope.
On average I take deer at 125yds. My longest shots were about 250yds. So which round is better further out is academic.
Given the distance a normally shoot at I'd say both calibers are bigger than needed.
Kreyzhorse
New member
I hunt with a 7mm Rem Mag, my buddy hunts with a 30.06. Not much of a difference between the two rounds. 7mm is a flatter shooting gun and a little faster with a little more energy hitting the target down range. In the field, but rounds perform equally as well and you can't go wrong with either. Plenty of different types of ammo available for both too. The real difference? Recoil. The 7mm recoils harder than the 30.06. It doesn't recoil much harder but you can certainly tell a difference. If you are an experienced shooter, I don't think the difference in recoil will make much difference to you however.
castnblast
New member
I love my 7mm mag, and the recoil difference between it and a 30-06 are neglibible. My wife shoots it very well and does not complain about the recoil. I like the 160gr BTSP for elk and deer and hogs, and gophers, and coyotes, and.....o.k. you get my point. the 140 btsp is even flatter, and does just fine on elk too...Very flat shooting, tack driver....Love it.
+1 on the 7 Rem Mag.
I have an Weatherby Alaskan Mark V.
Anyone know why Weatherby stopped making the Mark V in stainless? (just the Vanguard is available)
Out of the box cartridges, I have never found anything that shoots as well as the Hornady 139gr BTSP.
By the way.....
I upgraded from a Sako 30-06 and have never regretted it.
I have an Weatherby Alaskan Mark V.
Anyone know why Weatherby stopped making the Mark V in stainless? (just the Vanguard is available)
Out of the box cartridges, I have never found anything that shoots as well as the Hornady 139gr BTSP.
By the way.....
I upgraded from a Sako 30-06 and have never regretted it.
Desertscout1
New member
Magnumania
As I recall, "magnum" is a term that was coined by Smith & Wesson back in 1935 when the .357 Magnum was born. Now anything with the word “magnum” associated with it is touted to be bigger and better than any of it’s lesser brethren. Gun owners eat it up too. Just about every new Super Turbo-Charged Nitro Express Heat-Seeking (caliber of your choice)Magnum is readily accepted by the shooting community and it is often agreed that the new brainchild fills a gap between calibers that is long overdue regardless of how many other “magnums filled the same gap earlier.
One of those is the 7mmRemington Magnum. This cartridge has been around for a long time. Since 1962 to be exact. It is a wonderful cartridge that is suitable to cleanly harvest any big game animal in North America and many species of African game as well. It is accurate, flat-shooting and hard-hitting. However, if we do just a little checking we’ll find that the 7mm is not THAT much better than many other standard cartridges and maybe not quite a good as some of them.
A few of the things that I find objectionable about many of the magnum cartridges is the fact that they have more recoil, muzzle flash, blast and a higher price tag for the ammunition than a comparable standard velocity cartridge and the energy or velocity advantages are often not worth the pain and expense. If you use the energy listings in any reloading manual, you will find that the old .30-'06 and the 7mm are so close to the same in performance at 400 yds that it's not worth arguing about. Different manuals will vary as to which one's best. Both of these cartridges have less energy at 400 yds than a 170 gr. .30-30 Winchester has at the muzzle yet most agree that the .30-30 is too light for elk even at very close range. Then why, exactly, would it be OK to make a 400 yard shot at an elk with 7mm Magnum but not a 50 yard shot at one with a .30-30?
If one were to use the Taylor factor to compare these two bullet’s “punch” instead of those hokey manufacturer’s figures, we will find that the .30-06 has a decisive advantage given comparable bullet weights. The Taylor Factor is much more accurate and logical when you are comparing two different diameters of bullets. The formula for “energy” that is used in the reloading manuals, does NOT take into consideration the diameter of the bullet. You cannot figure mass without ALL of the factors and you cannot determine how “hard” a projectile will strike without first determining it's mass.
Using the Taylor factor, a 7mm Mag. shooting a 162gr. bullet at 2900 fps will be represented by a factor of 19.06 and the '06, shooting a 165 gr. bullet a 2900 fps will be 21.04. The DIAMETER of the .30 cal. bullet is what gives it the considerable edge more than the 3 grains more weight.
For comparison, a .44 mag with a 240 gr. bullet at 1400 fps comes to 20.5 and a .308 shooting a 150 gr. bullet at 2800 fps comes to 18.4.
The elk probably won't be able to tell the difference but, what I am getting at is, I don't believe that the difference between the two is worth going out and buying a new gun unless you are just looking for an excuse to get a new gun.
By-the-way, the .300 Winchester Magnum, shooting a 180 grain bullet at 2900 fps, comes to 22.9 which is less of an advantage over the '06 than the '06 is over the 7mm.
All three calibers are good, just don't let your friends or some gun shop salesman BS you into something that you may not really want. I get my elk very comfortably pretty much every year with either a .30-06 or a .44 mag.
One can "make" the 7mm Remington Magnum have better ballistics than the '06 by using different barrel lengths and changing other factors but there is really NO significant difference in the two cartridges. If you handload, you can make either one superior to the other one.
Just one example:
There are 5 "max" loads listed for the 7mm Remington Magnum that give a 162 grain bullet 2900 fps in my Hornady reloading manual. There are also 5 "max" loads listed for the 30-06 that sends a 165 gr. bullet downrange @ 2900 fps. Given this particular data, the 7 mm shoots 68.7" low at 600 yards. The .30-'06 shoots 74.3" low at the same distance with a 3 grain heavier bullet. 5.6" at that distance is pretty negligible. At the more realistic range of 300 yards, with a 200 yards zero, the 7mm shoots 7.0" low and the '06 shoots 7.3" low. The difference at this range is mostly academic.
The slightly heavier bullet with the larger frontal area also delivers slightly more punch, but again, it is mostly academic and boils down to personal choice.
Given the MUCH wider range of bullet weights, price and availability of ammo, the logical choice, in my mind, is pretty clear. I’ll stick with the 101 year old .30-‘06.
As I recall, "magnum" is a term that was coined by Smith & Wesson back in 1935 when the .357 Magnum was born. Now anything with the word “magnum” associated with it is touted to be bigger and better than any of it’s lesser brethren. Gun owners eat it up too. Just about every new Super Turbo-Charged Nitro Express Heat-Seeking (caliber of your choice)Magnum is readily accepted by the shooting community and it is often agreed that the new brainchild fills a gap between calibers that is long overdue regardless of how many other “magnums filled the same gap earlier.
One of those is the 7mmRemington Magnum. This cartridge has been around for a long time. Since 1962 to be exact. It is a wonderful cartridge that is suitable to cleanly harvest any big game animal in North America and many species of African game as well. It is accurate, flat-shooting and hard-hitting. However, if we do just a little checking we’ll find that the 7mm is not THAT much better than many other standard cartridges and maybe not quite a good as some of them.
A few of the things that I find objectionable about many of the magnum cartridges is the fact that they have more recoil, muzzle flash, blast and a higher price tag for the ammunition than a comparable standard velocity cartridge and the energy or velocity advantages are often not worth the pain and expense. If you use the energy listings in any reloading manual, you will find that the old .30-'06 and the 7mm are so close to the same in performance at 400 yds that it's not worth arguing about. Different manuals will vary as to which one's best. Both of these cartridges have less energy at 400 yds than a 170 gr. .30-30 Winchester has at the muzzle yet most agree that the .30-30 is too light for elk even at very close range. Then why, exactly, would it be OK to make a 400 yard shot at an elk with 7mm Magnum but not a 50 yard shot at one with a .30-30?
If one were to use the Taylor factor to compare these two bullet’s “punch” instead of those hokey manufacturer’s figures, we will find that the .30-06 has a decisive advantage given comparable bullet weights. The Taylor Factor is much more accurate and logical when you are comparing two different diameters of bullets. The formula for “energy” that is used in the reloading manuals, does NOT take into consideration the diameter of the bullet. You cannot figure mass without ALL of the factors and you cannot determine how “hard” a projectile will strike without first determining it's mass.
Using the Taylor factor, a 7mm Mag. shooting a 162gr. bullet at 2900 fps will be represented by a factor of 19.06 and the '06, shooting a 165 gr. bullet a 2900 fps will be 21.04. The DIAMETER of the .30 cal. bullet is what gives it the considerable edge more than the 3 grains more weight.
For comparison, a .44 mag with a 240 gr. bullet at 1400 fps comes to 20.5 and a .308 shooting a 150 gr. bullet at 2800 fps comes to 18.4.
The elk probably won't be able to tell the difference but, what I am getting at is, I don't believe that the difference between the two is worth going out and buying a new gun unless you are just looking for an excuse to get a new gun.
By-the-way, the .300 Winchester Magnum, shooting a 180 grain bullet at 2900 fps, comes to 22.9 which is less of an advantage over the '06 than the '06 is over the 7mm.
All three calibers are good, just don't let your friends or some gun shop salesman BS you into something that you may not really want. I get my elk very comfortably pretty much every year with either a .30-06 or a .44 mag.
One can "make" the 7mm Remington Magnum have better ballistics than the '06 by using different barrel lengths and changing other factors but there is really NO significant difference in the two cartridges. If you handload, you can make either one superior to the other one.
Just one example:
There are 5 "max" loads listed for the 7mm Remington Magnum that give a 162 grain bullet 2900 fps in my Hornady reloading manual. There are also 5 "max" loads listed for the 30-06 that sends a 165 gr. bullet downrange @ 2900 fps. Given this particular data, the 7 mm shoots 68.7" low at 600 yards. The .30-'06 shoots 74.3" low at the same distance with a 3 grain heavier bullet. 5.6" at that distance is pretty negligible. At the more realistic range of 300 yards, with a 200 yards zero, the 7mm shoots 7.0" low and the '06 shoots 7.3" low. The difference at this range is mostly academic.
The slightly heavier bullet with the larger frontal area also delivers slightly more punch, but again, it is mostly academic and boils down to personal choice.
Given the MUCH wider range of bullet weights, price and availability of ammo, the logical choice, in my mind, is pretty clear. I’ll stick with the 101 year old .30-‘06.