300. wsm vs. 7mm rem mag.

[Long Time Long Ranger]

Your 7mm rem mag will do everything you want to do. No need to get another rifle unless you just want one. Moose are large animals and require a good quality bullet but are not known as being hard to bring down. I have killed several alaskan moose and they are not extremely hard to take down for their size. A 7 rem mag with a good quality bullet is plenty.

That being said I always favor the larger calibers for that slight edge I may get in some situations. I am color blind and need a lot of blood on the ground. Smaller caliber wounds many times get coverd over with thick hide and leave no blood trail. Big, heavy large caliber bullets are more effective on game. When I first got started many years ago I studied and calculated ballistics continuously. The 7mm looks good on paper and I shot the 7mm-300 wby and 7mm wby mags a lot back then. But as my big game experience grew watching numerous hits and seeing the results I began realizing caliber plays a big role. For instance the charts say the 7mm has just as much or more power at a certain range but the animals reaction says no way. Their are glitches in those charts when it comes to actually bringing an animal down. Last year on here a guy produced all kind of ballistic data on the 7mm rem mag vs the 338 win mag. His charts and they were correct showed that the 7mm hit with more power at long range and should be the best choice on elk which was the subject. They are essentially the same case just necked to different calibers. But I can tell you from much personal experience there is no comparison to a 338 win mag hitting large game vs a 7mm rem mag. The power shown by the reaction effect on the animal when hit by the 338 win mag far overcomes the effect of one getting hit with a 7mm rem mag. Although the charts don't show this.

So, back to your question. Personally I had rather hunt with the larger caliber 300 wsm. But your 7mm rem mag will do everything you listed and I wouldn't pay the extra money if I had a 7mm rem mag in my rack. Just like everybody said. It all just comes down to personal prefference. If I were going moose hunting today and both were on the shelf I would take the 300 wsm with a 200 grain bullet over the 7mm rem mag.

 

[wolfmaan]

Is the .300 WSM a custom action or are you going to use the short action, which is customary for the short magnum family. If you will use the short action for the WSM then you won't be using the heavy bullets others have mentioned. Too long or too far down in the case. For normal long range hunting the 7's are great, for a little more omph the longer 300 mags are great, for substantial more power maybe raise the bar abit and look at the .338 cartridges, Win mag, Weatherby, suam or Lapua.

Good luck... great to have this kind of delema!

sofaly are you shooting a 300wsm?. The reason i am asking is because i am shooting a winchester model 70 300wsm and i shot a deer through the sholder head on and blew a 6 inch hole in him. It blew out his hart and lungs through the left side using a 165gr sierra bt.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

This is a 3 1/2 year old thread... you might not get a reply.

 

[Iclimb]

I have a friend that has hunted from Africa to Alaska and shot most game you can think of, not to mention, the listed game; with a good 'ol 280 rem. I always love to read the posts about needing a 338 ultra to go elk hunting. Stick with the 7 you'll be fine, shot placement shoot be more stressed over than caliber.

 

[sofalyr]

I usually use a 7x57 custom by HET, Shilen 26"ss barrel and 130gr speer SBT, (53.5 gr H4831 fed 215 primer and Win cases avg 3180 fps by chronograph). While I have many different rifles. this one is my favorite. While I lived in Wyoming, I usually used a Sako L61R in .338 Win. 200 gr speer spritzer, also used a .30-06 with the Sierra 165 HPBT. Shoulder shots always ruin a lot of meat and I prefer high lung shots. Killed a bull Oryx with a .35 Whelen and 250 fr speers... way too much gun! Had a .280 rem by HET and gave that to one of my sons, too close to the 7x57.
I would probally prefer the 7mm Rem or 30-06 over the 300wsm just because of the ability to use longer bullets. Good Luck!

 

[MudRunner2005]

I have a friend that has hunted from Africa to Alaska and shot most game you can think of, not to mention, the listed game; with a good 'ol 280 rem. I always love to read the posts about needing a 338 ultra to go elk hunting. Stick with the 7 you'll be fine, shot placement shoot be more stressed over than caliber.

Thank you!!! You and I will get along fine on here. Shot placement is more important than caliber size. I've been saying that for a long time.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Thank you!!! You and I will get along fine on here. Shot placement is more important than caliber size. I've been saying that for a long time.

That is a straw man argument. When selecting a chambering you select based on the characteristics and attributes of the of the cartridge, not the shooter.

If the shooter is poor, mediocre or expert, he will be poor mediocre or expert with either choice. The fact that the shooter is able to place the bullet accurately through the vitals does not dismiss the fact that the bigger bullet is going to do more damage.

 

[MudRunner2005]

That is a straw man argument. When selecting a chambering you select based on the characteristics and attributes of the of the cartridge, not the shooter.

If the shooter is poor, mediocre or expert, he will be poor mediocre or expert with either choice. The fact that the shooter is able to place the bullet accurately through the vitals does not dismiss the fact that the bigger bullet is going to do more damage.

These are all true statements.

But, a vitals shot popping the lungs or the pump house means dead no matter what size projectile zipped through it. And dead is dead...Can't be more or less dead.

Example...Deer are basically small elk...On an anatomy and genus, and tenacity to live after being shot level. Thousands of people shoot deer with a .223 Rem's ever year, and drop them where they stand. I've killed them with everything from .22 caliber to .444 caliber, to 12ga slugs. I've had some run after a vitals shot and some drop DRIT from all those calibers...

I know it can be argued back and forth, so lets not for Christ's sake... But you can understand what I am saying, right?

I wasn't saying anything was better than anything, I was simply saying that dead is dead with a solid placed vitals shot, regardless of diameter and weight.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

These are all true statements.

But, a vitals shot popping the lungs or the pump house means dead no matter what size projectile zipped through it. And dead is dead...Can't be more or less dead.

Example...Deer are basically small elk...On an anatomy and genus, and tenacity to live after being shot level. Thousands of people shoot deer with a .223 Rem's ever year, and drop them where they stand. I've killed them with everything from .22 caliber to .444 caliber, to 12ga slugs. I've had some run after a vitals shot and some drop DRIT from all those calibers...

I know it can be argued back and forth, so lets not for Christ's sake... But you can understand what I am saying, right?

I wasn't saying anything was better than anything, I was simply saying that dead is dead with a solid placed vitals shot, regardless of diameter and weight.

Whatever you were trying to say, the statement, "Shot placement is more important than caliber size", means absolutely nothing. It's what people say when they do not have data and facts to back them up. If you want to say "dead is dead" then say it. Yes, dead is dead. But dead doesn't always happen in the same way and time. If you shoot a 800-900 lb bull elk with a bullet that doesn't do the job quick and he trots off into some dark timber and blow down and you have to retrieve him and pack him out, you will curse the rifle and bullet that put you in that situation. I guarantee it. You will never do it again. Here in Montana, if you shoot a game animal and do not retreive it before the meat spoils, you will get slapped a heavy fine and maybe loose hunting prividges for a while. I would suggest not recommending to people what they should use to kill elk with until you have some experience in it.

Now, I am not saying you can't kill elk with a 7 RM. You can, and I have. That said, when my 7 RM barrel burned out I got a 300 WSM. The 300 improves the odds.

Was just recently reading about one of our members using a 240 WBY not having good luck dropping deer before they run off a ways. Shot placement was good. He was using a "hunting bullet". Some members think he could have used a better and they might be right. That said, if you shoot a deer with a 30-06, or bigger for longer ranges, bullet selection means a lot less because of the sheer size of the bullet. Bigger is better. Bigger bullets make bigger holes. Bigger holes bleed out more blood quicker. More blood bled out quicker means quicker death.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I have a friend that has hunted from Africa to Alaska and shot most game you can think of, not to mention, the listed game; with a good 'ol 280 rem. I always love to read the posts about needing a 338 ultra to go elk hunting. Stick with the 7 you'll be fine, shot placement shoot be more stressed over than caliber.

How many bull elk have you killed with a 280 Rem and at what ranges?

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I would probally prefer the 7mm Rem or 30-06 over the 300wsm just because of the ability to use longer bullets. Good Luck!

Why would you not be able to shoot long bullets from a WSM? My first bullet of choice in a 300 WSM would be a 215 Berger Hybrid. The 7mm 180 Hybrid is 1.529 OAL. The 308 215 Hybrid is 1.564 OAL and has a higher BC than the 7mm 180.

 

[Iclimb]

That is a straw man argument. When selecting a chambering you select based on the characteristics and attributes of the of the cartridge, not the shooter.

If the shooter is poor, mediocre or expert, he will be poor mediocre or expert with either choice. The fact that the shooter is able to place the bullet accurately through the vitals does not dismiss the fact that the bigger bullet is going to do more damage.

IMO that's the argument that most take. I have to respectfully disagree though. How many people do you know that can shoot a .22 mediocre to great... Put them behind a kicking mule like a hot load .300 and they are scared before they pull the trigger. "There's no replacement for displacement", is a saying for motors not rifles. I have another friend who shoots elk regularly with his 220swift cause he can shoot it. There's no replacement for shot placement. There's no replacement for confidence. There's a couple sayings that should be thrown around a little more. Shoot 'em behind the shoulder and they'll die simple as that. Trying to decide between a 7 and 300wsm shouldn't occupy so much of your time especially if you have a 7mm already, go shoot, it'll work just fine... I promise. Bigger rifles will have an edge on poor'r shots I won't argue with you on that. If you can't calm yourself in the face of "elk fever" by all means bring the 338 ultra... I'll stick with my .280!

 

[MudRunner2005]

Whatever you were trying to say, the statement, "Shot placement is more important than caliber size", means absolutely nothing. It's what people say when they do not have data and facts to back them up. If you want to say "dead is dead" then say it. Yes, dead is dead. But dead doesn't always happen in the same way and time. If you shoot a 800-900 lb bull elk with a bullet that doesn't do the job quick and he trots off into some dark timber and blow down and you have to retrieve him and pack him out, you will curse the rifle and bullet that put you in that situation. I guarantee it. You will never do it again. Here in Montana, if you shoot a game animal and do not retreive it before the meat spoils, you will get slapped a heavy fine and maybe loose hunting prividges for a while. I would suggest not recommending to people what they should use to kill elk with until you have some experience in it.

Now, I am not saying you can't kill elk with a 7 RM. You can, and I have. That said, when my 7 RM barrel burned out I got a 300 WSM. The 300 improves the odds.

Was just recently reading about one of our members using a 240 WBY not having good luck dropping deer before they run off a ways. Shot placement was good. He was using a "hunting bullet". Some members think he could have used a better and they might be right. That said, if you shoot a deer with a 30-06, or bigger for longer ranges, bullet selection means a lot less because of the sheer size of the bullet. Bigger is better. Bigger bullets make bigger holes. Bigger holes bleed out more blood quicker. More blood bled out quicker means quicker death.

I wasn't saying what to kill elk with...That would be foolish.

I was saying that elk and deer are essentially the same animal, but one if smaller than the other.

I wasn't telling people what caliber to shoot...I never mentioned any calibers to shoot elk. I mentioned that I have shot WHITETAIL DEER with every caliber imaginable.

I never said anything was better than anything else.

I just said "dead is dead", and "shot placement is more important than bullet size" and you started shooting assumptions from the hip.

I never mentioned 7RM or any 7mm calibers for that matter...So why are you turning this into a 7mm vs 30 cal debate?

Yeah, you're talking about Lloyd. I wasnt' there, so I don't know how well shot placement was. I know my .257 Wby uses a bullet not much larger than his .240 Wby, and I have absolutely no issues with killing deer. I shoot vitals shots right behind the shoulder. Most I've ever had one run is about 40-50 yards.

 

[Outlaw6.0]

Dang Mark,

You are a glutton for punishment I'll give you that . The biggest factor when it comes to caliber size & "dead enough" is the distance to your target. Unfortunately, too many people forget that we are on LongRange Hunting where displacement does provide a significant advantage.

Anthing under ~300-400 yards, the difference between 280 & 338 are almost negligible. With the bigger fuzzy wuzzies, & as the distance increases, the cajones of the cartridge needs to increase. That is an undisputable fact that you, I & the other peers of this forum can & always do, agree upon.

The gent who took "all the game of Africa" with the 280 probably did just that, it's not exactly difficult. I would be willing to wager a few C-notes that the longest distance shot was not exactly what WE consider long range.

In order to take this debate to a level upon which our particular arguements can be a little more useful; we need to know the yardage requirements. Caliber size is semantic until we know how far that caliber needs to be effective. While the 280 is quite pale in comparison to any 338, it's not the worst choice in the world. You will be handicapped for sure, as far as yardage & shot angle go but, it's doable.

Mark's comment about shooter ability got me thinking here. Whomever said a .30 cal can't be shot as well as a lesser caliber almost has a point as well. BUT, I have to throw the BS flag here, ANY caliber we normally use/recommend for LRH can be tamed to the point of usefullness. Again this is LONG RANGE HUNTING, while discussing the merits of our hobby/lifestyle I believe the shooter's abililty should not be a question as LRH requires a high skillset & a **** good working knowledge of what one is doing. LRH is NOT for the weekend plinker with his walmart special, long range shooting maybe, but not long range Hunting; & yes Virginia, there is a difference.

When based upon the merits of LRH, the needs to do what one needs to do at ever increasing distances; there truly is no replacement for displacement. If you rarely shoot past 400 or 500 yards & NEVER take game at or past that distance then no, the 30 or 338 offers no real advantage & some notable disadvantages.

I feel that both arguements are valid because they are being lobbied from two different perspectives; Long Range Hunting & NON-Long Range Hunting.


t