7mm Remington Mag for all around hunting??

[Lefty7mmstw]

Not to start a caliber war here, but how is the .300WM so vastly superior to the 7mmRM when they will both push equal weight-for-caliber bullets with similar BC's, at equal-for-weight velocities? Wouldn't that make them pretty much equal?

That being said, I think confidence in, and knowing your equipment is just as important as any other aspect of it.

higher Taylor KO factor Muddy, due to the wider frontal area of the 30 cal. bullet... That is why many also step over 30 and go to 338 for critters that weigh over 400# or so.

I've treated my rifles like golf clubs for years. I've got choices from 22 cal to 405 and usually a mild and wild in each caliber (or wild and really wild). Use the correct tool for the job and you will have better luck.

I've seen big bodied mule deer bucks that have soaked up multiple 30 cal hits from around the 1/4 mile mark ... what would a lesser caliber have done? Would we have gotten the buck or would it do like a couple of mule deer I've seen and take a small caliber hit in stride and bed down a few minutes later to die and not be bagged. You've got to hit them hard enough if you want to take them quickly.... For deer a 7mm is usually enough. You won't see me shooting bigger critters than deer with less than a big 30 though.

my 7stw with a 140 has a tko factor of 18.... my 300 win with a 165 has a tko of 23.... whilst my 375 with a 300tsx trucking along at a sedate 2550 fps has a tko of 40... these all generate close to 4,000 ft# of muzzle energy...

btw., my 405 with a 300 at 2250 fps still has a tko of 39....

 

[gohring3006]

Yes, they are both great calibers, but all I was saying if you hit elk with a 180 gr bullet from a 7 compared to a 215 or 230 from a 300 there is a visible difference. Seen it many times. Both will and do kill elk, but one has more killing potential than the other. It is that simple.

As far as comparing in this manner "equal weight-for-caliber bullets " why would you want to handicap the larger rifle with a lighter bullet when that caliber has a larger bullet available. The only answer is, to handicap the 300 to make it look equal to the 7.

I choose to load them both to the full potential that they both can be loaded to for my comparisons. For this the 300 will win in energy and SD at distance. I personally believe these are two important thing to consider when going for elk and moose as stated by the OP.

I do not in any way dislike either. Like has been stated in a gazillion threads here already. They are both great chamberings. Just the facts.

Jeff

I agree with Jeff.... Larger diameter and more weight will always win, with all else being equal.

Like Jeff says, handicapping the .300 to make the 7mm look better is not a good comparison, it shows bias.

 

[FEENIX]

What are your thoughts on using a 7mm rem mag, shoots .450 with the Nosler 150 grain long range Accubond? I am wanting to simplify and use one gun for antelope thru Elk, and maybe one moose hunt. Wouldn't use it on bears other than a black bear. Would allow me to invest in a great scope and learn the rifle and trajectory in detail. Ive hunted a lot with 300 win mag but thinking I might want a little less recoil.
thanks

That's exactly what I did but with the .300 Win Mag, I hunted antelope to elk size game with very good results up 931 yards using 190 to 215 Berger VLDs.

If recoil is an issue for the .300 Win Mag, an effective muzzle brake installed will resolve that problem.

Like others said they are both excellent chamberings but my personal preference is the .300 Win Mag ... and yes I have both.

 

[FEENIX]

higher Taylor KO factor Muddy, due to the wider frontal area of the 30 cal. bullet... That is why many also step over 30 and go to 338 for critters that weigh over 400# or so.

+1!

 

[FEENIX]

I agree with Jeff.... Larger diameter and more weight will always win, with all else being equal.

Like Jeff says, handicapping the .300 to make the 7mm look better is not a good comparison, it shows bias.

+1!

 

[FEENIX]

I've been shooting a 7mm Rem Mag since 1983 and absolutely love it. I've also had an exceptional 300 Win Mag and loved it. However, my 7mm Rem Mag was my high-school graduation present and it will always have a place in my safe. I've killed loads and loads of whitetails at ranges out to 525yds and it's always done the job.

I've *not yet* killed an elk (that will change this year gun)!!!!) so I don't personally know how well it will do. However, I'm quite confident it will suffice. My 300 Win Mag would also have done the job to a greater distance, but my trusty 7 stayed with me while the 300 went down the road...

To me, the choice is made not simply by determining your specific hunting *needs*, but also what you like and equally important - what you E N J O Y (so long as you're reasonably assessing the rifle/cartridges capability).

As a hunting cartridge the 300 Win Mag is superior to the 7mm Rem Mag. The empirical data illustrates that reality perfectly. Refusal to accept this fact is not logical. However, personal enjoyment is part of the hunting/shooting equation as much as a chambering's capability.

Heck, I'm dreaming of a big, fast 338 CheyTac-type chambering for hunting elk in places where a long distance shot is likely, but my next rifle is going to be a custom rifle chambered in 7mm/300 Win Mag to split the difference .

I can truly respect that!

 

[fmajor]

.......
As a hunting cartridge the 300 Win Mag is superior to the 7mm Rem Mag....

Not to start a caliber war here, but how is the .300WM so vastly superior to the 7mmRM

'Morning Muddy - I didn't say the 300 Winny is vastly superior to the 7mmRem, just superior.

I guess I should have been more specific in what I was thinking than merely stating one is superior to the other.... I was thinking the 300 Win is generally a more lethal chambering than the 7mm Rem.

when they will both push equal weight-for-caliber bullets with similar BC's, at equal-for-weight velocities? Wouldn't that make them pretty much equal?

Nah - there's much more to calculating/estimating lethality in a projectile than simple BC (which is simply a derivative of drag coefficient, velocity, etc.) and equal for weight velocities (size and weight do matter as does sectional density of the projectile).

I suppose by "equal weight-for-caliber" you're meaning the ratio derived from a projectile's weight to it's diameter. This then is used to compare with another projectile with an "equal weight-for-caliber" ratio (the 300 Win and the 7mm Rem in this instance).

Further, I'm guessing you are saying "equal" in terms lethality (between the 300 Win and 7mm Rem). In this instance, these two "equal weight-for-caliber" projectiles are moving at the same velocity and therefore must be equally lethal.

Unfortunately, that's a value that isn't truly linear in effect despite the simplistic mathematical modeling theories.

Heck, that's a subject that's been hotly debated since, well, since folks started slinging stuff at animals to kill 'em!

What we actually want to know is how effectively a projectile will kill.

This is very challenging (impossible?) to calculate because it relies on many variables - not the least is determining a projectiles ability to retain momentum as it travels through a given medium (hint: current retained energy mathematical modeling is insufficient for this due to differences in media as relating to the medium's density, material elasticity, etc).

Retained energy itself is reasonably straight-forward to calculate. However, no one has yet come up with/published a mathematical model which accurately calculates retained energy as a projectile travels *through* a medium after it's initial impact.

This is aside from whether or not that projectile can/will induce lethality. Taylor, Fackler, et al have done extensive research on this topic, but fail to come to consensus (or even have their research pass peer-level review) on the characteristics of a projectile which consistently induces lethality - only what a projectile needs to do.

That being said, I think confidence in, and knowing your equipment is just as important as any other aspect of it.

Yep - I agree!!! It sure has helped me with shot placement - especially when I was in uniform and had to take an "off-the-rack" rifle that never came home with me (I like to snuggle on the couch with 'em !!!) ... Confidence with and knowing my gear was about all I had (well, a fair bit of practice as well).

 

[FEENIX]

Nothing beats hands on personal real world experiences and successes under your belt, like Jeff (BROZ), Rhian (Bigngreen) and others esp. when it comes to the majestic elk regardless of caliber/chambering ... just saying. gun)

 

[MudRunner2005]

Yes, they are both great calibers, but all I was saying if you hit elk with a 180 gr bullet from a 7 compared to a 215 or 230 from a 300 there is a visible difference. Seen it many times. Both will and do kill elk, but one has more killing potential than the other. It is that simple.

As far as comparing in this manner "equal weight-for-caliber bullets " why would you want to handicap the larger rifle with a lighter bullet when that caliber has a larger bullet available. The only answer is, to handicap the 300 to make it look equal to the 7.

I choose to load them both to the full potential that they both can be loaded to for my comparisons. For this the 300 will win in energy and SD at distance. I personally believe these are two important thing to consider when going for elk and moose as stated by the OP.

I do not in any way dislike either. Like has been stated in a gazillion threads here already. They are both great chamberings. Just the facts.

Jeff

Equal weight-for-caliber, in other words, comparing the 180 Hybrid for 7mm, and 215 or 230 Hybrid for .30 caliber.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I suppose by "equal weight-for-caliber" you're meaning the ratio derived from a projectile's weight to it's diameter. This then is used to compare with another projectile with an "equal weight-for-caliber" ratio (the 300 Win and the 7mm Rem in this instance).

Further, I'm guessing you are saying "equal" in terms lethality (between the 300 Win and 7mm Rem). In this instance, these two "equal weight-for-caliber" projectiles are moving at the same velocity and therefore must be equally lethal.

Unfortunately, that's a value that isn't truly linear in effect despite the simplistic mathematical modeling theories.

Heck, that's a subject that's been hotly debated since, well, since folks started slinging stuff at animals to kill 'em!

What we actually want to know is how effectively a projectile will kill.

This is very challenging (impossible?) to calculate because it relies on many variables - not the least is determining a projectiles ability to retain momentum as it travels through a given medium (hint: current retained energy mathematical modeling is insufficient for this due to differences in media as relating to the medium's density, material elasticity, etc).

Retained energy itself is reasonably straight-forward to calculate. However, no one has yet come up with/published a mathematical model which accurately calculates retained energy as a projectile travels *through* a medium after it's initial impact.

This is aside from whether or not that projectile can/will induce lethality. Taylor, Fackler, et al have done extensive research on this topic, but fail to come to consensus (or even have their research pass peer-level review) on the characteristics of a projectile which consistently induces lethality - only what a projectile needs to do.

Yes, all of this is what I was getting at when I said and was comparing them as "weight-for-caliber".

 

[Broz]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I read equal weight for caliber as meaning a 180 grain in both. My apologies.

So as for the question what makes the 300 have more terminal performance? From my experience after seeing many elk taken with each it is simply the larger bullet delivers more terminal performance. Weather that be in pounds of energy or amount of lead distributed to the vitals, or the difference in the way the diameter of the bullet reacts after it enters. I really don't know. But I have seen over and over a visible difference in the amount of time an elk spends on his or her feet after being shot in the same place. Typically, with our chosen behind the shoulder shot from 400 yards plus, an elk will soak up the bullet. Meaning, it hunches up after the hit, and either stands there or slowly takes a few steps. Then wobbles from blood loss and falls over. It is not that long, but I hate this and want quicker results. I truly feel we get those quicker results from the larger calibers with heavier grain weight bullets. In this case 30 cal over the 7mm.


Last year I hunted with a father and his two grown sons. We took 3 Bulls in 3 1/2 days. We have done this same hunt for a few years now. 3 bulls each year for them. The father used his 7mm-300 with 180's. The sons used my .338 with 300's. We are all together for the taking of each bull to watch and help. Great family hunt! Last year the father got a nice 6x6 at a little over 600 yards with his 7mm. The bull only walked a short distance and stood there as the herd left. After a minute or two he turned and presented a second shot. The father gave him one and he folded. But all the ones shot with the 338 were down either instantly or much quicker. Both years. After last years hunt the father decided to take the 7mm-300 and rebarrel it to 338 EDGE. In his own words, and being a big fan of his 7mm, he said " I want them down quicker and it is obvious the .338 does this"

Jeff

 

[MudRunner2005]

Thanks for the good debate Jeff. Your insight is always knowledgeable, and for that I have lots of respect for you and your opinions. I can certainly understand where the 7mm vs .338 would be a noticeable difference, that's 120gr of bullet weight and .054" larger diameter bullet impacting the vitals. That I can believe would be a significant difference in real-world testing.

As a life-long .30 and 7mm fan, and taking many deer with both calibers, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around (not contradicting what you're saying, just going through my brainstorming outloud) that 35gr of bullet weight, and .024" larger diameter having that significant of an effect on terminal performance.

I do like a good debate/conversation instead of someone just saying, "this is better than that, so you need this..." and no actual basis other than personal bias or opinion. I'll be the first to tell you that I have a personal bias towards 7mm chamberings, even though I have quite a few .30 caliber rifles and many other random caliber rifles, too.

I still think that once the new 7mm 195 comes out, it will be a total game-changer.

 

[gohring3006]

Equal weight-for-caliber, in other words, comparing the 180 Hybrid for 7mm, and 215 or 230 Hybrid for .30 caliber.

If we are comparing "equal weight for caliber" then please explain to me how a 180gr 7mm bullet traveling at 3000 fps, and 215gr .308 cal bullet going 3000 fps is even close to being equal?

 

[MudRunner2005]

If we are comparing "equal weight for caliber" then please explain to me how a 180gr 7mm bullet traveling at 3000 fps, and 215gr .308 cal bullet going 3000 fps is even close to being equal?

I didn't say equal velocity... I said equal-for-weight velocity. In other words, the 7mmRM is a bit faster with a 180, than the .300WM with a 215. But, just like was mentioned earlier, the 215 is slower at the gate, but it retains more energy. At some point, the 7mm 180 will slow down to the same speed as the 215, but at some point the 215 will retain its speed and energy longer than the 180. Where those points on the axis fall for both, I don't know. But I would be curious to see a true chart for comparison to see how equal they really are. Just guessing, but I bet it would be a lot closer than most people would believe.