Lets compare the 7MM and the 300 Win Mag


July 12, 2003, 02:13 PM
I have been out shopping around for a left handed bolt for a while and have decided on a Ruger MkII in .300 but for some reason I seem to find more 7MM mags around too.

So tell me from your experience is there a big difference in ballistics, performance and loading options between the 7MM and the 300 Win Mags?

I primarily hunt deer. I will be hunting in the open lands of Arizona for deer this year. Also put in for an Elk hunt. I will be hunting black bear back in WVA this year as well.

So I am looking for an all around good round for all of these animals.

I dont reload as of yet but plan on it in the very near future.

As for handling the magnum rounds, I have been shooting mostly bows and pistols. Do alot of shotgun hunting. (Turkey, deer with slugs and upland birds)

Have shot the .338, 300, 30-06, 30-30.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lets compare the 7MM and the 300 Win Mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
July 12, 2003, 04:03 PM
For your stated purposes----the 7mm mag will be plenty-----and will actually shoot at longer ranges---with less recoil.

If you are thinking you need something bigger----skip the .300 and go right to the .338.

Something else to consider---High Energy loadings for the .30-06 from various manufacturors approach .300 mag levels---with a lighter--less costly rifle and loads. The .300WSM also throws a wrench in things too.

I don't see the 7mm short mags eating into the 7mm Rem mag---like the .300's shorties will with the .300 Win mag----if that makes sence????

July 12, 2003, 04:11 PM
get the 7 rem mag and take advantage of the better ballistics.

i love my 7 rem mag, and it does a dang good job of taking care of business, and does it w/ accuracy, too (win brass, rl-25, fed. primer, and hornady bullet when you load).

i honestly believe that there is no better all-purpose gun for the lower 48 than a 7 rem mag loaded w/ 160-165 grain bullets at 3050 f/s. the only thing that comes close is still unproven, and that would be a 7 rsaum in a model 7 (the win version is too big to fit in a light, handy package like the model 7)...

July 13, 2003, 12:00 AM
You don't need either for deer, bear or elk. A .30-06 will take any game in North America without the heavy felt recoil. So will a .308 win.

July 13, 2003, 12:27 AM
My vote goes for the 7mm Rem.Mag.

It is a good cartridge for the lower 48, as previously stated.
Light to moderately heavy bullets for different game and ranges, plus the recoil impulse is extraordinarily satisfying! :D

The .300 Win.Mag. is a good cartridge, too.
The .300 seems to be a good 'only one' rifle, if it really is the only one you'll use.
It has a bit more recoil to it, though.
When I chose my hunting rifles, I went with a .30-06 autoloader;
a 7mm Rem.Mag. bolt-action and then skipped up to the .338 bolt-action, for reasons of spreading the bullet weight/ranges a bit more.
Recently, I sold the .338 to get a .375 H&H, 'cuz I've always wanted one.
The next step up in the ladder is a .45-70 lever-action, so I'm done after I get the .375.

The '7mm' is my favorite because I always get a smile when I touch it off.

July 13, 2003, 01:05 PM
Thats why the 7mm has been getting my attention more and more.

I have shot the .300 but never the 7MM. A buddy of mine has one so maybe I need to see if he'll let me run a box thru.

Matter of fact, gonna give him a call today.;)

July 13, 2003, 09:31 PM
The 7MM is an excellent deer and pronghorn round! I do not like them for anything larger.

I'd feel more comfortable using a 30-06 and 180gr bullets or better yet a .300 shooting 200gr bullets than a 7MM using 175gr bullets. Why you ask when the 7MM looks so good on paper?

Because there is no substitue for frontal area and bullet weight...On large animals. the .308 diameter and up is the way to go on elk size critters.

Will the 7MM kill Elk? Yes just like a corvett will haul bags of cement. It's just not the best tool for the job.

July 13, 2003, 11:25 PM
The 7MM is an excellent deer and pronghorn round! I do not like them for anything larger.

Darn, must have been horribly unsportsmanlike to shoot antelope and deer with rounds like the .30-30, .243, 6.5x55, .308, or that drastically underpowered .30-06!

Will the 7MM kill Elk? Yes just like a corvett will haul bags of cement. It's just not the best tool for the job.

I'll have to tell that to my last Wyoming elk, parts of whom are still in my freezer. He accidentally fell down and died laughing, or maybe just got an unintended dose of lead poisoning, from a 200gr Nosler Partition fired from my 8mm Mauser. I'll go with the laughter theory, he was probably incredulous that somebody would dare take a shot at him with anything less than a 7mm or .300 belted magnum... :scrutiny:

I'm thinking a .416 Remington Magnum might be just the ticket for Wisconsin Cottontail Rabbits! Just kinda curious, how much edible meat would be left after hitting one, especially if he continued to ferociously charge me and I had to take a second shot?

July 13, 2003, 11:35 PM

Frontal area...:rolleyes:

Sectional density... :D

H&H Hunter has expressed a good point, of course.
I would in no way dispute this Gentleman's opinion because I cannot.

The primary use of the gun in question is deer, though.
The 7mm is fine for all the animals listed, even Elk.
The .30's are going to push back much more and less pleasantly than the 7's.

The frontal area argument is valid, but, I must ask:

Is it better to be thick and blunt, or almost as thick and LONG-er? :neener:

If you were hit by a MACK Truck, would you die quicker if it was a Cabover or a Conventional...?

I think the differences for this application aren't enough to warrant the extra pain of shooting heavier/thicker/shorter .30 cal. over the .284 with the better sectional density and ballistic coefficient.
For the heaviest in caliber, Barnes Original bullets can be had in 195-gr. to up the ante for the 7mm, too.
That's just my thoughts.

July 14, 2003, 11:58 AM
This may be the finest case of illiteracy I've yet seen.

Read my post again and you'll see that your missing the point.

I recommended the 30-06.

I think the 8MM shooting a 200gr bullet is just the ticket.

I believe in slower heavier bullets with bigger front ends and an S.D. of 300 or better. (Thus the .300 shooting a 200gr bullet)

Oh and just by the way I've been there and done that when it comes to elk. I've killed with every thing from a 120gr .257 to a 300 gr .375 and I've seen em killed with alot of other stuff. My conclusion is Light bullet + high velocity = trouble on elk.

The problem with the magnum crowd especially the 7MM crowd is that they tend to want to make those cross canyon shots at umpteen hundred yards so they tend to load light bullets. Because to make a 7MM shoot flat it needs a light bullet.

When you start loading higher weight bullets the 7MM really falls off compared to a .300. And the thread was concerning 7MM vs .300. So that's what I compared.

So don't accuse me of having magnumitis. Your talking to a guy whose two primary hunting rifles are a .308 win which I've killed every thing from elk & sheep to Zebra and Kudu. And a .375H&H also has several hundred notches in it's stock and is in my opinon the ultimate long range or short range for that matter, elk stomper.

July 14, 2003, 01:11 PM
I think this is turning into a 7mm Rem.Mag. won't kill an Elk thread...:p

The author stated he's shot the .30's, plus the .338, and is thinking about a 7mm, primarily for DEER.
He MIGHT get to shoot an Elk with a 7mm, in which case, if he's a responsible shooter/hunter, and I'm assuming he is, he won't load it with varmint bullets and shoot at an Elk at 500-yds. ;)

Like the one guy said, he thinks his friend likes his 7mm because he shot up all the ammo!

I like the 7mm, as it feels good to shoot and WILL cover just about any animal on the North American continent.
If you had one in your hands and were to be confronted by an animal you deemed too much for the cartridge, even as the animal was considering you for its lunch, would you just throw down your 7mm and throw your hands in the air? Hell, no!

Isn't the 8mm Mauser round a .323? That's plenty of beef for this corner of the world, too.

Once he's hooked on the 7mm, he can step up to a .375 H&H!!! :D
I hope he gets to shoot one of each first.
I can hardly wait to get my .375 next Spring.
"Smiles, everyone, smiles..."

July 14, 2003, 08:10 PM
My response above was very tongue-in-cheek, but I've seen SO MANY antelope, whitetail, and mule deer hunters who felt that if it wasn't a big belted magnum, it wasn't enough to anchor the deer. It's as if shot placement weren't as important to them as sheer foot-pounds of energy. It really makes me wonder how those hunters of years gone by managed to cleanly take game without benefit of the 7mm Remington Magnum and .300 Winchester Magnum. It's even more ironic when you see how many of the shots are taken at fairly close distances. Ever see a whitetail zapped by a .300 Magnum at 50 yards? Here's a hint, the bullet did NOT stay together like those pretty mushrooms shown in the gun rags.

Caliber preference is totally a personal preference thing, I'm well aware of that. Matter of fact, there's probably some hunters out there who wouldn't attempt to engage an elk with anything less than a .416 Remington Magnum, or a .50 BMG (I saw that ad online for Maadi-Griffin rifles once, 800 yard elks, from a tripod, no less) Use enough gun for the job? Certainly. Enjoy recoil that much? They must.

Granted, way out there, the flat trajectory and retained energy of the eargesplitten loudenboomers can come into play. That's a mixed blessing, though. I made the mistake, about 15 years ago, of taking a late afternoon shot at a Colorado mulie at about 400 yards, line of sight. Problem was, he was upslope on the other side of a valley from my position, so walking distance from where I fired to where he went down was considerably greater than 400 yards. Packing out by flashlight is a whole new experience. My hunting camp partners got my eternal gratitude for helping me bring him back to camp.

I've got a new .45-70 load, using a gas-checked 405gr hard-cast Beartooth bullet on top of a full case of Reloder 7. It chronographs at just a hair over 2000fps from my Ruger #1S. It's my Alaska rifle, but I've always wondered if it would be too much for whitetail or mule deer. I may just take it out West this fall. I may have to change my opinion of overkill. ;)

July 14, 2003, 11:07 PM
The author stated he's shot the .30's, plus the .338, and is thinking about a 7mm, primarily for DEER.

That is a correct assumption. This rifle will be primarly for deer but if I get the opportunity to go hunting for elk or even black bear in WVA I want to be able to get a sufficient load to ensure a successful hunt.

I would not prefer to shoot anything outside of 200 yds. Just takes away from the hunt to reach out that far. I am a bowhunter by trade and prefer to get as close as possible. Thats a quality hunt for me.

Dont get me wrong, if I have no other choice than to shoot that far I want to be shooting a round thats as flat as possible.

Just looking for an all around rifle round that will do the job. There are so many out there today and I havent experienced all of them.

Just wanted to get your take on the 7MM and .300 performance.

So on that note, lets not beat each other up on he said, she said and get back to the field performances and variations between the 7MM and .300 Mag rounds.

Thanks for all the inputs so far.

July 15, 2003, 01:07 AM
Here's a few links:





Bonus link:


July 15, 2003, 01:10 AM
The Remington 700 BDL in 7mm Rem.Mag.

Leupold scope is 4.5-14x40. Sunshade comes off for hunting.
Bell&Carlson Premier Thumbhole Sporter Stock fogged Krylon Hunter Green.
Redfield JR base/rings.
Bianchi Cobra Sling.

Notice the more than adequate eye relief afforded your bespectacled shooter. I appreciate that.
I'll really appreciate it with a lower power scope when I get my .375 H&H next Spring!

I must tell you that I had to RE-POST everything in this and the previous post because the server crapped out my entire message when I returned to the page...:cuss:
If you make a lengthy post or include a photo, COPY AND SAVE IT before you submit it in case this happens to you!

Art Eatman
July 15, 2003, 08:48 AM
I don't care what cartridge you pick, if you sight in for about 2" high at 100 yards you'll be close to dead on at around 200. (Yeah, 150 or 175 for a thutty-thutty and 225 to 250 for a light bullet in a .264 WinMag, I know...) You'll be around five or six inches low at 300.

If you have the right bullet for either light-boned or for heavy-boned critters, a muzzle energy of around 2,500 to 3,000 foot-pounds will pretty much kill any lower-48 critter--if you hit the neck or heart and stay inside of this 200-yard limit mentioned earlier.

Which is why I keep harping on "find a rifle that fits, and learn how to shoot it." If you're all married up to your pet rifle, the power of some particular cartridge is almost irrelevant.

:), Art

Quintin Likely
July 15, 2003, 10:40 PM
I've got a 7mm Rem. mag. Kills deer dead as hell. For me though, shooting that cartridge in a sporter weight rifle hurts. It's very loud, has lots of muzzle blast, and it's painful.

I'm kinda keeping my eyes open for something in a 6.5x55ish if I decide to go show Bambi how it's done this year. A light .308 probably wouldn't be much fun to shoot either, but I don't think it'd be as rough as the 7mm.

July 16, 2003, 12:59 PM
I just purchased a Ruger Left Hand Mark II. I was torn between the 30-06 & the 7mm mag. I chose the 7mm mag for a number of reasons. Flatter shooting, better sectional density of the bullet itself, and will take anything I shoot at other than the biggest of game. I have owned 30-06's in the past and looked at them as a good round, but don't see them any better than a good short action 308 winchester. The only thing that bothered me was the extra 2 inches of barrel, so I tried them both and found that the longer barrel balanced better for me. Buying a standard length bolt action, I felt the 7mm mag offered more. Good luck on your choice.

July 16, 2003, 04:56 PM
Gewehr98: eargesplitten loudenboomers
hehe, Good one, nearly fell out of my chair laughing:)

If you enjoyed reading about "Lets compare the 7MM and the 300 Win Mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!