A war’s been raging since 1963. That’s the year Winchester brought to market its now famous 300 Winchester Magnum. That introduction was, I’m guessing, retaliation against Remington’s 1962 release of its equally famous 7mm Remington Magnum. Each cartridge is today the most popular magnum in its caliber, raising the question: Which is the best all round hunting cartridge?
Now, you 300 Weatherby Mag. fans don’t jump in here and spoil the argument or I’ll let the 300 RUM lovers counter. Size matters, so let’s stick to the two older magnums. (Or read this article for another take on magnums.)
To engage this 7mm RM vs. 300 WM argument you have to be willing to pick at nits because, bottom line, both cartridges (and many other magnums like them) are winners. Either will neatly terminate deer, sheep, elk and larger game so long at the shooter delivers the right bullet to the right spot. Those are always the deciding factors: right bullet, right place. Given that, I would happily and eagerly hunt anything with either cartridge — even charging brown bears. Well, I wouldn’t be eager to face a charging brown bear, but I’d trust either cartridge if I had to — so long as each was spitting a long, heavy, controlled expansion bullet.
Regardless, if I had to pick just one of these for all-round hunting, it would be the 7mm Rem. Mag. by a nose. In a nutshell, here’s why: given equal rifle mass, optimum bullet Ballistic Coefficients and Muzzle Velocities in each caliber, the 7mm RM will shoot flatter, drift less and recoil with less brain jarring recoil than the 300 WM. Let’s run a quick ballistic comparison and see the tale of the tape. We’ll pretend both rifles weigh 8-pounds as shot. We’ll zero both at 250 yards, load both to maximum muzzle velocity and fire both in a 10 mph right angle breeze. Ready, aim, fire!
Here are the relative recoil levels from both 8-pound rifles in the above scenario:
Recoil Impulse Recoil velocity of rife Free recoil energy
7mm Rem. Mag. 3.5 lbs. per sec. 14.07 fps 24.6 foot-pounds
300 Win. Mag. 3.89 lbs. per sec. 15.64 fps 30.4 foot-pounds
Astute readers will notice a few things from these numbers:
- Contrary to popular belief, the heavier bullet does not drift less in the wind. Wind deflection is determined by a combination of B.C. and MV, not just weight. Weight is only a part of B.C.
- The heavier, larger caliber bullet delivers more energy at all ranges despite starting with a slower MV. The higher B.C. of this 210-grain .308 bullet helps it resist air drag, enabling it to retain more of the energy it started out with.
- The 7mm (.284-inch) bullet drops less at all ranges even though the .308-inch bullet has a more efficient, minimum drag B.C. This is because the MV was 200 fps faster.
- The 300 WM kicks slightly more. If you’re recoil sensitive…
- None of this matters to the elk. If you think 150 f-p impact energy will spell the difference between venison on the pole and a lost cripple, you might be interested in a bridge I’m selling in Manhattan.
Our current fad for long range shooting makes these studies in ballistics fascinating, but at “normal” hunting distances, neither cartridge has an appreciable advantage over the other. Deciding which you prefer comes down to levels of recoil, downrange energy, bullet drop and bullet drift, none of which are significant unless you plan to be throwing at targets beyond 500 yards.
Both cartridges fit through standard length actions, both maximize performance in 26-inch barrels but do fine in more convenient 24-inch tubes. Both are chambered in just about every hunting rifle made, including wonderfully affordable models like Mossberg’s Patriot as demonstrated here. Both are loaded with a wide variety of some of the the best bullets in the world and both are widely distributed and easily found. You can find .284 bullets from 100-grains to 180 grains, .308 bullets from 100- to 230-grains for handloading but — and this is a significant but — factory loads may throw you a curve!
WARNING: In factory loaded ammunition, you’ll be hard pressed to find 300 WM ammo with bullets heavier than 180 grains. Most brands offer 170 to 175-grain options in 7mm RM. That changes the ballistics significantly in favor of the 7mm and might alter your plans. If you are planning to shoot factory ammunition only, check back here for Part Two of this cartridge comparison blog. Factory load options might change your mind.
# # #
This comparison could come down to which one you shoot better. If minute-of-deer/elk accuracy is there, it is not going to matter since the two cartridges are so close to each other in aspects that matter. If I had to choose, I would go with the 7mm Rem.
Why not compare bullets of close grains so he mess up with the 300mag why not use 180 grains against 7mm 168 grains to be fair and l reload thank you rtb
I’ve found it most illuminating to compare bullets of similar B.C. in various calibers, but it’s informative to also compare those of similar weight, in which case the narrower caliber almost always wins the ballistic battles, given similar muzzle velocities.
But in this case the velocities would not be similar. The 300 WM is obviously going to have higher velocities with similar weights. I agree. Apples to apples is to compare loads of similar BC and SD.
Exactly what I was thinking I don’t know a single person that hunts long range or would ever shoot long range with a .300 win that go over 180g lol
Ken, of course, as a serious long-range shooter, you know the details, but most “ordinary” hunters just use what’s commonly available in factory ammo, and the most commonly used bullet weight in 300 WM is 180 grain. My intent was to inform readers of the performance of that. As to your implication, yes, certain 210 to 225-grain .308 bullets in the 300 WM will match or exceed performance of 170- to 180-gr., high BC bullet in the 7mm RM. The key is BC and MV. Match those and you match trajectory/wind deflection. The heaviest bullets will then retain the most energy. Recoil with them will also be highest. Many shooters are concerned with recoil.
Most long range hunters using 300WM are actually using 200+ gr loads. They have higher BCs and reloaders can usually get the same velocities from these loads as the factories load the 180 gr loads. A reloader can get a 200 gr Accubond going 2950+ fps out of a 24″ barrel.
Or to be “fair” use a 180 in 7mm and a 180 in .308! The 180 gr 7mm bullet makes it so one sided to the 7 mag it’s not even funny. But like many have already stated, it doesn’t matter. Both are awesome and just pick whichever you like more or shoot better :)
This is an apple to oranges example. And frankly I’m surprised the author used a 210grn bullet in the 300wm instead of a 180grn or even closer a 165 or 175 grn bullet. As he said bullet drift is not as big of an issue as velocity and B.C. I can prove that a 180 grn bullet out of a 300wm will exceed a 7mm substantially. And yes I have hundreds of chronograph and ballistics tests to prove it. I’m getting real tired of this which one is better than the other. It all boils down to what ever suits the particular shooter’s fancy. Not to mention ease of reloading or access to ammo, and overall cost effectiveness. I have often considered doing a 7mm/300 wm set up. But for me the 300 wm came out on top. The reasons and list is long, and at this point not important. But the point I’m making is that is what I chose for me. Opinions are like noses. Everybody has one.
To accurately compare cartridges the apples to apples comparison is to compare velocities with loadings of similar BC.
I am replying to Denis. Thank you. I am tired as well. They are both great rounds, BUT…
The .300 with a heavier bullet carries much more energy, much further PERIOD. AND THAT ENDS THE 800 SHOT DEBATE.
(Apple’s and Oranges)
But THE 7mm is has within 300 a much better flight in wind (drift) and for those on a budget might be a better option.
If your reloading things change a bit.
However, the not withstanding the drift of the .300 one must consider the recoil of the .300.
By no means am I anti 300 but they are apples and oranges they are both excellent rounds it’s like the debate between the 7mm and the 30 ought 6.
The 300 is more expensive to run than the 7mm the 300 is better at long distances the 7mm in my opinion seems to be more accurate inside of 400 yards in Wind is cheaper to operate and has less recoil.
Both are excellent rounds.
I cannot say thank you enough for your comment on apples and oranges cuz they actually are.
Simply in my opinion if you can handle a little extra recoil and the added expense a 300 is great if you need the extra distance.
However the 7 millimeter in my opinion I find will perform better closer in but that’s my opinion.
A great debate is the 30 ought 6 versus the 7 millimeter or the 300 versus the 375 H&H thanks for your post and I’d love your comments on my reply my best…
Happy Hunting to all and be safe.
Thank you for an excellent article. I am a simple man of 79. I have a wide range of guns but only one hunting rifle, a 1903-A3, .30-06 I bought from the NRA in 1958, unmodified. I have brought down my share of Whitetails in northern Minnesota, usually with a 180 grain bullet. I would have enjoyed a more exotic experience, owning a wide variety of heavy duty calibers you frequently explore. But my professional career did not take me in that direction. No sheep, moose or bear hunting in Alaska, not even elk or antelope in Wyoming. But I have always enjoyed the writing of those who have. As a boy, my dream was to own a Marlin .45-70 for hunting in Alaska. Now I find out from my brother-in-law who lived in Fairbanks for 40 years, and a 47 year veteran fire helicopter pilot-friend currently based in Soldotna, AK for the fire season, the vast majority of Alaska natives use only a .22-250 with a V-Max 55 grain bullet. So, following your theme of it’s where you put the bullet that counts, does a .22-250 deserve consideration along side the magnums you have discussed? I’m skeptical but open minded.
Phil: Sorry you didn’t get to make your dream trip to AK. Life has a way of limiting our options. Yes, many, perhaps most, far north natives employ 22-250 Rem., 223 Rem. 243 Win, the old 222 Rem. for collecting bush meat, including moose. I’ve heard and don’t doubt they’ve taken grizzlies with these, too. Completely doable, but problematic for the visiting sport hunter. The kinetic energy carried by lighter bullets minimizes internal tissue destruction. In my experience a .224 to .243 varmint bullet that is slipped behind the shoulder into the heart/lungs breaks up dramatically, tearing tissues in an area about the volume of a softball , perhaps volleyball. Tougher, controlled expansion bullets penetrate much farther to create a longer, narrower wound cavity. If either wound is atop the heart, it ruins the major arteries supplying blood to the rest of the body. This can render an animal unconscious in as few as two seconds. To whatever degree blood flow is disrupted by any bullet, the animal, regardless of size, sooner or later dies via oxygen starvation of the brain. Extrapolate that bullet energy to ever larger bullets and you see the potential for more tissue destruction and potentially faster demise. The mistake many hunters make is assuming bullet energy performs much like a boxer’s knockout punch, so the bigger and faster the better. But bullets don’t act like broad fists, which knockout because they shock the central nervous system. Any bullet, even a lowly .22 LR, that strikes the spinal cord from about the withers forward to the brain can kill the largest animal instantly. This does not mean the .22 is an optimal grizzly cartridge. Yes, with perfect shot placement, virtually any cartridge/bullet can terminate big animals, but common sense suggests size and power increases commensurate with critter bulk, especially if your time afield is expensive and limited. If you get a decent chance at your game at a less than perfect angle, you want a bullet capable of reaching the vitals. Someone living cheek to jowl with moose every day can await the perfect chance. On a 9-day hunt, you and I probably cannot. As for “stopping power” (grizzly charge, etc.) bullet size and velocity can make a significant difference, but not as much as many believe. No bullet fired from a shoulder-held rifle is capable of knocking back or even slowing down even a small grizzly. Breaking a leg can help, but don’t expect a heart shot to do the job. Sometimes a significant body hit with a big bullet can discourage and turn an attack, but as many have learned the ahrd way, only a central nervous system hit can ensure dead-right-there. As a famous African elephant hunter once told me “Unless you put the bullet into the brain, it doesn’t matter if it’s 100 grains or 1,000 grains. It won’t kill him. So you might as well use a 375 you can shoot without flinching.”
Wow, thank you for making it simple.
That adds a significant aspect to the debate! Thanks
Ron,
Exactly – That’s what a .375 H&H is for and is also the smallest legal required African round. Adding my two cents as an emergency backup a handheld Ruger 50 or a Ruger sr40 is a great savior tail just in case you could not have phrased your article or that post that I’m replying to just now better.
You’re almost paraphrasing the two to three argument as to it going in and tumbling the hopeful tumble to hit something important Theory.
Excellent comment the only thing you left out at the end was the moral is cya backup weapon. Lol.
Tom,. I enjoy all of Mr. Spomer’s articals. I’m a deer Hunter from Texas, I hunted with a 25:06 for around 27 years. Come across a deal on a m77 300 WM used only for over 10 years. Have a back neck so I got 700 SPS in 7.08, man it,s great. Thanks Mr. Spomer
7mm Rem Mag vs. 300 Win Mag
1)) Load each of them with the very ‘maximum’ amount of powder each case will safely hold, and also with exact same type of powder.
2)) Load both of them with exact same bullet grain weight(150, 165, or 180 grain, etc.) an example is both of them with a 150 grain bullet, and also same bullet type.
Then I ‘do’ know the 300 Win Mag will have more velocity, being more FeetPerSecond than the 7 mm Rem Mag.
But I would also like to know, in the scenario I mentioned above, please also compare which cartridge will have the ‘best’ Ballistic Coefficient, Energy ft/lbs, flatter shooting, etc.??
This is a fair comparison that I would like to see done. Thank you. David
I Have hunted since I was 6yrs now am 76 and still hunt everbody s there own thinking but still comes down shot placement how well you can shoot and I was in 82airborne each his own
Spot on, Roy. And thanks for your service in the 82nd Airborne.
First a clarification, David. The cartridges do not have a BC, the bullets do. In most cases you can get about 200 fps more velocity from a 300 WM than 7mm RM, so the 300 would win. At some distance, however, the more ballistically efficient bullet would take over. If we zero at 250 yards and shoot the Hornady 178-gr. .308 ELDX (BC .545) at 3200 fps and the Hornady 175-gr. .284 ELDX (.675) at 2,900 fps, at 1,000 yards the .308 would drop 231″ to 237″ for the .284. Drift: 67″ vs. 56″, Energy: 1023 vs. 1129. Yes, the.284 retains almost 100 f-p MORE energy due to its more efficient shape. This energy won’t matter a whit to the animal hit. Not that anyone should be targeting game at that range. Also, it’s unlikely you can use the same powders to get maximum velocity in each different cartridge.
A friend of mine went to Canada this past fall, wasn’t able to take his 7 mag because of Canadian regulations on caliber size. Had to take his 30 06 instead. So depending on where you like to hunt or go could end this debate
It’s always wise to check local regulations on legal calibers/cartridges and rifles. I doubt, however, that Canada disallows any 7mm magnums. I’ve hunted up there many times with various calibers and cartridges including .257, .277 and .284 (7mm) magnums. Your friend might have been misinformed by his outfitter. Many outfitters have strong preferences in calibers.
7 mm rem mag is common here in Canada. Your friend may have run afowl of the 5 round (4 magazine + 1 chamber) limit for centre fire rifles however. You can shoot .338, 45/70, .50 cal sniper rifles if you want. 7 mm rem mag and 300 win mag are mostly western Canadian rifles where longer shots are normal. In the east, though these big magnums are becoming more popular, 30-06 rules but still many hunt with 30-30, .308, .303 British, .303 Savage.
Hey Dave, that’s not entirely true. There’s some areas (southern Ontario from what i hear) that have maximum bullet diameters. I’m guessing it has to do with population density and complete idiots making laws, mainly the latter. Every province has different laws, just like the states, but I agree that I can’t imagine there’s any province where they’d have an issue with a 7mm but allow a 30 cal.
In southern Ontario you cannot hunt with a bullet with a diameter larger than .275”, so in this case you wouldn’t be able to bring the 30-06. I’ve never heard of a 30 cal minimum law or regulation in Canada.
Roger Duford
As an Alberta, Canada resident I can tell you there is no such thing as Canadian regulations on caliber size other than you must be above .223 for big game.
Most of my hunting friends shoot from .243 to .375 H & H for big game in Alberta. Your friend was misinformed by someone re the regs.
Roger Duford
Sorry. Above.23, not .223
Not in Manitoba. Keep in mind every province is different. In Manitoba, we just have to use a centrefire rifle for big game hunting. “A centrefire rifle of .23 calibre or less is not recommended” (2017 mb hunting guide) but is legal.
Mr Spomer I am getting ready to buy a 7mm mag. There are so many to choose from. I really like the model 70 extreme weather. It weighs 7.4 pounds. After scope rings sling and shells it would weigh close to 9 pounds. Do you think that’s too heavy for all day carrying in the woods. Thanks
Dan: Well, it would be for me these days. I like to think my 9-pound penalty days are behind me, especially since I long ago discovered my 6-pound rifles are just as field accurate as my 9 and 10. I know the trend is toward rifles the size and weight of small howitzers, but I also know I can hit out to beyond descent ranges any game I need to with my light rifles, so what’s the point of the mass? Not many agree with me, but I formed my opinion after hunting with literally dozens of rifles of all weights and sizes. All of my sheep and goats but two have been taken with 6-pound and lighter rifles out to 400 yards. No misses that I can recall. Many elk, caribou, moose also with the light rifles, and more than a few coyotes, Coues deer, etc. Seriously, I’m a light rifle convert of the highest order. Heavy rifle accuracy theory is one thing. Productive hunting is another. But you need to do what feels right to you. If interested in light, check out Rifles Inc, New Ultra Light Arms, Kimber Montana and Barrett Fieldcraft for starters.
Ron, those are all great manufacturers, but their rifles aren’t cheap. What’s the downside of instead picking up a Tikka Superlite in 7 RM, using some of the savings to put good glass on it, then using the rest of the savings for a nonresident elk tags? I’d appreciate leads for any good reviews of the Tikka.
Nelson, you’re in luck. There are more inexpensive, accurate rifles on the market today than ever in history. I’ve not worked with the Tikkas, but have heard great things about them. I’ve shot Sauer 100s, Ruger Americans, Mossberg Patriots and Winchester XPRs that all grouped factory ammo MOA or less. I’m guessing you can find something that’ll work for you.
Hi Nelson
I shoot a Tikka T3 hunter in 7mm rem mag with a VX6 3-18 on it. I am based in New Zealand and use it on tahr and deer. It’s light, accurate, and I can shoot all day with the suppressor on. Would recommend to anyone.
Ron, nice article.
I recently was in the conundrum of picking either a 300 win or a 7 Rem. I ended up going with a 300 win chambered with the NSWC reamer (more freebies than Sami, developed for military to shoot 220 smk). I chose the 300 due to the wide range of loading options and due to the fact that I can easily purchase ammo on any continent in the world with the exception of Antarctica.
My current handload is the hornady 225 eld (g1 BC of .777) seated at 3.680 (0.020 off lands) running 2958 FPS with an ES of 6 fps. This load shoots 0.25″ regularly. With this bullet weight and velocity the kinetic energy is 4359 ft lbs! Also, on paper (I realize this can be wildly different in the real world, this load is still traveling 1122 fps at 2000 yards! This performance is mind boggling to me but I will never realize it’s full potential.
After achieving these results, I am abosolutely delighted choosing the 300 win.
MG. Wow! Accurate rig. Glad it’s working well for you. Other readers might be puzzled by what auto-correct did to your words, so allow me: “More freebies than Sami” means MG’s NSWC reamer cut more free-bore in the chamber (before contacting the rifling) than the SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Institute) standard. This enables him to seat those long Hornady ELD-X bullets. By the way, MG, I wasn’t aware Hornady had a 225-gr. .308 ELD bullet. The heaviest I can find on their website is the 220-grain with a G1 BC of .650. That’s still pretty impressive. And the group size! I’d be tickled to get that with one of my .22s or 6mms. You’re a lucky shooter. Happy shooting.
7-mag can’t go wrong. Took down a oryx NM. At 435 yards animal when down without 2nd round. (Shot placement) Cow elk last year at 320. Shooting 162 grain SST. Both hunts were done by my 15 year son. This was after many rounds at the range. Gun, wheataby van guard scope vortex 4x16x44 BDC. 300mag had to much recoil! As far as the old man I will stick with my 30-06… can’t go wrong! Good shooting.
Hello Ron. I am looking at picking up a kimber montana in 300 win mag. Out of the box it weighs about 6 3/4 lbs. About 2lbs more than my current kimber adironack in 7mm-08. If i purchase this rifle i am going to put a vx-3 4.5-14×40 on it making the overall weight with sling right at about 8lbs. I was looking at similar remingtons and winchesters and they weigh between 7 1/2 – 8lbs out of the box in pretty much every caliber from S/A to L/A. So my question is, is in your opinion is saving a 1 1/2 – 2 lbs in a magnum rifle really worth it – in things like felt recoil, carry ability, price etc. Thanks.
MK: Sav ing weight on a magnum depends on how you plan to use it. If you’re going to be carrying it all day on, say, an elk hunt, then yes. If you’re going to stand hunt or make short forays from the truck or horse, then probably not. I’m a light rifle nut and have hunted with 300 WSMs weighing less than 6 pounds. Recoil is nicely controlled by the right stock configuration. This idea that a rifle lighter than 8 pounds isn’t accurate is a bunch of hooey. I shoot off packs, boulders, bipods and tripods with deadly accuracy as far as 450 yards with sub 6-pound rifles, regularly.
Hello Ron! I am looking at purchasing my first rifle but am debating between the 7mm Rem Mag and the .30-06. I will be hunting from 100-600 yards and hope to shoot out to 1,000+ in a few long range shooting competitions for fun. I do plan on reloading since I know that it will be necessary for optimal accuracy but am stuck as I have heard great things about both calibers. Which do you think would work the best from me?
Jake, you’ll find better long range performance in the 7mm Rem. Mag. The game you shoot, however, won’t know the difference. Good luck.
I think that’s a questionable claim. The 7mm RM is not proven to be better at long range than the 300 WM. They can push loads of the same BC at about the same velocity. Its a wash when comparing factory ballistics or reloading data but it’s been my experience that most 7mm RM factory loads actually fall short of listed velocity when chronographed. This is what I’ve seen and I’ve also seen many incidents posted online. For example, looking at a review of Hornady’s 162 gr Precision Hunter load for 7mm RM on Midwayusa one reviewer only got 2815 fps and the listed velocity is 2930. Another midway review for Hornady’s 200 gr Precision Hunter 300 WM load got 2908 fps with a listed velocity of 2850 fps. The 162 gr 7mm Mag load and 200 gr 300 WM load have the same BC.
This is just one example but matches my experience with the two cartridges. I find that rarely does an actual chronographed 7mm RM load actually meet the listed velocity while the 300 WM usually matches and sometimes even exceeds listed velocity. Reloading data matches this observation. A reloader really can’t beat factory ballistics for 7mm RM. A reloader can usually exceed factory 300 WM by 100-150 fps. Just look at Hodgdon’s data for both cartridges. That tells you all you need to know right there. The 7mm RM isn’t actually generating the listed velocities from 24″ barrels and you have to load it to max pressure to get there. You can load the 300 WM to well over 3100 fps with 180 gr loads and you can usually exceed 2900 fps with 200-208 gr loads with a variety of different powders.
Chris, you are sure right about listed velocities and actual. I’ve found most factory loads fall short of claimed MV, and some by as much as 400 fps. Reloading manuals’ velocities do not accurately reflect what every rifle/handloader will achieve with those recipes, either. Barrel length, chamber size, twist rate and more alter MV. Same goes for listed bullet BCs. In an ideal world every shooter/hunter would chronograph his/her loads and know actual average MV, but that isn’t going to happen. Next best option is to test for drop at 300, 400, 500, etc. yards in oder to develop accurate trajectory curve. Whether any individual rifle/load “beats” another isn’t nearly as important as the shooter knowing it ballistics and knowing how to shoot it effectively. Some 7mms exceed some 300s and vice versa. My intent in writing this and similar articles is to start readers thinking, experimenting and testing rather than accepting conventional “wisdom”. You, obviously, have been doing a fine job of that. Thanks for your input.
Ron,
Can you explain why you say you will find better results with a 7mm than the 300 wm in a long range conversation with both using 180grain bullet.
Mikal, I sure can. In any given bullet weight, the longer, narrower one will be most aerodynamically efficient. It minimizes air drag, thus maximizes retained velocity. That is why a 180-grain .284″ (7mm) bullet will performa better at long range than a 180-grain .308 (300 WM) bullet (this assumes identical form factors, i.e. both bullets have same shape. You can’t get aerodynamic efficiency from a flat-nose or round nose compared to spire point boat tail.)
Several celebrated gun writers have said the 7MM with 150 grained bullet kills better than the 175 grained bullets.
I’ve always found that people tend to overstate the velocity from the 7mm RM which leads to very favorable comparisons for the 7mm RM. Case in point. A simple look at Hodgdon’s online load data (which I’ve found to be very accurate over the years), shows velocity in the 2900-2950 fps range for a 162 gr 7mm load from the 7mm RM. This is a lighter load than the 168 gr load mentioned in the article and it still fell significantly short of 3000 fps figure in the chart. Only a brand new powder showed data over 3000 fps. It also shows a 208 gr load (closest I could find to a 210 gr) from a 300WM generating 2800-2900 fps. In fact every single powder listed went over 2800 fps. The real world numbers are basically 2900 fps for a 168 gr 7mm load and 2850-2900 fps from a 210 gr 300 WM load. Its basically a wash as far as trajectory when using “real world” velocities. I have no idea where the 3000 fps 168 gr load came from. Nobody makes a factory round with those ballistics. They are all in the 2880-2900 fps which reflects Hogdon’s data. Again, I’ve found Hodgdon’s data to be spot on over years and years of reloading.
So basically the author’s data is inaccurate. He’s overstating the 7mmRM velocity by 100 fps and understating the 300 WM velocity by 50-100 fps. That leads to BS trajectory figures in a comparison of the two cartridges. This is what always seems to happen in comparisons involving the 7mm RM. People always post loads with unrealistic velocities for the 7mm then post loads that are mid-level loads for the 300 WM and even 30-06. I don’t know of any factory load that generates 3000 fps in a 168 gr loading. When most people actually chrono their 7mm Mags they are usually disappointed because most of the numbers on the box are based off of 26″ barrels. Actual real world velocities usually fall way short of what the claimed velocities are.
I don’t want to hear about Joe Blow’s load for the 7mm RM that beats exceeds factory velocity or Hodgdon’s velocities. The 7mm RM is already loaded to very high pressures. Its dangerous to attempt to exceed published velocities.
When you compare apples to apples with a 24″ barrel, the 7mm RM doesn’t really generate very much more muzzle energy than the 30-06 but generates more recoil and uses more powder. Seriously look up the data. The 300 WM is a totally different realm of cartridge than the 7mm as far as energy and hunting large game. It is every bit as flat as the 7mm RM but simply has more energy and carries more energy down range. The 7mm RM is basically a glorified 30-06. A reloader can get the same energy levels from a 30-06 as a 7mm RM loaded to lower pressure.
The 7 mag is not loaded as hot as the 300 from the factory. The 7mm is loaded to 60,000psi and the 300 to 64,000psi. And you can easily get 3020fps from a 168gr out of the 7mm. If you want a real apples to apples load to the same chamber pressure and use bullets with similar bc’s.
The 300 WM is definitely loaded to higher pressures but I still think that the 7mm RM velocities are overstated. Reloaders can usually exceed factory 300 WM by a healthy margin. Its hard to beat 7mm RM factory ballistics by any significant degree. I’m talking actual chrono results. I spend a lot of time at the range and it seems that most factory 7mm RM loads fall short of listed velocity out of a 24″ barrel while most 300 WM tend to meet if not exceed factory published ballistics. If you simply look at Hodgdon’s online loading data you will see it would be very difficult to exceed factory ballistics. There are more powders listed for 300 WM that exceed factory ballistics than for the 7mm RM. There are some reloading manuals that are accurate and some that are not. I’ve found Hodgdon’s data to be remarkably accurate.
Ron, perhaps overlooked- 7 REM VS. 300 Win? This is what I’m grappling with comparing the 2 as all round hunting cartridges… Several years back I sat through an Alaskan hunting seminar and will never forget them saying, “bring at least a 30 Cal rifle to AK… That lesser calibers do not dispatch game as quickly”. Jim Zumbo used to hunt with an 06, then a 7 REM Mag. He switched to a 30 Rem SAUM and said at the time it clobbers elk with 150 CL factory loads. This from meeting Zumbo at outdoor shows, reading his articles and in the field once. Jim lost faith in the Big 7. He believed 7mm lost some Whammy on big game out there. Others also say caliber makes a difference in killing ability. In my experience a 338 Win Mag clobbers game, as does a 375… Most of the time. My 338 250 NP dropped a bull elk at 175 yards, lung shot on the spot! Would a 7 Mag or even a 300 do that? I’ve never seen it. I understand the variables, but watching friends shoot elk with 0-6s, the elk bolt! Still I watch videos of hunters shooting elk beyond 1000 yards with a 7 REM, killing them. So I’m more confused than ever on my search for the do-all hunting rifle. I feel silly hunting deer with a 338. So I choose the 300 Win for everything. While I’m not recoil shy, feel the 7 Mag recoil more pleasant. I would like to go back to the Big 7, but not at the expense of watching elk run or require multiple shots. Perhaps modern bullets have equalized things? So when comparing the 7 to the 30, to me velocity, drop, energy between the 2 seems splitting hairs. What I wrestle with is the lesser recoil of the 7 worth trading for the greater frontal area of the 300? I’m thinking the 300 Win is everything the 06 is and more of a good thing and right in-between the 7 Mag and 338. So would I regret switching to the Big 7 hunting deer, elk, moose, black Bear? These days hunting is expensive and limited. What does one really give up shooting a 7 instead of a 300 or 338 when it comes to quickly dispatching big game? Thanks, CJV.
CJV, you wrestle what all of us wrestle with at one time or another. It’s darn hard to determine which cartridge is best based on limited sample size and inconsistent samples (i.e. different bullets.) We all dote on the cartridge without appreciating or often even recognizing the bullet. I’ll write a blog on this topic in the near future, but for now I’d advise you that there is little difference in terminal effectiveness between these two cartridges when using the same bullets. The frontal area difference is so slight as to be laughable given the impact energies and resulting bullet expansion. To appreciate this, draw a circle that is .284-inch in diameter. Then center it in a circle that is .308-inch. This will show you the narrow band of extra frontal area the .308 bullet offers. Clearly, a .224 bullet compared to a .416 bullet is a big deal, but from .284 to .308? Do ballistic comparisons of .284 and .308 bullets at 7mm Rem Mag. and 300 Win. Mag. velocities and you’ll note the minimal differences. Load similar weight bullets in both (175 gr. in 7 and 180 gr. in 300) and you’ll notice very little difference. If you shoot the 7 better and enjoy it more, use it without any qualms. Just employ a bullet that handles the impact velocities and expands the way you like. (By the way, I’ve floored 6×7 bull elk with 140-grain bullets fried from a 284 Win. and put three 150-grain bullets from a 300 Win Mag in a whitetail without dropping it. Bull moose have fallen to one 120-gr. bullet from a 6.5-06. It’s not horsepower that kills, but bullet placement.)
Ron,
The sectional density of the 168 grains 7 mm bullet is 0.2976 and that of the 210 grains .30 cal. is 0.3162.
Hardly qualifying for the same form factor. The .30 cal equivalent would be slightly less than 200 grains…A fair comparison would be a Nosler 190 grains accubond long range with a ballistic coefficient of 0.640 versus 0.652 for the 7 mm Nosler equivalent of 168 grains. The 300 Win Mag pushes the 190 grains bullet at well over…3000 fps in a 24 inch barrel.
Your comparison is slanted in favor of the 7 MM. Rem. Mag. I own both and one is hard pressed in a 7mm Rem. Mag. to achieve a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps with a 160 grains bullet let alone 168 grains in a 24 inch barrel.
At equal speed, the .30 caliber bullet will fly every bit as flat as the 7 caliber if not flatter and will hit with far more authority than its 7 mm. counterpart at ALL distances.
Your recoil comparisons are accurate, the reason I mention it is that the article from which I found this link has recoil values that are inaccurate. The 300 RUM in a 10 pounds rifle pushing a 180 grains bullet at 3300 fps will have over 40 lbs of recoil. Around 43 to be exact. A very substantial increase over the 300 Win. Mag. at around 30 lbs of recoil. In general. A difference of over 40 % !!
This of course doesn’t take into account a heavier rifle. At that level another pound of weight in the overall weight of the rifle reduces the recoil by about 4 pounds, give or take. A muzzle brake is a must for prone shooting. I calculate recoil using raw powder weight (not its burning rate), bullet weight, bullet speed, firearm weight. Not taking into account other factors such as stock material, recoil pad, etc…Purely raw recoil which gives a very exact picture.
Hello gentlemen all
I’m an old Australian and that is to say we in Australia have been 20 years behind you lucky beggars in the states. This was very much so in the 50’s when your go to big calibre was a standard 22 Hornet; my God what a thing to behold!! Something to admire and lust after……but I never, at the time, had the money. There we no woderful 30 06’s to be had. No body had or used telescopic sights, ammo was rare and hard to come by. I remember when the 22LR came out and replaced the 22 short; what a sensation that caused. A decade or so later the Japanese scope makers entered the market here in a big way. That was the beginning of an epoch. Large centre fires rifles flooded the place; every man and his dog got one, heck, I bought three, with scopes!!
Well, sixty shooting years have come and gone along with thousands of ducks, crows, galahs, rabbits, roos, emu’s, pigs, foxes , goats, camels and buffalo, a good number of snakes too; no crocs though. When young, if it moved, it collected a bullet; such was farm life and hunting.
Currently, I own a marlin 45 70 carbine (worked), a 7mm rem mag (full custom), a 204 (full custom) a 22 250 (blue printed, SS barrel) and a couple of full competition double barrel 12 gauge shot guns. Now here’s the thing of it. I’ve fired machine guns, sub machine guns, pistols and just about everything you can think of and what I’ve learned is this. There is a thing I call the God Factor that doesn’t appear within any ballistic table, but I do know some of the elements that are in the God Factor; they are:
A. A rifle that absolutely suits you; forget about what your mates think
B. A calibre that you, deep in your heart, aren’t afraid of, no flinch
C. Spend the money, take the pain, don’t be a miser or you will regret it.
D A rifle that you are in love with, flat shooter, fast, no hold over at moderate ranges,
E. A killer out to 1000 yards (depending on game size)
F. Cheap to reload using the best components .
If you do the above, given practise, the shots that you create, make happen, will defy the laws of physics. The sort of shot or shots that live in the eyes of the beholders forever! The God factor e.g. a 22 250 Remington 700 ADL, 3 to 9×40 scope nine o’clock at night, free standing un supported, on the back of a ute, cold bore shot on an Emu (a bloody big fast running prehistoric bird like an ostrich) shot and killed @ measured 1400 yards!! I have no real explanation except good luck. However, that American Remington did just that time and time again; and not just in my hands either. A thousand yard one shot kill on foxes was a regular event (no bs) So, its not always the calibre because on the night in question there were 300wm, 270’s and a 243 plus the 22 250. As regards a 7mm versus a 300 WM and I’ve owned (own) and used both, my current 7mm RM is, in my opinion, superior to the 300 WM when loaded equally. Bye the bye, both my 7mm and 204 cost $15,000 each, they are beautiful and I love them all, they are all proven killers and personally I’d hate to ever be on the receiving end of any of them. Equally, a 300 Wm magnum is a mighty round. However, my next rifle will be the new 300 Norma Magnum because something in the design, spacial relationship, powder column, BC, SD like the 22 250, has The god factor; it just IS…..
Aronn! What a fascinating story you tell. Even if there’s a certain does of hyperbole involved, the entertainment value remains high. And if there is no hyperbole, wow. Just wow. Thanks for sharing.
Great article. Like the 300 WM – The 7mm Mag is a very respectable round and great for those who like it. Lots of flavors out there but I’m a big game 30 cal. guy for several reasons and my 300 WM is a sledge hammer on steroids and is ridiculously accurate and I will never look back. It’s just a Remingtom 700 BDL and its never had a factory round thru it since I bought in new. The only down side around here in N.E Ohio is I don’t feel comfortable shooting it around the farm without a deflection ramp behind it to drive the bullets down into the ground because them things don’t stop very easily and I don’t want a 2 or 3 mile ricochet hurting someone. I’m not a competition shooter but I do look forward to trying some of the new higher bc bullets available now days. They equally improve the 7mm as well so I guess the saga continues as to which one is better but my feelings wont ever get hurt if someone prefers the 7mm.
Frank, good attitude. I wouldn’t look back if I had the satisfaction your enjoy with your 300 Win. Mag. either. My job is to expose guns, ammo and ballistics for what they are and allow my readers to make their own choices. I’m not out to talk anyone into shooting anything specific. Heck, I can’t even decide which rifle/cartridge/bullet I like best. I get to use them all and appreciate their virtues and shortcomings. Not many of the latter. Thanks for joining us!
300 win far exceeds the 7mm in muzzle velocity and ft pounds of energy if bullet weights were similar .notice the 300 win bullet was 40+ grains heaver and still ran with the 7mm.. the author is truly a 7mm fan .
Hi AC,
Because I’m always ready to entertain enlightenment and learn new things, I ran some ballistic calculations using your basic information above. Fired from 24″ bls., max velocities from Nosler Reloading Guide 7, 150-gr. Ballistic Tip bullets for each. 3248 fps MV for 7mm; 3420 fps MV for 300 WM. Both zeroed 250 yds. Same atmospheric conditions. 300 started with 382 f-p more energy at muzzle. Because the .308 bullet has a lower B.C., it begins losing energy faster. At 600 yards energy was about equal. At 700 yards the 7mm is ahead. At 1,000 yards the 7 carries 61 f-p more energy. The 7mm deflected less in the wind at all ranges, deflecting 6.5 inches less at 1,000 yards. None of these differences is huge unless you’re a 1,000-yard competition shooter without an anemometer. As for the energy levels making a difference, 50 years of hunting big game around the world suggests to me this isn’t significant either. I’ve applied 160-gr. .284 bullets and 180-gr. .308 bullets to the shoulder/chest of bull elk inside 80 yards. Three shots each. Neither bull went down immediately. Both ran or walked for about six seconds before wobbling and falling over. I once put three 150-grain Ballistic Tips into a fleeing whitetail buck from inside 80 yards. The first two stayed inside the body and failed to knock that deer over even though another hunter had already broken one of its front legs. The deer was bedded when I administered the final shot through the lungs/heart. That shot from about 30 yards didn’t push the buck over, either. You are correct that the 300 WM carries more energy than the 7 RM, at least inside all reasonable hunting ranges. Just remember that winning the velocity race with lighter bullets compromises the wind deflection and downrange energy races. Compare ballistics with same weight bullets or same B.C. bullets and you’ll get different results. Pick your favorite. But, if you decide to embrace the 300 Win. Mag., you’ll be set to hunt anything in the world. Just choose the right bullets. Thanks for reading and offering your observations!
How does the Rem 700 7mm mag compare with the Rem 700 Win 290 mag? Which rifle is best for 600 yard plus shots? I load all my shells and my favorite is the 140 and the 160 grain bullet weight.
I bought and customized a Mauser 7X57 rifle and made killing shots, on deer, at 300 to 400 yard shots. Like a nut, I let a friend talk me out of this rifle, big mistake. I now have to find a long range rifle that compares with my Mauser.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Thank you,
WSP
The M700 in 7mm Rem. Mag. will outperform the 270 Win. Figure an inch less drop and drift at 300 yards widening to 10 inches and 5 inches respectively at 600 yards. The 7mm will pack roughly 240 f-p more energy at 600 yards. I don’t think any deer or even elk will feel the difference. But if you wish to maximize performance past 600 yards, the 7mm Rem. Mag. is your best option of these two. Good luck!
Sorry about my typo, it is a Rem 700 270 Win magnum not a 290!