Muley, I agree with you. I have a brother in law who last year purchased a Savage 110 bolt in 30-06, wood stalk. We went to our range to sight in his rifle, he was shooting 150 grain bullets, factory ammo, I was shooting my 7mm Rem Mag in 150 grain Scirocco's, Rem BDL left hand rifle.

After about 6 shots, my brother in law was complaining about recoil and how hard his 06 was kicking, and told me to shoot it some. I can tell you that his 30-06 kicked alot harder than my 7 mag, and I believe for the following reasons: 1)he had no recoil pad on his rifle, and I had a decellerator, 2) His rifle was fairly light, and mine was slightly heavier. Between the two, his "felt" recoil was much greater than mine, even though on paper with math, a 7 mag kicks alittle harder than an 06. 3) I am a bigger man than him, he feels more recoil than me.

go with the 300 wsm. if you only need to shoot 7mm bullets, you do not need a mag, go with a 270. the 300 wsm is simply too good to pass up and the 7mm wsm has the short little neck that no one really likes to talk about anyway. I have owned three 300 WMs and sold them all, just did not like them (must admit the cartridge is hard to beat). have one 300wsm and love it. it is my "go to" rifle. for "trophy hunting - however you may define it", I like a 30 cal bullet of 165 grains. this can do any reasonable shot at any angle. I know you can kill them with 100 gr 25 cal bullets at 2800 fps but I prefer to hedge my bets. also, for larger game, the 30 cal is the way to go. the 300 wsm can do anything the 7 mm wsm can do but the 7mm can not step up to the heavier bullets if needed, ie 180-200 gr.

re. the recoil discussion, I got curious and plugged some #s into one of the online recoil calculators

assuming equal powder charges and weight guns, a 160gr out of a 7mm WSM recoils about 5% less than a 180gr 300 WSM, depending on which recoil parameter you look at

http://stevespages.com/brecoil.shtml

using the Federal nosler partition loads, assuming same powder charges...

160 at 3160fps from 7.5 lb gun w/ 70gr charge gives
26.94 ft-lbs
14.96 f/s
3.6 lb/s

180 gr at 2975 fps from 7.5 lb gun, also 70 gr charge gives
29.03
15.53
3.74

not a big difference, but the recoil formula is incorporates bullet momentum rather than energy, explaining why even though muzzle energy is similar for the loads, recoil is lower for the 7 using the lighter bullet

anyway, the recoil issue is somewhat hair splitting but I like the idea of a 7 WSM because of the better vel. and energy retention downrange, as someone else noted earlier

also has the highest powder capacity of all the short mags by a smidge due to shoulder further forward

Muley Stalker,

Les Bowmans argument was with 300 Magnums. The popular one at that time was the 300 Weatherby Magnum. What Bowman promoted was the 7mm RM.

Somehow this discussion got off comparing the WSM's which are similar of course.

I have not calculated the recoil of at 300 Weatherby vrs a 7mm RM but having shot both there is a difference. I would expect it can be calcuated also.

Perhaps this is how a misunderstanding started.

oh, and as far as "inherent accuracy", a guy named Tim Lambert set a new world record for 1 mile group (5 shots in 10 inches!), and won a 1000 yd national competition w/ a 7 WSM he built (on a savage action!) within the last yr; if you poke around you can probably find the info, maybe over at shortmags.org

I can't imagine the recoil to be noticeably different between the two, not on the bench, and certainly not in the field!

Huntr

Nontypical,

I appreciate your calculations, and it illustrates my point, but the recoil is even closer than that as you can typically use a bit more powder safely with lighter bullets.

Savage, THAT I can agree with! I owned a 300 wby for quite a few years that I HATED to shoot, despite it being very heavy! In fact, after I sold it I bought my 338 ultramag (slow learner ) and would MUCH rather shoot the ultra than the Wby.

Stock fit? Who knows for sure, maybe I just learned to shoot the Wby well enough that the ultra wasn't that much worse? I have put a TON of copper down range with that ultra and while I can't pretend that I enjoy shooting it, I shoot it pretty well. Better than I ever shot the 300 wby. Gotta think the 7mm RM a piece of cake in comparison though I've only shot a few rounds from a couple different rifles of that chambering. The 7mm saum is the first 7mm anything I've owned.

Faced with having to dump either my 7mm or 300 saum, there'd be no question despite the 7mm being a custom job and the 300 straight factory -- I'd keep the 300 in a heartbeat!

The thing you have to keep in mind when you re-examine Les Bowman's comments on this subject -- and Bowman was a very bright man and good observer -- is that the most common .300s that were brought into his camps in those days were .300 Weatherby's. Those early Southgate-built FN and German-built Mark Vs were typically very light rifles with light barrel contours and crooked stocks with a lot of drop at heel, plus high Monte Carlo combs. Recoil pads weren't that soft, either.

I've shot a few of these rifles myself, and those light .300 Weatherby's just plain kick like a mule. It's no wonder in my mind that some of Bowman's clients didn't shoot those rifles so well. Modern .300 Weatherby's with good Decelerator recoil pads, and high, straight stocks are much more shootable.

Even the early Remington 700s ( I have one built in 1963) in 7mm Rem. Mag., while they do kick less than those .300 Weatherbys, actually kick harder than more modern rifles chambered in .300 Winchester.

My Echols-built .300 Winchester is much more shootable than that early 7mm Mag. of mine, and one of my friends has a Model 70 Sporter LT in .300 Win. (Miller-designed stock) that also kicks less.

Felt recoil isn't all about the cartridge, it's also about the RIFLE.

This new Kimber has a very well-designed stock from all appearances. It should be very shooter-friendly.......

AD

Sooooooo.....

For poor Mr. Walters' benefit, recoil deltas shouldn't be a significant consideration in your decision between the two cartridges you are considering (grin).

Sorry to start a fight on your thread!

Actually, the recoil issue was never an issue. I'm a mechnaical engineer, and have been watching the debate rage with some humor.

Guess I should have asked which is more accurate, and by how much? If the 7mm is .5 inches at 100 yards and the 300 is .75 inches, the 50% better group of the 7mm is insignificant at most shooting ranges (at 600 yards the dif is 3 inches, all things being otherwise equal).

I have kimbers and Tikkas, might just get a Savage in 7mm WSM with the accutrigger, just to experiment.