Which is better? Besides diameter is there much difference?

thoughts on these two questions or other thoughts?

Kique

I prefer the .300 Weatherby or Win. Either will generally shoot a 165 at 3200 or so. A little over 3200 in the Weatherby. And recoil is not that much worse to me than a 7mm or .30-06 in a reasonable weight rifle (although I had a NULA .300, which was a little unpleasant, but that may have been stock fit).

I`m Glad you dont have that nasty old NULA 300 Win. anymore !

300 win mag is better for larger game. 200gr at 2950fps is possible. 7mm rem mag may be a better deer rifle for open country, 140gr at 3200fps sure kills them dead. I have both so at my house there is no vs

In general terms, more or less the truth, but also, in general terms, what one will do, so will the other, given the right bullet selection in either.

The 7mm does handle bullets below the lightest generally used in the 300 & conversely, the 300 handles heavier bullets than the heaviest generally used in the 7mm.

MM

I think the 300 is more versatile because the 165gr shoot as flat as the 140gr from a 7mm and the 200gr bullet from a 300 just plain hits hard and penetrates deep on elk. You can go 180gr and shoot pretty flat and hit hard.

If you don't need the rifle to play dual roles on deer and bigger game all of the time, the 7mm Rem Mag gives you great performance on deer in open country and at less cost. It can also work on elk with bullet weights in the 160gr and 175gr class. However, when it gets to the 175gr bullet, its almost no different than shooting a 30-06 with 180gr bullets.

To compare one of each with about the same amount of case capacity there isn't much difference. To make it easy, compare the 280 Rem to the 30-06. Both are great rounds but the 30-06 won't do much more than the 280 would do. I wouldn't necessarily compare a 7mm Rem Mag to a 300 Win Mag as I believe the 300 Win has a little more case capacity but maybe a 7 WSM to a 300 WSM would be more fair. Which ever you would choose the cut off for hunting IMO would be just short of the great bears. I think most would agree that more bullet than either can offer would be better suited for that task.

If you are going to hunt elk the 300 is a better choice with the availability of heavier bullets, But the 7 mag is a fine round also

I've had them both and like them both. By a slim margin I prefer the 7mm Rem mag as I feel less recoil when shooting it. In the field, I've noticed no difference on game. Sudden death is sudden death, no matter if it's a .28 or .30 cal bullet.

The .300 is a little more gun, the 7 shoots a little easier. Take your pick. I think we're almost back to the angels on a pin head argument...

Regards, Guy

Can't think of much I would grab one over the other for, no practical difference for 95% of what you'd either one. I would say the 7 will thump a little less on the non-business end. Seems to me when you get to 200gr things become a little nastier!

I own both but I prefer the .300 Win mag. and will probably sell my 7 mag.

My M-70 Laredo will throw a 200-grain spitzer boattail at 3,000 fps., and with good accuracy. Sighted 4" high at 200 yards, it's dead on at 300 yards and maintains over 2,000 ft. lbs. of energy at 600 yards.

More is more.

Depends upon what you want to use it for. I view the 7mm rem mag as pretty much the perfect all around deer cartridge. However, if I were after elk I'd prefer to be carrying some sort of 300 mag. The 300 mags cross the limit of how much kick I'm willing to deal with on a continuing basis to shoot deer. I really can't tell any difference in recoil between a 7mm mag, a 30-06, a 270, etc. When I touch off a 300 mag I know it instantly, it's in a different recoil catagory than the others. I have plenty of hard kicking rifles and occasionally use them on deer for kicks and grins, but every now and then is enough. For a day in, day out deer rifle a 300 mag is too much for me. A 7mm rem mag is "just right".

I have probably blown more egg money on these two categories of cartridges than any others and have been using both since the late 70's IIRC.I've been loading for and hunting with both since then, too.

Most of my rifles were chambered for the 300 Win Mag,300 H&H,and 300 Weatherby;(these three are separated by 50-200 fps,depending on barrel length,throating, how hot you load them, etc);in the 7 mag category I've mostly used the 7RM,the 7mm Dakota,and the 7mmWSM.

Back in the 80's,I had it all figured out....the 300's were "better";used heavier bullets at the same velocity the 7RM gave lighter bullets, the paper ballistics showed the 300's to be more powerful,and I used the 300's up close and to quite long range to flatten elk and other stuff.The 300's are splendid cartridges, among the best as general purpose BG cartridges IMHO.I always felt that with the heavier bullets they really are more of a "medium" bore, like a 338 IMHO.

But the extra "advantage" of the 300's came in the form of heavier rifles,more recoil,and greater powder consumption to move bullets of roughly equal ballistic properties to the 7mm's at the same velocity.This, of course, means they kick more,and I agree with Crow Hunter on the issue of recoil thresholds.I have watched some pretty bad 300 mag shooting by some guys who were better served by a 7x57.It always struck me that the 300's were a bit over the top for a lot of people and are best reserved for seasoned, hard core riflemen,and not for those burning a box or two of cartridges per year. This type should avoid a 300 mag like the plague IMO.

I've had numerous factory and custom rifles for all these calibers and found that I could build a 7RM(Dakota,WSM,etc)to be lighter and still be easy to shoot.A comparable 300 mag had to be heavier;I tried building a 7.5 pound 300 Win Mag (once)and it turned out to be pretty unsatisfactory.It kicked like 3 mules.

Creeping doubt entered my mind on an elk hunt in the 80's where I watched a little gal weighing 110 pounds soaked in oil, flatten a big herd bull in mid-bugle at about 500 yards with a 7RM and a 160 Partition.Since then I used the combo on elk myself,and seen it used many other times on a variety of other stuff,and IMHO,the game ends up quite as dead from the 7's as it does from the 30's,especially if you stick with well constructed 160 to 175 gr bullets in the 7mm's.

I've got a 160 gr 7mm Bitterroot here that traveled the length of an elks neck from behind and stopped under his chin; it smashed vertebrae and tough neck muscle all the way,still weighs over 155 grains and is expanded to over 60 caliber.The wound channel was a complete train wreck, fully the equal of anything I've seen from a big 30,including the 200 gr Nosler Partition, which I have driven from forward of the hips of a big bull clear to the off-side shoulder,breaking it.

I have a hard time drawing a fine line which makes the 300's a more suitable class of cartridges for elk sized stuff,as I firmly believe a properly loaded big 7 is fully capable of taking on large soft skinned game,and I would not hesitate to take one against any game available here.

Looking back on all this,if I had it to do all over again,one rifle for all mountain and open country hunting of trophy soft-skinned game from pronghorn all the way up,I'd likely do what Page did decades ago and get a 7 Mashburn ,Dakota,or 7mag of similar capacity,load a great 160-175 gr bullet,and shoot everything.(For those rare circumstances where this is not "enough", my second rifle would be a light 375H&H).

I know I could have a lighter rifle that recoils less,kills stuff about as well,and is generally more easily managed.With todays great bullets, the situation is even better.JMHO and YMMV

Sorry for being so "long"!

I've owned and shot both...for whatever reason, in similar rifles, there is a noticeable step up in recoil from the 7 Rem Mag to the 300 Win. I currently have a SS 700 in 300 Win that I had plans to make my one and only big game rifle. I just can't get used to the recoil to shoot it well. I take it with me on every range trip and shoot at least 20 rounds each time, but accuracy is still suffering. If I can't get the hang of it, I'll probably rebarrel to 7 Rem Mag or 270 Wby. I've also considered having a brake installed, but I really prefer not to have one on a hunting rifle.

That being said, I think the 300 Win is a much more versatile cartridge. In my neck of the woods, you see at least 10 7 Mags for each 300, but it's mainly open country/beanfield hunting where a 7 Mag/140gr combo is fantastic. In my opinion, a 300/165gr combo is great for open country, while 200gr partition/accubond is perfect for elk

The short answer is anything you can or should be hunting with a 300 mag, you can hunt with a 7 mag. I doubt any animal will know the difference between a 200 gr bullet from a 300 and a 175 from a 7 mag. Both are moving fast enough to do some major damage to any CXP 3 game.

BobinNH - thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience. I came to the same conclusion - that I personally shoot the 7mm RM better than I do the .300 Win Mag, and that it does all that I need in a flat shooting mid-size magnum. I'm loading it with 160 Nosler Partitions at 3050 fps, a Ruger Number One. I've only shot one big bull elk, but the 7mm RM/Nosler Partition had no trouble dealing with that challenge.

Regards, Guy

Guy, I ain't too bright but I have figured out over the years that I can only carry one of these things at a time.

A 7 mag is a good place to be...it balances moderate recoil,light rifle weight,sufficient bullet weight and diameter,flat trajectory, and solid lethal effect in a combined package most of us can manage. The track record of things like the 7x57 tell us we have enough caliber.

Go down in caliber, bullets get lighter....go up in caliber while maintaining the same speed,and recoil and powder consumption goes up. How much in each of these categories we are willing to tolerate is an individual decision.The 7 mags are a good balance.

Just use good bullets!

One advantage I believe the 30 s have is longer throat life than a 7 mag , if you intend to shoot a particular rifle alot....

sd, I think you may be right on this.....I've only been through one 300 Mag barrel;more 7 mags. But I'm not sure whether this is because the 300's are easier on throats...or the 7's are easier on me....so I shoot them more,wear them out quicker

Yep, the .300 Win mag kicks more; you just can't get around the laws of physics.

In one of the old Hornady manuals, I can't remember which one, they had an article about throat erosion in the 7 Rem. mag. They shot a new rifle and chronographed it and then shot the same rifle after 1,500 rounds had been put through it. The velocities with the same loads had dropped roughly 200 fps., IIRC.

I'm in the "have 'em both and like 'em both" camp. There are positives to both of them. The .300 throws a bigger ball while the 7mag thumps the shooter a little less. The hand loader can set either up so's to take any NA BG in a decisive manner.
If nit picking is your forte', then the .300 would be the better round by a very small amount but if you own a good 7mag, you'd be kinda foolish to sell it in order to buy a .300.

Greatest difference is recoil. I've never hunted big bears so in general to me anyway the 7RM is better. My personal preference is for anything in .284 cal other than a good 30-06 (just because). The 7 has been making Moose and Elk dead for years now so I can't see it not continuing in that fashion especially with today's bullet selection.

CLB

I'm also of the "got 'em both" crowd, with a 7 mm Ren mag, a .30 Gibbs, and a .300 Wby.

About 30 years ago, I had my .30-06 rechambered to .30 Gibbs which just about duplicates the .300 Win mag ballistics. I shot a few tons of elk and a couple of moose with that rifle.

About 10 years ago, I bought my first 7 mm RM. I've only shot one elk with it, but I've taken it to Africa twice, shooting a variety of antelope from duiker to kudu, and I used it once in the Arctic for a couple of caribou and a musk ox. Years ago, I took a friend moose hunting, and he made a one shot kill with his 7 mm RM on what, at the time, was the 4 th largest B&C moose ever shot in Montana.

A couple of years ago, I built my .300 Wby to replace my .30 Gibbs. I put about 100 hours into finishing and checkering the AA Fancy walnut stock on the Wby. My 7 mm RM is stainless in a plastic stock. I've shot 3 shot MOA groups with both of these rifles, and recoil is not an issue with either one.

If it's raining or snowing, I'll hunt with my 7 mm RM, if it's a nice day, I'll go with the .300 Wby. Other than Alaska's biggest bears, there isn't anything else in North America that I wouldn't feel confident in hunting with either one of these rifles.

It seems like with today's wide variety of bullet construction and weights, that these are almost two peas in a pod.

You could run a 110TTSX in both if you wanted, but you can go all the way to 240Woodleighs in the 300 so maybe it has a bit more versatility.

In practical terms, I think the 7Mag does more with less recoil in this capability range. Of course, I wonder what it offers over the 270?

oh, gawd....this has made my head hurt a lot,so I stopped thinking about it,and "rationalized" having both this way.....the big 7 is a 270 on steroids that shoves heavier bullets the same velocities as a 270 does the light ones(130@3000-3100 vs 160 @ 3000-3100).

The 270 fits in a lighter,slightly shorter package(22" tube and 7pounds or less)and the 7 mag gets the 7.5-8 lb rifle and 24" tube).I like to make believe the 7 mag is just a bit more gun,at least with heavy bullets. I am entitled to my fantasies......

Does it all matter? I dunno since I doubt I will live long enough to prove one way or the other....all I know is they both work and I like them both,so they are what I use,mostly.

I figured out 40 years ago neither the 7RM or the 300WM is worth a chit. They are both equally capable of doing in anything I'll ever meet in the woods, and if I owned either I'd have no need for any other cartridge. Forget that!
I accidentally ended up with a 7RM once and a 30-338 one time and I couldn't wait to get rid of them---so I wouldn't be tempted to sell my other big game rifles. They each will take the place of so many other cartridges, it's scary.
I actually still miss that 30-338 with 180 Ballistic Tips, though. See! Scary!

Once I had a 300 Win Mag, then I screwed a 7mm Rem Mag barrel on it and now I likes it more better.

Kique-I've used them both quite a bit for me here's how I see it.

The big 7's are more user friendly, not that the 300's are tough and rough to deal with but I like to shoot em a lot and I find a fair bit of diff when shooting them off the ground and or unsupported and odd angles.

Plus in the 300 I want the 190 or 200's in it. It's my opinion that for max penetration (aside the 220 Noz etc) that the 300 needs a 200 to keep up with a 160-175 in a Big 7. I want two holes in a critter and I've seen more 180 Nozlers out of game from 300's in game than all of the 7 bullets combined. Fact is, I'm pretty darn sure that of all the game I've used and seen the Big 7 used on I can recall only ever finding two slugs.

Bottom line, I find the Big 7's easier to shoot a lot (I prefer to run mine 500-1K rounds a year) and yet I find the 7's to penetrate at least as good with less bullet weight and less recoil.

Given the two I'd take the Big 7 each and every time. I've shot the old Nozler 175 Semi spitzer a lot and can't imagine what it'd take to keep it in a critter. I have a friend who uses a 300 a lot and he's found more bullets in critters in the last couple years than I have in 2.5 decades of use of the 7. Now a lot of people could care less about 2 holes but I want them and so that's my way.

Bottom line, it seems to me you have a Big 7 already, I'd shoot it till it puked and then rebarrel it to another big 7 with a long throat.

Best of luck to ya

Perro

Good points here, but I've migrated toward the 300s more. I like them all, no dust on the 7s, but I really like the extra punch the 300s dish out. My favorite is a 300 Win Mag 1941 vintage Model 70 that weighs in at 8 3/4# and really loves to shoot. If it was chambered in 7 Mag, I suspect it would be my favorite too. That it's a 300 is a bonus.

My experience tells me the 30 shooting a 200 NP is apex on elk. I've vented enough of them with it.

The 7 for cows deer is hard to beat.

Cows no you're talking my man, one of these days we really need to take a run down under and get after them.

4 me, it just don't get any better than that.

Dober

That says it all right there....

Just one mans opinion but the bestest rounds (4 me) is a Big 7 and a 375 of some sort.

Dober

I'm with you on that.
Have a brother in Oro Valley who would feel sorry for us and let us stay with him if we wanted.
Also a cousin who owns/leases an 80 sq mile cattle ranch north of Lake Pleasant.

Dec/2011?

Dober

To me at least the recoil of the 7mm Magnum and .300 Magnum is about equal. Even the .338 and .375's don't seem to bother me that much.

As far as usefulness, the .300 instead of the 7mm would be my choice as an all-around rifle if game from deer to moose were possible.....but not the "best" choice in my mind. If there is a real probability of encountering elk, moose or bears, I'd bypass the .300 and carry a .338 Magnum. It will handle larger game much better from any angle and work just fine against any deer that happens by too.

That's the problem with the .300's.....they are "tweeners".....too much for deer and not quite enough for any and all shots at larger game. I've tried for years to justify why I "need" a .300 but if I feel the 7mm Magnum or .30-06 aren't enough then I always go with the .338. It will certainly kill elk/moose if properly placed.....as will the 7mm Magnum.....but one can't always be sure of a "perfect" shot and I have much more confidence in the .338 when things aren't just right.

As far as the 7mm Magnum, I've owned and used one for years. As some have stated, it may be the "perfect" deer rifle as it shoots flatter than the .270 with heavier bullets that hit as hard (or harder) than the .30-06. If I was primarily hunting deer with a "possibility" of encountering an elk or moose....the 7mm Magnum would be a first rate choice.....perfect for all deer situations and capible of taking larger game with care.

The .300 would surely be the best choice (over the 7mm Magnum) if one had to use "one rifle" for everything.....but fortunately I've never had that problem.

Nice post Rick, I agree with all you said 100%

The only advantage the 338 has over a 300 is 250g bullets, and yes I like it, I've killed elk and mule deer with all 3 cartridges.

Yeah, I'll put that down and work toward that.

That would be a blast!

ditto.

I just can't warm up to the 7. For me it's the 300 and I agree with Dober It just don't get any better than the 200 grain Nosler with it.

caribou:Yes, it works great...BTDT.For me the 300's kick too much,weigh too much.

I wonder what it is the mag 30 does with a 200 Partition that the mag 7 with 175 Partition does not do......(?)

Bob , that's where the 300 wsm fits for me......I find that cartridge to belt me a liitle less than a 7 mag and somewhat friendlier on the muzzle blast.....a little less of the "jet " effect I think ....


the little 30 mag does give up some trajectory to a 7mm , but not enough to bother for most use.

SD: Yes,this is true. The 300WSM does split the baby pretty well. So long as you don't make them too light....I like the cartridge but doubt there is any difference on game between it and a 7 mag.

All things being equal,it cuts a .24 larger hole and wound channel.

Jayco

I would have to look it up to check the BC but I suspect the 200 grain bullet has a better ballistic Coefficient, Sectional Density, leaves a bigger old and penetrates deeper. But I also suspect the difference is minimal enough for the animal to not know the difference. Different calibers appeal to different people. 30 cal has captured many of Americas hunters imagination whether the '06, 300 WM, 300 wsm, or tons of others. Up here, its tough to even sell a 7RM.

As an owner of both, there is very little I would do with one that I wouldn�t do with the other. The .300 and heavy bullets would get the nod if going into griz country, the 7mm if shooting things deer-sized and smaller. For elk I use them both and have found the 7mm/160g to be �more than enough�.

Nope, nope, nope and nope..




Yep

My decision to go with the 7RM over the 300mag. is that the 7RM is the biggest round I can shoot well. When you're talking elk I think one should use the biggest round he can handle. The rub is that many of us are not so very honest about that. For me, as I've gotten older, I have become way less recoil tolerant. Could be I'll be shooting a 7x57 soon. Not a bad thing at all.

For a general purpose rifle, I don't get real nit-picky about pros and cons of various bullets, but I looked up the differences between the 7mm/175 gr and the .30/200 Nosler Partitions:

.30 BC=.481, SD=.301
7mm BC=.519, SD=.310

So the 7mm bullet has slightly higher numbers.

And there is of course that .024" difference in bullet diameter, an advantage for the .30 cal.

I dunno. Like them both, have used them both. No longer have a .30 magnum around, but that's not to say I won't have another one in the future. This year it's the 7mm and the .375 I'm planning on exercising afield. Long ago I figured out that there wasn't much difference afield for what I hunt, and I'll stick by that.

Regards, Guy

I think they're two peas in a pod... personally I like the 30's (have had exactly one 7mm RM), and prefer mine in the WSM flavor. A 180 NP at 3K+ from a 300 WSM is a serious package for up close or out far. My longest kill on game was 547 yards on a bedded antelope with that combo. One shot, dead lope. In the Kimber Montana you can have it in a 7lb 4oz package (all-up) that's a joy to pack.

But I'm likely Kimber's biggest cheerleader...

So its said; in real life I've never seen a difference in how they kill,ie dead stuff on the ground.

Sure frontal area counts,but only if the bullets you use give it to you...

I'm hoping that at some point in the future, there will be an opportunity to take a big Asian sheep, or another trophy bull elk, or an Alaskan bull moose, or a tough Nilgai bull, or a sable, or a grizzly.

When and if that day comes for me, the 7mms will probably be left at home, and the trusty old .300 Wby. Mag., with its 1 MOA handloads of Barnes TSX bullets, will probably get to make the trip.

I have seen the 7MM kill Elk and I also have seen and used the .300 Win Mag on Elk and in those three times I saw the 7MM in use,I'll stick to the .300 and 180 Noslers...Never had one go over 15-20 steps getting fed a 180 Nosler out of the 300.

Experiences differ!!!

Now the little 25-06 penetrates as well as the mighty .375 H&H so are we all going to sell our favorite Elk rifles and by a 25-06 because the little 100 grain bullet penetrated as far as the 260 Nosler out of the 375?

Jayco

I've seen a spike bull elk keep a 160 Speer Hotcore in its hide on the offside on a 200 yd shot via a 7mm RM... ditto the 180 Partition via 300 Mag on larger bulls. Elk hides are pretty darn thick and elastic and those wanting two holes on big bulls are going to be disappointed more often than not no matter what they shoot IME.

These internet discussions confuses me..All this BC/SD yadda yadda and the little 30-30 kills Elk every year without the numbers the net says were supposed to have.

The one guy I know who has killed more Elk than anyone else I know,uses a 25-06 and he doesn't know better not reading any gun rags or has access to a computer

One day he will get a magazine for Christmas or look at the net at one of his kids places and realize how wrong he is and has been for 65 years of hunting.

Jayco

I've had no issues with either one;but generally I've shot well and used good bullets in both.....nor have I seen much difference in the hands of others so long as good bullets were used,and placement was proper.

I have 7mm bullets recovered from game that retained more weight,and have more frontal area than some 30 cal bullets fired from 300 mags.

I've seen elk poorly hit with both....the 300 offers no advantage whatsoever...the elk go a long way and they are not any sicker from the big 30 than they are the 7mm.You have a problem either way.

I used to believe there was a difference between roughly comparable rifle calibers,but don't believe that any longer.Bullets mean much more in how cartridges kill IMHO,right along with good placement.

Jayco, were I limited to "just" a 308 Win I know I'd not punch a tag any differently or any less often than if I were armed with a 7 or 30 magnum. Yeah, I know a guy that does the same thing with the 25-06 year in, year out.

So you are saying that a 375 H&H or a 338 Win Mag has no advantage as an Elk caliber over the 7MM?I no were talking 300 Win Mag but where do you draw the line as to when a larger caliber with more weight and frontal area is a quicker stopper or do they all stop them the same way with the same effect?

We totally agree on bullet choice and shot placement..Larger calibers do make a difference in immediate effect,of course just in my opinion and what I have seen but when does this start??Maybe .24(300) or .54(338) or maybe .91(375 H&H over the .284(7MM)...

And I won't even mention JJ Hacks "7MM Hit 'em again" thread.

Jayco

Yeah I know..My favorite for years was my 270 Win when that was all I had and it did the trick if I was up to it and my wife still does on occasion..

The 7MM is kinda like the Barnes bullet to me..Once you see something not work your not in a big hurry to join the crowd even though zillions use both with success.

Call me old fashioned or just plain older than dirt for not changing something that isn't broke.

Awe heck..All in fun ehhh..

Jayco

Jayco, I used to have this conversation ad nauseum, week after week for about a decade,with a well known maker of premium bullets that pre-dates many in use today.He had used them all(cartridges), lived in Idaho,hunted a lot and knew bullets and cartridges very well.He was for a time a ballistician for Speer;he had both the hunting experience and technical knowledge.

He felt very firmly that if you want to make an elk go all "loose",use a 375AI and push a 250 grain bullet(he used his own)at 3150 or a 270 gr bullet at 2900+.You get very large wound channels, lots of punch and big exits.He felt it was better than any 338.He also felt the 35 Whelen was a better "killer" than the 338...I dunno because I have never used a 375 on elk.

My own meager experience tells me elk are easy to kill if hit properly with either a 30 or a 7mm.


I have not read JJ Hack's thread on "hit 'em again 7mm's".JJ has shot more game than me.But in my blissful ignorance,if I were going to Africa tomorrow, I'd load good bullets in a 30/06 or 7 mag and just go hunting.I'm sure it would turn out OK.

Got a close friend who believes very firmly in 300 mags.He came back from BC deeply disappointed last year. Seems he hit a big bull poorly(or not exactly right)with a 300 RUM and 180 gr TBBC at 3300 fps;the elk was floored,it writhed around and got up and into heavy brush and forest very quickly,before a follow up shot could be given.He lost the elk.

He asked me what I thought; I told him he did not hit the elk correctly.If he had the elk would have died and not gone far.

Seems even with a magnum 30,a guy should be just as ready to hit them again as he does with anything else.I think there may be magic in greater bore diameter and heavy bullets, but doubt it occurs between 7mm and 30.

I have seen 338's and 340's used on quite a few elk;hit properly, they died. Hit poorly, they were wounded.Ditto a 300 and ditto a 7mm. I'd hunt with any of them and not lose any sleep.

That wouldn't be Bill S from Lewiston would it, aka Bitteroot bullets.I remember back in the day when some of the old timers then,questioned something better than the Nosler when Bitteroots came out.I think John Nosler won some hearts here in Idaho that were not happy with the bullets available back then and like me,didn't want to change again or experiment..

Turns out the Bitteroot was one heck of a bullet..Nowaday,a guy doesn't have to look far to find a great bullet unlike it was in the 50's & 60's.

To be fair here,one of my good friends in McCall Idaho was a staunch .300 Win mag user with year after year success(A logger and FS worker)then I ran into him bragging about his new 375 H&H..I asked why..He felt the .300 let him down on a tough old bull..He explained and to me it was his bullet choice not the caliber.

To many people just use factory cheap ammo like the old days then complain about caliber when things go south..And yes,he uses factory ammo in his .375.

In the same competent hands with the same competent bullet,there probably would be little to no difference at all between these two great calibers..I still prefer the 300 because of bullet weights available for game from A-Z compared to the big 7..

Jayco

I had a 7 RM and a 300 WM in Stainless Rem 700 Sendero's with Vias muzzle breaks installed on each. I sold the 300 due to the fact that even with the Vias muzzle break, I could shoot much better groups at 300 yards with the 7RM.

With the 7 RM, max load of R#25(WLRM primers), I was shooting the 150g Accubonds and 154g Interbonds at 3200+ with amazing accuracy at 300 yards.

I sold the 300 to a Moose hunter with all the load data for 180g Accubonds I worked up...he is sure one very happy dude.

300 WM is just over my recoil thresh hold...worse than a 375 with a Vias muzzle break (which felt like 20ga Buckshot rounds to me with 250g Bullets).

Most of my elk and those of my co-hunters over the last 20 years have dropped to a 7mm RM. With a good bullet and placement, the results have been uniformly good. (The only one I was unhappy with was a cow my buddy neck-shot. It made it about 120 yards and we didn�t find it until the next day.) Had a couple go maybe 40 yards tops, but most have gone a few yards or straight down. So far I�ve only taken one with my .300WM and while the results were also good, the end came no more quickly than with my 7mm RM.

When I started with the 7mm RM I ran 160�s for the first 20 years. These days I run 165�s in my .30�s and have dropped to 140g with the 7mm RM. Given the result on the one mule deer I�ve taken with the 7mm RM/140g (straight down like a stone), I don�t think an elk will know the difference.

The 7mm RM has a definite advantage in the recoil department and I shoot it more often as a result. While the .300 has a mostly theoretical advantage, the extra practice with the 7mm RM results in higher confidence levels at long range. Still, I like very much like my .300 WM.

Maryanne on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; Ginger on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday; toss a coin on Sunday?

Maybe in another 20 years I�ll have this figured out...

Jayco:.....yes it was Bill;

Had a feeling you'd figger it out

I know him well.I learned a bunch of interesting stuff from him.The man knows bullets.

I think we are really on the same page;to see a jump in performance means a BIG jump in caliber.

Keith/Coyote:I have always loved big 30's,used them a bunch, but age catches up.... I can still shoot them but stopped using them seriously over a decade ago.No doubt they are among the best things a guy can carry on an elk hunt.

For some reason,the 7's lack that head-snapping,heavy recoil that the 30's dish out.Yet the bullets(chosen carefully;today the X,North Fork,Aframe's,heavy Partitions or AB's etc)help it work really well on a variety of stuff...bring it up a notch.

Bob, do you really notice recoil while shooting at wild game. I never have

IMO habits come thru practice, if one practices enough to be utilizing a big 30 or a big 7 then that's when good or bad habits are made.

Point being, that while we don't feel recoil while shooting the game it's the habits we form prior to that that counts.

Capice..?

Dober

Capice - Have not heard that term since my father passed away 10 years ago, was one of his favorite expressions, sounded pretty good to hear it again!

So Dober that term might shed some light on your years of experience as I never heard it from any youngins!

338,yes and no...I'm aware of what I am shooting and hold on accordingly...

That said I've always been a pretty firm believer in practicing with the same rifles/cartridges I hunt with...that is the bugaboo for me.At various times I have had 300's, 7 mags and 270's going at the same time.Once 300's reached the stage when I no longer shot them extensively, they went to the back of the safe,and the lighter rifles got most of the calls to duty.

For me(not necessarily for anyone else)the 300's required that additional degree of concentration and muscle tension to master and be precise with...they are just over the top.And this gets worse(not better) when I shoot a lot.I also find them more difficult to manage from awkward field positions.

Today I just use the 270's and 7 mags;it has been that way for about a decade.

Bob, A few years ago my dad bought a browning A bolt in 7 mag. He ask me to sight his gun in for him.That was the most punishing magnum rifle I have ever shot. Kicked harder than any 338 I've shot.
I dont see how there would be much differance in recoil from a 7 mm rem mag shooting 160s than a 300 win shooting 165s if both guns are identical.
Just cause a guy is shooting a 300 mag does'nt mean its going to kick harder than a 7mag. Bullet weight and stock design have a lot to do with it also

JMHO

Maybe true enough;the 300 burns more powder than the 7RM.It's not a lot but just enough,the 7RM burning in the mid to high 60's charge; the 300 Win in the mid to high 70's,and the 300 weatherby in the 80's. It ain't much but just enough to catch up to you if you shoot a lot.

As to stocks, I have had them all....no matter how the pie gets sliced the 300's generate more recoil with comparable bullets at the same velocity.

The correct comparison of a 30 cal 165 is a 7mm 140;the 300 WM burns more powder to get it to 3200 than a 7 mag does a 140.Check the manuals and they will demonstrate this I think.Across the board the 300's kick harder.

Bob, I'm talking all things being equal. Of course a 7 mag will kick less shooting a bullet that weighs 25 grains less than the 300

That's the point;ballistically a 140 gr 7mm(not a 160 7mm) is the ballistic equivalent of a 165 30 cal.

A 160 gr 7mm is the ballistic equivalent of a 180-190 gr 30 cal.

You can look it up.(Use the same type bullet,ie BT,AB,Partition, etc to be fair about it)

It takes more powder to start the 30 cal 165 at,say,3200 fps than it does the 7mm 140;the reason the 7mm kicks less.Yet the two are "ballistically" similar.

I'll take th FT. LBS. of energy the 300 offers over the 7 mag and deal with any exta recoil.

Can't go wrong either way as I've killed elk with both...they work dandy

Ditto here.

Both are reliable elk thumpers. For smaller game I prefer the 7mm Rem Mag but the .300 Win Mag works there as well. The two deer I shot last year with the .300 went straight down. (Have to use what�s in your hands at the time...)

Ain't that the truth!Never felt under gunned I'll bet...

Ditto here, also

I think too many people get too hung up in the numbers game, and in the opinions of others.

For all round hunting, up to elk and moose, I'd just about as soon carry my handloaded 7x57. If it was just bigger game, no deer-sized animals, I'd carry a .338 WM or .338-06. That just kind of leaves both of these without a lot of purpose, but that is just my opinion. If I'm going to put up with the recoil of a fast .300 I'll take my FN .338 WM steady hunting of the big stuff, or in Ak or Africa where a chance encounter of something that bites is possibel. Otherwise the small 7 is my everyday rifle.