Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 7Mag vs 300Mag

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(1303000-3100 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.