Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 7mm or 300 win mag

You gotta keep up....the 270 has new boolits. Matrix and the new ABLR are examples

Besides,the advantages accruing to 7mm (which ain't really .284,it's .277, but we won't get into that) really occur with a small handful of target bullets and things like Bergers or Amax etc.The new Matrix and Nosler ,277's are right there with them in BC.

Otherwise, compare most anything else in the same weight class by most makers,and there isn't much to talk about.What you can kill with one you can kill with the other....no exceptions that know of unless you can scrounge some 7mm solids somewhere to brain elephants.As a tiny sampling I watched two large buck mule deer killed with each at about 400 yards a couple years ago on back to back days...holds were similar and so were results. I don't buy that the 270 is a punk long range cartridge in the hunting fields....it practically invented the term.

As to the 30's,there is a persistent and well thought train of thought(base on field experience) in the game fields of the world that a 30 caliber is "more gun" than any 7mm of comparable capacity and velocity levels. Modern bullet technology accrues to both and 30 calibers are undeniably heavier,and should have more expanded frontal area.That stuff counts at some level.

My own observations are that the 30 caliber magnums carry a lot of clout at distance,numbers notwithstanding. What saves 7mm's is that its heaviest bullets nudge into the mid range of 30 caliber bullet weights...sure you are going to get kicked more at the same velocity levels with the 30's and comparable bullets,but anyone thinking the 30 cal magnums are inferior BG cartridges at any distance can't have spent much time around them....IME they are hammers if you aim straight and put bullets in the right place.

I'm not ready to relegate them to the scrap heap and I'm a pretty big 7mm fan.Ya gotta be objective about this stuff.

At the bear.

For years the .277 fans and .308 fans have tried to say their respective "favorites" are just as good as the 7mm. Well, technically, they aren't. And I can guarantee you I've spent more time behind all 3 than most ever will.

There is no "magic" to bullets. Only math. Do the math. The 7mm is ballistically better, whether it is your "favorite" or not. Or whether or not you feel you can notice a difference in on game performance.

I realize that if you shoot something at "normal" ranges with a 270, 280, or '06 it is real hard to denote a difference. But I also realize that if I start reaching way out there that the 7mm is a better tool for the job than the 270. And that I have to burn more powder, shoot a heavier bullet, and absorb more recoil from a .300 to equal it's performance. Them be facts, not guesses.

Additionally, I also realize that if more thump is what you want that the .300 has larger/heavier bullets available than either, putting it in another league than the smaller diameter bullets. I just don't really ever see anybody use them anymore. Bullets of today are so good that if you feel a .308 with a 180gr premium bullet won't kill it, then you may want to step up in caliber.

THAT is being objective Bob

If a 277 bullet,a 30 caliber bullet,and a 7mm bullet, all have a BC of (say) .625; and all three are started at the same velocity....how is one "better" than the other at long range in terms of flight?

What do you consider to be "normal range"?

I'll simplify this as much as I can (off the top of my head)so don't grill me if I'm a hair "off".

A 7mm 162 gr A-max has a .625 BC as you stated.

I need a 208 gr .308 A-max to equal it's BC.

I need approximately 10 gr. more IMR 4350 to push the .308 bullet approximately 150fps slower. Recoil with the .308/.300 is noticeably greater.

If you can't grasp/agree with that, I don't know what else to say.

I gotta take my daughter to school now. Be good.........

I understand the entire powder consumption/recoil equation thing.But that wasn't my question.

Again, if a 277 bullet,a 284 bullet,and a 30 caliber bullet,all have the same BC and are started at the same velocity,how is one better than the other in terms of flight?

While on the subject, if you are willing to accept less bullet weight in 7mm vs 30 caliber in exchange for less powder consumption to move bullets with the same BC at the same velocity(hence less recoil)...then why would you not do the same for a slightly lighter .277 bullet having the same BC?

The answer is 7mm and Partitions.

What was the question?

Yeah but Partitions were designed for hunting....they don't count in the "7mm vs everything else" debate.

Well, let's see...

In real life, I shoot a 300 WM and a 208 A-Max. It's velocity is 2945 fps and BC is .648

To get close to that BC in a 7mm, you need a 180 Berger H VLD whose BC is .659. The Hodgdon site shows the best velocity at 2900 out of a 7 Mag

The 208 drops about a foot less and drifts a foot less at 760

"Ya gotta be objective about this stuff. "

That would certainly limit the conversations on the 'fire!

Rick, compare the 208 at 2950 to the 168 VLD at 3,000. I used Litz's BCs for both.

Both drift around 24" at 800 yards, in a 10 MPH wind.

The 7 drops 15.2 MOA.

The 30 drops 15.7 MOA.

Which one recoils harder? Which burns more powder?

Tanner

They'll be close in that regard, but I'll take 1989 ft-lbs over 1300 ft-lbs of energy at 800!

Use a muzzle brake

I'm not seeing figures anywhere near those for energy, but that's not really a designator I look at, either.

I'll pass on the brake

1955 vr. 1322 to be exact according to Ballistic

You'll learn about brakes someday too.

My shoulders are tougher than my ears. I think I'll just use my shoulder to brake my rifle.

Gee...did I start a shidt storm? Mission accomplished!


RC thanks for the quantitative in put.

Had a funny feeling that the 30 wins in all counts except recoil and powder consumption.

Not dumping on the 7mm's cause that's mostly all I personally use any more,and they both "kill" well. But the guys who lean 30 caliber are not all wet,and the "vast superiority" of 7mm over 30 is only true as far as it goes.

For me, it's an issue of rifle weight and recoil.

I guess I am a little slow "getting it".

They don't, though.

Tanner

Tanner caught me in a lie....

I goofed and didn't set up the profile right in AE. With the correct atmosphere, the 168 has 1571 ft-lbs at 800 vr the WMag's 1955

1000 lashes with a wet linguini!

these are all important considerations, but lets remember that the .30 puts a wider hole in the paper. which looks cooler, at least to my eye.

I read this 5 times.....last time I checked,1955 ft lbs is more than 1571 ft lbs.

What am I missing?

Of course,"killing" is not about BC numbers and energy figures, and I don't know anyone experienced with both who claims that a 7mm magnum is as potent a cartridge as a 300 magnum.

The 300 still has the bullet weight advantage.