Which one of the 2 for a sheep rifle? Do you agree on a 300 win mag can do anything the 7mm does and more. Thanks jeff~

Yes, and it kicks significantly more as well. Of the two, for a mountain rifle, I'd lean to a lighter 7mm Mag as it can be built lighter because of it's lighter recoil. Better yet, an even lighter .270 or .280.

They both do things the other can't.

I would lean towards the 7mm as well. Just don't need those heavier bullets for a sheep hunt, IMO.

R.

I'd compare the bullets I want to use in each and then go from there. The figure out what flings them the best.

I've never hunted sheep but it's something I'd love to do and as such I've done the whole "design your sheep rifle in your head" exercise (mostly while stuck in meetings at work) and usually came up with a Montana in 260 or 6.5 Creedmoor, topped with a good scope. That's assuming the internet's right about needing something lightweight to schlep up one mountain and down the other.

What he said. Go light.

I've got them both and they are well traveled.
Used the 7mm on mountain goat and the .300 on sheep.
For me personally an absolute coin flip.
Do I agree on a 300 win mag can do anything the 7mm does and more?
On sheep, not really. Larger game, yes.
To add a third choice a lightweight .260 Rem.

I like my 300WM. With 150's it is pleasant. TTSX or 155 Scenar would cover a lot of ground.

Never owned a 7 mag so couldn't say, though both would likely get it done with ease.

If I wasn't building I would likely just go with whatever rifle I liked better.

Houston we have a problem here!!

I read your question after looking at your avatar, frankly, I'm surprised!



Yes, and much more than the 7mmRm could ever do. Two smalls don't make a medium just like two mediums don't make a large.

Toss a coin either are performers.

..

Why is it that gunwerks [Davidson brothers] pushes the 7mm the most?

Ditto.

I don't kid myself that a 300 magnum doesn't throw more "flack" than the smaller stuff....but it comes at a price in recoil and rifle weight that I am not willing to pay anymore.

I muscled through a sight-in session Monday morning with a 300 Weatherby and 200 gr AB's loaded to 3050 fps. The thing is fabulousand in a sick way it was sort of fun..... But reminded me why I don't own one any more.

I got through the session and it was very accurate, but it romped.

For reference,and while the 300 Weatherby experience was fresh in my mind, I shot my 7mm Mashburn and a 270 on Tuesday...even though a full pound lighter (8#'s)the Mashburn recoiled as fast but not as heavy and was just easier to control....the 270(about 7 pounds) even more so and very easy to shoot.

These days I would take the 270 or the Mashburn on a mountain.Mostly that's what I have been doing for the past 20 years or so on any western hunt.

Gunwerks likes the 7mm for its high BC projectiles.

R.

Flip a coin.They're both excellent rounds.I'd be happy with either for sheep

Because of the BC the 7mm bullets carry! And they don't like recoil? I've hunted with both the 7mmRm & 300Win Mag. If I was trying to decided for myself I would choose the 300WM everyday over a 7mmRm. But I'm not recoil sensitive. I would look at it more like a once in a life time hunt & I would not choose a small bore but instead a medium bore. Especially if you're gonna use a VLD bullet. Bigger and heavier trumps smaller and lighter for me.

If you are thinking about buying one of their rifles: maybe the 7mmLRM with the Berger 180g VLD.

7mmRM w/Berger 168g VLD @ 3100fps & 10,000 ft elevation 200yard zero Drop MOA -21.3 & 10mph cross wind MOA hold off is 5.4 Velocity 1754fps all at 1000yards.

300WM w/Berger 190g VLD @ 3000fps & 10,000 ft elevation 200yard zero Drop MOA -24.0 & 10mph cross wind MOA hold off is 6.3 Velocity 1598fps all at 1000yards.

................I`ve never hunted sheep and don`t have the desire to.

But imho, if you`re going to use it for sheep most of the time, then go with the 7mm mag.

But if you should use it for other larger NA game then the 300 would be my 1st choice.

For Sheep - Mountain Climbing!!

I'd take the lightest rifle that I could shoot the BEST.

Either one, 7mm or 300mag is more than up to the task.

Best of both worlds, 7-300WM with a Berger 180gr VLD at 3150fps with Retumbo or H1000 in the 77gr area.

I agree with Bob. Short answer from me is 7mm rem mag every day any day even twice on sunday..Hold the fluff

7 all the way

These days all I shoot is a 7mm Remington Mag. If I was to hunt sheep again, at my current stage in life, not likely but If I were to, I would have Mel Forbes Make up a one of his Model 24's chambered for 270 and call it good. Saint Jack would smile at least I got the cartridge right.

My turn...

Well I'm not a gunwriter but I'll give my 2 cents anyway. I have hunted with a .300 Win Mag for many years and killed many animals with it. I like it very much and it is my go to gun because it doesn't seem to miss. It is more than I need for most things but I like it and it shoots well.

I have never hunted with a 7mm Rem Mag but have shot a few and have hunted and shot a number of animals with a .280 Rem. This is my #2 go to rifle and I actually like the feel of this and like packing it more than my .300 Win because it is lighter and shorter.

I have also hunted and killed sheep and guided a couple others to do the same and most people don't realize how small they really are and how easy they are to kill. they are not particularly large animals at all. They look bigger than they are because they are so muscular until you walk up to them. They don't take a lot of killing.

If I didn't already have a rifle and was building one just for sheep and wanted one of those two calibers, I would probably lean toward the 7mm for lighter recoil and lighter rifle and will shoot as flat as you will ever need and kill any sheep on earth, as well as other bigger critters. As many have said on here, I am not particularly recoil sensitive but I do realize I like ligher rifles with less recoil, especially the older and smarter I get (and I'm only 38 so I imagine I'll keep getting smarter for a while...)

All that said, you will get a million opinions like everything on here, they are all right and they are all wrong. Many will comment without any personal experience with one or either caliber or without any experience hunting sheep. Neither of these calibers is better than the other in my opinion for shooting a sheep but again, even if you are Superman and there was no downside, wouldn't you prefer a lighter rifle with less recoil?

As stated several times before, just my opinion. Have fun on your sheep hunt, I love hunting them myself.

mnimrod45

I own both, I would go with the 7mm shooting quality 140 grain bullets of your choice if recoil is an issue.

I own both but prefer the .300 Win Mag as a big game cartridge.

For a light sheep rifle, a .270 or .280 would be fine.

Between the two magnums, I would go 7mm. But is a magnum necessary? A 7-08 or 308 will work well out to at least 400 yards. I would choose the magnum only if I planned on taking shots past that range.

I also own both and like them. When and if I ever draw my sheep tag my old 7mm Rem Mag will get the nod just as it did for my first antelope, mule deer and mountain goat because it allways works. I used the 300 Win Mag on my first and second bull elk and it allways works too. Neither work if you fail to put the bullet where it belongs every time. Magnum Man

Lots of assumptions being made here. A 7mm Rem Mag isn't necessarily lighter than a 300 Win Mag. Sure you can build one lighter but there is nothing keeping you from building a 300 Mag. just as light. Looking at specs for factory rifles, a Win. Extreme Weather weighs the same for both cartridges.

Comparing recoil, it depends. If comparing bullets with the same B.C., the .308 bullet will need to weigh more, but something like a 155 grain Scenar flies pretty flat and won't kick any harder than a 160 gr. bullet out of a 7mm Mag in the same weight rifle.

I've noticed that not everyone uses the bullet with the highest B.C. In another thread, when comparing the .243 to the 25-06, the 105 gr. A-max is the bullet that makes the .243 superior (for some). However, not everyone uses the A-max and 80 gr. .243 bullets seem to be popular.

If I were to bang away at steel targets for most of a weekend, recoil would be more of a concern. But for one or two shots at a big game animal, not so much.

I agree for sheep hunting except......

I'd pick the 270 W over the 7-08 or 308.

Two reasons - I don't have a 7-08 or 308 and don't intend to. Also the 270 has flatter trajectories past 400.

My old 300 win mag was so good at 8.5 pounds I wondered if I could get one a pound lighter.So I built one on a M70 action with Brown stock and Krieger barrel that came in at 7.5 #'s scoped.

It was an unmitigated disaster. With 180 gr bullets loaded to 3050-3100 fps it kicked haymakers with every shot,and was just a chore to shoot.Dropping back bullet weight to 165's did not help as powder cgarges increased as well and it was still no big improvement.A guy could load it down, which negates the reason for it in the first place....obnoxious rifle. I barreled it to something more seemly,concluding that a civilized 300 Win Mag weighs 8.5 pounds.

At the same time a 7 mag of 7.5 pounds is manageable and does not require a gorilla grip to manage running a 160 gr at 3050-3100 fps.Easy to like.

The 300 WSM is about the lightest kicking of the various 300's but some work with a Kimber Montana and a wood stocked 8400 told me I did not want one of those things either; and a M70 EW is easily the nicest shooting 300 WSM I have messed with but weighs over 8 pounds the way I set it up.

You can play with calculations forever but in actual shooting the 7mm Rem Mag is going to boot you around less for the same ballistic performance than a 300 Win Mag.Absent, of course, some bullet weight.

I would choose neither. 1000ft/lbs is quite enough to knock down a sheep or goat. If its beyond 300yds you will have to range the shot for good placement, the magnums help in this regard with drop and windage, I'd use a 7mm-08 in this situation, lower recoil begets better shot placement, lighter package, packs ~1000 ft/lbs at 500yds, and that's a long shot in the field!

My Ti Alaskan in 300WM is sexy but you need to pay attention when shooting it! I can't imagine a 7MM being a whole lot easier based on previous rifles I owned. For sheep I would go 270 or 280 as said and if going tomorrow I would be taking my 30-06 Ti. I have never hunted big horns but chasing Barbary sheep isn't easy either.....

after readin' all this it just convinces me the 280 Remington is all I need and my 300RSAUM can stay in the safe...

Best answer IMO and if you put the bullet where it belongs it will kill the sheep just as dead as with the mighty 300WM.
And you'll probably be able to place the bullet in the vitals easier with the 270/280 due to less recoil. Most people shoot better with milder recoiling rifles..... excluding campfire members who are excellent shots with heavy recoiling magnums.

I agree, I'm not a gunwriter but I have shot both plenty off the bench and killed game with both. For something the size of sheep both are more than required, not a bad thing but gun weight is the big factor. Shoot both in a rifle you're willing to tote around the mountains after sheep, then decide neither will leave you wanting more cartridge.

Thinking down the road, my next 284 bore will be a 7mm-300 Winchester Magnum with no other changes. Just a neck down pass through the die.

STW: That will work.

Why the fuss?

I'm shooting 150 LRAB's at 3,300 and 175 LRAB's at 3,100...out of a 7mm WBY.

Too much of a pounding for me to like the .300. I figure at best I'll double tap a critter and after the hunt or when the season is over, I still like to shoot my rifles....without knocking my socks off.

Nothing I'll likely want done that a 7 in any form won't reliably do. I am yet to shoot the 168gr LRAB, but I think it will cover a lot of bases.

SU,

How have the bullets been working for you down range in the Bee?

Bob, that was well put and my experience too. I'm down to three big game rifles--a tuned Ruger in 375 (I'm having a hard time not having one "big" rifle) that scoped comes in at 8.5, a 7.75 lb 30/06 and a lightweight 6.25 lb 284 also scoped.

The latter two, and because of turrets and ballistic reticles, will do any thing I need done almost all of the time. This technology has made flat table-top trajectories unnecessary for, say 500 to 700 yards.

Why not go light and use a 243 for sheep. It would kill them just fine, would it not?

A little light IMO

Agreed since they weigh around 200 pounds in my locale. I guess a true giant may top out at 250 or so. I know a Zwickey will kill one fine. If I was rifle shooting, my main concern would be not blowing a softball sized hole in the cape.

.243 or .260. A 7-08 would work pretty nicely, too.

Just to stir the pot, since it's Halloween.

Brook Range, AK taken w/a .243. That's my partner who's no longer with us. Toughest sonofabitch that's ever walked this earth.



But seriously, I'd go with a light 6.5 - .280 in something lightweight. I can't imagine how steep those mountains are these days.

Bob

Agree 100% - the 270/280 are excellent for a mountain rifle.

Looks like I stand corrected.

I hear you Bob, the ones around here got a lot steeper this year....

30338,

Headed to NW CO tomorrow. Hope it's all flatland.

Bob

Bob, I hope you punch some tags! The NW part I have hunted in isn't too bad really though you may have some snow this year up there. I keep messing around on that continental divide and it feels like it stops at the moon....

Good luck to you and safe hunting.

I just got it on paper and chronied. And really, 300 yds is where you really find out how good they will be.
My Coues deer hunt starts tomorrow, so it will be a few weeks before I know. The Bee stays at home till I wring it out.

So, The 700 Ti 270 Win is going.

There are lots of opinions here and many seem to be from what are called in BC hunting camps, "dudes", who go on guided hunts, may well shoot a fair number of relatively rare game animals and often own very costly, custom rifles of all types to do this with.

I am a "poor" pensioner, and was badly "bitten by the gun bug" some 60 years ago. I was born, raised and started wilderness work, often solo for extended periods, in BC's and later, Alberta's wild sheep country. I have never been very interested in "trophy collecting" and my experiences with sheep have been largely during work.

I have a different concept of the "ideal sheep rifle" and it is shared by a number of VERY experienced and "professional" hunters here in BC. I actually own a full custom "ultralight" 7-08 "sheep rifle" built by one of these guys and his partner in custom rifle building and it IS a GEM.

However, he used it on ONE northern trip and then sold it to a fellow who soon sold it to me. I also have well in excess of a dozen LIGHT custom .270Win. and .280Rem. rifles, all setup for BC mountain use, but, would not carry one on a serious sheep hunt, especially solo.

So, what is my personal choice? A Dakota 76-.338WM, Talley mounts, Talley "peep", custom banded front/Euro. post and,usually, a Leupy 1.75x6. This is in a "Hill Country" handle by Micky, weighs just under 8.5 lbs. and it SHOOTS, actually so well I can no longer use it to it's full potential.

WHY, would a 67+, rather badly gimped ny injury, man WANT to carry this rather than one of his excellent lighter rifles? For the same reason the chap who built my light 7-08, a former guide, BC Conservation Officer and experienced hunter, decided against packing it, the situation now in BC, with Grizzlies.

Each to his own, but, as I get older and gain some more experience and reflect on the years I spent living/working alone in the bush, I am impressed by the fact that rifle weight is NOT the major "problem" in mountain hunting and one CAN learn to shoot a bigger gun WELL, if you WANT to badly enough.

THE issue is YOUR "weight" and "fitness" and also determination. So, IF you REALLY GET FIT, VERY FIT and also practice with YOUR rifle, I consider a bigger gun better here in BC. From the two given, I would prefer the .300WM by far and have not even owned a 7Mag. since 1981 and won't buy another.

I guess that the area you hunt sheep in and your fitness are THE major concerns when selecting a rifle/round for the task and my opinions are ONLY concerned with BC conditions. YMMV, just an alternate POV, but, one that makes me comfortable.

Kutenay, your argument is right for you, in your BC mountains and perhaps elsewhere, but the validity will wax and wane with the particular area a hunter finds himself. In many areas further north, in the great expanses of open tundra, grizzly density is low and arming oneself for a chance, unexpected encounter while sheep hunting seems counterproductive, to me.

But, for example, hunting the Kuskokwim river drainage one year for caribou, we knew we'd be seeing brownies every day so I carried my 340 and it comforted me.

Arguable also is whether a 270-30/06 loaded with any of the premiums wouldn't do acceptable, decisive service on a much smaller mountain grizzly should that rumble actually have to occur.

You are dead to right concerning personal weight and fitness as the Ace in the deck. It all starts there but my point is, assuming THAT is true, I hence don't become careless about the weight of my other gear, not insinuating you are, but still striving for me, an acceptable weight to proficiency ratio with everything I have to carry.

So to the point of the thread, it would be my 6.25 lb Z3 scoped 284 with 150-gr TTSXs at 2900 fps. This bullet/load at 100 yds will penetrate five feet of flesh and bone. I know this.

Can't believe no one has recommended a 1/4" bore!

We agree, largely, on the main issue here in that the specific circumstances of WHERE and to a lesser degree, WHEN a hunter seeks his ram, have great influence on his rifle/chambering choices.

However, my comments are much more broadly applicable than you seem to think and my actual field experience in wild sheep country, includes all species of our Canadian sheep and in all of the regions where they occur, both by "natural" means and by human "planting" during the past several decades.

The Grizzlies in sheep country here in Canada, NOW, are far more numerous than when I started actually living/working in the bush and we are experiencing more potentially deadly and actually lethal interactions between humans and these bears than ever before. The Grizzlies, in our sheep-bearing mountains are NOT ...much smaller... and one that did attack a group of professional BCF&W staffers a few years ago, later weighed almost 1200 lbs....and, these larger bears DO occur in many of our most productive hunting areas.

The Canadian northern territories, my first time living and working there was in spring, 1966 and both my wife and I have worked there, she much more than I, have a lot of "tundra" and so does northern BC, in/on our mountain ranges. Grizzlies, abound in these areas, in Dall's and Stone's Sheep habitat and the chances of a dangerous encounter, see Yukon "GO" Chris Widrig, as one example, are quite high and increasing.

So, I feel that, of the two cartridges concerned here, the .300WM, is a far superior choice and a rifle chambering it at 8,25 lbs., shooting a 200 NP or other such bullet, is a more effective and still quite easy to shoot choice.

As I posted, I also have these ultra to very to quite light rifles, a 7-08, 7x57s, .270s (3), .280s(3){ my favourite and may build two more on Brno 21s I have stashed}, VERY light at 6-10 all up Classic Compact STS custom .308, light .30-06 and had 7mmRMs, but, I feel better with the bigger bores, bullets and the 1-2 lbs. of extra weight is not an issue for me when I am fit and hunting alone in remote wilderness where help in an emergency is not usually available.

IF, I could not carry/use a .300 or .338, my actual preference for all serious wilderness hunting, I would not bother with a 7mmRM, but, would drop down to a (usually) slightly lighter and, IMO, about as effective 7.25-.5 lb. .270Win. or .280Rem and these are about one pound heavier than my lightest rifles in big game chamberings.

Anyway, all good fun, given my lifelong and intense love for guns, especially rifles and "combo" guns, I enjoy discussing ALL of these possible options.

If we had a "Hunter Host" programme here in BC and I invited you to come hunting in this one spot with some HUGE RMBighorns I know as my guest and you asked what rifle I would like you to bring, as this IS backpacking ONLY and a brutal hellhole far from any chance of horses, etc, I know I would say, ".340" and hope that you would agree.

There are a LOT of Grizzlies in the area and attacks have increased in recent years, so, 'nuff said for me!

Kutenay, would you not feel comfortable toting a 7RM with 175 NPTs cruising 2900? Seems like that's a pretty formidable load.

Tanner

Kutenay:

You make a lot of sense...

While my experience doesn't include sheep, it parallels yours in some ways (see my latest blogs). I'm ten years your senior, and my primary rifle for big game is now a T3 Lite chambered in one of your favorite cartridges... 9.3 X 62. It comes in a 7.6 lbs all-up ready to shoot (see the ballistics on October 22 blog).

I've owned (and used) all of the suggested rifle cartridges (except a .243) but have always wondered about some complaining over the recoil of a .300 magnum! That would be my choice of the two mentioned!

About fitness: I've written in my journal on the .458 WM that FITNESS is the key to toting a heavy (or heavier) rifle!

I would rather loose 10 - 20 lbs of unnecessary weight than carry a rifle 2-lbs lighter to "save weight". In the past 20 years I've lost 40 lbs which is excellent considering a tendency to arthritis (from my dad) and having diabetes. At near 78 I can cover rough country in our Haliburton Highlands as well as my hunting partner ( a retired Conservation Officer) who is 15 years younger, over 6' at 220 lbs!

I give thanks to God!

Thank you for sharing your experience and keep at it!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

So, Kute, when are we going? I replaced the 340 with the same weight and tuned 375 Ruger; ok, I'll take that if it makes us both feel better.

Not hard to understand.

1. 1/4 bore not among OP consideration.

2. With Griz on the possible MENU, why ?

Maybe on paper, but the 270 has no real advantage over the 7-08 nor the 308 in the field, and short action rifles can be made lighter. I'd take a 7-08 or 308 over a 270 any day. If a meaningfully flatter trajectory is the goal, get a 257 Wby mag.

A lot of good advice you can pick from if it applies to your hunt. A few things to think about.

-Are you going to be in known Grizzly country?
-Is your guide prepared to deal with that?(big bore back up)
-How much recoil can you deal with and shoot well?
-Is it a once in a lifetime hunt, sheep aint cheap!
-How far are you willing / comfortable shooting?
-Are you comfortable if he is standing on the edge of a days worth of work if you don't anchor him right there?

All things to think about, its a little different than popping a doe in the middle of a field with a 6mm at 600+ yards with nowhere to go. I shoot a variety of cartridges and have learned through experience with everything considered your gut will tell you what to use. I've never seen an animal too dead or more dead. No apologies for hitting them hard when needed.
Have a safe hunt and post the pics.

338 -

I like that!!

Exactly why a 270 would likely be my minimum.

Have restrained myself so far on this thread, hoping somebody else would come up with the perfect compromise answer--the B-29, with a bullet diameter halfway between 7mm and .30, less recoil than either, and powers far beyond those of mere factory cartridges.

All interesting stuff indeed,....my two cents,..not sure it's worth that much but since the penny is gone it'll have to be a nickel's worth or nothing..:-)..if I were to embark on a sheep hunt in grizzly country tomorrow I'd be carrying my custom Pre'64 M70 in 35 Whelen in a Micky Hunter's Edge......7lbs 11 oz with 3.5-10 Leupy on top...it'll shoot flat enough with a 225 Accubond as far as I will shoot and I think it would impress Mr Grizz a bit more than a 270....:-).....YMMV

Any published reports of these grizzle attacks Kute? Not doubting you, just want to do some reading on them.

Thanks,

Jason

Did the OP mention grizzly?

The media here in BC has published accounts of various attacks for decades, there should be SOME official reports on SOME of these available through the BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, in Victoria, BC and some of the individuals involved have been/are quite well known in hunting/gun/outdoor circles.

An encounter of an aggressive nature with a Grizzly is not a big deal for people here, working/living in rural or even smalltown BC. My brother-in-law, was walking his dog in the Nelson, BC Cemetery at suppertime a few years ago and was jumped and chased by a sow and cub....this is, btw, about a half mile from the home where my family has lived for 100 of the 120 years we have lived in Nelson, since moving there from Vancouver and New Westminster, BC.

Grizzlies, wander into the center of town every summer and are fiercely "protected" by both law and the public opinion from which said legislation derives...SO FAR, there have been no injuries/deaths and the majority of locals like to see this......me, wellll, I think that the day is coming.......

BC and Alaska, have roughly the same population density of these bears and BC is the ONLY jurisdiction anywhere that has Dall's, Stone's, and both RM and Cali. BH sheep in huntable numbers, although populations are DECREASING and management just [bleep] SUCKS.....urbanized society, hordes of grasping immigrants and some of the most vile, "neo-con" politicians, anywhere......

Google "Gary Shelton" and perhaps look at his books, for, a sound, in some ways biased, commentary on Grizzly issues here.

Kute is fairly set in his ways, and for good reason.
For me, whenever a 7RM went along, it always had available 160 grain hunting loads, and 175 grain bear loads. Having seen first hand what a 175 grain 7mm bullet will do to the front of a bear, it didn't leave me wanting more, under those circumstances...
In other circumstances, even the 338WM loaded with 225's doesn't feel like enough rifle, but by the time that happens, you realize you really shouldn't be where you are.

R.

I personally like the 7mm Mag much better than the 300's .

I'm feeling the same was as I get older. While we could argue that a .300 Winchester with, say, 220-grain Nosler Partitions would stop bear charges more certainly than a 7mm Remington with 175's, for hunting purposes I really haven't seen many animals either in North America or Africa that could tell any damn difference. But my shoulder sure can, especially in a lighter rifle.

I can handle the recoil from any rifle, but it doesn't mean i like it.

This. A well built 140 gr out of a 7mm Mag of any flavor would be an absolute laser beam. Or even a heavier high BC slippery profile target/hunting bullet. A 7mm mag doesn't have the recoil of a 300 mag and lends itself better to a lighter mountain rifle style platform. Try that with a 300 and you have a handy sledgehammer if you're not accustomed to shooting it. As stated, a non-magnum round such as a 280, 270, '06 will get it done as well when loaded appropriately. In fact if I were to go sheep hunting a light, well built, 7mm-08 or 260 would be a top pick for me.

My situation as well. Can still shoot my .416 Rigby quite well, but don't see any reason to if I don't have to.

Speaking of BC and grizzly: BC bear attack

Color me a 30 cal man, the only 7mm that I ever fell for is the 7X57. I like the 30-06 and the 300 Winn as well as the 300 RUM's

[quote=gmsemel If I were to, I would have Mel Forbes Make up a one of his Model 24's chambered for 270 and call it good. [/quote]
+1 for this!

If there was a need to balance the marriage by taking a vacation within the same year etc. I would probably just take my Tikka T3 Lite 300 WSM that is a light weight rig and my most accurate gun.

I've never had to deal with bears, not even Boo-Boo Bear, but wouldn't a headshot or 2 handle a grizz pretty well even from a relatively light caliber?

Seems like I saw a video one time of some game keepers culling elephants with FALs & AKs - just drive up & pop them in the chest a few times.

One example here, from my personal experience, and this is one of the closest encounters I have ever had with a Grizzly, the other two as close, I was not armed.

Three of us, all around 30+, were hunting Elk, in early October, 1979, around the Grizzly-rich "White Swan" area of the once-fabulous East Kootenays hunting region.

One was a former USFS worker, from northern California, and spent some time in Montana, working in the bush. He had hunted for about 20 years at the time and was packing a Savage 110 in 7mmRM, loaded with Frontier 175 factory ammo.

The second, was an Albertan, fair amount of hunting experience, packing a Lee-Enfield, .303, can't recall his ammo, but, it was factory, not handloads.

Third, was me, considerable working experience in both the BCFS and private forestry in Grizzly country, much of it alone. I had a pair of Gen. 1 Ruger, M-77s, 7mmRM, Leupy 4xs, WW factory 175 PPs.

We had hunted, hard, all morning and a bull had out-smarted us in a patch of Lodgepole, so thick you could not walk in it...old, sidehill, dry burn and small ponds where they would "wallow". We were tired and went down to the Suburban 4x4 to get some decent lunch and ponder on going over to the Lussier.

Driving slowly up the road, stopping to pot Grouse and watching for fresh sign in the roadside dust, we came about a bend, Bob, driving and telling us about ski trips in the Sierras, when, "F**K, Dewey, is THAT a Grizzly?" and he slammed on the binders, right quick.

It, WAS a Grizzly and it ran into the bush on the side of the road as we piled out of the truck, with rifles and NOT to shoot, just to look. It disappeared and I said, just stand quietly and he will circle into the wind and come up behind to check us out and, soon, THE single most beautiful Grizzly I have ever seen came walking on the road behind us and toward us.

The guys were somewhat tense and I said, "don't shoot, wait" and the bear, a mature, but, I think, fairly young male, came to about 10 years from us and stopped, doing a "Flehman" and calmly looking at we three guys.

I had three WW-175 PPs in my rifle and the Duplex was rock solid on his center chest, as he checked us out. I did not think he would bother us and he soon turned and walked, then scampered into the bush and was gone.

The guys were pretty shaken and had not managed to load their rifles, so, I was the only one who could have fired, IF, the bear had decided that we looked like "lunch".......I HAD a .338WM at home, 250 miles away, but, the custom stock, "Fleur-de-Lis" and all had cracked and so I was using my new 7mmRM.

Given the difference I have seen in killing Elk, etc, I think that the .338 WOULD have been FAR superior in that instance and in some others I have experienced in my time in the bush...so, YMMV, but, for me, "bigger is better".

Whatever, this old computer is having "fits" so, I am taking it offline and into the local place to be fixed, back in a few days.

First G bear encounter I had a 7mmRM in my hands, next season I carried a 338Win.,since then I have used 35Whelen and 9.3x66 when on the ground in close quarters. But my '06 with 200gr AccuBonds slam pretty good too. I agree bigger is better when facing the G-Bear.

I've had a couple pretty close grizz encounters, but neither was when I had a gun, and neither time was the bear remotely interested in me or my group. I saw more ass-end than anything, once we were winded. Certainly makes for good story fodder though.

I can't imagine feeling undergunned with a 7mag and 175 partitions in that situation, but I can't know until I've been there. That combo had almost mystical abilities among the guys I was around when I was little. Seems like it would work in fact on both sheep at range and bears at pants-soiling distance. I'd prefer a rifle that shot like a 10/22 and hit like a 375, but I think the 7 would be the best of compromises.

Well, I wish no man to become a chew toy for a griz so each makes his choice and takes his chances and perhaps pays some consequences. But one thing that has pointed me toward the smaller guns as pertains to this thread is Phil's (458Win) experience with actually using the 30/06, for example, to polish off brownies. I realize few have his experience (and perhaps ability).

How many people hunting in grizzly country each year have a legitimate need to fire in self-defense?

Carrying a grizzly rifle when not hunting grizzlies is a ridiculous calculus.

I agree

I agree, to a large extent. I tried to make that point on the Bergers for Grizz thread. I do know that there are places where the bears are aggressive, and that gunfire is like a dinner bell. At that point, if you're gutting or packing something, you have a choice to make.

And that happens about how many times a year for all the hunters out there?

Has anyone on the entire 'Fire shot a grizzly in self-defense (not counting bear guide followups)?

I think 7STW did up in BC.

I haven't, but I have certainly been in situations where I could have. Luckily, the bears in those cases made the right decisions, and so did I.

It is always better to have something and not need it, as it is to not have something and really need it.

Nothing wrong with being prepared, just in case. Most encounters can be avoided, and with experience, a fella knows where or where not he should be, and at what times.

I'll add, there are areas I've hunted in October with a .338, that I would hunt in November with a .243, depending on the weather.

R.

Well, yeah, but I grew up and live in grizzly country, and have hunted in grizzly country in many other places. Have had my share of encounters, but unless I'm hunting game that might require more than a minimal "deer" cartridge, and there are high odds of encountering a grizzly, I don't feel compelled to carry a big rifle. As some people have noted over the years, there isn't much you can't fix with $500 or a .30-06.

There are always plenty of variables, and I let the area, experience, and time of year dictate the rifle of choice.

Everyone has to make choices that best work for them, at the time.

R.

And a 200 gr Nosler Partition!

Probably! Though I wouldn't be terribly nervous with 180's, either.

Not that I have experience among grizzlies, but I have lots of it among blacks and always with the attitude of "What if?"

Not too many years ago, there was the report of two hunters not returning to camp, where they left their wives, after a day in the mountains (somewhere in the Rockies -- I forget where)hunting elk. A search and rescue helicopter was sent the next day and they saw two bodies in the snow. They couldn't immediately land because of weather conditions, but when they finally made a rather precarious landing they found evidence that the two had been killed by a grizzly. They both had rifles that were fully capable since their target was elk. And, if I recall correctly, there was also a dead elk nearby that had been partially dressed out.

And, that's not the only report I've read of elk hunters being mauled or killed.

Just a few years ago, a report by CBC told of a resident Quebec hunter being killed by a bl. bear while he was hunting (It didn't say what he was hunting). His two sons, who were also hunting in the same general area, heard his screams but didn't make it in time to save his life (I referred to that in my latest blogs in October).

For the past four season's, I've been hunting over bait on private property for bl. bear. There is a very large one with a particularly bad disposition that killed one of four horses on that property. He hits my bait, but never during legal hunting hours. He also comes in behind my stand. I don't see him but I can hear him and smell him. I hunt with a "stopping rifle" on those few hundred acres bordering a huge wilderness area.

Sure, a 100gr bullet in the brain would take him out, but when bears can come within 15 feet of your stand or blind without seeing them or hearing them...? And elk hunters who are boning out an elk in the snow...? I'd take the equivalent of at least a .338 mag!

But then... my name isn't Phil Shoemaker or John Barsness!

I'm just...

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

The two guys being killed over an elk carcass sounds like an incident in British Columbia a few years ago.

One of the things I definitely would make sure to do, regardless of the rifle or cartridge, is when hunting in any country where grizzlies are common is hunt with a partner--and one of us would stand guard while the other field-processed any game. The evidence at the site of the BC grizzly killing was that both hunters were bent over the carcass when the bear decided to take it.

A bowhunter was killed here in Montana by a mama grizzly and her two 1-1/2-year-old "cubs" while he was field-dressing an elk he'd killed. They partially ate him.

Yes, I had thought of B.C. as well, but I wasn't sure.

And I do mostly have a partner when hunting, but we may be a mile apart... and I do 90% of the baiting... alone.

Good input... thanks John.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I've found it extremely difficult to shoot those 200 gr Nosler Paritions through a 7mm Mag.

They work pretty well out of a .300 Winchester Magnum.

Yup, actually it was a brown bear. Killed it in self-defense on Kodiak Island - told about that in the Berger thread. Have also had a couple run-ins of sorts with two different grizzlies. One tore my 4-wheeler seat off after we shoo'd him off when we ran into him on a river near just before parking our machines for a walk-in sheep hunt - came back to find the picture below. The other was an adolescent bear (3 yr old?) that had torn up some other guys camp so we chased him a ways and when he stopped we put a couple rounds in the dirt in front of him and ran him up the mountain in the hopes of preventing more of that sort of bad behavior.



Bob

Yes.

Have had to kill a black bear, which literally dropped at my feet. Certainly not looking for a fight with a grizzly!

Ted

Yes, 1988 near the Kelly river out fly in do it yourself hunt took bush plane out of kotzebue, Ak. The 7 foot artic grizz on the left came in as I was working the moose kill on the left

My 338 win mag was out of reach< I had killed the moose earlier with the 475 Linebaugh and it was in a shouolder holster within easy reach



I would not hesitate to use a 30-06 with 165 or 189 TTSX or TSX bullets

Jwp475, well done! I've found that sometimes the things we do when our ass is on the line are our most successful and gratifying accomplishments. Will you please fill in the details of how it went down?

Yup, standing guard is the thing to do, I stand guard and my cousin does all the work, just the way I like it.

To go back to the original question of the thread if I were to choose between the 7 or the 300 it would depend on the rifles magazine constraints. When buying a new rifle I choose a cartridge that fits within the magazine constraint. If the magazine is 30-06 length, I tend to have a harder time getting the 300 to shoot well because of the lack of flexibility in bullet seating depth . With the 7 rm, this is generally not a problem because the cartridge case is shorter than that of the 300 . This isnt an absolute, but ive noticed the.trend. but, if you buy a 700, the mag lenght makes this.a moot point.

I'd be happy just to have a rifle with a reasonably decent bullet.

Spot ON !

My .300 Win Mag is an Ed Brown Damara and has a magnum length box, allowing much better flexibility with COAL. To me the longer box mag adds a lot to the .300 WM.

DF

I have one of those 700's with the wonderful long magazines and shoot 200 grain partitions seated all the way out on top of a hat full of R22. Doesn't really matter. Had to chase a big black bear up a hill just outside Prince William Sound in September that was gut shot by a friends son. Visibility was all of about 20'. Under field conditions with adrenalin pumping I didn't even feel the recoil and deep down in side wished I had something with a bigger hole in the end of it. That kid scared 10 years off the end of my life. Sure glad we didn't run into any of the brown ones.

Secretly put up a second stand somewhat off to the side of your other, about 75 yards further back, to the side with the most quiet access. Hunt the regular stand a few times so that he knows you're there, then wait for perfect wind and weather, sneak to the back stand, and take him by surprise when he circles behind your original stand. You might even hunt with two people, one in each stand.

I'll add my two cents to the conversation.

To me this is a question about rifle portability. I've never hunted sheep but have hunted elk in steep terrain at 11,000+ feet a couple of times. I used to carry a 9lb rifle (M700 338WM) but after the first year of elk hunting up high, I traded it for a Kimber montana 300 WSM the first year they came out. That rifle weighed 6lb 15 oz with Talley's and 3-9 Leupie. I hated that rifle. With 180 Partitions and a full load of H4831, it clocked at 2975 - 30000 ft/sec and kicked like a mule. It was hard to control.

Contrast that rifle to one I created a few years back - M70 SS classic in 7 RM and its twin, a M70 Featherweight in 7 WSM. Both dropped into McM Edge. As expected the M70 7 WSM weigh a few ounces less than the 7RM. The 7 WSM weighs 7lb 6-7oz with Talley's and 3-9 Leupie. I've shot everything from 120 TSX to 175 Partitions in both at max velocity (2950 in the 7RM and 2850 in the WSM). Conclusion: the 7's can be made much more portable and recoil much less than the 300's.

If it was me, I'd run a 7RM and load it with appropriate bullets for the task. I'm not sure I'd be quaking in my shoes with a magazine full of 160 Partitions if an interior grizzly showed up. Hell we got black bears in PA bigger than many interior grizzlies. I've hunted them with a 280 - loaded with 160 Partitions.

I would hunt with a 270 and strap an 870 with slugs to my back.

W

If you substitute .280rem for 7x57 that fits me to a "T".

I would go with the 300 win mag each and every time over the 7mmrem mag. Recoil is stiff with either, if your going to have to deal with it you might as well go .30 cal.

7mm........

7mm mag

While certainly not unmanageable, I find that the recoil of the .300 WM is significantly more than with the 7mm RM. This is especially so with lightweight rifles. I have owned several of both in the past, but have pretty much stuck with the 7mm RM for everything now.

As for the OP's question, imo there isn't much need for a .300 WM for sheep. And the funny thing is that my best friend, who is a very avid sheep hunter, sold his .300 WM last year and had a 7mm RM built.

As to will the .300 do more? I don't know what a 180gr Partition will do that a 175gr Partition out of a 7mm won't.

The 7mm shoots flatter and has less recoil. Win/win........

Thats would depend on the load.

I am pretty sure that the .300 cannot shoot flatter with less recoil.

When looking at practical ranges and real life situations then I don't think there is any difference between the two, trajectory wise.

When looking at extremes, you need to use a +200gr bullet in the .300 WM vs a 168gr bullet in the 7mm at similar velocity to get similar trajectory. That also means you need much more powder + recoil

Maybe so but once you go to a magnum round recoil is significant.
I have done enough shooting of the 300 win mag and the 7mm rem mag back to back to know that while the rem mag does kick less, it still has a significant amount of recoil over something like a .270 or .280.
I agree on the trajectory
I do believe that the 300 win mag rocks em harder than the 7mm weatherby. I dont have any experience hunting with the 7mm rem mag, but the weatherby is nearly the same thing.

IME a 300 Win Mag gives about the same velocity with a 180 gr bullet as a 160 gr bullet in the 7 Rem Mag,about 3050-3080 or so with a 24" barrel(yes I know some rifles will show more velocity but that's a weighted average for me over quite a few rifles).

The trajectories are so similar out to 600 yards you can't tell the difference;with both zeroed at 300 yards each will show about 4 feet of drop at 600 yards.

You will get kicked a bit less with the 7mm because not only are the bullets slightly lighter in 7mm but powder charges are also less and that figures into the recoil equation as well.

Nevertheless both have some recoil; the effects are sort of cumulative...a 300 Win Mag will catch up to me sooner in a string than a 7 Rem Mag.

These are the two bullet weights I have used the most in both cartridges. I have also used the 15 gr in the 300 WM and its' speed and trajectory match pretty closely with the 140 gr in the 7 Rem Mag.

These days I mostly shoot the 150 gr BT and NPT in the 7 Rem Mag at velocities of something over 3100 fps....there is the width of a hand in difference in trajectory to 500 yards between them.

Course, there is that wind thing to consider, too.

I hunted with a 7 RM for 10yrs and owned it for 20yrs, good on game for sure. I hunt mainly with a 30-06/200gr NAB's, and a 9.3 for big animals. I have a 300WM coming in a Tikka/Tac, with a brake ( I'm already deaf) not my preferred choice in caliber but there are few (</= 1 moa)if any rifles available off the shelf that I like for the type of fun shooting that I do, if it was available in 7mm, either standard or mag I would get that. The rifles I like usually come in 308win,300WM, or 338LM. The 300Win is least objectionable.

That's packing way too much ordinance and weight for me.

I'd go with one of my rifles that would do anything I thought it needed to do. My Ed Brown Damara is a LW .300 WM and it would be hard to beat for an all around rifle in such a setting.

DF

If a bear is charging you and coming straight in where would you aim ?

7mm bullets have higher BCs(flatter trajectories, less wind drift) and better sectional densities(greater penetration). You have to burn significantly more powder in the .300 and more recoil is the result. This isn't a guess, but a fact.

When I was shooting my 7mm RM long range, I had to run a 208gr bullet in my .300 to do what my 162gr 7mm bullet would do. 7mm = Less powder, less recoil. Win/win.

I really can't see how anyone could argue this self-evident truth.

If you want to run large for caliber bullets, like 200gr+, then the .300 may be your huckleberry if you want to thump $hit. But with 175-180gr bullets, performance on game is about the same. You just have to burn more powder and absorb more recoil with the .300 to obtain similar results.

JME......

Before or after I soiled my pants...?

DF

Before , during or after. Where do you aim to stop it.

[bleep] your pants to make yourself taste bad would be the way to go IMO. Then pray the bear sniffs or licks it's food before he takes a bite........

I'd get a quick thread going on the Fire to get a consensus...

DF

Sheep and 270 go great together

The point I'm trying to make is you'd shoot it in the head. You'd be standing upright more than likely. Wouldn't you want a rifle that you can shoot accurate ? Most people IME can shoot a 30-06 more accurate than they can a 338WM. I'd personally take accuracy any day over larger caliber....within reason !

My cousins husband has shot 22 sheep. He is in his 70's and tough as nails. He went from a 300 Weatherby to a 7 Mag, doesn't reload, knows little of what we here discuss, just works out like an Olympian and kills chit. I told him I was going antelope hunting out in the Hardin reservation and he laughed at me. Antelope? One more sheep for his fifth Grand Slam. Original tuff guy here and went to the 7. His home is like a wildlife museum. What does he know. LOL. I may have the count mixed up but the Ballantine Ale is working.

Read this account of my sheep hunt from this year.
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/8048547/Yukon_Gold#Post8048547
A .270 does nicely, and keep it light. My outfitter said most his hunters that miss or make a bad shot show up with a magnum and the flinch to go with it.

I'll happily take a 7mm over a .277 or .308 any day.......

We could call a "Fire Mission" and soften up the hilltops where those sheep reside, perhaps a Napalm run with C-130's, or a Fire for Effect run on the hills with a crew with a 81mm mortor. Lot's of possibilities and then you wouldnt need either the 300 or the 7 magnum.


What Say You????

I would NOT take a .308 over a .270 ANY DAY!!

That's not what I said.

I would happily take a 280 Rem over a 270 Win though. Nothing a 270 will do that a 280 won't do better.........

Shoot a big game animal with either round and you and the animal won't know which round you used unless you look at the case head when you eject the fired case . The effective difference is almost nil

I can shoot my .300 WM as quickly and as efficiently as my 30-06. It's also light, like 6 1/2 pounds w/o scope but has a factory brake and kicks about the same or less than my 6# '06.

DF

I find it curious that no one has mentioned using a sling...

I always have a light nylon sling on my rifles. A few years ago, when I was using my CZ550 in .458 WM for "everything", I toted it with a sling on my shoulder for 8 hrs a day for a week of moose hunting. It weighed 11.25 lbs ready to go. I never noticed it.

Yesterday and the day before, I was whitetail hunting with a #1 Ruger that comes in at 8.6 lbs with scope, sling and "cartridge sock" on the stock holding five .45-70s loaded with 350 grainers. It seemed somewhat heavy after using my T3 Lite (7.6 lbs all up)for 5 months. It's clearly a matter of what we get used to in weight and recoil. I guarantee that I can shoot my 9.3 X 62 using my bear/moose load, generating 47-48 ft-lbs as well as I could any of the 7mm mags I have owned.. in hunting. I shot a bull moose with my 340 Wby and 250 NPs at 3000 fps, and I NEVER noticed the recoil of muzzle blast.The 26" tube helped. As well with the CZ in .458 WM... I shot a black bear with the 350 TSX at 2750 fps and never was recoil or muzzle blast of concern or interest!

On these kinds of threads, we work ourselves into a frenzy over such matters! As pointed out: in real life hunting, with adrenalin pumping, we'll never notice what we fired! But, if we have LITTLE experience with one of the magnums, then perhaps it's best to stay with the "standards".

I shoot heavy calibers on purpose, so I don't have to think about recoil or weight. That's what I'm used to. I think my T3 may spoil me as to that weight thing though <grin>.

Just to keep matters in perspective... it's a fact that in a few weeks I'll be 78.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

And vice versa. Most of the talk about a 280's superiority is just that..."talk". In killing effect, they are the same thing.

Agreed. For hunting same/same at normal ranges.

If splittin' hairs or shooting LR, the 7mm has some advantages, while the .277 has none.........

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.

You're learnin...just not quite there yet.

Keep on, seriously. I think you are WAY ahead of your time curve. Congrats.

Jerry

'experienced IS the key'.


BTW - I LIKE & USE both.

That's eaxactly why I no longer engage in these types of discussions on this site.

There is always some genius who comes along and wants to crunch the numbers a different way. State what his handload shoots for his load, and then quote a Hodgon manual for yours.

I've a pretty good idea what both bullets do. If you want to burn more powder and absorb more recoil to achieve the same results, by all means do it.

BTW, my 162s run at 3100fps. 208s at 2950 ish.........

I'm not sure where "there" is.

My experience with both is the basis for my arguments, and I firmly believe that energy is a crap designator in examining ballistics and terminal performance.

There is a pretty considerable difference in a 7mm 180gr VLD and a .30 180gr NBT, even with the 30 starting 150fps faster. I've seen it, and shot both.

My point being- the 7mm offers the most for the least. And 6.5s take that even further.

Tanner

Good grief. 300's certainly work, but what animals can't be killed neatly with a Partition or TTSX from a 7 RM? There are only a handful on the entire planet.

If you're nervous about tackling it with a 7 RM, you need a DGR.

2much: Well I haven't seen anybody do that....RC is quoting actual velocities for his 300 mag...My 162's are loaded to 3200 or so....and when I used a 300 magnum with 200's it was with a Weatherby at over 3000 fps.About everything I ever killed with the 300 Win Mag has been taken with 180 gr bullets.

My purpose is not to twist data in one direction or another....simply set forth my opinion that the 7mm's ,while good at what they do, are not more potent cartridges in general than 300 magnums...they can't be because they simply don't have the bullet weight and diameter to do so,and propel heavier bullets at the same velocities as the 7mm does lighter ones.

Of course they kick more...that only makes sense; but that's a personal thing and it's up to the driver to determine how much recoil he can manage.

Well, Bob, I did see somebody do that. And if you read it again, you will too. Actual velocities for his rig, slowa$$ book velocities for the 7mm.

I'm goin' huntin' you kids enjoy...........

BTW, Bob, my response wasn't aimed at you but this thread in general.

The difference there isn't the BC, but the price. It's hard on the pocket book to put thousands of rounds down range every year when the bullets cost twice as much.



Perhaps in the USA, Bob Most of the world doesn't hold the same fanatical zeal for .308" that the US holds...

If the difference between 7mm and .30 has to count for something, then the same can be said for the difference between .270 and 7mm The extra 20-30 grains of bullet weight and larger expanded frontal area count for something, but is it enough to notice a marked difference in the field when metal meets flesh? Guys like JB and Dober don't seem to think that the difference in terminal effect between .30 and 7mm is enough to worry about in practicality. I believe the same goes for .270 bullets vs 7mm. The trouble isn't killing once the bullet hits game, but steering it through the wind and weather conditions to hit the mark

I'm so firmly opinionated on the difference between 7mm and .300 magnums that I own three of each.

I have both an like both, but my fav. is the .30 cal.. One of my mentors was a 300 man much of his life, but after age 70 he mostly shot a 7mm Rem..

Answer: where exterior ballisitics are concerned, they are equal

Might want to recheck those numbers, Rick...

Never really paid attention to lighter game, but game over say 1000 pounds. Between the 7 Rem 7 STW and the 300 Win the 300 is better at the heavy lifting.And yes own all 3 killed many animals over 1000 pounds with all 3.

They are both great rounds and I wouldn't hesitate to use my 7mm's for any game that walks in British Columbia.

Already did and saw that I goofed. Ya gotta put in the correct atmosphere!

10 more lashes with some Angel Hair!

Well, not all of us are high rolling big-timers.

I would be thinking lightweight for sure. A Kimber Montana 300wsm with a good hunting bullet. Maybe a Leupold VX3 2.5-8x36mm. Spend the rest of the money on taxidermy services....:)

Ha! It happens to us all!

Let me SPLAIN it this way.

How many 'years' experience do you have with the 7 & 300 mags?

How many HEAD of B G have you taken with BOTH??

IMO - IMO, you are a FEW yrs. and MUCH B G behind BobNH and his experience and OBSERVATION has more weight.

A 7mm 180 VLD ----APPLES
A 300 180 NBT ----ORANGES

They are NOT shaped (BC) the same. For a VALID comparison for ACCURATE results, the bullets MUST be comparable.

180 vs 180 ain't where it's at: e.g. a 700 HP NASCAR race car and a 700 HP Mack truck ARE NOT COMPARABLE.


Regardless of what you read HERE on the fire, BC AND SD have bearing on bullet comparisons.

As to 'energy' figures, that IS MATH. Mass AT Speed = WORK (energy)

The VALID comparison is to use as close to the same BC & SD at the velocity each cartridge is capable OF PRODUCING.


I know that 'energy' figures are poo poo'd around here, ever wonder WHY? The simple FACT is w/o energy, nothing gets done.

As to the 6.5s --- There ain't ONE 6.5 commercial cartridge that's in the same ballpark with the 300 WM.


Now please don't forget, I am not disparaging you nor the knowledge you posses for your age.

THERE , is still more.

Jerry

Not really sure how many years it takes to figure out that 7mm bullets offer more BC for less recoil.

The only point I've attempted to make is that 7mm bullets offer more, for less, as I said before.

To beat a 7mm 180 VLD, you need a Berger that weighs 230 grains. My point in comparing the 180 VLD and .308 180 NBT was that they weigh the same, but one is a very different beast. I apologize for not articulating what exactly I meant in that comparison.

I'm not sure where you are gathering that I believe BC and SD don't matter in bullets, because that's exactly what I'm talking about here. Exactly as Jordan Smith said, BC and lower recoil are means of putting a bullet precisely where it needs to go to kill critters. I try to take advantage of both.

Like I said, I have experience on game with both and enjoy both big fast 7mms and big fast 30s.

As for the 6.5 vs. 300 WM comparison, I'll let somebody else chime in on that one....

Tanner

Yep, I KNOW how THAT goes, I am so much the same vis-a-vis the superb .338WM and the fine, old 9,3x62, that, even after some hard "culling" of my rifle collection since 2011, I still have six of the former and four of the latter and am perhaps going to have a 9.3x64B. built on the Brno ZG-47 action now at my smith's having a Dakota 3-pos. installed.

"Riflelooney" really doesn't describle us, "raving maniac gunaholic" is more like it, eh!!!

Hmmmmmmm, let me understand this, because Tanner is younger than Bob he can possibly have hunted as much or know as much as Bob........... great internet logic!!!!!

I would never imply that I know as much as Bob or have hunted as much as him. I've just shot both cartridges in question enough to know what I like, and why.

I will be glad when this long rang hunting fad, obsession with BC burns out...And it will.

I sincerely meant that.

BTW I just shot a pronghorn last week at 600+ yards with a 25-06AI, using 100gr Barnes TSX's that have the BC of a brick and using a BR scope. The horror!

+1 It creates confusion in my gun trading

Thank you,Jordan.

That's what I was trying to figure out. Thought I mighta missed something.

Sure is tough to get a straight answer around here....lots of people like to dance around a bit.

Thanks Mike...thought I was losing my [bleep] marbles....it'll happen if you listen too much to the numbers horsehidt spewed around here.


Tanner is a bright young guy.He has the goods and the hunting opportunities. If he takes his 280 AI,and his grandad's 300 Improved,feeds them both good bullets,and watches them both perform on lots of animals over the next 20 years, I'd like to hear his views on which is the more potent BG cartridge.
But I think I already know what he's going to say.

Besides, considering his age....and mine....Tanner would hunt my ass into the ground.

Great post and very logical! I couldn't agree more and like my hard hitting 300's!

Ya, it will, but its an evolutionary step away from the round nose. Manufacturer's of bullets will have to produce better products because science proves it and the public will demand it...............all in the sake of cleaner kills, our quarry deserves this much.

Me too.

I think he's gonna say that 300 is a stone killer, but it kicks like a mofo!

In no particular order!!

There is NOT as much L R hunting ACTUALLY done Compared to how many TALK it.. I had a thread on the L R forum on THAT subject.

There were only a FEW. Less than 10, who said they killed game 500 yds and out.

OTOH the subject of B C has merit for more than L R comparisons.
Yes B C is more important at L R because it relates the aerodynamics of bullets.

300 yds. Is not considered L R yet B C is relative for 300 yd. shooting/hunting.

To state the OBVIOUS the B C numbers relate the efficiency of different bullets in flight. Many or most Xs experienced shooters can tell the relative efficiency by simply looking (for short range, 300 yds. or less)

I found B C and S D particularly helpful as an inexperienced handloader. Yes I know that S D changes or dissipates upon impact BUT....

S D relates the penetrating quality of bullets of the SAME construction.

eg. Using the same bullet manufacturer with the same construction B C & S D indicates flight & penetration between lighter & heavier bullets.

IMO - IMO more people use the numbers of Bergers or Scenars to prove their points THAN actually USE those bullets for hunting.

I am OLD SCHOOL, if ya can't tell <G>, and for 400 yds. And less these high numbers from Berger aren't nearly as important.

If I never read or hear about Bergers again, I would not miss it.

Out in the wilds of British Columbia, 400yds is a long poke. Depending on the style of hunting one can be set up with a view out 800+ yds. In the interior where I live wind is generally not a factor, animals are big so your going to endure some recoil to get the job done. Bergers will respond positively at these extended ranges, closer in <400 yds the AccuBond gets the nod. Its all about the situation you create for yourself and the tools to do the job.

I'd be willing to bet that each year of Tanner's shooting experience is equal to 5 years experience of most guys here on the fire.

You may want to revisit your physics books and double check those equations
Energy figures are poo poo'd when it comes to hunting because killing results are not at all proportionate, nor directly correlated with energy numbers. There are plenty of more important factors when it comes to killing something.

You're learning, but you're not THERE yet.

The same can be said of ALL of us. The fool is the man who has decided that he has nothing more to learn.

+1

Wind can certainly kick a guy's butt a lot closer than 400 or 500 yards...

Another crazy thread.

So much here and the last few posts to discredit I don't know with which to start.

I've killed at long range. I've never gone out ONLY to kill at long range, I simply want to be able to use my equipment with competency. If it's capable of killing at 1000 yards I want to have the skill to allow it to.

How pitiful it would be to own a Ferrari and only be skilled enough at to drive 55?

You really need to get out more or actually go to the range with someone who has a [bleep] clue

After reading all these posts, it has become clear. The .264 Win Mag can shoot a lighter bullet with just as high a BC and recoil less, so it is better than the 7mm Mag and the 300 Mag.

If your goal is high BC bullets going fast, with the least amount of recoil possible, then I would agree 100%. There aren't any that are slicker than a 180 VLD, though...

I can't even come close to agreeing with the "fad" thing about high BC bullets. They make hitting things easier and that's all I needed to know. I suppose LRFs, turrets, and synthetic stocks were fads at one point too.

Tanner

You might be right


.

3250 fps, almost 1300 ft-lbs at 1000, drops 5.2 mils at 1000. With a Mark 4 and a TMR a guy can simply use the reticle without even dialing at 1000 yards.

Hell, I didn't even know there was such a powder as RL-33. But I can see that Rick's all wrong 'cause the Reliant page says it's only for the .338 Lapua!

Kind of a crazy thread, OP asked which cartridge (or perhaps, which caliber) would make a better sheep gun. I said about 15 pages back, I'd go with a 6.5 something (or more accurately 6.5-.280) that was lightweight, and I haven't changed my mind yet!

Bob

Shhhhhh! RL 33 is the Magic Jesus juice for the 264!

I wasn't going to say it

As to the question at hand. Having shot 180 Accubonds out of a 30-06 and 180 VLD's out of a 7mm Rem, I greatly prefer the VLD's. That said, those 180 Accubonds are a nasty bullet and I'd have zero qualms about using them for nearly anything.

rcmgla

OH MY, did I just kick the "HOLY COW" ?

How could I have NOT thot about the writhing, languishing, gasping for breath, America's favorite child???????

The 264 W M - WHY is it not THE gun/cartridge that everyone's panting over and waiting for months for theirs to come in????

Because SO FEW hunters DO L R hunting. I'm not talking busting rocks, gongs or paper targets.

I've been in 3 deer leases and I KNOW most of those deer hunters CANT hit a school bus at 300 yds.

I have nothing against the 264 W M at all. In my 41 yrs. of hunting in Ar. La. & Al. I have known ONE guy with that cart.


Now just one phrase could have prevented this part of the discussion. " For NORMAL hunting ranges" the 264 is NOT the leader of the pack!!

B T W - the OP asked about the 7 RM or 300 WM. He like most hunters was not considering the 264 WM.

Now, I'm not leaving this thread IF it continues, but I'm not arguing any more about the 264.

As Tanner said, I have enough experience with the rifles that I know what I like. I also know what cartridges will accomplish what I need.

OH ! I'm sorry, GOOD MORNING !

I haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Good morning

rcmg -

A clue is YOUR POST -




THAT is what I'm talking about!

I spend MORE of my time HUNTING rather than at the 'range'. That's the HEART of my point.

Just a POLITE reminder.

Jerry

Just a polite reminder for you jwall as to who broached the subject first...

depending on the criteria, the 7mm mag and the 300 win mag arent the leaders of this pack either.

Actually, I was being facetious when I said the .264 Win Mag is better than the 7mm Mag and the 300 Mag. We could carry it to the extreme and say that the .243 Win with a 105 A-max is just as slippery in the wind and recoils less than the .264 Win Mag so it must be better than all of the previously mentioned cartridges. And, perhaps for targets, it is.

I used to have a 7mm Rem Mag and a 300 Win Mag. My son "borrowed" the 7mm Rem Mag and I'm left with the 300 Win Mag. Which I don't mind at all. I'm good for about 40 shots at the bench with my 300 Mag and for a couple of shots at game, I don't really notice the recoil. If I want to shoot a lot, I use a much smaller cartridge than any of the ones we're "arguing" about.

If you were being facetious, you inadvertently were right.

For a sheep rifle it would be perfect, which is what the OP asked about.

A flat-shooting cartridge is an advantage for anything you do with it and they don't come much flatter than the .264. Build on a Lightweight Packer platform and it's perfect for hauling around in tough country.







Here's the 105 for schits and giggles comparison....





The 264 edges out even the 300.

Uhh, where did the OP ask about 6.5s?

How Many guys HUNT B G up to 1000 yds.?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I had heard that a 264 WM and 140 Bergers will out run the the 7RM and 30's at 700-1000 but had never seen the numbers.

Gotta be the velocity started over 3200.

Ditto on flat trajectories,although my frame of reference is only 600 yards.

Wonder what a 7mm 168 Berger at 3200 fps looks lke?

Using Litz numbers...

All fun with numbers aside the .264 is dead and the 300 win mag has more stomp than the 7mm mag.

Dude, that's quite a quote there, I might have to steal that one.

Bob

LOL now that's damn near comical tell it to those that are using them to hunt with.

You meen all ten of them?

No I don't have ten of them just one pre 64.

Feel free to steal or use. It's not original w/me.

You are welcome to it.

Jerry

Thanks Jordan! That ain't bad... I guess!

Just a half-assed observation but there seems to be something linear about all this....that being as you drop down in caliber and bullet weight,but maintain the high BC,things like the 140 Berger from the 264, etc, look better than the (say) 208 gr 30 caliber because it's easier to drive them faster and takes less powder to do it.


Who says velocity doesn't count?

But really they are all dropping like soft balls lobbed underhanded at 1000.

Yup. An accurate LRF and repeatable turrets are requisite at that range, regardless of bullet or chambering. Wind drift is where we "separate the boys from the men".

That's why the 260 Rem and its ilk are so good, their trajectory is on par/better in most cases than a 300Win.

Well I am either crazy or I should get extra points for reading thru 23 pages of "my bullet is better than yours"....

The original question was which would you prefer on a sheep hunt - a 7mm or 300 mag?

My personal experience tells me it doesn't take a 300 mag to kill a sheep. Far from it. The 7mm depending on configuration would make a much better choice. Preferably in a light weight mountain rifle version. I also would not opt for one of the .284 choices in the magnum version. Anything from a .280 to the 7mm saum would do nicely.

It is also my experience that hunters that shoot various .284 cartridges and bullets spend more trigger time becoming a better shooter. Most of my friends and acquaintances that shoot 300 mags, shoot just enough ammo to make sure they are on paper. JMHO

Any good, well placed 140gr bullet like a Partition or Accubond will get the job done.

So you would not opt for 1 of the 7 magnums ?

What is the 7 S A U M ? Pray tell.

Sheep country is also BEAR country!

Soo?

Al ot of big bears have been and will be killed with 30-06 and 7mm rifles every year

rc,
Can you post the data at 400 yards instead of 1000 yards. I don't have a problem with skilled shooters going to 1000 yards but I don't. I've never shot anything beyond 400 and it is unlikely that I ever will. If I do, I'll buy another rifle.

Jwall,

No I would not opt for one of (6) 7mm magnums. Of the 7mm .284 cartridges I would choose one of the non- magnums such as the 7mm-08, 7x57, .280, .284, 280 AI up to the 7mm short action ultra mag, or 7 mm WSM. All would do nicely on a sheep hunt. I would definitely choose the one you shoot the best.

Yes, it is bear country but the OP didn't state he had a bear tag, and I wouldn't choose my sheep rifle based on the outside chance I see a bear.

DZG -

I know it doesn't take a big mag to kill sheep reliably.

I am NO LONGER able to climb mtns in sheep territory but IF I had gone I'd take an 06 at least or 7 RM. Call it insurance, JUST IN CASE.


Also I am well aware that 'recoil' is an individual thing. For me, I have a 7 RM that is my 3rd lightest rifle and I've killed quite a few deer and 1 coyote that was trotting @ 300 yds away. Some can't shoot mags well, EVERYBODY is better off shooting what they shoot well.

jwall,

Agreed

Bob,

The main issue I'd have with that reasoning for hunting is how much K.E. and Momentum is needed when a LR slug finally interacts with a live, walking piece of meat. The bigger slugs are going to have more wallop remaining to dispatch the targeted critter.

I guess that's always going to be a calculated guestimate based on type animals are being hunted.

DF

Dirtfarmer: I think your reasoning is sound and sometimes gets lost in the din of the conversations.

You read my mind!

I'd like to see a comparison for REASONABLE distances too.
We've had a thread or three and MOST big game is shot / shot at - inside 300yds.

So a 400 yd comparison would be more realistic for the majority of hunters.

So how about it?

THNX Jordan.

Out to 400 yds. @ 6" difference from best to worst ? if I estimate the line correctly.

Also that's w/a 100 yd. zero. Total drop is less w/a 200 or 250 yd. zero.

THNX again

Jerry

Thanks Jordan! Looks about right.

On my profile with a 200 yard zero, the 264 has less than 14" of drop at 400 yards. Hold on the top of the back and never come off of hair.

Laser Beam

Yup. That's the advantage to these small bore magnums is flat trajectory within 400-600 yards.

What jumps out at me from Jordan's charts is that velocity pretty much rules within 600 yards,even though all these cartridges /bullets are pretty tightly clustered.

You can manipulate this stuff to your advantage.

The 180 grain high BC bullet in the 300 mag would put the 300's best foot forward in the chart above at 3100 fps which is very doable

Any chance you can plug in the 155 grain Scenar .308 at 3250?

Thank you.

First, not a gun writer. For a "sheep rifle", neither you mention, unless, it must really do double or triple or quadruple duty on antelope to deer, to sheep, and then elk (you didn't mention that). That both mentioned can do it in spades is besides the point; there are better, lighter options for climbing mountains and killing a two hundred pound, soft-skinned animal. And if you are building a specialized sheep/mountain rifle as your post implies then there are a host of other cartridges that will serve your purpose well and carry like a fair maidens arm.

Hey everyone! I know this is somewhat of an older thread, but I wanted to give my opinion (and we all know what those are worth! )

George, I'm with you. I saw New Zealanders taking sheep at 1,000 yards with a .243 (though I'd opt for my 6.5 Swede and wouldn't shoot past 400). If bears are a concern I'd just grab the big revolver I'd be carrying anyway (much more agile than ANY rifle in that situation).

I can't even imagine carrying an extra 12 guage plus rifle plus revolver plus backpack. Even at 50 yards (or beyond that) there's no bear built that can shrug off a good .44 mag or .454 Casull projectile of choice and there's 4-5 fast follow up shots if the crap hits the fan. So to answer the OP I'd go with the lighter/less recoil 7mag, but like I said, I'd go even further and pack my Swede. That rifle is a far better tool than I'll ever be as a craftsman!