What caliber 7mm Rem Mag or 300 Win Mag

[Long Time Long Ranger]

I love this stuff, Like a campfire at hunting camp. We are not writing books on here to fully explain everything we say. They are short blurbs that can easily be taken out of context. Picking any caliber is splitting hairs until you get to the large ones that will overwhelm small ones at long range.

My 264 comment over the 7mm is splitting hairs but the 264 will give you a slight advantage because of the weight of the bullet vs BC in proportion to caliber. A 264 winchester can drive the 140 berger 100+ fps faster than a 7mm remington can push a 168 berger. BC is to close to call. Both serve the same purpose as long range caribou, deer, antelope size animal killers. Neither will push heavier bullets fast enough to gain any advantage within the optimum range of the cartridge. Same with the 6.5 STW vs the 7mm STW. The 6.5 stw will push the 140 berger 100+ fps faster than the 168 berger in 7mm stw.

The 30 and 338 calibers have quality premium hunting bullets a hunter can drive through tough muscle and bone and still reach the vitals with higher BC's than in 7mm. When you step up to elk size game this becomes important over a bullet that tends to shed it's jacket. For elk size game this limits the 7mm unless like I said you limit yourself to particular shots.

These are some of the reasons I said splitting hairs you have a slight advantage with certain calibers like the 264, 30 and 338 calibers. Assuming the discussion is ended at 338 calibers.

I just like to play all the odds in my favor. As I always say a well placed shot and the animal is dead with any of them. On here with caliber debates all we have is splitting hairs that is the reason I say my 30-06 is better than your 270.

NZlongranger I think we could have some good discussions. I don't have time right now to go into everything you said. By the way, good luck with the magazine.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I still call B.S.!

I can't tell the difference between elk shot with a 338 Win and a 7mm Rem, much less a 300 Winchester. I can't imagine that the first time an elk gets away from my 7mm, I'm going to move to a 300 Winchester. Nay man! Nay! If a 7 Rem won't do then it will be replaced with a big 338 (Ultra or Edge).

The 300 Win is a bigger, more powerful rifle, but the difference is much more marginal that you're trying to sell. If the 177 GS is required to make the 300 Win into this Super-rifle then hardly anyone else is getting the majority of the good out of their 300's are they? I know of no one who uses them except yourself. Most people are limping along with their 180 Accubonds or some sort of cup and cores with lower BCs.

Nope. I'm not buying. Elk shot with a 300 Win just hump up, walk 20 yards, fall over and die just like they do with 7mm Rems and 338 Winchesters. When shot in the chest, elk can't tell the difference.

You're missing the point. The point is not that the 300 WM with the GS 177 is some kind of super rifle (although it does give it some very impressive numbers), the point is that the 300 WM is up one level, at least, from the 7 RM. what I am reading in the last few pages of this thread is that some guys don't like the recoil of a 300 WM, so they are going to use the 7 RM and they want to feel good about it, so they will say it's just as good as the 300 WM, that there is no difference, and that is simply not the case.

The 7 proponents are hanging their hats on 2 bullets. The 168 Berger and the 162 A Max. The CE 170 (as mentioned) also has a good BC if accurate, but here's the deal. A lot of comments have been made about this and that bullet and velocity that seem to be way out of proportion. If you go to the Hodgdon data site, you will see that the 300 WM is capable of pushing a 200 grain bullet about the same velocity that a 7 RM is capable of pushing a 160-162 gr bullet. That's a 40 gr difference in bullet size at the same velocity.. Let's translate that to the .284 (.617 BC)168 Berger vs the .308 (.631) 210 Berger. The 300 WM is capable of pushing the significantly bigger bullet with slightly better BC at the same velocity. OK, so let's take a look at the mentioned CE 7mm 170(estimated BC .62) vs the 180 CE 308 180 (tested BC .6) Based on our knowledge of cartridge potential how much faster is the 300 WM going to push the 180 vs the 7mm and the 170? Probably about 200-300 fps faster. You realy don't need a ballistic calculator to see which has the clear advantage. Let's start using realistic figures when we do comparisons.

Now if you or anyone else want to say you want to shoot the 7 because it kicks less, then fine... but don't say there's no difference between the two to make you feel better. That is total BS. Now I'm calling BS.... anybody can get on their keyboard and type that the 7 RM can kill anything that a 300 WM can, but that doesn't make it true. If it is... then I can get on my keyboard and type that a 22-250 can kill anything a 7 mag can. And if I search the net enough, I can probably find some story where some guy killed a 1000 lb Brown Bear with a 22-250. It might even be true. So what? We both know that there's a difference between the 22-250 and the 7 RM, just like there is a difference between the 7 RM and the 300 WM. What's the difference? One more time..... bullet cal, bullet weight and powder capacity.

I think most people are going to agree that as we move up the ladder the larger cals/cartridges are going to be more destructive. A 243 is going to be more destructive than a 22-250, and a 6.5-284 is going to be more destructive than a 243, and a 270 WSM is going to be more destructive than a 6.5-284, and a 7 RM is going to be more destructive than a 270 WSM... but why is it that when we compare the 7 RM and the 300 WM, they are all of a sudden the same? I don't get it. The reason I don't get it is because it's BS.

Now we can split hairs all day on how much the difference is, but don't say they are the same. I could kill an elephant with a well placed shot through the eye with a 22-250, but I would rather go with the odds and use a 416.

... You base your argument on the 300WM over the 7mm RM on the 30 cal 177 GS and the 180 CE bullets, over the 7mm 170 CE. You state the BC of the 177 GS as .638, but if you look at their website its only that at 3300 fps, and drops to .589, and yet you're starting them even slower at 3200 fps. Therefore your average BC isn't going to be anywhere near .638, presuming that's an accurate BC from GS in the first place. Now I do believe Dan's average BC's on his CE's, and he rates his 180gn 30 cal at .600, and his 170gn 7mm at .620 average.

The average calculated G1 BC of the GS 177 form 3300 fps to 1600 fps is about .61. if you beleive CE's BC for the 180's then the GS BC is very close. I have on the desk in front of me one each of the 177 and CE 180, all three versions. the GS has a slightly larger meplat, but without a doubt an overall better form factor. I have been shooting both the 177's and 180's in my 300 RUM and the CE velocities are running about 50 fps faster than other 180's and the 177's about 100 - 120 fps faster. In my book, that gives a significant advantage to the 177's out of a 300 WM vs the 170's out of a 7 RM.

 

[NZ Longranger]

MR,
Just a couple of corrections to keep the debate honest. Rather than quote the velocities we personally may or may not get with these cartridges, just pick up a couple of loading manuals and do a comparison. The 7mmRM can push the 180gn Berger, not the 168 Berger, at the same speed the 300WM pushes the 210 Berger. The 180 Berger has a higher BC than the 210 Berger .659 G1 verses .631. And the new Hybrid 180gn is .674. The ballistic edge as far as hitting your long range target is with the 7mmRM. Terminally the 300 has the theoretical edge in this example due to a slightly larger diameter and 30 grains more weight.
The 300WM certainly cannot push the 180gn 200 – 300 fps faster than the 7mmRM can push the 170gn. Again, check some manuals and you'll see about 100 fps difference between them. Now I cannot comment on the actual BC for the GS 177gn as I haven't shot them personally. But trying to compare apples with apples, with the CE's the BC is a little better in the 7mm 170gn over the 30 cal 180gn. Swings and roundabouts, the 7mm loses on velocity but picks up on BC. No significant difference as far as hitting your target, but the 180 or 177gn in the 300WM has the slight edge terminally due to 10 gns more weight and 24 thou larger diameter.
And now on with the debate!
Greg

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Fair enough Greg,

If you go back to my previous post, you will see I was indeed referencing the Hodgdon online manual just to keep things "honest"

A lot of comments have been made about this and that bullet and velocity that seem to be way out of proportion. If you go to the Hodgdon data site, you will see that the 300 WM is capable of pushing a 200 grain bullet about the same velocity that a 7 RM is capable of pushing a 160-162 gr bullet. That's a 40 gr difference in bullet size at the same velocity.. Let's translate that to the .284 (.617 BC)168 Berger vs the .308 (.631) 210 Berger. The 300 WM is capable of pushing the significantly bigger bullet with slightly better BC at the same velocity. OK, so let's take a look at the mentioned CE 7mm 170(estimated BC .62) vs the 180 CE 308 180 (tested BC .6) Based on our knowledge of cartridge potential how much faster is the 300 WM going to push the 180 vs the 7mm and the 170? Probably about 200-300 fps faster. You realy don't need a ballistic calculator to see which has the clear advantage. Let's start using realistic figures when we do comparisons.

http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

If you check the 7 RM 162 gr data, you will see the highest velocity for the 160-162 range is 2963 using Retumbo. If you check the 300 WM data under 200 gr you will see it pushes a 200 NP 2962. Same velocity, 38 gr difference.

I don't have a 300 WM, but I do have a 300 WSM (WM equivalent or slightly less) and a 7 RM, both 24" barrels. My personal experience in these cartridges is that I can push a 160 gr bullet 3000 fps (tops) out of the 7 and with the WSM I can push a 180 gr bullet (20 gr heavier) 3200 fps (200 fps faster). That's as real as I can get it. I welcome keeping the debate honest.

 

[Long Time Long Ranger]

Just for reference since I have several rifles in both 7mm remington and 300 winchester and had a 1000 yard range where people shot both regularly. These are numbers my rifles shoot and basically about the average of others on my range. The 300 winchester will shoot the 208 amax-210 berger just under 3000 fps. Most accuracy loads are 2950-3000 fps. The 7mm remington shoots the 162 amax on average with best accuracy right around 3050 fps. I don't know if this helps or not but these are numbers I have in my loading notes from my range. The 300 winchester will push the 180 grain bullets on average with best accuracy around 3150 fps with some accuracy loads getting over 3200 fps. My personal accuracy load with two different 300 winny's is just over 3000 fps with the 200 nosler accubond with a .588 bc.This is an excellent elk load. My best accuracy loads with the 7mm remington shoot the 175 sierra game king between 2850 and 2900 fps.

Plenty of people on here shoot these two so if people will be honest with the velocities we can come up with a good average of what each will do. I don't get royalties from either winchester or remington concerning either of these cartridges and could care less. I don't think anybody else does either.

As far as the 177 GS bullet I did limited velocity testing in several rifles with a few bullets. In my 300 winchesters I had no problem pushing them over 3200 fps.

I think what MR was talking about is the 177 GS seems to get on the high side of the velocity range.

From seeing hundreds of big game animals taken all over north america with numerous cartridges this is my opinion of both.

The 7mm remington is a good choice for caribou, deer and antelope size game capable of long range kills on this size game with several different bullets. With several premium hunting bullets it can be used on elk at ranges within the cartridge capability. It is not a good choice for long range hunting of large bull elk where you can experience a high wounding loss with marginal bullets available for the purpose.

The 300 winchester is a great all around all purpose rifle. With a wide range of available 30 caliber bullets it can be loaded to do well on all sizes of animals in north america even getting into the minimum for large bears and long range hunting of large big game. Because of the high BC's per caliber with heavy premium hunting bullets, particularly some of the specialty bullets, it can reach further with better capability on large big game than smaller calibers of similar case capacity.

 

[silvertip-co]

All very good stuff to read guys. As I was thinking of going to 300 win mag myself from 7mm rem mag. Thanks. Didnt see this post for some reason when I posted this last night:

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/army-going-300-win-mag-lrh-71822/

 

[NZ Longranger]

MR,
You're not comparing apples with apples.
If you look through a few more manuals, in particular the Hornady one, you'll see data much more representative of the actual bullets you were comparing. The 162gn A-Max and the 208gn A-Max. The 208 A-Max and 210 Berger's from your example are practically identical as far as pressure and velocity limits. Hornady lists 3000 fps with the 162 out of a 24" barrel and 2850 fps with the 208 out of a 25" barrel. Out of the same length barrels there is 200fps difference between these two. You cannot push the 208 A-Max or 210 Berger at the same speed as the 162 A-Max at the same pressure out of the same length barrel - period. If you look at the data for the 175gn in the 7mmRM in the same manual, you'll see it listed at 2900 fps, 50 fps faster than the 208 A-Max, and out of a 1 inch shorter barrel. As I said in the post above, you can push the higher BC 7mm 180gn Berger out of the 7mmRM at the same pressure out of the same length barrel at the same speed as the 300WM pushes the 210gn Berger.

You have then gone on to quoting your personal velocities, stating 3000 fps tops with the 162 gn and saying you can get 3200 fps with the 180 gn out of your 300 WSM. All I can say is you're not comparing apples with apples. You cannot be comparing the same length barrels at the same pressures.

I was hoping not to have to go this far but since we're getting into personal load data now, here is some background on us to give some credibility to what I'm saying. We produce NZHUNTER Magazine, which sells more per issue than any other gun, hunting or general outdoor magazine here in New Zealand. The other division of our company is NZHUNTER Precision Rifles, which specializes in building custom rifles and doing load developments, and long range hunting rifles are our specialty. On our home range 10 yards from our load room door, we have a full Oehler Ballistic Laboratory set up, including pressure testing equipment, a full light box chronograph setup and down range acoustic targets. We do hundreds of long range load developments a year, not only on the custom rifles we build but also on customer's factory rifles and custom rifles built by other gunsmiths. We measure actual pressures and velocities, not best guesses. I have no caliber prejudices, and am only interested in the facts.

As I said in my previous post, the best combination of BC verses velocity in the 7mmRM gives you a better chance of hitting your target area than the best in the 300WM. This is with currently available bullets. For any game animals that you feel the 180gn Berger or another of the high BC long range 7mm bullets is sufficient medicine, then the 7mmRM has a slight edge at long range over the 300WM. For bigger game that you feel the 175/180 match type 7mm bullets aren't enough for, then the 300WM has the slight edge. As LTLR says, the 300WM is a better all round North American big game cartridge due to the terminal performance edge it has over the 7mm's. This is especially so at close to medium ranges. At long ranges there isn't as much in it, and it depends whether you're in LTLR's camp of putting the emphasis on terminal bullet performance verses the other sides view that you're better to have the best chance of hitting them in the right place to start with. Obviously its about reaching the right compromise here, and it also depends on the size and toughness of the animals you hunting.
And that is what's it's all about really!
Greg

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Greg, it is impossible to compare apples to apples in the purest sense because no two sets of combinations of barrels, bullets, powders primers and brass will shot alike. long throat, short throat, tight bore, spec bore, 10 twist, 12 twist, on and on and on. You talk about manuals and that's OK, but here's the reality... they all have varying reality. I once compared 300 RUM data for the same bullet and powder in both the Nosler and Hodgdon online manuals. I was using a Nosler bullet (200 AB) and Hodgdon powder (Retumbo I think). The Nosler online data has since been redone. One of them was listing a starting load that was higher than the other's max load. When I saw that, i started looking around for more same bullet/powder combos on those two sites and found more significant discrepancies.

With all due respect, I do not discount your findings, but your sample size is limited to your combination of components and BTW, i have no cal/cartridge preference either. I have hunted more with the 7 RM and taken more game with it than all other chamberlains put together. Granted, that was back in the day when I was pushing 160 gr NP's for most of my big game hunting other than antelope. Also, I was using IMR 4831 as it gave me the best velocity and accuracy of the powders I tried back then. With today's powders like H1000, Retumbo, RL17 and in a 26" barrel, I'm sure I could increase that velocity by 50-100 fps. Having said that, using the same powders to find the best load in the 300 WM, 26" barrel, I have little doubt . could get to 3000 fps with the 210 or 208. I have reached 2935 in my 300 WSM with the 210 and RL17 in a 24" barrel with less powder capacity. Yup, I'm quoting my experiences, just like you're quoting yours.

Now... just because Hornady didn't reach 3000 fps with the 210 or 208 doesn't mean that there is not a combination of powder and primer that will get it to 3000. Does the Hornady manual include Retumbo? Retumbo shines in the 300 WM like RL17 shines in the 300 WSM. Fact is that Hodgdon pushed a 200 NP with Retumbo at the same velocity that they pushed the 162 Hdy bullet both of which they called max loads, both with Retumbo which does very well in the 7 RM as well. Unfortunately the barrel length is not listed on the Hodgdon site.

Let's get some more honesty on the table. I really don't care for 300 WM's. Nothing wrong with them, I just don't care for belted cartridges (same goes for the 7 RM) and the 300 WM case would overly crowd a magazine vs it's powder capacity. I like WSM's, Dakotas, RUMs and such which IMO are more efficient capacity holders and burners of powder. This discussion should be about the 7WSM vs the 300WSM

Let's move on and talk about up and coming bullets like the CE's. The 7mm 170 (.62) and the 308 180 (.6) BTW, as I'm sure you know, all three versions of the CE 180 have been test at .6 and with all due respect to Dan, I'm going to remain skeptical on that because being the same weight and cal, but different length and shape, I'm having a hard time with that. That aside, lets assume what ever version of the 180 is .6 BC. Do you honestly believe the 300 WM will not shoot the 180 AT LEAST 200 fps faster than the 7 shoots the 170, same barrel length and pressure, each with their optimum powder? I will lay odds that my WSM will shoot it at least 300 fps faster with a 2" shorter barrel.

Now this is more than just bullet weights and velocity... it's about killing animals. The quote was "... will kill anything that a that 300 WM will" In isolated anecdotal examples... maybe... and I bet I could kill a 1000lb brown bear with a 22-250. Any takers? How far is that BB gonna run? So which would you pull out of your safe to hunt brown bear with, a 300 WM loaded with a CE 180 or a 7 RM loaded with a CE 170? I don't have to think very long about that one, let alone hunting a brown bear with a 162 A Max. That was the quote.... it can kill anything.

Not only does the WM push bigger bullets faster, it makes bigger holes.

For the record, I'm not taking any of this personal and hope you or anyone else isn't either, just looking for the facts like you and when someone says that the 7RM is the same as the 300WM... well that gets my attention

 

[NZ Longranger]

MR,
I'm only concerned with the correct facts in this debate, and I ain't going anywhere near statements about who can kill what with what etc, etc. You may have been having those discussions with others on this forum, but not me. And I certainly haven't said the 7mmRM is the same as the 300WM.

You're quite right about some examples in some manuals being quite different to the norm. That's why I said have a look at several manuals to get an average, because you quoted an example from one manual to begin with.
I come back to all else being equal, the 7mmRM will drive the higher BC 180gn Bergers as fast as the 300WM can drive the 210gn Berger. That is a fact whether you want to compare manuals or have a look at the screeds of pressure and velocity data from our range testing of these exact bullets in the same length barrels in many different examples of these two calibers. Loaded to the same 62,500psi pressure we load standard factory brass like Remington, Federal, Winchester, Norma, Nosler etc to, the velocity will be the same. Oehler 43 ballistic laboratory measured pressure and velocity. That is a fact.

I have not shot the 180gn CE's in a 300WSM so won't argue with you, but to say in a 2" shorter barrel you'll get 300 fps more than the 7mmRM with the 170gn CE??? I'm struggling with that one but I'll leave it at that!
Greg

 

[Long Time Long Ranger]

I think we need to go back to what one of the other posters said earlier. Neither one of these cartridges is a very good choice for long range shooting over 1000 yards when there are so many good ones available now for the purpose.

Within the effective range of both these cartridges the 300 winchester wins by driving heavier larger caliber bullets with the same or higher bc's as fast or faster than the 7mm remington. Both are equally accurate at putting a bullet where it belongs at any range. One could certainly argue the 300 winchester is the more accurate long range rifle because of all the championships it has won vs the 7mm remington but I throw that out the window because we are talking hunting.

Here is the issue. If I was shooting the 7mm remington at 1500 yards I would get the heaviest highest bc bullet available. So I shoot the 180 berger for instance with a mid .6's bc at 2850 fps. That is just to low a bc going to slow a velocity to appeal to me in any way at long range hunting considering all the better choices available. The 7mm remington just can not get the velocity required with a high enough bc to compete with some of the other cartridges at extreme long range. It is just not pushing a high enough bc bullet fast enough to get into the extreme range game. It is certainly best and should be kept inside 1000 yards. If a guy is shooting further he needs to get a rifle more capable but never try to go beyond the best effective range for your weapon no matter what your shooting. As far as the recoil question being thrown into the discussion how many can tell the difference between a 7mm remington with a 170 or 180 vs a 300 winchester with a 180. If you measured it there is a slight difference but shooting it a wash.

Now within 1000 yard hunting where the 7mm remington is most effective on game the 300 winchester can top it because of a larger caliber and case capacity combined with currently available bullets.

That is the reason I have said in many posts the highest bc bullet may or may not be the right choice. Within the best effective range of your weapon a lighter faster bullet may be the best choice for hunting. With targets always go with the highest bc bullet your rifle will shoot the most accurate. All the other things you must consider in a hunting situation are out the window with targets because the criteria changes.

In hunting it is not the highest BC you can shoot the furthest but the best bullet for the distance your rifle is most capable.

 

[NZ Longranger]

LTLR,
I agree that neither of these cartridges should be used for hunting at 1000 yards and beyond. It was me who said I wouldn't use either of them beyond 800 yards on big game.
But can we please just get the facts right again. You said:

"Within the effective range of both these cartridges the 300 winchester wins by driving heavier larger caliber bullets with the same or higher bc's as fast or faster than the 7mm remington."

Please give us the examples you're talking about. In all examples mentioned so far this is certainly not the case. The 300 does have heavy and 24 thou fatter bullets, but the rest is incorrect. The highest BC match bullet scenario - the 180gn Berger Hybrid 7mm with G1 BC of .674 (G7 .345) verses the 210gn Berger or 208gn A-Max at .632 G1 (G7 .324), both able to pushed at the same velocity by the 7mmRM and the 300WM all else being equal.

In the monolithic CE example, the 170gn 7mm with a .62 G1 BC verses the 180gn 30 can .6 G1 BC, the 300 has the velocity edge while the 7mm has the BC edge - nothing in it really.

You also said:

"Both are equally accurate at putting a bullet where it belongs at any range."

Yes, in perfect conditions assuming equally accurate rifles. But with the best match bullet scenario above in actual field conditions, the 7mm has the edge in bullet placement due to less drop and wind drift.

You also said:

"The 7mm remington just can not get the velocity required with a high enough bc to compete with some of the other cartridges at extreme long range."

This is quite correct, but also applies equally to the 300WM. You need to to go to larger 30 cals or ideally to the 338's for "extreme long range"


The 300WM certainly has a terminal performance advantage over the 7mmRM on large big game that you feel the 7mm's terminal performance is marginal on. This is especially so at close to medium range, but that advantage diminishes somewhat at long range - this is fact.

If someone has some factually based examples that prove different, then certainly post them up. Otherwise I'm not going to repeat the facts again, and everything else is just personal opinion.

I have no problem with anyone stating opinions, so long as the examples they use to illustrate them are factual. I'm not interesting in arguing about anyone claiming their particular such and such rifle could push this bullet at this velocity. That goes nowhere with claim and counter claim. I'm only interested in pressure tested comparisons comparing apples with apples.

Unless someone comes up with some new facts, I'm over and out on this thread as I don't want to have to keep contradicting people.
Greg

 

[Long Time Long Ranger]

NZLongranger, please do not quit this thread. I think all are learning quite a bit from your input. Believe me I am not attacking you in any way just stating general terms. This is a great thread discussing both these cartridges. In general terms I think we are in agreement here but to answer your quotes.


First off let me say I was thinking more outside the box of match bullets and considering more a hunting situation on large big game animals in general. For example take the 177 GS bullet at 3200 fps out to 800 yards and beat it with a 7mm remington. The 180 grain CE bullet at 3150 fps out of the 300 winchester vs the 170 CE bullet at 2950 fps out of a 7mm remington. Run the ballistics to 800 yards. Those velocities are what my rifles shoot those weight bullets at. I am sure others get similar or some a little different results.

My point is within the 800 yard or so best effective range we agree on of these two cartridges the ballistics are a wash and there is no advantage there as far as accuracy with the 180 berger or the 210 berger. But the larger caliber heavier bullet wins within that range in my opinion from a hunting standpoint.

The 300 winchester will shoot the 208-210 bullets slightly faster than the 7mm remington will shoot the 180 from my experience. Not enough to give either a ballistic advantage. At 800 yards the slight fps advantage equals out the slight bc advantage of the 7mm. Giving neither a ballistic advantage that I can see as far as accuracy within either cartridge's 800 yard optimum. Others may get different results than my guns shoot but that is straight apples to apples with my guns. They are really just to close to call there and splitting hairs to fine for me to make judgement. But the larger caliber 210 grain wins in hunting in my opinion.

This has been fun and I have enjoyed it. Show me your best ballistics loads for your 7mm remington out to 800 yards and I will put some of my best for both my 7mm remington and 300 winchester. I shoot both and clobber stuff with both of them. I just use the 300 winchester for large big game because of the heavier larger caliber bulets with basically the same ballistics as the smaller lighter 7mms. Heck I will even throw in my best hunting load for my 7mm JRS and 280 AI. I really like those also. Also for my 7mm STW's which I realy like. I'm really not that picky.

 

[load]

LTLR,


Please give us the examples you're talking about. In all examples mentioned so far this is certainly not the case. The 300 does have heavy and 24 thou fatter bullets, but the rest is incorrect. The highest BC match bullet scenario - the 180gn Berger Hybrid 7mm with G1 BC of .674 (G7 .345) verses the 210gn Berger or 208gn A-Max at .632 G1 (G7 .324), both able to pushed at the same velocity by the 7mmRM and the 300WM all else being equal.

your leaving out the 240 and 250 grain smk with bc in the high 6 low 7s and the 225 grain hornady match with a bc of .67.
with barrel length the same ie 24 vs 24 you WILL see 75 fps higher velocity on the 300 side. shooting the 225 rather than the 7mm 180 just facts also i don't know were you got your bc's for the berger but their web page has the hybred listed at .613 and the vld listed at .659. this puts both of them behind the all three of the bullets you leftout for the .300
my 300 with a 24" barrel is shooting hornady 225s at 2825 with .3 grains LESS than max recommended powder charge. i know there is not a load in the 7mm that will come close (by manufacturers spec)gun)

 

[NZ Longranger]

LTLR,
We pretty much agree, within splitting hairs distance anyway.

Load,
Man, this is the problem, not comparing apples with apples again. You're quoting factory BC's measured (or estimated ) by all different means. The only comparable BC results we have are Bryan Litz's, and they are the only ones I'm going to use in a debate. Whether you agree or disagree with Bryan's BC on an individual bullet, the comparison is accurate. As I've said several times now, I'm only interested in debating with facts!
The 240/250 SMK's BC's run .647 G1 BC. You can't drive them fast enough to equal the ballistics of the 210 Berger/208 A-Max. We don't have Litz measured BC's for the 225gn Hornady yet unfortunately, so I can't say much about them. Only that Hornady rate their 208 A-Max at .648 but the Litz measured is .633, so I expect the .67 to come down a bit. But anyway at the .67 you're quoting, they certainly won't beat a 7mm 180gn Hybrid ballistically. You have quoted the BC for the 180gn Target, not the new 180gn Hybrid. Berger haven't updated their website for a while unfortunately, but they've been available and I've been shooting them for some time now and they have featured on this forum several times. Their Litz measured BC is .674 G1 and .345 G7, and it says this on the box. From my extended range testing this is right on.
I'm sorry but your 300 shooting the 225's (which may well be the highest BC 30 cal bullet available) at 2825 fps even at your claimed BC of .67, doesn't beat the 7mm RM's 2900fps or thereabouts velocity with the 180gn Hybrid.

I'm out of this thread now unless there is some new accurate information of interest. I'm not going to continually correct misinformation like yours - it will just end up in a slanging match!
Greg