.300 Ultra Mag vs. 7mm Ultra Mag

I would have to ask my smith for precise details about the coating as he sells me bullets he has coated. From what I have gathered its Tungsten Disulfide. I belive he puts them in a tumbler with the solution and BB's. Powder is 91 grains of RL-25. Most rifles will probably use more powder as my chamber was cut for BR and generates ALOT of pressure so I have to cut back on powder.

PLEASE be carefull trying to get 3300 FPS even with coated bullets. I use a slightly longer bbl with a slower twist (12) which helps me get a bit more velocity.

Hope that helps some!
 
I don't know why everyone is saying there is no good bullet selection for the 7mm. For deer you could use the 162 A-max (b.c.-.6+) or the berger 180 VLD (b.c.-close to .7) and for bigger game use the 160 grain accubond which has a b.c. around .540. I just can't see how the these bulltes at Ultra Mag velocities couldn't match if not beat any 30 cal shooting 180-240 grain bullets, and do it with less recoil. And if you could get your hands on some 200 g. WC there would be no comparison.
 
I'll say this. I love the 7mm mags, but I think you will be better off with the 300 RUM than the 7mm RUM.

Remington really screwed up making the 7rum, especially when they are the company that made the 7mm STW a factory caliber.

I think the first thing that needs to be said is that the 7mm RUM is inferior to the STW. It may be faster, but thats it. The case is inefficient and you won't improve it much over factory loads. Someone earlier said it was "finicky" to load. That's correct.

If you do decide to go with a big 7, then get an STW and be done with it. You can find a sendero in that chambering and that is a great rifle.

I guess what I'm saying is that you should be deciding between the 7 stw and the 300 RUM.

Whatever you do go with the check out the Barnes Triple Shock bullets. Barnes bullets drop critters in their tracks, but in the past have been extremely inaccurate. Triple Shocks are much more accurate than previous barnes especially those blue ones they can out with a few years ago. Second, I would try the accubond. I agree with Meichele, you don't really want a match bullet for elk. You also dont need 1/4" groups to kill big game at the ranges you need.

Good Luck
 
Meichele your right, according to JBM ballisitcs the 200 accubond hase more energy at 1000 yards than the 160 accubond (at sea level), but were talking about less than 50 Ft.lbs. That is alot of extra recoil for 50 ft.lbs. I am not saying that the 300 RUM is a bad cartridge by any means, I'm just trying to defend my beloved 7mm. Man, I wish Nosler would make a 7mm 180 grain Accubond.
 
Dont feel the need to defend your 7mm's!!! The 7mm's have all around great qualities. If they didnt they wouldnt be so popular. I will agree that you will find more recoil in the 300 RUM shooting 200's over the 7mm and a 160. Although I am convinced there is more like 300+ FPE of differance between the 2 at sea level at 1K. How much is that 300 FPE going to help you?? Probably a negligable amount. Its the size of the bullet that makes the impression here. Drop is within 2.4" of eachother to the 7mm's favor. This is based on 3300 FPS for the 7mm and 3200 for the 300. 160 AB and 200 AB respectivly. 300 yard zero.

Bottom line, they will both devestate an elk or moose at 500 or 700 yards. As has been stated. Both barrel lives are about the same.
 
[ QUOTE ]
And if you could get your hands on some 200 g. WC there would be no comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]
At least until Richard starts kicking out 250 30 cals. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the first thing that needs to be said is that the 7mm RUM is inferior to the STW. It may be faster, but thats it .

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it just me or is this hilarious. Especially the last part. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
i was thinking the same thing. the 7 rum whoops an stw. and has no belt to deal with, so should theoretically be more accurate. dont really think there is a fair comparison of the 2 cartridges. the STW is no doubt a great round, but its just like what the stw is to the 7 mag, as the 7 rum is to the stw. its the granddaddy.
 
Using hunting bullets, the 300 rum is superior. you have the 200g AB, vs. a 160g AB. What would you rather have arriving at an elk at 1K, the big longer 200, or the little less big and little less longer 160? Thats pretty much the reason I went with the 300 RUM. The 200g spanks the 160g, accubonds speaking. With target bullets, the 7mm actually is just as good, if not better then the 300 RUM.
 
it makes perfect sense to me.what i think he's saying is the stw is a more consistant,predictable, and accurate cartridge than the rum, especially at longer ranges.we're spliting hairs here but i agree.
 
That is probably so. But the last thing we need here is the (Target bullets for hunting) argument.

I recently went throught the same delima. 300 RUM or 7mm RUM on a rebarrel for my 7mm RUM. Could have gone either way, but finaly decided on the 7 again. (50)s doing the 1-7" X 30" jobber.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

7
7mm ultra mag
Replies
4
Views
2K
BallisticsGuy
B
7
7mm ultra mag
2 3 4
Replies
51
Views
12K
killitgrillit
K
Len Backus
7mm mag vs. 300 win mag
2
Replies
19
Views
6K
dirtking358
D
F
7mm vs. 300 Win Mag
Replies
10
Views
3K
semperguy
S
T
7MM Rem Ultra Mag (good,bad,or ugly)
Replies
6
Views
3K
firstcoueswas80
F

Recent Posts

Top