7mm or 30 cal? Just for curiosity’s sake

[Bob Wright]

I would guess that if one took the time to add up die, powder, brass and bullet sales of the '06 parent and all of it's children (wildcats that are now mainstream), it would be one heck of a family tree and money machine.
It would be another way of looking at what family of cartridges truly stand out as all time success.
As for Europe and all the countries that benefitted from metric cartridges, it would be interesting to see what is king there. In the US, it would have to be that '06 family. I voted 7mm by the way....

I'm very pleased with the degree of participation this seemingly innocent question has stirred up. No surprise at the strength of our opinions, even emotional attachments, to our caliber of choice. Delighted at how downright civil this conversation has been for this long.

interestingly, in the first days of the poll being open one or the other would pull ahead by a significant margin but as more and more votes come in it reveals a pretty even split. 7mm has held the lead for the majority of the time it's been open now, 199 votes in and its 55/45 7mm vs 30. I'm probably going to pit more bore diameters against each other just for fun (and always some legit knowledge gained), but I truly doubt there are any two big game bore diameters that result in this kind of a draw. They are the most useful all purpose North American calibers, especially in magnums, and this thread kind of reveals that.

I maintain my stance of thirty cal getting the nod. The 30-06 was and to many still is the yardstick against which all other all purpose versatile cartridges are measured against. That says more than anything I can say.

I'm biased. Love my .300 win mag, will be hard to "need" another chambering for anything I hunt at any range. My 270, 243, and 308 honestly don't see much use anymore.

 

[loghome]

Me I like the 30 caliber one reason is all the bullet selections you have.

 

[wilkup]

They were ~9 to 9-1/2 #'s with McMillian stock & fixed 10x scope

Edit: i guess they felt lighter when young. I looked it up & they were ~ 14 #'s

Whoa! 14 lbs would substantially mitigate recoil That's getting close to double my old Tikka with the little VX3 2.5-8 I had on top. A joy to carry in the hills, but a little devil to get zeroed.

 

[Silent Hammer]

I agree with the 30-06 benchmark. The 50BMG is a giant 06.
We could say 300 mags or 7 mags of any flavor. For energy the best 7 gets to about 3700 ft-lbs, the best 30 can do 4800 ft-lbs.
Doesn't it come down to which would you pick for do it all, 30-06 or 280? The 28's typically stop at about 180 grain.
I think it's been answered a long time ago.

 

[358 Guy]

If anybody thinks that 30 calibers are to big to be good at long range might want to consider the exploits of the famed sniper Carlos Hathcock. He made some of his longest kills with a model 70 Win. in 30-06 .

 

[Calvin45]

If anybody thinks that 30 calibers are to big to be good at long range might want to consider the exploits of the famed sniper Carlos Hathcock. He made some of his longest kills with a model 70 Win. in 30-06 .

Don't know if anybody thinks 30 calibers are too big...I'm a 30 guy and fully acknowledge the 7mms may be superior for some long range applications. We could just as easily speculate as to what Hathcock might have done with a 7 stw or 375 cheytac or any number of things...he was a proficient marksman using what he had to the full potential of its capability. Billy Dixon shot a man off of a horse at well over 1000 yards with an iron sighted 45-70 (and not a ruger number 1 loaded to 458 win mag velocity haha). The 45-70 isn't technically too big and slow to be effective at long range but for sure it's an "outdated" choice and one could do better and hardly do worse for a distance rifle. An extreme example but same logic applies.

 

[358 Guy]

Don't know if anybody thinks 30 calibers are too big...I'm a 30 guy and fully acknowledge the 7mms may be superior for some long range applications. We could just as easily speculate as to what Hathcock might have done with a 7 stw or 375 cheytac or any number of things...he was a proficient marksman using what he had to the full potential of its capability. Billy Dixon shot a man off of a horse at well over 1000 yards with an iron sighted 45-70 (and not a ruger number 1 loaded to 458 win mag velocity haha). The 45-70 isn't technically too big and slow to be effective at long range but for sure it's an "outdated" choice and one could do better and hardly do worse for a distance rifle. An extreme example but same logic applies.

A friend of mine recently built a 30-378 with a fast twist barrel so he could shoot heavy bullets with the same BC as he shoots in his 28 Nosler. The rifle is a beast @ over 13 lbs. and has the recoil to match. His 28 Nosler weighs 10.5 lbs.. My point was that to achieve the trajectories that can be achieved with the heavy 7mm bullets you need a really heavy bullet in a 30 which in turn is going to produce greater recoil. Medium power 30's such as the 30-06 still have a lot to offer with the better bullets and components that we have today. And, as a plus, they can be comfortably housed in a sporting weight rifle. On medium sized big game at long range, the 7mm's are hard to beat. but on game much larger than that, I personally prefer the 30 cal's. I wonder what Hathcock would choose today for a sniper rifle. Fun stuff to think about.

 

[Calvin45]

A friend of mine recently built a 30-378 with a fast twist barrel so he could shoot heavy bullets with the same BC as he shoots in his 28 Nosler. The rifle is a beast @ over 13 lbs. and has the recoil to match. His 28 Nosler weighs 10.5 lbs.. My point was that to achieve the trajectories that can be achieved with the heavy 7mm bullets you need a really heavy bullet in a 30 which in turn is going to produce greater recoil. Medium power 30's such as the 30-06 still have a lot to offer with the better bullets and components that we have today. And, as a plus, they can be comfortably housed in a sporting weight rifle. On medium sized big game at long range, the 7mm's are hard to beat. but on game much larger than that, I personally prefer the 30 cal's. I wonder what Hathcock would choose today for a sniper rifle. Fun stuff to think about.

Those are the same reasons I prefer 30 to 7mm. It also seems more dependable at close range where bullet blow up is a concern...more bullet to blow up. If a .30 cal magnum truly isn't enough gun to something in my future I plan to skip all the way up to a big .375 of some flavour.

tho given your user name I should mention I'd make an exception if the price was right. An old husqvarna in .358 norma would suffice as well

 

[Old Rooster]

Calvin mentioned the old 45-70 as a long distance shooter and yes there are much better long range guns now but back in the 1870's I the date was they were target shooting a 45-70 for 1 mile and then 2 miles.Good reading

.45-70 at Two Miles: The Sandy Hook Tests of 1879

freerepublic.com

With a ballistic app on our phone you can find the drop,drift,wind and coreallis effect of any bullet at a given distance so in my opinion 7mm or 30 cal doesn't make much difference,just your preference.

 

[Sending156s]

Whoa! 14 lbs would substantially mitigate recoil That's getting close to double my old Tikka with the little VX3 2.5-8 I had on top. A joy to carry in the hills, but a little devil to get zeroed.

Yep, I believe my current 300 WM probably weighs about the same. It has a McMillian A3-5 stock & 26" Bartlein Varmit profile barrel. Thursday I was visiting my friend that owns the only real LGS around here. There was a man looking at a 300 WM that looked liked it weight ~ 7 #'s without scope. He was a very small thin man. I didn't say anything, but I was thinking that will hammer his shoulder!

I cheat even more lol as the one I shoot now has a brake on it. Most don't appreciate how accurate they can be once you have developed a load for it. you used to see the 1000 yd competitions dominated by the 300 WM.
my apologies for having wrong weight 1st time. Everything felt lighter many years ago!

 

[Calamity]

The difference in diameter between a .308 bullet and a .284 bullet is 0.024 inch, literally the thickness of a fingernail. If both bullets weigh 180 grains, and of equally good design, and assuming equal velocity impact, they should mushroom to about the same diameter and retained weight. So, just to stir up an argument, aside from felt recoil, can anybody cite factual (not emotional) data as to why one is better than the other in terms of destructive energy or killing power? I'm aware that there is a difference in BC and retained velocity, that has no bearing on my question. Given the above conditions, the 7mm has more reach, which is an advantage of interest to this crowd, but not the issue. I keep seeing claims that the 30's make bigger wounds, are more effective killers on larger animals. Given the conditions I cite, why would a 30 caliber bullet be more effective than a 7mm on an elk or grizzly? Looking forward to your feedback.

 

[Paladin300]

First, fhe fraction of an inch you mentioned, that fingernails difference in diameter makes a big difference, when the bullet opens up on impacted that difference doubles. Second 7mm and 308 bullets of the same weight are not ballistically the same. They have completely different SDs which also make a difference on how they perform on game. While it has been argued that you can shoot as far with a 7mm and hit as hard that is not actually scientifically true. It takes more energy and thus more powder to push a 180 gr. 7mm out of a barrel than it does a 180 gr. 30 cal as there is less barring surface. Thus, a 30 cal is more efficient with heavier bullets than a 7mm. 180 grain 7mm is more comparable to a 200 grain or larger 30 cal. Therefore, the 30 cal retains more weight and energy and opens up larger creating a greater wound channel down range than a 7mm. As far as BC goes when you compare the right bullet weights it is negligible and for what would be considered LRH hunting ranges inside a 1000 yards really almost moot. The sevens fly a little flatter but the 30s hit with more energy. It is simple physics. I like both but when hunting big toothy critters I'll take the 30s.

 

[Frank in the Laurels]

A boring plain Jane .300 wm will serve you the rest of your days as a hunting cartridge and rifle..great choice from 50lbs to 2000lbs and everything in-between... .308 holes aren't survivable...already all purpose cartridge..

 

[Hand Skills]

The difference in diameter between a .308 bullet and a .284 bullet is 0.024 inch, literally the thickness of a fingernail. If both bullets weigh 180 grains, and of equally good design, and assuming equal velocity impact, they should mushroom to about the same diameter and retained weight. So, just to stir up an argument, aside from felt recoil, can anybody cite factual (not emotional) data as to why one is better than the other in terms of destructive energy or killing power? I'm aware that there is a difference in BC and retained velocity, that has no bearing on my question. Given the above conditions, the 7mm has more reach, which is an advantage of interest to this crowd, but not the issue. I keep seeing claims that the 30's make bigger wounds, are more effective killers on larger animals. Given the conditions I cite, why would a 30 caliber bullet be more effective than a 7mm on an elk or grizzly? Looking forward to your feedback.

You have gotta think in terms of surface area

A circle with a .308 diameter has 15% more surface area that a circle with a .284 diameter.

My experience is not as prolific as some here, but on dozens of moose and elk I have seen the 30's hit harder and create more trauma.

Shot placement and Bullet performance are however the two most important factors when it comes to terminal performance, so I get what you are saying - how much of a difference is .024" really going to make?

The answer is 'some'