PEAX Equipment

300 win mag or 7mm rem mag

pseshooter300

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
731
Location
Kingsport Tn
So I'm toying around the idea of building a remington 700 sendero in one of these calibers. Which one would you choose and why? I think either would make a awesome big game rifle for long range if needed. Thanks
 
300 leaves a little bigger hole. My friend from Colstrip shot a cow elk with his 7mm and it ran 14 steps before dropping. I shot my cow elk with similar shot placement using a 300 wsm and it took 4 steps. (Same type and brand of bullets, same group of elk, my shot was 200 yrds, his was 80 yrds.) Long story short, both will do the job nicely. So I would go with what ever you think you can get the most accuracy from.
 
I'd go with the 30cal, personally. Especially if you reload, the wider variety of different weight bullets makes it more versatile.
 
Depends on what you're using it for.

If you hunt a lot of elk I'd probably go with the 300...if you plan on hunting primarily deer/antelope with the occassional elk...I'd go 7mm.
 
You think right young jedi - either is awesome. Choose one and go for it, both excellent for hunting big game. Your question was re: antelope I think?, so might go with 7mm - little flatter, little faster.
 
My son who reloads for my Remington model 700 caliber 7mm Rem mag, which I purchased in 1971 as soon as I returned from VietNam, says it is the most accurate factory built rifle he has shot. (last sight-in was 3 shots within the diameter of a dime at 100 yds)

It has taken many antelope, deer, and at least an elk a year (on average) since the purchase date.
Often tempted by the specs of a new mag or short mag caliber and the lure of a new firearm, I continue to use my old 7mm because it just feels right each time I squeeze the trigger.
 
Both are excellent. When you really get down to it they can be made to do everything nearly identical with the lighter bullets but the .300 gives you a little more choice in bullets above 180 gr if you need them for something down the road like the big bears.

Then again most would just use a hunt for big bears as an excuse to buy a bigger gun than a .300 WSM anyway so it all comes down to choice.

I have haven't had any problems with my 7mm Rem Mag, which is my go to big game rifle that I purchased in 2007 and have killed 4 bull elk, 4 mule deer, 4 whitetail bucks, 1 pronghorn and over a dozen feral hogs with.

With that said, if I had it to do over again I would go with the .300 WSM just to get a little shorter action and shorter barrel. My Browning A-Bolt in 7mm Rem Mag has a 26" barrel and the .300 WSM has a 23" barrel. Right at 4" shorter overall. With it in my eberlestock backpack the 7mm Rem Mag sticks up higher than my head and hangs up on tree branches and stuff and the .300 WSM wouldn't.

My 2 cents. Nathan
 
I'll ask the question... why a Sendero? They weigh about 1.5-2lbs more than a standard rifle, and if you're really going to 'build' one, why not get a lighter barrel? If put together with quality parts, it will shoot just as good as any Sendero. I'm not a fan of heavy rifles for anythign besides sitting in a 'dog town.

If I was in the market for a true long range hunting rifle, I'd go bigger... 7 or 300 RUM.

Personally I don't think there is any measurable differnce between the 7mag and 300WM, its all in your head.
 
Personally I would go with the 300WM. As has been said earlier there is a huge amount of bullets in various weights that can be loaded.

Not dissing on the 7, I just prefer the 300WM
 
I do realize the sendero is really heavy right at 8 1/2 pounds out of the box. I personally have not shot one only been around one everyone says they are extremely accurate. And the price on the gun is where I really would like to stay before dropping a load on a scope. But I'm still looking
 
Depends on what you're using it for.

If you hunt a lot of elk I'd probably go with the 300...if you plan on hunting primarily deer/antelope with the occassional elk...I'd go 7mm.

....good advice. You'll most likely end up with both in the long run...hard not to.
 
If I was in the market for a true long range hunting rifle, I'd go bigger... 7 or 300 RUM.

John Burns has pretty much proven that a 7mm Rem Mag is the largest gun needed for long range work until you hit the .338 Laupua.

The RUMs are only going to be more expensive to shoot and will eat out a barrel quicker (both of which reduce the willingness of a shooter to practice).
 
Who is John Burns? And should I be impressed?

I own a 7mag and killed a bunch of animals with it. If I didn't already have the 7mag, I'd buy the RUM in a heartbeat.

Can't imagine cost is really an issue... if you want to shoot long range you're reloading anyway, the only real increase is about 30% more powder.

How many rounds you spose it would take to 'eat out a barrel' in a RUM? Do you really think it would preclude someone from shooting the darn thing? I can't say that I know anyone who's shot out a barrel on a hunting rifle... I burned one up in a 243, but shot it until the barrel about melted off...

I don't know why I even respond to these stupid long range posts. I'd never killed anything over 450 yards, and doubt I ever will try... :D
 
I dont think you can do wrong with either. Question, what grain bullets are going to want to lob out there?
 
Having owned and shot both in my experience I would go with what was said earlier. For mostly elk, 300. For mostly deer, 7mm. For knock down power there is no substitution for bullet mass and the 7mm works best with 165gr bullets. I had best performance with 180's in the 300. Both great guns. Either way you cant go wrong but I too would go lighter and ideally the 300WSM would be a great option.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,409
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top