7mm vs 300 WSM
 

I'm goingto be buying a new gun and have narrowed it down to one of these two caliburs.A guy I work with says the 7mm all the way.He says it will out run the 300 WSM and is a better calibur.From what I see on Federal's website looking at factory ballistics, the WSM is the better gun out to about 500 yards. Please give me some feedback.I will be using it on elk, deer, moose, carribue, etc.

Thanks in advance.

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

Either one will do just fine, .300WSM factory ammo is more available...but if you reload that doesn't matter...

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

AGREED, both the 7mm and 300 are more than capable of handling most chores out to 500 provided you use the correct bullet and hone your shooting skills at those distances..BUT, why not pick the time tested 7mm remington mag or the 300 winchester magnum, either will equally handle everything also.. ammo would be available anywhere compared to the new kids...other than action length there is no real difference to be honest about it.. A good .300WM or 7MMRM also in for the long haul and don't seemed to be going anywhere anytime soon..and don't forget about the SAUM's..if you need a lightweight elk mountain rifle and if you can find one these days, the Remington model 7 stainless in .300SAUM would be almost impossible to beat..light, accurate, a big banger to say the least and a sweet little rifle... choices, choices and more choices...

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

They would be pretty close in flattness from factory loads. Here are the flattest factory loads for each from my ballistic calculator. I also threw in a .270 WSM load too.Notice the .300 has more KE also.

[/align][/align]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/Worc/WSM.jpg[/align]

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

Your not comparing the same weight bullet...so of course the .300 would have more energy...

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

Of course it will.

Given the same case but different bore diameters the larger bore will be able to fire a heavier weight bullet at equal velocity. Or it will be able to fire equal weight bullets at higher velocities.

So, the 300 would have higher velocity and higher energy that the 7mm or the .270 either way you look at it.

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

The 7mm is one of those "magic" bore sizes which seem to be just right. I prefer it to the 30's. But there is nothing wrong with a 30 either......

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

Your argument would hold water if you were referring to sectional densities and ballistic coefficients.

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

GENTLEMEN, as the charts show there's so little difference between the bunch of them out to 500 yards that it's not even worth mentioning to be honest about it.. a 140-160 grain bullet traveling at 2900-3000 fps would take out any animal as long as you do your part and put it in the right place...the difference just isn't that great. HOWEVER you must keep the bullets basically the same in order to make an honest comparison.. fair is fair...I wouldn't be afraid to shoot any of them at any animal out to 500 yards..beyond that...MMMMmmmmm let's let that go for another day and time..

RE: 7mm vs 300 WSM
 

Of those I'd definitely pick the 300 WSM over the 7mm WSM without a second thought. The 7mm WSM may shoot a tiny bit flatter, but not enough to really matter, but the 300 WSM will carry more energy to the target at all reasonable ranges. A second reason is that of the "short mags" the 7mm WSM never cause on like the 270 and 300 WSM. A lot of manufacturers who have several rifles chambered in 270/300 WSM aren't chambering ANY in 7mm WSM anymore. This lack of popularity, of course, means that ammo makers don't make as much ammo for 7mm WSM so it's more expensive and harder to find. As for the 300 WSM suddenly disappearing, I wouldn't worry about it at all. The 300 and 270 WSM's are most definitely here for the long haul. I've noticed at all my local gun dealers that they keep very few new 300 Win Mags in stock anymore and those collect dust, but the 300 WSM are plentiful and the guns fly off the shelves. Maybe the 300 Win Mag is slowly on the way out?

Mike