Let's face it, anyone who opts for a 7mm, whether it's the 7mm-08 or the 7mm Ultra Mag, is looking for high energy retention and flat trajectories, which means a .270 or a .30 of some sort would be the only logical alternatives for consideration. There is nothing inherently superior about a bullet that measures .284. Anything a 7mm can do, a .30 caliber of comparable sectional density and ballistic coefficient can also do. The catch is, in order to send a .30-caliber slug over a trajectory as flat as that 7mm bullet, about 20 percent more recoil is going to be generated.

There's no question that whatever the terminal range--200, 300, 400 or more yards--the .30 is going to arrive with more energy. The question is how much you need. A 7mm Rem Mag, for example, pushing a 150-grain Barnes XBT at 3,100 fps, arrives at 400 yards with nearly 2,100 ft-lbs of energy; that exceeds the 2,000 ft-lbs of delivered energy they say is required to make a good elk cartridge. Pushing a .30/180 Barnes XBT, which has comparable SD and BC ratings, at the same 3,100 fps from a .300 Win Mag would have it arching a slightly less flat trajectory and arriving with about 250 ft-lbs more energy. How important is that, particularly when you consider that in an 8.75-pound rifle, the 7mm is going to belt you with 22.8 ft-lbs of recoil, compared to the 28.5 the .300 delivers? That's 20 percent more recoil for a less flat trajectory and 15 percent more energy.

Another way of looking at it is that, based on similar recoil levels, you can be shooting either a .308 Win. or a .280 Rem, a .30-06 or 7mm Rem Mag, a .300 Win. Mag or a 7mm STW. In all three cases the 7mm produces clearly superior downrange performance in terms of delivered energy and trajectory at any given recoil level. You could say you get more buck for the bang.