Yes, I can. To be fair about such a comparison, it would be necessary to shoot the 7mm Rem. Mag.with a maximum load of the heaviest bullet it will handle, then rebarrel the rifle with an identical weight barrel in .300 Win. Mag., then shoot a maximum load with it using the most comparable bullet weight in the .300. Right??

So we'll use a 175-grain bullet in the 7 Mag., and a 180-grainer in the 300 Win. Mag. Only five grains difference, and with max loads (NOT factory loads!!) in each, almost the same MV's as well!

My 7mm Rem. Mag. (26" Ruger No. 1B) will attain a MV of 3070 FPS with a 175-grain bullet. And, it is possible to fire a 180-grain bullet at 3100 FPS from a 26" .300 Win. Mag.

So, I'm going to use the formula at:

http://www.biggameinfo.com/RecoilCalc.aspx

to do my calculations. My 7mm Rem Mag., loaded, weights 8.5 pounds with scope mounted and sling. IT produces 28 foot-pounds of recoil. The .300 Win Mag., shooting that 180-grainer at 3100 FPS from a rifle identical in every way with my 7 Mag. produces 30.9 foot-pounds, assuming it takes 5 more grains of powder to do it.

So what is 3 more foot-pounds of recoil?? Considering that the .220 Swift has around 6 foot-pounds, this extra 3 foot-pounds is totally insignificant!

What really matters here is the shape of the stock, how it fits you and how this recoil is applied to your body. I have fired lever-action .30/30's that cracked my cheekbone pretty badly, and .300 Weatherbys and .300 Rem. Ultra-Mags that were downright pleasant to fire. So if you are considering buying a 7mm Rem. Mag. instead of a .300 due to recoil considerations, just be sure to get a stock on whatever you buy that will not beat you up when you are shooting.(Personally, I do not believe there's enough difference between the way either of these rounds perfoms on game to really prefer one over the other-just put the bullet where it belongs, and either will do the job!)

If you want to compare other ammo, gun weights, velocity levels, etc.,just go on that site & plug in the numbers!