RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I based the comparison on best BC shown on the Norma website it was.378. Curious as to what the BC is for the 170 Grain Noma load at 3018FPS. As far as comparing the XLC coated bullet the 7MM 160 is 3060 FPS with a .508 BC this is just 31 FPS behind the 165 3091 FPS 30 Caliber with a .505 BC. Basicallypretty even. I agree with Red Allison that the 160 7MM bullet will penetrate further than the 165, but the 165 it will also leave a larger wound path. My position is that the 165 Barnes with the 90% plus retained weight will still passthru while damaging more tissue on the way.

As far a advertised vs actual velocities of course they are pumped up, but they are also pumped up on the 7MM unless the samemanufacturers making the 7MM and 06 areartificially inflating the 06 vs 7MM in some sort of diabolical plot.

I witnessed 180 Federal High energy loads chrony 2877 which is 3 fpsunder the stated velocity. Sako rifle. There are 7 factory loads thatI know of that which generate 3300 ft/lbs or more from an 06 at the muzzle. Federal High Energy ammo roughly matches the performance of the Light Magnum. Those loads use special powder which does not have the proper burn rate for the 7MM. See the attached link. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3730/is_200210/ai_n9115412

Red Allison I am sure based on my postings that you will not be surprised to hear I only own an 06 for hunting, and 17 HMR for plinking,and a 223 for varmints. My hunting is mainly for whitetails with one trip out west. Got a cow elk at all of 85 yards. Going back next year with 165 Grain barnes bullets. Hope to take a bull this time. Irespect your opinion andI am not saying the terminal performanceof the 06 is superior I am saying it is equal.I feel the 7MM is actually at its best on deer at long ranges with 140 wt bullets, then there is a bit of separation. Both of these guns are clearly marginal at 400 yards on game the size of elk/Moose and quite frankly I would probably pass on a shot that long.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

30-06 is the onlyrifle you will ever need, I have taken buffalo, elk, black bear and countless deer with it. The only 3 guns you will ever need are a .22, 12 gauge, and a 30-06.....................................
butyeah it sure is fun to have others

NRA

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

You don't "need" a 30-06.I have taken ten species of big game without a 30-06 and have never found any reason to own one..

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I asked myself the same question once, I ended up choosing a 300 win mag.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

30-06 is the onlyrifle you will ever need, I have taken buffalo, elk, black bear and countless deer with it. The only 3 guns you will ever need are a .22, 12 gauge, and a 30-06.....................................
butyeah it sure is fun to have others

'06 all the way....I love my 7mag, 7x57 and 243, but in the final analysis, the '06 is the gun for a lifetime. regards, Rick.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

But doesn't the 7mag have more retained nrg at a distance making it have more knock down power @ long range, which i personally i'd r rather have a 7mag if i take a long range shott at n elk 375yrds away n put him dead in his tracks!!!!!!!!

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I say you look on federals website and go to the 7mag vital shock 165 sierra gameking, and look at the 30-06 180grain nosler partion with high energy, and compare those 2 together and it will sow aftter 200 yrds the 7 mag has more nrg

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

If you think about it, all of the energy/velocity comparisons between the two are unnecessary. Both have similar velocities and energies and with a good shot both bullets exit the animal. This means you are not using all of your energy anyways. The extra energy gets used up in the tree behind your game, so it does not matter if it is a 7mm or a .308. Looking at it this way one could argue that because the bullet does not use all of its energy then the larger diameter bullet would probably use more energy than the smaller diameter bullet.

I personally would use a 180gr or 200gr X bullet in the good old 06.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

The BC of that round is an incredible .613 it is a proprietary bullet under contract to Federal. With that bullets external ballistics the 7 MM remingtron factory load does have better down range energy than the 06 despite lower numbers at the muzzle. Those numbers are still exceeded in the 06 with 64 Grains ofMRP @ 2965 FPS. The180 Grain Barnes XLC handloads with the .552 BC still have the edge despite that ballistic freak at .613 BC. The 180 Grain Barnes still has 100 ft/lbs more KE(2157) at and 5 lbs more Momentum (59.75) at 400 yards. I have still not seen a factory or handload in a 7MM remingtonexceed this.
Just think about this for a second the 7mm has 30% more case capacity and a higher pressure limit than the 06 yet the performance of the two is nearly identical. These numbers are being accomplished with5 lbs less recoil energy also. The fact that a 7 MM needs a .613 BC to edge out the 06, and only at loang range, speaks volumes as to the efficiency of the 06s internal ballistics vs the 7MM.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

Just a simple question requiring only a yes or no answer.Have you personallyverified thevelocity posted for the barnes load that you keep referring toover a chronograph in your 30-06? Or in any other 30-06 for that matter.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I guess it boils down to a matter of preference between the .30-06 and the 7mm mag.

I'm hoping somebody (a gun magazine) can compare accuracy between the two.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

we have already had the 30-06 around for about 100 years now, its been used in wars and hunting and has proven its worthiness. I say that if the 7mm mag is so close to the 06 then why have a 7mm mag. If the people who designed it cant make a bullet that blows the 06 out of the water then we dont need a 7mm mag. The 06 has been around longer and it has senority so i go with the 06, until they make a bullet thats better then the 06 and is not almost exactly the same.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I own both. They both work. End of story.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I remember when Remington first introduced the 7 Mag. There was an ad in Outdoor Life magazine. . . . "shoots as flat as a .270 and hits as hard as a 30/06". I don't think they overstated their product.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I still see no difference between a 7 rem mag and a 300 win mag when killing medium or large game none whatsoever

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

That's why I still have a 7mm rem mag and 270 win but no longer own a 3006. I saw no real killing power difference between the 3 cartridges, just a flatter trajectory!

If I wanted or neededthe best performance in.308 dia bullet one of the 300's would get my vote.

However their is nothing I hunt now thata.284 bulletchambered in 7mm rem mag will not fit the bill. Really is a personal choice either are a fine choice. Oftendepends on what your requirements are for your hunting situations.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

Just think about this for a second the 7mm has 30% more case capacity and a higher pressure limit than the 06

Not quite.....go backtoyour tables.... 60 vs 75 gr does not equal 30%. I like um and own both and give the edge to '06. Of course my deer rifle is a Steyr 7mm Mauser.....go figure!!!:D

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

Well, if you can handle the recoil of those you should be able to handle a .300 win. I have shot a 30-06 that kicks harder than my .300 win and mine is on synthetic, and the 06 was in wood......

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I believe the round (7mm mag) came about because hunters wanted a round more powerful than the .30-06 and with not much more recoil.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I know what you mean, Skeeter. A 30/06 would just sit around in my gun cabinet and gather dust. Kind of like Unique powder.If you had to pick one powder for all tasks, that would be it - butit doesn't do any specific task as well as a specific powder designedfor that task.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I say that if the 7mm remmag is so close to the 06 then why have a 30-06.

As to the bullet design,the same bullet designsare available in 7mm and .308".There are no special bullet designs that make either cartridge superior to the other.

So does senority make a cartridge kill game any deader?Does it improve theballistics in any way?Do you think a deer or elk is impressed by the senority of a cartridge?

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I have had at least five of each. I could see no need for both so I kept the 30-06. I prefer the heavier bullets when I get into game bigger than deer. I tried them boith for twenty years or so. Since I tried the 280 I have nio need of the 7 Mag and seldom use the 30-06 either. In big Bear country I would carry the 30-06 Pump as I have for 25 years.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

30% more powder in a 7MM to do the same thing as an 06.
I was basing my comparison on the Max Load values from my reloading manuals. The highest 06 chargeI found was 64 grains MRP and the largest 7 MM Remmington charge I found was 82.5 H870. 64 x 1.30 = 83.2. Maybe a teeny streach but I was alway taught to round up.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

When making comparisons about case capacity at least use the same powder to compare the 2 rounds. There are very real differences in volume of different powders which leads me to think that you probably don't handload. Getting back to your 06 vs 7mag post I think you take way too much magazine and brochure ballistic data as gospel. The reality is that a 7 mag will shoot a bit flatter, have a bit more energy (especially at longer ranges) and penetrate as deep as a similar 30 cal bullet in the 3006. Is the difference drastic? No its not but the same can be said of a .270-.280-30-06 and yet they all have thier fans. Enjoy your 3006, it will handle everything you are likely to hunt but stop trying to validate your preference by knocking the 7mm mag.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

150 grain scirocco 7mm mag

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

delete

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

To prove this point I am posting data from the Nosler reloading guide #4.

Using reloader 22 for 165gr loads for the 30-06
max 63gr -3002fps

using reloader 22 for 160gr loads for the 7mmremmag
max 63gr-3058fps.

In other words the 7mmremmag produced more velocity with the same amount of the same powder.Since the ballistic co-efficient is much higher for the 7mm bullet,the velocity advantage will increase with distance making iteven more efficient.Just proving that if you choose the right loads,you can make the data appear to show what you want it to as you did with the 30-06 load that you keep quoting.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

30% more powder. It is very difficult to compare the same powder at case limit because the cartridges use different burn rates. The loading density of most rifle powders usually only vary one to two grains. In my opintion the 7 MM only seems to have a real trajectory advantage when using lighter bullets.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

30% more powder. The comparison you are using RL22 is a little off base. Wasit notyou that that said "case limit pressure limit" in an earlier post for a fair comparison. Yet you make a comparison with RL22 which is way to slow burning for the 06 especially with a 165 grain bullet. You hit the case limit and were no where near your pressure limit in the 06. Who is trying to "make the data appear the way you want it to".
My data is simply putting the 3006s best foot forward for a comparison with the 7 MM. I have seen 1700+ hits on this topic and have yet to see a 7 MM handload or factory load exceed the 180 Grain Barnes performance. All I hear is the numbers are false. Well all the numbers are equally false 06 or 7MM and anyone that thinks they are going to match those number in a hunting rifle are going to be dissappointed.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

I did say pressure limit but you added case limit yourself now that you feel that it may be to your advantage to do so.However ,that 30-06 load using r-22 produced over 100fpsmore velocity than any other powder listed in the nosler manual for a 165gr bullet fired out of the 30-06.Check it out for yourself.How is that not being fair to the 30-06?


That should make you a little suspicious as to the credibility of the data provided.The fact that no other load even approaches those numbers makes one wonder why.

You haven't offered any verification in the form of chronograph results that you have witnessed yourselfto prove otherwise.


If the velocitynumbers that you quote can't be produced in a hunting rifle,they are meaningless numbers that shouldn't be used in a comparison.By the way a load does not care if the rifle used to test it is a hunting rifle or a target rifleor a test barrel.Hunting rifles can produce velocities just as high as any other gun with the same qualityand length of barrel.My own rifles have match grade barrels by manufacturers such as hart,kreiger,pac-nor,mclennon and gaillard and havechambers cut to minimumdimensions so they do producevelocities that are equal to velocities posted in the manuals.I have chronographed severalloads that did produce theposted velocity listed for the7mmremmag and 30-06loads listed in the nosler manual.As such these are real worldvelocities thathave meaning and should be the velocities that we use for comparison.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

It is obvious we are going to chase our tails regarding this debate so I will keep this tosimple factsthat are beyond debate.
1. Regarding the velocity of the 06 and 7mm with RL22 I will prove the pressure in the 7mm was higher as follows; The formula for pressure exerted on an object is PSI x Square inches = Total Force

7mm 61,000 x .2532598 = 15,448

30-06 60,000 x .2826 =16,956

The 06 generates 9.76% more force at its rated pressure than the 7mm can at its rated pressure. Period. This is strait forward physics, the same formulas usedto size hydrolics system cylinders etc. If you dont accept this I dont know what else to say. Now in the 7MMs defense the 7MM can maintain the pressure for a longer period of time if more powder is added to its larger case. But notice it will take more powder to do so. See my comparison:

7mm 160 Barnes XLC 65 Grains IMR 4831, 2965 FPS
3006 165 Barnes XLC 62 Grains IMR 4831, 3091 FPS
3006180 Barnes XLC 61 Grains IMR 4831, 2956 FPS

Allof these are pressure limit not case limit just like you want them. The 06 wins by 126 FPScompared tojust 56 FPSfor your example with the "case limited" 06, and it is doing it with 3 grains less powder!!!!!
The 180 Grain 06 is just 9 FPS behind the 7 MM with 4 grains less powder. I dont need to tell you how bad the energy and momentum numbers are for the 7 MM in this example. The 06 is clearlymore efficient than the 7mm. Even with its larger case the 7MM can only match the 06 not exceed it.
PS: You need to get yourself a Barnes Reloading Manual and use that Nosler Manual for a doorstop.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

Actually it is the barnes manual that underloads the 7mmremmag.

From the nosler fourth edition-7mmremmag using h-870
160gr bullet -3112fps
Which is faster than the barnes 30-06 load that you keep referring to.

So if you insist on using the highest velocity that either of us can find in a loading manual,the 7mmremmag does win.

Now keeping in mind that the barnes xlc loads use coated bullets that doallow for more velocity than uncoated bullets,the barnes data for the 7mmremmag is even more pathetically mild.
In fact the 160gr loads for the 7mmremmag exceeded 3000fps in the nosler fourth edition,hornady third edition,hodgdons 26th edition,speer reloading manual#9,sierra bullets second edition and lyman 45th edition.And in all of these manuals,uncoated bullets were used.If the barnes data is so good why couldn't they exceed 3000fps with a coated bullet when everyone else did it with an uncoated bullet?In all six manuals that I listed the 160gr loads for the 160gr bullet exceeded the 165gr loads for the 30-06.In most cases the difference was in excess of 100fps.That makes it six manuals against the lone barnes manual.Would you rather doubt six manuals or one?I think that it is the barnes manual that should be used for a doorstop.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

Oops for got to divide the circumfance by 2 when doing the force calculation The corrected numbers are below

PSI x Square Inches =Pounds Force

7MM 61,000 x .0633149= 3862
3006 60,000 x .07065 =4239

I cannont believe my arch nemisis stubblejumper did not nail me on that one.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

The last posting I made was in response to the RL22 comaprison where you tried to use a case limited 06 vs a the 7mm to show the 7 mm was more efficient.
I did not say that exampleI usedwith IMR 4831 was the fastest 7mm load in the Barnes manual. The fastest 7mm load is 3060 with 82.5 Grains ofH870. My example with 4831 was simple, to prove that the 06 generates far more velocity and energy than the 7mm when equal amounts of the same powder are used and max pressure. This was responding post #68 you made.
As far as your 160 Grain at 3112 vs the 165 grain 06 I addressed that in post #39.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

Actuallythat specific loadwas not mentioned or addressed in any previous post by you.What you failed to address in your last post was the fact thatthe six manuals that I mentioned all list higher velocitiesfor the 160gr 7mmremmag load than for the 165gr30-06 load.Just prior you suggested that the barnes manual was thebest manual ,and that the nosler manual was best suited for a doorstop.Now after Iintroduce five other manuals that support the nosler data and contradict the barnesdata,you avoid addressing the manual issue altogether.When the evidence is overwhelming you choose to ignore it.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

You started out with the notion that the 30-06 would deliver more velocity than the 7mmremmag with similar bullet weights based on one source that you yourself have not even verified..Once several sources ofevidencewere produced that contradicted that claim,you changed your tune to claim that it took 30% more powder for the 7mmremmag to match or exceed the velocities produced by the 30-06.Once the ridiculous 30% figurewas disproved you are clinging on to the 30-06 being slightly more efficient.You have changed your arguement because your original statement was proven wrong and you are nowtrying to win some small point to prevent total defeat.I do not know you,but my impression is that you do not have a great deal of reloading experience,and have not done a lot of chronograph testing or verification of posted trajectories.With that limited experience and very limited resources to compare data,it is understandable how you can blindlytrust the data that you have.On the other hand,I have been reloading many cartridgesfor over 25 years,have done a great deal of chronograph testing with many different cartridges and have firedseveral thousandbullets at ranges out to 500 yards to see the actual trajectories that they deliver for a given velocity.My advice is to gather as much data from as manysources as possible and thenobtain as much relatedexperience as possible before making claims,unless of course you like being proven wrong.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

Look I am just jacking you around a little about the doorstop comment no need to get your undies in abundle. As you mention in post #73 "coated bullets" "do allow more velocity than uncoated bullets" so you acknowledged that as a fact. If you were at all genuine in your thinking would not you then expect the coated XLC bullets from the Barnes manual to exceed the others???????? In the Barnes manual the XLC can load 3 grains more powder and provide 100-150 FPS more velocity than uncoated this seems to be right in line with your manuals. Correct????? Now that the manual issue is addressed.
In post #39 I mentioned I did in fact mention the velocity from the Barnes manual 3091 FPS with 165 or 168 grain bullets and the fact that it had 60 ft/lbs more energy than the 160 Grain 7mm you were tauting.
While reading post #39 I could not help but notice you never got back with the BC of the 170 Grain Norma load that was supposed to be such a great 7mm load.It does not have anything todo withYou ignoring theoverwhelming facts when they contradict what you think. Is it.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

This ongoing comparison is odd. To put it in real life terms you really need to first of all run your 2 candidates through a chrono. When you do that you will quickly see that your 3006 rifle likely has a 22" barrel and you are quoting from books who routinely use 24 or 26" test barrels so your real life field velocities will never match book anyway. The 7mm is always at least 24" so data is more representative. Secondly looking at muzzle velocity means little also. When selecting bullets/loads I always study down range velocities as ballistic coefficients make huge differences past 200yds, again the 7mm has the advantage here. And lastly sectional density comes into play on penetration,.the 30 cal 180 is .271 vs .283 for a 7mm 160. So again, the 7mm starts faster, retains velocity better, kicks about the same ( still a bit more ) and has bullets that penetrate like crazy. Am I missing something here? Hey I think its great that you love the 06 its a great round but again stop trying to convince people that its performance is better. Wether there is a couple more grains powder in one means nothing, its what it does when that powder is ignited that counts.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

In the case of the 30-06,it is predictable that barnes would produce higher velocities with coated bullets than the other manuals using non coated bullets.Whatdoes not make sense is whybarnes could not produce more velocitywith the 7mmremmag with coated bullets than all six other manuals could with non-coated bullets.In any casewhether coated or non coated bullets are used for both the 30-06 and 7mmremmag ,the velocity comparisons should be equal.If six manuals produce more velocity with the 7mmremmag with non coated bullets,it only stands to reason that they would produce more velocity with the 7mmremmag with coated bullets.

Quote:

---

In post #39 I mentioned I did in fact mention the velocity from the Barnes manual

---

Yes but you did notmention

because I had not mentioned it yet,so you were not yet aware that it existed.

RE: 30-06 vs 7mag
 

It's nice to see that someone else here understands the facts.