Actually, if you're concerned about recoil then the 30-06 is a better caliber to start with if you're an in-experienced shooter unless you think you can absolutely handle the recoil. The 300 Winchester Mag does have a little more kick then the 7mm Rem Mag but the 7mm Rem Mag is no sissy either when loaded with hot loads. But if you load a 7mm Rem Mag with regular old soft points then it kicks just about the same as a 30-06. If you get the big 7 and somewhat in-experienced then I strongly suggest staying away from the accubonds, partitions, balistic tips and such and start out shooting the soft points so you don't develope a flinch because it will kick, but everybody has different tollernces.

Good luck

Is there any way at all that you can go shoot both?
Honestly we can't give you a precise opinion. A lot depends on felt recoil. Tom may think a 300 win mag doesn't kick hardly at all while Dick may think a .22 LR knocks his shoulder off while Harry thinks the .308 is just right. Example: I wouldn't think a 7mm-08 kicks hard. I had a student tell me it felt like his shoulder was comming off.
I would seriously try to go shoot both if you have the time and option. It's the only way to know for sure.

Some ramblings from an Internet Gun Dude...

"
What rifle to buy, a 7mm Magnum or a .300 Magnum? (A better question might be, "do I need a magnum rifle at all?" but that has already been addressed in another article.) There are a number of 7mm and .300 Magnum cartridges, but the 7mm Remington Magnum and .300 Winchester Magnum are the best selling magnum cartridges in the world and the only magnum cartridges among the top 10 best selling rifle cartridges. They were not the first magnums introduced in either caliber, but they have become the standard of comparison.

...


Recoil
This is the category that magnum fans in general, and gun writers in particular, like to gloss over, but it is actually of crucial importance. Bullet placement is, by far, the most important factor in killing power, and rifle recoil is the enemy of accurate bullet placement. A hunter who flinches in anticipation of the rifle going off is a great wounder of game. Severe flinches result in those embarrassing "grounders" you sometimes see at the range. Anyone, no matter how big or strong or experienced, can shoot more accurately with a rifle that kicks less. That fact has been demonstrated countless times. Here are some recoil energy (in foot pounds) and recoil velocity (in feet-per-second) figures for our 7mm Rem. and .300 Win. Magnum loads (calculated using IMR 4831 powder) when fired in 8.5 pound rifles.
[ul][*]7mm Rem. Mag./150 grain at 3110 fps - 19.3 ft. lbs.; 12.1 fps.[*].300 Win. Mag./180 grain at 2960 fps - 24.4 ft. lbs.; 13.6 fps. [/ul]
If you accept the common generalization that the average shooter cannot long tolerate recoil above about 20 ft. lbs. without developing a flinch, and I do, then the 7mm Rem. Mag. squeezes under the permissible recoil limit and the .300 Win. Mag. is substantially, and uncomfortably, over the limit. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with all of the .300 Magnum calibers and the biggest single advantage of the 7mm Rem. Mag. over the .300 Win. Magnum.
And, contrary to the advertising hype that you may have read, recoil is actually worse with the new short action Magnums because they are served-up in lighter weight rifles. Rifle weight is directly proportional to recoil. Reduce rifle weight from 8.5 to 7.5 pounds (about 12%) and recoil increases by about 12%. Simple physics. The bottom line is to avoid light weight rifles in any magnum caliber, and most certainly in a .300 Magnum.

Summary and Conclusion

The 180 grain .300 Winchester Magnum load is superior to the 150 grain 7mm Remington Magnum load in terms of bullet cross-sectional area, kinetic energy inside of 400 yards, and killing power. Only in cross-sectional area, however, is it actually dominant. The 7mm Magnum is superior to the .300 Magnum is sectional density, velocity, trajectory, and recoil. Only in (less) recoil is it markedly superior.
For the great majority of hunting conditions there is actually not a great deal of difference between these two big game cartridges. Nor is there much difference in the availability of rifles, ammunition, and reloading bullets. Both are popular calibers, among the top 10 in sales.
My analysis is that the .300 Magnum is generally superior at medium range and for use on very large, dangerous game (polar and Alaska brown bears). The 7mm Magnum is generally a better long range cartridge, and has the important advantage of lower recoil, which makes accurate bullet placement easier and more likely, especially at long range. Both calibers are good choices for hunting large, non-dangerous game (CXP3) such as North American elk.
Since very few modern hunters actually seek large, dangerous CXP3 class game, most are probably better off with a 7mm Magnum. It will do everything that they need to do, and they will likely shoot it more accurately than they could a .300 Magnum. "

So, what do you have here? Yet ANOTHER opinion! If you're really interested in these 2 cartridges, then you should get out to your local gun range, avail yourself of the tremendous cameraderie of those in the hunting/shooting world, and borrow their weapons to shoot a few rounds for yourself. Heck, you might as wellshoot a few .270 & .30-'06 rounds, too. Then your shoulder andyour ears can tell you whatTHEY prefer. Given that a .270 and a 300WM will both take the deer & hogs you've mentioned, go shoot 3 shots of each, side-by-side. Then, you'll have the most important opinion of all: YOURS! And you'll have your answer in 30 minutes or less.

Good Luck,

FC

What in the world are you talking about here and where did you hear this?

Any given cartridge will have a specific ammount of recoil with any given bullet weight regardless if it has a plastic tip, bonded core, partition or plane jane construction. A 150 grain bullet at 3100 fps is a 150 grain bullet at 3100 fps.


A 7mm Rem mag has almost exactly the same ammount of recoil as does a 30-06 out of the same rifle. A 300 Win mag will have about 4 more foot pounds of recoil than either the 30-06 or 7 mag.

A 7mm Rem mag and a 300 Win mag can be used interchangeable and you won't be able to tell the difference in trajectory, killing power, penetration, etc... etc... provided you use bullets of the same sectional density and with the same BC.Example... A160 grain in the 7-mag and a 180 grain in the 300-mag of the same bullet like a nosler partition.They will have identical trajectories.

What one can do so can the other equally as well and the dead animal will never ever know the difference.

"Any given cartridge will have a specific ammount of recoil with any given bullet weight regardless if it has a plastic tip, bonded core, partition or plane jane construction. A 150 grain bullet at 3100 fps is a 150 grain bullet at 3100 fps."

You couldn't be more wrong. I base my opinion on experience. I fired 10 rounds of 140 grain Winchester Accubonds and couldn't fire anymore because the kick was so bad. I next opened up a box of Federal cheapo Classic 150 grain soft points (ON THE SAME DAY AND AT THE SAME SITTING) and almost felt no recoil at all.

Therefore based on my experience, my conclusion is more based on type of slow burning or fast burning powder charge that is used rather then bullet weight. BTW, muzzle velocities were both 3150 fps according to the respective boxes.

d

Good post FC!

[quote]ORIGINAL: bigbulls

Duh

Folks, I really appreciate all the feedback you've given me. As a relatively new member to the forum, I'm really impressed. This is exactly the kind of help I needed.
Having said that, I think I've decided on the 7mm. Rem. Mag.

I had a chance to stop by Gander Mountain and look at both the Rem. CDL and the Browning S.S. rifles today. Here's my impressions so far.

Browning: Sharp looking rifle. Feels like a better than average factory synthetic stock. I like the 60 degree bolt throw, but dont really know how much of an advantage it is or not.
The only thing I didn't like was the bolt handle and the floorplate looked like they were "painted" silver to match the stainless receiver and barrel.
I really would like a weather resistant rifle, so I'm leaning this way

Remington: Another good looking rifle. The rifle feel really....solid.The bolt throw was super smooth but also felt rock solid. Synthetic may be more weather resistant and practical, but the wood stock really "feels" good.
The Sims recoil pad on it....not sure about it. Looks and feels like it would really help soak up some punch, but almost felt too soft. I could take it with my hand and move it from side to side a lot. Kinda' looked like it could get ripped off the stock.
There was a used rifle there with a Pachmyer Decelerator pad on it and it looked a lot more solid but felt like it would still soak up some recoil.

Overall, I like the Remington better....BUT I still like the idea of not having to worry as much about rust or moisture warping the wood.
Is there a way to make that wood stock as stable as a synthetic?

Schoolcraft

You could get a new stock for it in either laminate or synthetic? Really, how bad do you need a weather resistant stock right now? Do you do some back country hunting or just sit in a blind?