HuntingNet.com Forums - 30-06 vs 7mag (2024)

Of course that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.However many other people including myself do not share that opinion.The energy delivered to the game is far more dependent on bullet design than the caliber and weight of bullet used.A rapidly expanding bullet will impart more energy to the game than a controlled expansion bullet that exits the animal.However if the bullet expands too rapidly,the result is a lack of penetration.I choose to ignore all of the so called formulas for determining a cartridges effectiveness on game and choose insteadto base my opinions on the cartridges actual performance on game.Which do you think is more reliable for determining bullet performance,theory or actual experience?

I'm baaaaaaack. :(
Good to be "see" everybody again Sorry I been gone so long, been a TERRIBLY busy spring.

I gotta chime in my .01/2c on this one as useless as it may be. I have 2 30/06s (2 700s) 2 7RmMags (Abolt, 77Ruger) and have had one of each of them for nearly 20 years. On deersized game out too 400yds I honestly can't tell a difference between the two when "equivalent bullets" are used. By equivalent I mean 150s in the 7s compared to 165s in the 06s and 160s in the 7s too 180s in the 06s. (I hope I make sense with that statement, my customers seem to understand anyway.) At 400yds the 7 DOES start toopay dividendsand while 6" might not sound like much, it certainly is considerable too me (it sure does too our wives! :D) 2-3" yeah imho thats not worthy of change, but anytime you can pickup over 4" andCERTAINLY 6"I'm all ears!

As for penetration on elk/moose sized game, with these two calibers I personally would stick with a heavily constructed bullet like my beloved Barnes TSX or Winchester FailSafe in 180s for the 06 and 160s for the 7. I don't think either animal could tell you which they were hit with if you do your part and stick the bullet where they will do the most good. At such ranges for rather large creatures however I personally would recommend more fuel. Reliably killing elk at 400+ yds is NOT childsplay and either caliber is what I would call "marginal" for such use.For longrange BIGgame the300 WinMag would be my personal minimum in a 30cal and in a 7 I would rather have a RUM or even the Firebird from Lazzeroni. Since you already have ruled out the heavy stuff then take your pick between the 06 or the 7 and learn each of them front too back and realize their limits and more importantly respect the game you are pursuing. A wounded orlost trophy as magnificent as bull elk or mooseare, deserve your respect and responsible shooting!!!

Yep, folks call me "overkill" but I have yet to kill ANYTHING to dead! ;)
RA

Stubblejumper you are adding a variable "bullet construction" which skews the comaprison. I agree with what you that the bullets construction affects terminal performance. However any comaparison between the two cailbers should be based on equal bullets ie Barnes X vs Barnes X or Partition vs Partition etc. When you relevel the playing field you will find the following.

A 30 caliber 165 Grain bullet and a 7MM 140 Grain bullet are both .248 SD. If the 30 caliber bullet strike game at 2500 FPS it will carry 2290ft/lbs and 58.9 lbs of momentum. The 7MM at 2500 FPS will carry 1943ft/lbs and 50 lbs of momentum. I am sure that everyone in this forum will agree with me that the 30 caliber bullet will cause greater damage. Therefore, my point stands that it is not valid to require a larger diameter gun to match both the sectional density and velocity of a smaller bore gun for an "equal" comarison.

In order to do an equal comparison you must load both cartridges to their design pressures with identical bullets.If that is done the extra case capacity of the 7mm remmag will provide more muzzle velocity than the same weight bullet out of a 30-06.The smaller diameter 7mm bullet will also have a higher ballistic co-efficient so it will maintain it's velocity better as the range increases.
Ihad a quick look in the Nosler reloading guide #4 to check out some7mmremmag data.They list the maximum velocity for the 160gr bullet at 3112fps.They list the maximum velocity for the 175gr bullet at 2970fps.I compared this to their 30-06 data which lists the maximum velocity for the 165gr bullet at 3012fps.They list the maximum load for the 180gr bullet at 2872fps.When you compare the maximum energies produced by both cartridges in the nosler manual,the 7mmremmag loads lead by over 100ftlbs at the muzzle and this number increases as the distance increases.
If you want to compare only factory loads,norma lists a 170gr load for the 7mmremmag that produces 3018fps at the muzzle.
I also checked several other loading manuals by sierra,speer,lyman and hodgdons and in all cases the 7mmremmag delivered more velocity and energy than the 30-06 with similar bullet weights.

Interesting discussion. I really don't know a whole lot about the 7mm Mag, so I don't suppose it's my place to choose oneover the other as the superior cartridge.

However, I alreadyhave a .30-06 thatcan take care of whateverI'd want it to,plus I have access to a terrific selection of commercial loads and bullets to use across the big game spectrum. There simply is no reason whatsoever to spend more money on a new rifle and more expensive cartridges. I doubt you'd ever see me trying to kill a game animal past 400 yards (or even 300, for that matter), so I'm just not interested in any perceived ballistics advantage that the 7mm offers.

If you know how to shoot, keep your rifle in good condition, and choose the proper bullet for the job, I don't see how you can fail with the .30-06.

Stubblejumper, Not to beat this dead horse anymore but I was impressed with the 7MM numbers listed in your Email. My comparisons always showed the 06 ahead. I assume this is the best 7MM Factory load you could find. I took a look at theNorma website and found the higest velocity 170 Grain 7 MM Reming Mag load to be 2952 FPS. I am assuming your conversion from meters was off. If not please correct me. Taking that best load vs the Hornady Light Mag load is revealing. The factory loads break down as follows:

Muzzle 400 YDS

FPS/EnergyFPS / Energy Drop @ 250 Zero
7MM 170GR 2952/32892048/158316.9
06 180GR 2900/33612131/1814 16.4
06 165 GR 3015/33302220/180515.1
7MM 170 GR 3018/34382101/166616.1
Thats a sweep for the 06 in factory ammo and it gets worse when you look at lbs of Momentum and optimal game weight.

I do not have Nosler data to compare the reloading numbers but those number are better than I could find in any of my books. Taking them at face value however The barnes loads offer a 165/168 Grain bullet at 3091FPS just 21FPS off the 160 Grain load3112 FPS you mentioned. Please note this 06 loadgenerates 60 LBS more at the muzzle due to the higher mass and has a BC of .505 so downrange energy and trajectory is excellent.

The 180Grainbarnes at 2965 is just 5 FPS off the 175 Grain Bullet andgenerates 3514 FT/LBS, 87 LBS more than the 7MM. The BC .552isIguessthat the trajectories of both would be almost identical.

In reality I think these two rounds performanceis 6 of one half dozen of the other. I only reccomended the 06 in my initial posting because you can get the same ballistics as demonstated above with 62 grains of powder instead of 82. The 06 is just more efficient. Why take the additional 5 pounds of recoil with nothing to show for it when the biggest factor in accuracy is the shooter.5 pounds canmake the difference betweenflinching and tolorence.Then there is cost, then there is availability, then there is factoryselection that also leans toward the 06.

I am just responding in such detail because most folks look at the powder capacity and figure a bigger case automatically means more energy and this ignores the relationship between bore size and case capacity which determines the efficiency of the case.

Scott I ask the following questions in all sincerity. How many 06s and 7s do you have and what kinds of game have you taken with them? Under what kinds of conditions? And at what ranges?

The "theoretical manuals" available on the web, at the library and in this months edition of "XYZ Outdoors" means nothing in the real woods and typically is contrived by writers/celebs who seldom know that a 7mag spouts the same projectile as the 284Winnie. All the "pounds theories, KE, ft#s per second" and other such jargon are fine for topics of conversation in forums such as this very one. BUT in the real world the hard evidence is told by blood on the hands, meat in the freezer and heads on the wall. Using such information/tables as the main guidelines for buying one caliber over the other is misleading and you run the potential of being let down.

I can tell you that you are a numbers man and that is fine, I am as well in many cases. BUT I think where you are missing the boat is by comparing like bullet weights among dissimilar calibers. A 175 7mag is'nt a fair comparison too a 180 06 (though again, the animals will be just as dead by either round put through their boiler rooms). When looking at the 7s vs 30s you should look at the following. 140/7s vs 150/30s, 150/7s vs 165/30s, 160/7s vs 180/30s and 175/7s vs 200</30s. You will then begin too appreciate the 7s added appetite for powder and if any, a slight more "felt recoil" than most 06s.

I have 2 of each caliber (among many others) and in 20 years of tinkering with the two calibersI can confidently say that when using the above mentioned weight comparisons, either round is as capable as the other from a game dropping standpoint assuming the bullet is placed where it belongs and when dealing with "normal ranges". It's when the distance is over 350yds on most big game when the 7 gets a "marginal" nod over the 06.Personally I find it easier to hit (consistantly in the kill zone) at 400+ yds with 7s than the great ol dame 06. And if an elk was standing 425 yds away and all I had was a head on chestshot you can bet I would MUCH rather have a 7 stoked with 160 TSXs or 175s like Trophy Bondeds or Nosler Parts than ANY pills my 06s spit out.

Just my opinion,
RA