PDA

View Full Version : 7mm Rem Mag


grizz1313
February 6, 2006, 11:20 AM
I'm looking to buy a rifle to hunt Antelope, deer, and black bear is the 7mm rem mag overkill or a good choice for these animals or what other calibers should I consider?

SCcdp
February 6, 2006, 11:58 AM
I have taken a bunch of deer with my 7mag, and I would imagine that it would be excellent for antelope since it is flat shooting and has good accuracy at distance. As for the black bears you'd just need a heavier bullet - I shoot 140's for deer and I haven't had to chase one very far ever.

fisherman66
February 6, 2006, 12:11 PM
I think that is a very reasonable choice. I tend to shy away from Maggies, but your long distance 'lope shooting and black bear requirements put the 7mm mag and 300 win mag in the ideal range.

grizz1313
February 6, 2006, 05:54 PM
Thanks for the replies was also wondering How does the 7mm compare to the 300 win mag I have been told that the 300 win mag is way too much for the lopes I don't have that much experience with rifles.

dale taylor
February 6, 2006, 06:02 PM
I love my 7mmMag. Have taken many deer, as have my 2 sons. It is the rifle of choice for us.

MTMilitiaman
February 6, 2006, 07:07 PM
I hunt whitetail, mule deer, elk, and black bear with my 7mm Rem Mag and consider it an excellent cartridge. I use a 160 gr Nosler and never feel terribly under nor overgunned.

The 7mm Rem Mag is slightly behind the .300 Win in terms of energy, but it gets close and in my experience, recoils noticeably less. I don't consider the increase in recoil associated with the .30 caliber magnums worth a small increase in downrange energy. It is much easier to find ballistically efficent projectiles, like the Accubonds I use, in .284 caliber and they really do a good job of approaching the terminal performance of the larger caliber magnums without the recoil. Similarly, I don't consider the small increase in bore diameter or the possibility to pursue bullets over 200 gr to be an appreciable advantage either. There isn't anything on the planet that can take a 175 gr Partition and fare much better than a hit with a 200 gr Partition. Chances are if the 7mm is too small, you'll need at least a .338 caliber to do much better.

Dirty_Harry
February 6, 2006, 08:19 PM
If black bears are taken easily with .30-30's then I am pretty sure the 7mm mag will be great.

P-990
February 6, 2006, 08:44 PM
Agreed with Dirty_Harry.

I prefer smaller cartridges, but I don't have any game-taking experience, so don't take my opinion too highly. Yet I do spend lots of time at the range firing various rifles. Rifles that are low-recoiling and cheaper to shoot tend to get practiced with more often.

For reference I use a .260 Remington (6.5mm). I figure if a 140gr 6.5mm bullet won't put the game on the ground, I likely need something in the 8mm-.35-cal range.

fisherman66
February 6, 2006, 08:51 PM
I wouldn't shoot anything less than a 270 at a bear, and I'd prefer a .308 up to a 7mm mag.

A 260 seems far from ideal for thicker skinned animals. Can a competent rifleman do it; yes, but competent riflemen don't ask for opinions on which caliber to use on a bear. No offense intended to the thread starter.

I agree that maggies tend to induce flinch. Hopefully this fellow will spend some time at the range with a 22lr and his new "game getter" to work out the recoil issue. Preferably more time with the 22lr.

iudoug
February 6, 2006, 08:54 PM
for what you want....mine has been around the world with me and has shot animals bigger than you are talking...no problem!!!:cool: I allso have shot bear and a mule deer with super results....160 grain Trophy bonded do quite well.

P-990
February 6, 2006, 10:48 PM
fisherman66, good points.

As for caliber choice, I too think the 7mm Maggie is far from a poor choice. From everything I've been told and read, it works great downrange without too high of a penalty at the buttplate.