hi guys my hunting partner insists the winchester 300 mag is better, ive used the remington 7mm mag for 20 years, now the the remington super 7mm mag is around is it better than the weatherby 7mm mag, or the winchester 300
7mm mag--stick with that caliber It will take any game in the USA. I don't know anything about the super.
I use a 7mm remington mag for deer and elk hunting. It'll outshoot me. Unless you're hunting pronghorn in wide open country where a 400 yard shot might be the best you get, you really don't need the extra oomph from the super. The 7mm has a better BC by bullet weight compared to the 30s, so it'll stay in the kill zone at longer ranges. I've heard the super will outdo the Weatherby by a fraction. It's still more than I need either way. If I were gonna switch, I might go to the short magnums that are coming out. They say you get the same performance with a little milder recoil. The 7mm mag don't recoil as much as the 300, but it will slap ya a little bit. I read last night that the 7mm super with a 140 grain bullet will have a MV of 3,500 fps. That is long range varmint hunting speed for a deer round. I guess that'd be a good character for pronghorn. Personally, I won't take a shot past 300 yards or so at game. I've got a sweet setup (browning A-bolt stainless with BOSS comp and Leupold Vari X II 3-9x40), and it'll ring the gong at 400 yards, but that's at the shooting range.
By super... do you mean the Remington Ultra Mag? If so, there's only one reason I'm planning to get a 300 Ultra over a 300 Weatherby, and that's because Savage makes it, and only Weatherby makes guns in 300 Wby (at least ones I can afford). Also, I get a lower price and iron sites with the Savage. I'm also told RUM is more accurate because of the cartridge shape, as it headspaces on the shoulder instead of the belt.
