Looking for opinions on new 300 or 338

[burnaby]

If only that was true R&D would be free. Money is everything, it allows you to buy testing equipment along with lots of toys for trial & error.

...Money is irrelevant, so stop using it as proof you know something.

Mfr 1st and foremost concern is providing LAWYER approved data. That means LCD, the lowest common denominator will always be way below maximum potential that takes lots of R&D (money & time) to develop.

I too am jealous of 50K hunts but won't let that blind me to what money will buy. Technology is expensive, load testing is expensive.

...I don't think so. I think the manufacturers do a really good job of providing reloaders with reliable, safe data. I think the velocities they suggest as maximum, and which you exceed by several hundred fps at times, is a good guide for anyone with a chronograph to use as a standard. I think anyone using your results as a standard would be inviting problems. I think it is irresponsible to advise people to violate those standards...

 

[c-fbmi]

kman300

I will make this brief, I respect the fact that you, in fact load the 7Mag to 3050 with a 168 gn bullet and that your external ballistics come from actual experience as well as charts. Your findings coincide with mine exactly with the 7Mag. I take issue with your BOOK findings of the 300 Win.

So if we are going to quote books check these ones out;

Bob Hagel's "Game loads and practical ballistics for the American hunter" on page 196 he lists 2 loads over 3000 fps with 200 gn bullets in the 300 Win and a third at 2993 fps from a 24" bbl and with a 200 gn part round nose with a much greater bearing surface and no access to the powders we have today. Speer #7 manual lists 2 loads with 200 gn bullets over 3000 fps in 24" bbl, Hornady handbook II lists a 190 HPBT at 3100 fps from a 24" bbl, Speer reloading manual # 11 lists a 190 HPBT Match at 3148 fps from a 24" bbl and a 200 gn flat base at 3120 with 7828 and a 24" bbl, this is exactly the powder I used to achieve 3150 with a 200 nos part as stated earlier, when I was called a reckless menace, (not quoting, paraphrasing)......... need I go on?

I stand by my earlier statement that the 7mm RM, although a great cartridge is no equal to the 300 Win and I do believe I have made my point as requested by you, with loading manual data as published.

I can assure you that I can safely drive a 210 gn berger from a 300 Win at 3050 and more, in a 24" bbl and there is the published data to support my contention, from multiple sources. I have load manuals that go back to the sixties and number in the 20 somethings, you may want to reconsider before challenging someone my age, with my experience, to defend their position with load manuals.

I do not like to be wrong, so I do not post in these threads unless I can substantiate that which I am saying, you and rral22 may wish to keep this in mind in the future.

I assume this debate is over?

Cordially c-fbmi

 

[c-fbmi]

Man, that's brilliant. You win.

I already said, I envy your lifestyle. My point is (and you really seem to have missed it) that your lifestyle doesn't make you right about anything. It's irrelevant.

Of course, I can see that to you, it isn't. THAT is where we are, in fact, completely different.

No rral22, you are correct,my lifestyle does not make me right about anything but may I suggest you read my previous post to kman300. You will see that my position is in fact supported by several loading manuals, does this make me relavent? Oh look no mention of money AND I'm still right !!!

I await your apology.

c-fbmi

 

[burnaby]

Are you talking about on a closed track?

or on public road selfishly endangering the public cause that would be pretty arrogant.

...drive my Z06 and Ferrari at any speed which pleases me...

 

[c-fbmi]

Are you talking about on a closed track?

or on public road selfishly endangering the public cause that would be pretty arrogant.

This is more a statement in kind, to express a lifestyle or attitude than a real life situation. I do share your concern, however where I live I can go out and drive as I choose without seeing another soul for hours. If only the roads were better. I never intentionally or knowingly endanger others whether driving, flying or hunting.

 

[kman300]

I will make this brief, I respect the fact that you, in fact load the 7Mag to 3050 with a 168 gn bullet and that your external ballistics come from actual experience as well as charts. Your findings coincide with mine exactly with the 7Mag. I take issue with your BOOK findings of the 300 Win.

So if we are going to quote books check these ones out;

Bob Hagel's "Game loads and practical ballistics for the American hunter" on page 196 he lists 2 loads over 3000 fps with 200 gn bullets in the 300 Win and a third at 2993 fps from a 24" bbl and with a 200 gn part round nose with a much greater bearing surface and no access to the powders we have today. Speer #7 manual lists 2 loads with 200 gn bullets over 3000 fps in 24" bbl, Hornady handbook II lists a 190 HPBT at 3100 fps from a 24" bbl, Speer reloading manual # 11 lists a 190 HPBT Match at 3148 fps from a 24" bbl and a 200 gn flat base at 3120 with 7828 and a 24" bbl, this is exactly the powder I used to achieve 3150 with a 200 nos part as stated earlier, when I was called a reckless menace, (not quoting, paraphrasing)......... need I go on?

I stand by my earlier statement that the 7mm RM, although a great cartridge is no equal to the 300 Win and I do believe I have made my point as requested by you, with loading manual data as published.

I can assure you that I can safely drive a 210 gn berger from a 300 Win at 3050 and more, in a 24" bbl and there is the published data to support my contention, from multiple sources. I have load manuals that go back to the sixties and number in the 20 somethings, you may want to reconsider before challenging someone my age, with my experience, to defend their position with load manuals.

I do not like to be wrong, so I do not post in these threads unless I can substantiate that which I am saying, you and rral22 may wish to keep this in mind in the future.

I assume this debate is over?

Cordially c-fbmi

Post #78 was addressed to skscavenger, hence why I quoted him.

Bob Hagel's book from 1978? My Nosler Number One reloading manual from 1976 has 3 loads for a 200gr partition at 3000 fps. The same manual shows 3150fps with a 160gr partition from the 7mm rem mag and 3000fps with the 175 partition. The new nosler manual does not have them going nearly as fast. Dirty lawyers work or new pressure testing equipment they didn't have 40 years ago to blame for this?

I never challenged you about how many load manuals you have and it was my mistake to not preface my statement about 3000fps with a 300 win mag using 210gr bullets that I was foolishly assuming current reloading manuals, not 40 year old ones.

I fail to see how using 40 year old data for a 200gr partition and then using said data with a current bullet like the 210gr berger in some way supports your contention, from multiple sources, as you put it. Berger Bullets doesn't even have a reloading manual published and the data they send you shows 2850fps max with the 210gr bullet from a 26" barrel.

I guess going by your logic I can safely squeeze out another 100fps or so over my 3050fps with the 168gr berger. The 1976 manual shows 81gr of H-870 ought to get me there (and how much higher could I go with modern powders?).

Last your statement about not liking to be wrong, most people don't but what you are saying is that Berger Bullets is wrong as well as a bunch of other really smart folks and pretty much any new reloading manual out there. You don't like to be wrong but it's ok for bullet/ammo/powder manufacturers to be wrong? Just take your word for it? I would still like you to show me a single ammunition manufacturer that gets anywhere near your 3050fps with a 210gr bullet. Just for fun, Weatherby loads their 300 weatherby 200gr partition to 3060fps from a 26" barrel. I always thought they loaded their ammo stout and didn't water down their ammo but I suppose they do?

Nobody is telling you how to load your guns, do whatever you want. Use old data with new bullets if you like. Assume that 7828 from 30 years ago is still the same it is today, etc. Your call. The problem I have with your numbers is that someone that doesn't have 40 year old books or 40 years of reloading experience looks at them and tries to achieve said numbers. He will look at his current reloading manual and wonder wtf is going on, why are the loads so slow. Then read on the internet somewhere that it's all the lawyers fault. We all know what could happen then right? Frankly I don't even know how you put enough powder in a 300 win mag to get the speeds you do. 210's are long bullets and all. You must admit that your numbers are significantly higher than what most "normal" people are seeing in manuals and on boxes of ammo. You are using your very high numbers, that are contrary to MODERN manuals, powder, bullet and ammunition manufacturers, to prove a 300 win mag is superior to a 7mm rem mag that IS using modern data. That isn't logical to me. The OP doesn't even reload and then the 300 win mag really can't hold a candle to the 7mm as factory ammo doesn't get near the speeds your quoting. Is the 300 win mag still better if I load a 7mm rem mag to 3100fps with the 180gr bergers? Strong bolt action and a 26" barrel with modern powders might make that happen? Who knows? I'm sure someone out there does it.

Cheers

 

[Eagleye]

It matters little. Every rifle is somewhat different. All loads should be worked up safely from below.

I suspect that the commercial suppliers [Berger, Speer, Hornady, etc] are heavily "lawyered up" so are suggesting very safe loads as maximums.
This is because we still have jokers out there who do not work up any loads....they just take the max load listed, load up and shoot away.

Firearms differ significantly in what constitutes a maximum load.
So many factors come into play here that to condemn one shooter because he is getting what seems to be very high velocities is ridiculous.
I remember one guy who was pushing 3000 fps with a 30-06 and 180 grain bullets. [28" tube though]
Seems quite high to me, but I know the guy, and his brass life was absolutely normal, bolt lift etc, all good.
Was he seriously over pressure? Probably right up there, but he shot hundreds of rounds of that recipe without incident.
For someone else to take his load and shoot it in their riflewould be absolutely idiotic.

I'll give another example.
I have an acquaintance who rechambered his 700 in 7mm Rem Mag to 7mm RUM
He got a load from somewhere [not me!] loaded a bunch of ammo up and shot away. It shot very well indeed, and no issues. IIRC, he was chasing the 160 Partition out at around 3300.
He washed the throat out of that barrel, so had it rebarrelled and chambered to the big RUM again.
Instead of backing off and working up again, he assumed [bad word] it would be fine, chambered a round and touched it off.
Whoooeee! Smoke curls out of the action, bolt locked up. We got the bolt open, and the primer literally fell out of the case.
Tighter bore, snug chamber, etc all contributed to pressures way too high,
I would have loved to see what the chronographed speed of that load was, lol
Fortunately, rifle survived, as did the shooter.

In working up a new load for this rifle, we had to stop 5 grains below the load he had been using with impunty in the rechambered barrel.
Speed in new barrel with safe load? 3345 avg for 5 shots. [160 Partition]
You may note that this is still considerably faster than any 7RUM loads listed in manuals that are available.
Bolt opens like butter, cases are in great shape even after 6 or so reloads.
I deem this a safe load in his rifle only, not in someone elses.

I had a 30-338 Winchester Mag [Much like the 308 Norma Mag] which delivered 3240 fps with the 180 Partition in a 24" barrel. Brass lasted forever, shot at least 15 Elk with that rifle, always performed like it should have.
Velocity sounds high, doesn't it? But it was safe in that rifle.

Experienced reloaders do not "Jump" at max loads.
They approach them cautiously from well below.
Under NO circumstances should anyone take a suggested load and simply try it because someone told them it was good in their rifle.
Regards, Eagleye.

 

[c-fbmi]

kman300..........There is just no pleasing you is there? You insult me and tell me my data is irresponsible, you invite sksavenger and eagleye to post data showing any loads over 3000 fps with a 200 gn bullet in a 300 WM with a 24" tube, which both eagleye and I have done........now when I support my velocities to the EXACT FOOT PER SECOND with published load data, proving there is nothing irresponsible with my loads, do I get an apology? No, that data doesn't count 'cause it's............ TOO OLD?

At this point I'll leave the readers to draw their own conclusions as to responsibility and credability....................

 

[c-fbmi]

To tzclark the OP

You have my apologies for going so far off point and perpetuating this inane pi$$ing contest.
Buy the 300 Win and you'll be very pleased with it IMHO. You can buy ammo anywhere for it as inexpensive as any magnum and you can find a rifle in any price range that fits your budget.

 

[kman300]

kman300..........There is just no pleasing you is there? You insult me and tell me my data is irresponsible, you invite sksavenger and eagleye to post data showing any loads over 3000 fps with a 200 gn bullet in a 300 WM with a 24" tube, which both eagleye and I have done........now when I support my velocities to the EXACT FOOT PER SECOND with published load data, proving there is nothing irresponsible with my loads, do I get an apology? No, that data doesn't count 'cause it's............ TOO OLD?

At this point I'll leave the readers to draw their own conclusions as to responsibility and credability....................

Except there IS no published load data for a 210gr Berger at 3050 fps since the people that make that bullet say 2850fps is max. Yes let people draw their own conclusions.

If you feel insulted that someone calls your 200fps faster data irresponsible then you need to grow a thicker skin. I feel insulted that you are saying Berger data means squat, it's lawyer bs, go 200fps over because a 40 year old manual says you can, with a 200gr partition that is. Let people decide for themselves, absolutely.

 

[Beargun45-70]

C-fbmi,

I for one value hearing about the first hand experiences of someone who has seen and done more than i likley ever will.
We've all read this and that about which is better, but now you can tell us once and for all.

Bang for your buck, Z06 or Ferrari?

 

[c-fbmi]

C-fbmi,

I for one value hearing about the first hand experiences of someone who has seen and done more than i likley ever will.
We've all read this and that about which is better, but now you can tell us once and for all.

Bang for your buck, Z06 or Ferrari?

The Ferrari for head turning, definately and for raw uncontrollable power the Z06. Also handling and acceleration go to the Z06 but sound has to go the Ferrari with that boxer 12 @ 7000 RPM. Bang for buck , I would have to say the Z06.

Now we're really out in left field as the thread goes.

 

[jjohnwm]

Kman, just out of curiosity...truly not trying to stir anything up here, just curious...have you ever purchased a new firearm which came with a manufacturer's instruction manual which expressly prohibited the use of reloaded ammo? If so, did you then immediately trade off that firearm, or did you proceed to carefully work up a load for it and shoot it?

If you did use reloads, how is that in any way different from c-fbmi using his own personal experience to carefully work up a load that a current manual might label as excessive?

Ignoring all published warnings as "lawyer-speak" would be foolish. However, it would be equally unrealistic to deny that liability concerns cause all manufacturers, of firearms, gunpowder, or any other product, to err on the side of caution to some degree.

 

[kman300]

Kman, just out of curiosity...truly not trying to stir anything up here, just curious...have you ever purchased a new firearm which came with a manufacturer's instruction manual which expressly prohibited the use of reloaded ammo? If so, did you then immediately trade off that firearm, or did you proceed to carefully work up a load for it and shoot it?

If you did use reloads, how is that in any way different from c-fbmi using his own personal experience to carefully work up a load that a current manual might label as excessive?

Ignoring all published warnings as "lawyer-speak" would be foolish. However, it would be equally unrealistic to deny that liability concerns cause all manufacturers, of firearms, gunpowder, or any other product, to err on the side of caution to some degree.

That's a good question. I suppose I would answer that it has to do with max pressure in a cartridge which I have no scientific way of measuring. Sticky bolt lift and flattened primers are in no way accurate and they don't really tell you anything in terms of actual numbers. If Hodgdon says X grains of powder in Y cartridge with Z bullet has 64k psi at max load then I will take their word for it. I do not have a lab to measure this. I do not know how much over that max another 200fps puts me. Sticky bolt lift or not.

If we all just put more powder in till we get "pressure signs" and then back off a bit and call it good, well that's not really scientific. How much over pressure is your load when you get a sticky bolt lift in your rifle? Who knows. Is it 2k over? 5k? 10k?

 

[jjohnwm]

If Hodgdon says X grains of powder in Y cartridge with Z bullet has 64k psi at max load then I will take their word for it.

Well, then, if Ruger (or Remington, or Browning, or...) states that their product is designed and intended for use only with factory-produced ammunition, and that the use of reloads carries with it the risk of serious personal injury or death...

Reloading manuals indicate "safe" maximum loads, but admonish against using them as starting loads. The manuals (and common sense, which is not completely without worth, other opinions to the contrary!) indicate that starting low and working up carefully and incrementally is the correct way to proceed. It would seem obvious that today's litiginous society demands that the "maximum" load listed be extremely cautious, and safe in just about any firearm. A shooter/reloader with sufficient experience can certainly be forgiven for cautiously pushing the envelope.

I'm an electrician. The specifications on methods used to install electrical equipment vary from job to job, site to site. The specs always exceed the minimum legal code requirements, and might even be characterized as "safer" by someone with a sufficiently paranoid mindset...but I don't know any licenced tradesmen who seriously believe that a stroke of the pen today makes the work we did yesterday any less safe...even if that attitude isn't very scientific.

 

[rral22]

Well, then, if Ruger (or Remington, or Browning, or...) states that their product is designed and intended for use only with factory-produced ammunition, and that the use of reloads carries with it the risk of serious personal injury or death...

Of course, the only reason THEY have to say that sort of stuff, is because they know there are lots of reloaders out there who think the load manuals are all just "guidelines" and can be safely exceeded by using things like sticky bolts as a reliable measure of pressure.

 

[Eagleye]

Of course, the only reason THEY have to say that sort of stuff, is because they know there are lots of reloaders out there who think the load manuals are all just "guidelines" and can be safely exceeded by using things like sticky bolts as a reliable measure of pressure.

The "sticky bolt" is by no means the only way to judge if pressures are above safe levels or not.
Often, by the time the bolt lift indicates high pressure, the actual pressures are much too high.
However, a very experienced reloader can and will observe several things that indicate whether he is in a place he shouldn't be or not.
I have had firearms that reached their working max at loads below the maximum load recommended in a certain manual.
Does this mean that I keep going because the manual says the max load is higher? Of course not!!
Regards, Eagleye.

 

[burnaby]

Interesting Street vs. school argument, the contractor vs. Engineer debate.

Those who are happy with their lawyer approved data, driving in their 5 star mini-van should be content; nothing wrong with playing it "safe".

Those that like to experiment while smartly keeping it safe, then sharing your experience we like to thank you.


Wanna bet the folks that demands adhering to the "book gospel" have no issues speeding past the posted speed limit cause they've convinced/justified themselves it's safe for their vehicle/road condition.

 

[burnaby]

Having driven the roads from Whitehorse to Watson Lake, Mayo and Dawson city in the winter back in late 80's they aren't that quiet. Recall seeing 10 cars in 4 hours

This is more a statement in kind, to express a lifestyle or attitude than a real life situation. I do share your concern, however where I live I can go out and drive as I choose without seeing another soul for hours. If only the roads were better. I never intentionally or knowingly endanger others whether driving, flying or hunting.

 

[tzclark]

bought a 300 win mag, thanks to the guys that helped