338 win mag VS 300 win mag
- Thread starter DrawBlood
- Start date
- Location
- Virden, MB
I'll bite.
You don't need a magnum to be accurate at long range. A 223 is accurate past 1000 yards. Now if you want to knock over a buffalo at 1000 yards then the bigger the better.
On that note, not many guys use 338WM for target shooting. It is too heavy and looses steam too fast. So if you could only pick one of the two the 300WM is better just cause it is flatter shooting, but not necessarily more accurate.
Do a search, this has been asked millions of times. There is a lot of useful info on this forum when it comes to long range ballistics and accuracy.
You don't need a magnum to be accurate at long range. A 223 is accurate past 1000 yards. Now if you want to knock over a buffalo at 1000 yards then the bigger the better.
On that note, not many guys use 338WM for target shooting. It is too heavy and looses steam too fast. So if you could only pick one of the two the 300WM is better just cause it is flatter shooting, but not necessarily more accurate.
Do a search, this has been asked millions of times. There is a lot of useful info on this forum when it comes to long range ballistics and accuracy.
300WM has a reputation for long range accuracy, but I agree with GSoD in suggesting you get a gun that you will allow you to shoot a lot. 300WM will take more of a toll on your shoulder and wallet than its worth for just punching holes in paper. Get a 308 with a heavy barrrel or possibly go back to your 223 thoughts. 223 25 grains powder, 308 45 grains, 300WM 75 or more. Added cost, wear and tear and recoil for little benefit IMO.
A -190 grain.300 Win mag BTHP- remains supersonic for 1250 yards. A -300 grain.338 Lapua- remains supersonic for 1400 yards. the longer a bullet is supersonic the more accurate it is at range. Also, the heavier the bullet is, the less its effected by the wind. As for the 338. Winchester mag. I have never looked into it. I'll say that if you cant take the recoil, it will kill whatever potential accuracy the bullet and rifle have, their are a lot of very accurate high powered match grade rifles gone to waist, because the riflemen cant handle the monster recoil related to such a firearm. muzzle breaks become mandatory in those cases. just beware, though they reduce the recoil by as much as 40+% they increase the sound decibels by roughly 10 times. hearing protection is not optional.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Clearly any powerful rifle chambering intended for use in a target rifle must be moderated by some sort of recoil dampening devise, most often a muzzle brake, and heavy gun weight. It should be easier to shoot long strings with a .338 Winchester than with a .338 Lapua, but I don't know if the ballistic advantage of the Lapua is that far ahead. The Lapua drives a 250 gr MK at 2950 fps, and a .338 Winchester will drive that same bullet at 2700. The Lapua bullet goes subsonic at about 1450 yards at sea level, and the Winchester drops subsonic at about 1290. Depending on several factors, including the amount of time spent transonic and the amount of spin on the bullet, the bullet may or may not loose stability as it passes through the transonic velocity, but if the bullet fired from a Lapua chambered rifle becomes unstable while the bullet from the Winchester cartridge does not, the practical range would be much closer. Of course the opposite could happen, where the bullet from the Lapua rifle remained stable and the Winchester did not, in which case the Lapua would have a significant advantage.
If I was contemplating either of these cartridges for long range target shooting it would be in a custom rifle with a barrel as long and heavy as I could arrange. I would choose the .338 Winchester simply because the cost of the Lapua brass is prohibitive, and the Winchester can produce similar ballistics with less powder. It is sort of a .308-.30/06 comparison, but like the .30/06, the .338 Lapua walks away from the .338 Winchester if you choose heavy bullets like the 300 gr MK. All things being equal, due to its larger bore size, the .338 Winchester can fire the same weight of bullet weight faster than the .300 can, although the smaller bullet will have a better BC, so it is unclear if the .300 with a 240 gr MK would be any worse than a 250 gr .338. The .338 Winchester like the .300 Winchester suffers from a short neck, so I would have the chamber cut long so the bullet could be seated with only the boat-tail extending into the shoulder. This would help to reduce the velocity advantage attributed to the Lapua round by giving the .338 Winchester just a bit more.
If I was contemplating either of these cartridges for long range target shooting it would be in a custom rifle with a barrel as long and heavy as I could arrange. I would choose the .338 Winchester simply because the cost of the Lapua brass is prohibitive, and the Winchester can produce similar ballistics with less powder. It is sort of a .308-.30/06 comparison, but like the .30/06, the .338 Lapua walks away from the .338 Winchester if you choose heavy bullets like the 300 gr MK. All things being equal, due to its larger bore size, the .338 Winchester can fire the same weight of bullet weight faster than the .300 can, although the smaller bullet will have a better BC, so it is unclear if the .300 with a 240 gr MK would be any worse than a 250 gr .338. The .338 Winchester like the .300 Winchester suffers from a short neck, so I would have the chamber cut long so the bullet could be seated with only the boat-tail extending into the shoulder. This would help to reduce the velocity advantage attributed to the Lapua round by giving the .338 Winchester just a bit more.
Last edited:
