I've reloaded for both and found the H&H is more efficient with powder and gives more fps per grain than the 300 wm. . In other words; load the H&H and the 300 wm identical and the H&H is faster with the identical loading. , Also one thing to take into account is the neck on the 300 wm is shorter than the dia of the bullet and requires the bullet to be seated deep in the cartridge to enable the bullet to fit in the chamber and deep seating the bullet takes up case volume. . Reason the neck turned out short is Winchester was slow on the draw and Norma beat them to the 300 magnum patent. . Winchester at that point used the 338 wm case and moved the shoulder forward making for a short neck. . All the hype that was put out bragged up the 300 wm superior in performance over the 300 H&H and the H&H loading upgrades fell by the way side and now with some rifles getting up in years the new load data is quite mild. . In comparison the neck on the H&H cartridge is quite long. . My loading manuals are quite old and have some stout loads but still work for me. . For example, Craig Boddington's 300 H&H loading works good in my rifle. . 74 gr of 4350 with a 150 gr bullet @ 3400 fps. . Sierra 3rd edition comes up 74.4 gr 4350 with 150 gr bullet @ 3400 fps. .
As I said early, the difference between the two isn't worth discussing as the 300 wm was brought out to replace the H&H using a shorter action and one just replicates the other. . Reason I brought it up is because all I hear is how much bigger and better and more beautiful the 300 wm is over the 300 H&H..
Last edited:
