Rifle for Alberta and Africa??

sheephunter said:
With huge array of high quality bullets available for the 338 and the ballistic compensating scopes that are available, I can't think of one thing a .300WM does better than a 338WM inside 500 yards. I'm a very recent 338WM convert but it has allowed me to get rid of two 300WMs.
Click to expand...

Nothing except shoot flatter with most similar bullet weights (and would likely shoot flatter with 250's as well, but I haven't personally tried any in a 300 mag to have an opinion on same), and everything else being equal, out penetrate given the same bullet weight. Yes, small differences, but no "smaller" than the "bigger hole" argument you offer. If one is a "twirler", IE. fiddles with his turrets before shooting, yes, any cartridge can be dialed-in... why not use a 338-06 then? Or a 30-06? Or... Barring things like Grizzly, I always found the 338 Win killed better with a 200-ish grain bullet. It didn't take long to settle on a 225 Barnes TSX in the 340 running just shy of 3100 though, although the Partition of the same weight always performs superlatively as expected with that bullet.

But back to the original comment..... again.... make the various 300 Magnums obsolete? I don't think I've ever heard such an assinine statement.

I guess that the 338 Winchester Magnum is so superior to something like the 300 Winchester Magnum that any organisation that uses the 300 Win Mag in the sniper role will be rushing out to replace their obsolete 300s with 338 Winchester Magnums? 338 Lapua, yes, THAT does offer some advantages, but 338 Win? A resounding "NO".
 
1899 said:
This negativity about the .338 is very interesting. I have owned a couple of .338 WM's and never found them lacking. I have also owned several .308" magnums - .308 Norma, .300 WM and .300 Wby. I have not owned a .340 Wby, but this talk has me thinking. Really what does a .340 do extra? To me it seems similar to a .30-06 vs a .300 Mag type comparison. The .30-06 spits out at 200gr Partition at about 2700 fps and the mags do it at +2900 fps. Both work quite well.
Click to expand...

Yes, both work well, but if I was on a time-sensitive hunt, given a desire for a flat shooting rifle and being presented with a "must take" shot from any angle, I'll take a 300 mag / 200 gr Partition over any weight bullet in a 338 Win Mag, and I'd take a 340 Wby over either.
 
jaycee said:
Nothing except shoot flatter with most similar bullet weights (and would likely shoot flatter with 250's as well, but I haven't personally tried any in a 300 mag to have an opinion on same), and everything else being equal, out penetrate given the same bullet weight. Yes, small differences, but no "smaller" than the "bigger hole" argument you offer. If one is a "twirler", IE. fiddles with his turrets before shooting, yes, any cartridge can be dialed-in... why not use a 338-06 then? Or a 30-06? Or... Barring things like Grizzly, I always found the 338 Win killed better with a 200-ish grain bullet. It didn't take long to settle on a 225 Barnes TSX in the 340 running just shy of 3100 though, although the Partition of the same weight always performs superlatively as expected with that bullet.

But back to the original comment..... again.... make the various 300 Magnums obsolete? I don't think I've ever heard such an assinine statement.

I guess that the 338 Winchester Magnum is so superior to something like the 300 Winchester Magnum that any organisation that uses the 300 Win Mag in the sniper role will be rushing out to replace their obsolete 300s with 338 Winchester Magnums? 338 Lapua, yes, THAT does offer some advantages, but 338 Win? A resounding "NO".
Click to expand...

I think you forgot to read my post in your haste to reply. First, I said sub 500 yards so that kind of negates the sniper argument. There's little question the 300WM offers up an advantage over the 338WM at extreme range due to the higher BC bullets. 500 yards and under the argument is pretty well moot. As for shooting flatter, the 300 drops about 4" less at 500 yards. You are going to have to compensate for the drop on both with optics so again the argument is pretty well moot. As for penetrating further, with modern bullets, penetration is not an issue so again, that argument is moot. I never said the 338 was so superior to the 300WM, I just said it did everything as well sub 500, plus makes a bigger hole, basically making the 300WM obsolete sub 500 yards. At the end of the day an animal will be just as dead with either but why not shoot a cartridge that offers up a huge array of bullet weights and makes a bigger hole. Nothing wrong with the 300WM, it's just so easily replaced with the .338WM. I've had a lot of 300WMs in the past but I don't see another one in the future.
 
How about a Sauer 202 in 8x68 with a Zeiss 2.5-12x? I think there's on on the EE that's hardly been used.;)
 
If your set on dialing yardage... Get a Ruger #1 in .45/70 with a ladder sight and MAX loads... Its the "new rage" in an old package...
 
sheephunter said:
I think you forgot to read my post in your haste to reply. First, I said sub 500 yards so that kind of negates the sniper argument. There's little question the 300WM offers up an advantage over the 338WM at extreme range due to the higher BC bullets. 500 yards and under the argument is pretty well moot. As for shooting flatter, the 300 drops about 4" less at 500 yards. You are going to have to compensate for the drop on both with optics so again the argument is pretty well moot. As for penetrating further, with modern bullets, penetration is not an issue so again, that argument is moot. I never said the 338 was so superior to the 300WM, I just said it did everything as well sub 500, plus makes a bigger hole, basically making the 300WM obsolete sub 500 yards. At the end of the day an animal will be just as dead with either but why not shoot a cartridge that offers up a huge array of bullet weights and makes a bigger hole. Nothing wrong with the 300WM, it's just so easily replaced with the .338WM. I've had a lot of 300WMs in the past but I don't see another one in the future.
Click to expand...

No haste, just basing it off of the two snipers I still know in the Batallion - according to them, the majority of sniper engagements still happen inside 500 meters. Yes, they aren't using 300's, but rather 338 Lapuas and the odd .50, but both have also done quite a bit of cross-training with units down South that do use 300 Win Mags, and pass-on that most of their engagemens have been sub 500 meters as well.

Hey, I'm not the one who made the "obsolete" comment - look up the definition, it's pretty black and white. The various 300 magnums are not, in any way/shape/form at risk of being made obsolete by the 338 Win.

I won't argue that lighter premium bullets have done a lot to re-energize the 338 Win, but the 338 Win has always seemed to fit into that "no man's" land - there are cartridges on both sides that do either job better. The lighter bullet weights being offered in .338" are more of an attempt to make the 338 Win a 300 Mag.
 
Again with the big bullet/big hole thing. Care to guess which bullet hole is made with a .375 and TSXs, and which is made with a 100 grain bullet going 1000 fps faster? By the time a bullet is only making a bullet size wound channel the show has been over for awhile. With some combinations of hard bullets, soft targets and low velocities it never really starts.



 
jaycee said:
I won't argue that lighter premium bullets have done a lot to re-energize the 338 Win,
Click to expand...

On that we can definitely agree and add in much more user-friendly mid-range optics and the .338 definitely has new life. I was never a fan until 2009 when we went to Namibia, Now it fits in perfectly between my 7RM and .375H&H...that area that used to be no man's land. Perhaps if I were a long-range shooter I'd have more love for the .300 but as I'm not, it just doesn't fit into my needs any more.
 
jaycee said:
I won't argue that lighter premium bullets have done a lot to re-energize the 338 Win, but the 338 Win has always seemed to fit into that "no man's" land - there are cartridges on both sides that do either job better. The lighter bullet weights being offered in .338" are more of an attempt to make the 338 Win a 300 Mag.
Click to expand...

I would tend to think that the 338 has more recoil than the average hunter can handle or wants to handle. The 300 seems to be at that limit, hence the reason for its popularity over the 338.
 
bearkilr said:
I would tend to think that the 338 has more recoil than the average hunter can handle or wants to handle. The 300 seems to be at that limit, hence the reason for its popularity over the 338.
Click to expand...

I think the lighter bullets for the .338 have done a lot in making the 338 more pleasant to shoot as well and adding to its popularity. It's pretty much on par with the .300 shooting 185s or 200s.
 
jaycee said:
No, just observations from having used all of them extensively in the field.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be an ass, but how extensive with each? What animals and what ranges? What loads? Were they chronograph? What bullets?

I've observed that a 30 cal 180 grain cup and core at 2500 fps has more apparent killing power than a 200 grain partition at 2500 fps. But I am sure that you will agree that it is a dubious observation. But at the end of the day, they both worked just fine.
 
bearkilr said:
Umm, ya, that's pretty much how it works with all calibers.
Click to expand...

I'd bet the effect of the 340 vs the 338 is more on the shooter than the animal, after all, they are only 100 fps apart (with the same pressure) and that might even shrink to 70 fps at longer ranges.
 
sheephunter said:
I think the lighter bullets for the .338 have done a lot in making the 338 more pleasant to shoot as well and adding to its popularity. It's pretty much on par with the .300 shooting 185s or 200s.
Click to expand...

No doubt that's true, though personally I've never been a fan of light for caliber bullets. I've always shot 180's in the 300 and 225's in the 338.
 
bearkilr said:
No doubt that's true, though personally I've never been a fan of light for caliber bullets. I've always shot 180's in the 300 and 225's in the 338.
Click to expand...

The mono metals have definitely changed the rules regarding bullet weight and penetration but at the end of the day, your rifle still has to shoot the light for caliber bullets well and not all do. If it will though, it sure tames something like the .338 down, especially important if you are shooting longer distances from the prone position. I've got a 6 3/4 pound .338 and the difference in bullet weight it noticeable.
 
Bit off topic but...
Sheep hunter. What is the advantage of a 270 tsx versus a 235 tsx out of a 375 h&h? Wound channels would be te same size, possibly longer with the faster bullet... No? Assuming they both shot as well out of a certain gun. Is the lighter faster bullet better in all respects?
 
Buckmastr said:
Bit off topic but...
Sheep hunter. What is the advantage of a 270 tsx versus a 235 tsx out of a 375 h&h? Wound channels would be te same size, possibly longer with the faster bullet... No? Assuming they both shot as well out of a certain gun. Is the lighter faster bullet better in all respects?
Click to expand...

The biggest factor is will your rifle shoot the lighter bullet well as some won't. The next is the ballistic coefficient of the bullets but the additional speed of the lighter bullet typically trumps BC to around 500 yards. The final question, is the bullet heavy enough to get adequate penetration for the game you are hunting. As you point out, there often is no advantage to the heavier bullet and often the additional velocity will result in more damage to soft tissue. As mono metal expand more rapidly and violently at higher velocities, it's doubtful speed would give you a longer wound channel but likely greater damage to the soft tissue around it. In the vast majority of cases, there would be no advantage to the heavier mono metal other than perhaps accuracy. I shoot 250s out of my 375 and on the biggest of African plains game and North America's biggest critters, penetration has always been more than adequate.
 
sheephunter said:
The mono metals have definitely changed the rules regarding bullet weight and penetration but at the end of the day, your rifle still has to shoot the light for caliber bullets well and not all do. If it will though, it sure tames something like the .338 down, especially important if you are shooting longer distances from the prone position. I've got a 6 3/4 pound .338 and the difference in bullet weight it noticeable.
Click to expand...

I personally don't consider the 225's recoil extreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom