So Many .308 Caliber magnums, who got it right

.300 win mag is the one to beat. "its so...common" because its the best. Everyone can't be wrong now can they??? I get sick of that comment. People go out of their way trying to be different, when no one really gives a crap what you are personally shooting. The .300 win mag is popular because it has the best bang for the buck. Ammo is easy to get, its long range accurate, hits like a mack truck, and will kill anything on this continent and a bunch more continents to boot. Stop trying to be "that Boston Bruins jersey wearing kid in a sea of Habs/leafs street hockey players" Just trying to be different doesn't make you better.
 
I have 300 H&H, (had a few over the years, and am putting together another), 300 WM (x3, god knows why), 300 Wby, 308 Norma Mag, and 300 RUM. I still prefer the Wby, although I think the Norma is actually the best design. Of the ones I don't have (at the moment), I would be hardpressed to pick between a 300 Dakota or a 30 Newton. FWIW - dan
 
I tend to think that if you can't do it with the .30/06 you probably can't do it with a noisier .30 caliber round either. If you find need for more velocity, a .30/378 would be able to depleat you wallet and ruin your hearing in an impressive fashion.
 
I have, and have used both a .300 Weatherby, and a .300 H&H.
They were both rifles I inherited and are both very old...

I like and use the H&H a lot more.

To answer the original question
Who got it right?
Click to expand...
I would say to one degree or another they all did.

I don't think a deer, or an elk for that matter, can tell the difference between a .308 Win and a .30-378 WBY at normal hunting ranges, with proper bullet placement.

I know that statement may start some "drama" Here, but have seen too many animals shot with the full spectrum off cartridges to think otherwise.
 
Boomer454 said:
I don't think a deer, or an elk for that matter, can tell the difference between a .308 Win and a .30-378 WBY at normal hunting ranges, with proper bullet placement.
Click to expand...
Game may not be able to tell the difference between the different 30cals, but I'm pretty sure a shooter could tell the diff between a 300WM and a 300RUM in identical rifles. Some of the big ones are just too much of a good thing.




.
 
SuperCub said:
Game may not be able to tell the difference between the different 30cals, but I'm pretty sure a shooter could tell the diff between a 300WM and a 300RUM in identical rifles. Some of the big ones are just too much of a good thing.
Click to expand...

Oh I know. But what I was getting at is that you should shoot what works best for you, because there is no best. It all comes down to preference...
 
Who got it right? Newton, Norma, Weatherby.
Who got it wrong? Winchester, H&H.
Newton and Norma got it right because they designed cartridges with adequate capacity which fit nicely in a standard length action. The Norma comes awfully close to being a Newton with a belt.
Weatherby got it right because he designed a cartridge which maximized the performance potential of the H&H case. It might need a long action but it at least makes good use of it. It feeds well, it shoots well and it's a real classic.
Winchester got it wrong because they let their advertising department design their 300. The cartridge did not fit well into the standard length action and didn't really come into it's own until chambered in longer magazined rifles (like the Remington 700 and the post-64 Model 70). That it can work quite well in spite of it's design shortcomings is hardly a great recommendation.
H&H got it wrong because they developed a cartridge which required a long action but performed like a a Newton. If H&H had basedthe 300 on the 275 H&H case (very similar to the 7x61 Sharpe and Hart) it would have been a better cartridge. It is, nonetheless, a true classic and I like it anyway. Regards, Bill
 
Leeper said:
Winchester got it wrong because they let their advertising department design their 300. The cartridge did not fit well into the standard length action and didn't really come into it's own until chambered in longer magazined rifles (like the Remington 700 and the post-64 Model 70). Regards, Bill
Click to expand...


This is the thing I could never understand about the 300 Winchester....the Model 70 mag box without a block in the rear was 3.60"....the 300 Win Mag was "designed" by Winchester to fit into a 3.40" mag box..ala..30-06 length. Did they have as much to gain from having gunsmiths chamber thier new cartridge in old Mauser '98's as they could have gained if they had made the 300's neck a little longer (not that it really is too short,but it's always brought up) and used the 3.60" mag box as used in the Model 70's in 300 and 375 H&H..so you could seat the bullets out where they belong..?
 
I don't think the correct answer is "What works best for you", I think the correct answer is "What works best for the application"

Wanna hunt moose and bear at less than 75 yards in the boreal? The norma is hard to beat

Wanna smack bullwinkle at 500-700+? The RUM and 30/378 are the ticket.

I have an Ultramag, and it shines out in the 1/2km range....but now that I've changed camps/locations, It'll be swapped for something a little better suited to the thick stuff.

WW
 
Jayph said:
If I forgot any please let me know and ill add them to the list. In my opinion I think The .300 Dakota is the perfect .300 Mag. I don't like a belt (I know there is nothing wrong with them its a personal thing) Its got good velocity with out being to extreme and fits in a 30-06 length action. So it's got my vote. Looking forward to everyone's opinions. :)
Click to expand...

30 Newton! Beltless and power on par with the Super 30 (300H&H). Only problem was it came 80 years too soon when bullets could not hold up to that speed. It is the North American King of the 30 mags and arguably the original if you consider the 300H&H is a Brit design.
 
1899 said:
The .300 H&H is the one that got it right. The rest are attempts to improve upon a recipe that is good enough just as it is. There are those that say shorter actions are important, but what real life difference does it make? None. Need more velocity? I say you don't, especially with today's powders and bullets like the 130gr TTSX. It will shoot plenty flat.

Holland and Holland's .30 will do everything a North American hunter needs to do, and out to ranges that 99% of hunters have no business shooting. On top of it all it is efficient and loads very smoothly. The downside, it appears, is that it is not new. That's a real shame, but I guess the marketing departments need to keep consumption up.
Click to expand...

You are such a throw back:rolleyes::p
Realistically it is an inefficient design in anything but a single-shot. That doesn't mean I don't like it....

Andy said:
30 Newton

30newton_box1.jpg
Click to expand...

X2 or a 300 Dakota or 300-375 Ruger.

Woodbeef said:
I'd have to say the 300H&H way more flexible than the others. Will still work adequately in barrels shorter than 24",and with bullets from 110 to 220 grain.
Click to expand...

Huh? It has nearly identical powder capacity to the WSM a hair more than the SAUM, and not quite the Norma. So some how it is more efficient with shorter barrels, identical bullet weights (and diameter), and a longer action than all those mentioned?
Doesn't make any sense dude. (Please don't argue that it's longer, thinner powder column does some weird magic, cause that has been disproven too often already).

In the end though I own only a 300 WSM and it is shooting sub .75" groups with 180gr AB's at an average 2980fps (the range frustration it took to find that load...thankfully it is over:redface:)) and that should tell you something.
 
The 308 Norma could have been the standard; Necked down to 7mm or up to 338. I have always wondered why so many had to make such minor changes to burn more powder to get the same velocity. Ease of reloading with a longer neck made sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom