Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters .308 Win. versus .300 Win. Magnum at 400 yards

Some miscellaneous comments for MD:
As Saint Elmer Keith once pointed out, when the Navy wanted to shoot something at long range, they went to a heavier gun--16-inchers instead of 12-inchers. Same velocity, but the heavier shells carried further.

Last year in Alaska, I shot a caribou with a 140-grain Fail Safe from a .270 WSM at 200 yards. The next day a friend had the same shot at the same range at the same-sized animal with a .338 WM and 210-grain Nosler Partitiions. The F-S badly outpenetrated the Nosler.

Finally, an old Russian proverb: "He who would speak the truth should have one foot in the stirrups."

MD:

Thanx for reminding us again that practice, not purchasing power, makes perfect.

BMT

This is an interesting thread. MD, thanks for the post. I got it!!
I'm in the stage of life where I don't enjoy shooting big stuff anymore. I'm perfectly willing to learn the trajectory of my favorite 7x57, and shoot accordingly. I have the trajectory firmly in mind.
I do know one thing, that is the 308 is VERY accurate as a cartridge. And, after shooting 300 Winchester Magnums from the bench, years ago, I know I can shoot the 308 far better today, more accurately, than any of the 30 caliber magnums. This is not to diminish people who can shoot magnums well. It's about me, and what I can shoot best at my age. I can flinch in a heartbeat with one of those big boomers, where I rarely flinch with my 7x57. In fact I can't remember flinching with mine. Yes, I have a mental block against the big guns. If I didn't have a thing about 7x57's, I hunt with a 308. They are very accurate. And, bullet selection is as good as it gets.
So much from the geriatric society.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Don

MD, it's your post so you have the right to assign the point you want to make, but it might have helped if you'd stated it from the get-go.
Pointing out that "most people" don't have accurate ideas about various trajectories is fine, but also true about their ideas about such things as the number of calories in a Big Mac. And a close figure for either can be easily looked up, in any manual for the one or on the wall of a McDonalds for the other.
What did you hope to accomplish by pointing out our ignorance?

(I don't really mean to sound snooty)

Why do we shoot any magnum rifle, .300, .338, .375 or whatever? Because we enjoy it. Modern hunting is not about subsistance, we don't go out and kill meat to avoid hunger. It's a hobby for entertainment purposes. Any cartridge from the .243 Win. to a .700 Nitro Express will kill most all North American game animals deader than the proverbial hammer at ranges up to 300 yards. Very few prey would actually REQUIRE brute force big bores. But if one has a fancy to shoot such a weapon, and can bear the recoil and blast, I see nothing wrong with letting it fly. Otherwise, no high velocity heavy hitters are really needed. As others said, the old .30-30 is plenty adequate for deer sized game up to 200 yards or so. There is no real NEED to shoot greater, so why even use a .308 or .30-06? Surely, that 400 fps greater speed must mean something, as these two cartridges are held in much higher regard, and used at MUCH longer ranges. Why shouldn't the .300 Winchester magnum, for example, be considered a step up from the .308/.30-06 class rounds? It's approximately 400 fps faster than those rounds, and if 400 fps faster makes this class of cartridge so much better than the .30-30/.32 Special/.35 Remington category, then it's only logical to believe that the .300 mag class cartridges are that much "more" in every aspect than the .308/.30-06 class. They do kill better, at longer ranges than lesser rounds. Do you need them? I don't know, and don't care. Shoot what you enjoy the most, because if you're not enjoying yourself, there's no point in the hunt. Meat can be gotten at the air conditioned supermarket without climbing tree stands and hills, trudging over mountains, wading rivers, braving cold winter air and winds, etc. Gun and cartridge makers would be out of business left and right if we just bought what we needed instead of what we like and enjoy. Nobody really needs a Lazzeroni, Jarret, Rem. Ultramag, Weatherby, or any of a passle of "magnums", but if the recoil and blast aren't a bother, knock yourself out. If not enjoyable, get the lighter cartridges, and go out and enjoy your hobby.

The bow is as irrelevant to this discussion as a spear is. Energy/velocity is a relevant factor when comparing bullets of equal caliber, weight, and expansion characteristics. If you don't believe this try "throwing" a bullet into animal vs. shooting one.



Possibly not that you are willing to comprehend. More velocity with the same bullet equals less drop, less drift, and better expansion at 400 yards. Its pretty hard to argue against mathematics. If you are satisfied with standard performance that is fine, but some us like more at times.




Why not the 30-30 then, and keep it within a 150 yards?
A person could just as well say that if you cannot use a modern centerfire bolt action rifle to its fullest potential why not use a muzzleloader or bow? A person can often more easily miss a 100 yard freehand shot as fully rested 400 yard shot. Further it is never wise to judge another by your own abilities/inabilities. The consumate hunter can both stalk or shoot at extended ranges. I have used a 300 win. for both, and am not handicapped on either end with the appropriate projectiles. Some want the edge and others are happy with mediocrity.



The outset of this thread is about 400 yard ballistics between a 308 and a 300 win. Those ballistics remain the same whether the target is man or beast, so the references apply. Your point does illustrate the fact that while a 308 may be sufficient to "wound" a man at 400 yards, it may not be the best choice to "kill" some species of big game at those ranges -- hence the preference for a 300 win. mag.



The 7" difference can be significant if the exact range is unknown, and the accompanying energy differences can make a difference in bullet performance. Now that is elementary ballistical application which makes sense to most riflemen.



The same could be said for any cartridge housed in any "cool looking" rifle which goes "bang." This is simply the facts being related to the "magnum challenged hunters."



The lethality of the 30-06 is not in question at all, only the differences between standard and magnum cartridges, whether those differences are real are perceived. Mathematics tables indicate they are real, as well as many well-traveled hunters who prefer the magums over the standards. There is no person who is the singular authority on this subject.



No one is disputing the lethality of the "oldies" for at one time they were the new "whiz bangs" that the codgers then looked upon with distrust; but time has proven that technology can make real advances, or we would still be using the 45-70. Ol' Elmer didn't have much for the -06.



...so then why not limit yourself to it???? If you can't stalk within 150 yards you might as well stay home. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

As a Doc I have seen my share of GSW's and Mule Deer has it right. A hole in the pump house shuts down the system. Thats really all there is too it. High velocity does more tissue damage but dead is dead. The Inuit's use 22's to kill Cow Boo's. Magnum manhood is something else.
-Doc-

Yup, a 22 rimfire is all thats needed ... everything else is overkill ... or centerfire ego ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Here's my take and of course, it's worth exactly what you paid <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />:

If an animal is within 300 yards, I don't want to have to think about hold over or almost ANYTHING, 'cus there is a reasonable chance in open country that "stuff" is happening when you're in that proximity. So, I sight in such that PBR allows for a bit of the jitter but allows me to KNOW that I can stick the crosshairs where I want them to go and pull the trigger. If I hit a muley a few inches high or low or left or right, it isn't going to matter much.

If the critter is much over 300, then I also KNOW that I need some time to set up the shot. Turrets are a wonderful invention and if you practice enough, you can be comfortable out to ??? yards. For me, that number depends a bit. I know it sounds bad, but if I'm out to simply put a cow elk in the freezer I don't mind setting up and knocking her down from 500 yards. For whatever reason, I'd rather "hunt" a bull or buck and 500 yards isn't my limit there. Go figure, we're complex animals! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In the latter case, a rangefinder is indispensible and with a good accurate rifle, you can lob one in there. Since I know a 308 in the right spot with the right bullet is no issue at 500 yards, then this isn't an issue for me. If my range were 700 or 900 or ??? then at some point, energy down the trail is going to catch up to me.

Back to the former situation, if my PBR out to 300 isn't what I want it to be, then I may have to "think" about a 250 yard shot and I don't want to have to do that. Now, "what you want it to be" comes into play. What is reasonable? 9" certainly isn't in my book, even if it is in someone elses. 5-6" gives me more confidence, right or wrong. Now, we all know bullet and placement is most important, but so is confidence. I LIKE knowing I don't have to hold over or under out to a certain range and IF I can handle a super-duper-bitchin' magnum and it gives me this confidence? Why not? Actually, we all know it doesn't take the super-duper-bitchin' magnum (SDBM) to do what I need, just a plain ordinary short mag works fine for me (grin).

Of course, I have that SDBM in the case just in case the situation calls for it, but after learning to shoot that &*(#, a 300 shamu seems like a pussy cat, so once again, why the heck not?

Another thought (disclaimer, this comes from a guy with a mathematics degree): at some point, on some shot, there is a margin of error with one that is compensated for with the other. Maybe that's 7" at 400 yards or X foot pounds at 500 yards or ???

At some point, it will mean the difference between a harvest and a lost animal. If everyone did nothing but shoot their elk in the heart, it would be a non-issue, but "somewhere" it DOES make the difference.

I don't believe in overdoing it, but I also believe in stacking those extra 1% odds in my favor. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Hey, I had a super-duper bitchin(as in all the time) ex wife once, I didn't know they made them in guns too. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Steve

Lordy......
I HAD one of them also..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
What a super dooper BITCHIN woman!!!!
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Everybody should have an EX wife!
Virgil B.

Just wanted to add, I've got a 338, and a 35 Whelen for when the 308 isn't Enough.....

What I find interesting is your mention of group size. Do folks really think that moa group they get off the bench will stay that size at 400 yds, and how many can say with a straight face they can hold 7 inches of drop difference at that distance from feild positions in relatively foreign territory. It's one thing to be able to pull of that kind of shot from your home or club range , but then if you gut shoot or blow the hind leg of a metal gong it's really no big deal, but when it happens on live game it can turn into a train wreck in a hurry.

SU35; Would you mind shooting a 10 shot group for us at 400 measured yards from the kneeling position using your elk rifle and hunting loads ?

I'd love to see what you come up with...............probably better use pretty big paper, 'cause we want to see 10 holes, and if you're honest you'll only fire 10 rounds...............

I don't think you can put 10 out of 10 into a 12" circle at 400 yds from kneeling......................with or without wind.

I'm assuming he could have improved the groups had he tried to compensate for the wind, had a steadier rest, etc. But you're right, those certainly aren't acceptable. The horizontal stringing really should drive home the point that wind is your biggest enemy at that distance. Heavier, higher BC bullets would have helped both rounds significantly.

As far as folks being incorrect to think they can shoot MOA groups at 400 yds, they're only incorrect if they don't go out and do it. On a board with so many "one-holer" and "cloverleafing" custom rifles, I certainly hope there are more than a few here that don't think that's any great feat if the conditions are halfway decent. The very best (MOA-wise) groups from my 300 have all come from 300-600 yds. Of course I don't evaluate accuracy (or do much shooting at all with it) at 100 yds anymore. 5 MOA will kill any big game animal at 100 yds rather easily. I test accuracy out where it's needed.

And compensating for the drop of even the 308 at 400 is no trick for anybody practiced with his chosen method (click, lines/dots in the scope) at that range and shooting from a position he ought to be shooting from at that range.

It's not that the 300 Win is so much better than the 308, it's really that the shooters of the 300 Win are so much better people than the shooters of the 308............. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Using my 338 with full house loads, I don't think I could put 10 shots into a 12" circle at 400 yards either, I have to wonder if David Tubb could pull that one off.

In real life I wouldnt need to as an elks vital kill zone is more like 18" if not just a tad more than that and neck shots count
as well. I don't normally practice shoot for group in a hunting situation, makes no sense. But, just for you and your gravel belly mentality, I'll give it a go with an archery elk target set up at 400 yards. I'll shoot for the kill zone and see what transpires.

I'll report back one week from tomorrow, with pics.





And btw, you don't have to question my honesty... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
I'll try and get a member from here to be present just so you dont have any doubts.

I have done a lot of testing of various loads at longer ranges, finding (like most who do much of that) that there is often little correlation between 100-yard group size and groups at 300-500 yards.

Have also found that heavier, higher BC bullets don't make as much difference in the wind as many would like to believe. Just about any spitzer hunting bullet can easily be blown a foot off course at 400 yards by what most shooters would term a moderate breeze. In a REAL wind, two feet or more is more like it.

The experiment was made with 165's as a compromise between 150's and 180's, which are probably the bullet weights most people would choose for longer-range shooting in the .308 and .300 respectively. The reality is that there also isn't a hell of a lot of difference in trajectory between most spitzers at normal hunting ranges, which for the purposes of this discussion we'll put at anything out to 400 yards. Shoot any spitzer from 150 to 200 grains out of either a .308 WCF or .300 Winchester Magnum at maximum velocity, sight them in 2" high at 100, and the difference in trajectory at 400 between the 150 and 200 will be even less than it was between the two cartridges, on the order of 4-5 inches.

Muzzle velocity is the major component in trajectory at normal hunting ranges. If we'd shot 150's out of the .308 and 180's out of the .300, the difference in trajectory would have been more like 4-5 inches, not 7.

Muley Stalker's point about rangefinders and turrets is an excellent one. At any range beyond our PBR we need to KNOW the range--and it is far easier to hit something way out there if we can place the reticle ON it, rather than some distance ABOVE it.

We can obtain the range from a laser or by using our scope's reticle as a rangefinder, and aim either with the help of turrets or a multi-point reticle. Either is far more effective than guessing the range and holding somewhere above the intended target.

In another part of the Sisk Rifle Invitational, we shot a 10-round course, starting with offhand game silhouettes at 30-90 yards, ending with a gong about the size of a small deer's chest at 400 from prone. We could use any rifle in the extensive lineup available, and I chose the .308. If I recall correctly, I was one of only two shooters out of about 15 who hit the 400-yard gong. This was partly because the .308 was equipped with one of Kahles's new scopes with the adjustable turret that can be set for various ranges. All I had to do was twirl the knob to 400 and hold right on. Most of the other shooters chose to hold high, and at least half shot magnums of various sorts.

Elmer Keith liked to say a hit is history and a miss is mystery. I would amend that to say that a hit is a LOT easier if we can simply aim at where we intend to hit. Sometimes magnums help us do that, at least to a slightly longer range. But at some point every cartridge's bullet needs a little help in hitting a distant target.

MD

Macrabbit--

Sorry I missed your post earlier. I did the demonstration (which turned out exactly as the Hornady ballistics tables predicted) because most people don't bother with looking stuff up and figuring it out. If they do bother to look it up, many still don't believe it. They need a real-life demonstration of exactly what happens.

This was a major point of the Sisk event. We got to see, in action, just what the difference was between a .308's and a .300 magnum's trajectory. We got to shoot a practical hunting-target course, from practical field positions, at the vital areas of paper animals, rather than punch holes in tiny circles while shooting off the bench.

To everybody else, and once again, I am not bashing the .300 magnums. As stated above, I own several and use them regularly--as well as other magnums in calibers up to .416. I am merely pointing out that there isn't as much difference in practical trajetory as most people would like to believe.

I would also argue that there isn't nearly as much difference in "killing power" between a well-placed shot from a .308 (or 7x57, or any similar cartridge) and any of the .300 magnums as many magnum fans would like to believe. I have shot quite a few animals with various rounds, and seen almost as many more shot by other people. If you hit the right place, most big game animals go less than 50 yards before piling up, whether they were hit by a .308 or a .338. Very few drop instantly from a typical chest shot unless the spine was also hit. Likewise, I have found the notion that magnums somehow make up for marginal hits a myth.

To me, the various magnums either make long-range hitting a little easier (as in the 7mm's and .300's) or, in their more moderate-velocity manifestations such as the .338 Winchester and .375 H&H, penetrate better through heavy bone and bigger bodies.

But a sufficient hole through the heart and lungs is a sufficent hole, whether made with a 7x57 or .375. I have shot enough game from pronghorn and springbok to Alaskan moose and eland with a .338 or .375 to know the big guns do not kill the smaller stuff any better than a 7x57, and at most make a slight difference on the bigger stuff, assuming a solid heart-lung shot.

The bigger rounds do make it possible to make that solid hit from more angles, but today's wonder-bullets have diminished even that advantage. Many of today's 140-grain bullets will penetrate a 700-pound animal's shoulder and go on through the chest, or penetrate the same chest from any sane angle. I know this because I have seen it, and not just once but quite a few times.

Humans somehow like to make vast distinctions between things that are actually different only in degrees, such as Magnums and Non-Magnums, German Optics and Everything Else, Barnes X's and Not-Quite-So-Premium Bullets. The truth is that all of these things are relatively minor variations on the same theme.

MD

"The truth is that all of these things are relatively minor variations on the same theme."

In case anyone is wondering, Mule Deer is NOT applying for the position of Marketing Director at any of the ammunition component or rifle manufacturing factories. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



This thread made me look up the trajectory of a 7mm 175 grain Partition at 2500 fps when sighted in at 200 yards (still playing around with my new #1A in 7X57).

Ya know, there really isn't that much difference between that 175 grainer at 2500 fps muzzle velocity and a 180 grain .30 caliber at 2800. Maybe 2 inches at 300 yards, about 5 inches at 400.

Not that I'm going to start long range prairie dog hunting with a 175 gr. 7mm at 2500, but since the longest shot I've ever taken on game was about 300 long steps, within that distance it really doesn't matter all that much what you use.

Now if I was going to make a practice of shooting at 400 yards or beyond, yeah, I'd get me a nice 7mm Rem. Magnum which is pretty easy to shoot and is flat flat flat.

But all in all, the only thing that really matters is that you hit'em where it hurts'em.