Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 338 win magnum or 300 win magnum

Until they introduce a 300-grain bullet for the 300 Win Mag, guess will have to stick with the 338 Win Mag.

Brad, not really sure. I took the top load in the Nosler manual for IMR 4350 and just switched powder.

Should be around 3,100 FPS

jimmy--

I was about your size when I started shooting the various cartridges we're talking about, except of course for the .375 Ruger, which apparently is about like the .375 Weatherby in factory ballistics. They didn't both me much, and probably won't bother you.

Your estimates of reocil energy are a little off, however--except for the .375 Ruger. For our purposes here, let's assume a rifle weight of 8.5 pounds. In that case a typical 180 load in a .300 Winchester will have more like 32 foot-pounds of recoil, a 250 load in a .338 around 38, and a 300-grain .375 Ruger about 51.

However, you don't always have to use 300-grain loads in the .375 Ruger. In fact one of the great virtues of the .375 caliber (like the .338) is that you can use a wide range of bullets. A 260-270 grain bullet at 2700 would do anything a 250-grain .338 load will (and maybe a little more) at around the same recoil level as a .338. Or you could even drop to something like the 235 TSX at around 3000.

Also, please don't think I am anti-.338. Far from it. I have used the round all over North America and quite a bit in Africa, on game from whitetails does and springbok to eland and Alaskan moose. It will flat do the job. But except perhaps for eland and Alaskan moose, it is far more than needed to do the job--and even there any advantage is debatable.

I had a .338 before I owned a .300 magnum or a .375, for much the same reason that many here bought one: It seemed like the perfect step up from a .30-06. So I used the .338 where it seemed more rifle than the .30-06 might be indicated.

In the end, after acquiring experience with other calibers, I found the .338 to be not as flat-shooting as a .300, and not as hard-hitting as a .375. The .300 (or even a .30-06) proved to be plenty for non-dangerous game hunting, and the .375 better for dangerous game hunting--and legal for dangerous game in Africa, where it is often the legal minimum for some species.

The .338 was introduced in the 1950's primarily at the instigation of Elmer Keith. Keith never really did "get" premium bullets. His favorite bullet for the various .338 cartridges, for instance, was the 275-grain Speer semi-spitzer, which does not perform anywhere near as well as any Nosler Partition in .338 caliber, or many of the other fine premium bullets we have today.

Keith liked the .33's because even with mediocre bullets they would USUALLY do all right in heavy game. (Though he himself proved that they didn't always, when he took a .333 OKH to Africa with some terrible 300-grain bullets. These came apart on just about everything, even small antelope.)

So the .338 was originally yet another solution for mediocre bullets. These do tend to work better in heavier weights at moderate velocities, such as a 250 at 2700 or a 300 at 2400.

But even in the 1950's, Nosler made a 180-grain .30 Partition that would normally penetrate at least as well as one of Keith's 275's in the .338. Plus it would shoot flatter, and the rifle would kick less.

Today we have .30 caliber bullets that will penetrate even more than the Nosler Partition (though not by much)--enough to penetrate an elk or anything similar from about any angle.
Which is why I normally choose a .30 caliber for trophy elk hunting, whether a .30-06 or a .300 magnum of some sort. They have always proven to be plenty, with good bullets of course. Even when introduced, the .338 was primarily a solution for a problem that didn't really exist anymore. Or at least that is the conclusion I've come to.

JB

An old Seer manual showes 75grs. of IMR 4350 / 180gr. bullet @ 3070fps. I have shot that load in a pre64 - 06 rechambered to 300win. mag. In that rifle it gave slightly over 3100fps. and was on the warm side for pressure. I'am betting 70grs. of H4350 / 180gr. bullet is down around 2800fps. Pedro

Not generally as Relodar 22 is too slow for this case size as is Rel 19. That does not mean that an isolated rifle could not do it. Without actually chronographing the results, it can only be a guess based on previous experience.

AGW

The .338WM was introduced to the market in 1958 as "The Alaskan" for obvious reasons. I landed smack in the middle of the two bear guns back then, the .30-06 and the .375 H&H. Perhaps the bullets made for it back then were not as tough, but as more and tougher .338-caliber bullets were produced, the .338WM became perhaps the most popular cartridge with those who hunted where the bears roam. Only the .30-06 and the .300WM are as popular as the .338WM. I don't know about the lower-48, but this is the case in Alaska.

Now, as far as comparing the .300WM and the .338WM in relation to long range hunting, how many of such hunters take elk past 400 yards with their .300's and .338's? If you analyze the ballistics for both in Barnes Number 3, you will see that with similarly constructed and weight bullets, both have very similar trajectories. A 185-grain .338-Caliber X, sighted +1.40" at 100 yards drops to -6.41" at 300 yards, and to -18.81" at 400. A 180-grain .300-caliber X, sighted +1.49" at 100 yards, drops to -6.58" at 300 yards, and to -18.93" at 400. But lest imagine that one bullet or the other arrives at the moose-lung size target perhaps 2" lower than the other...How can this be a big difference?

The .300WM has a small advantage over the .338WM, but only to a point. This point is somewhere around bullet weights from 225 to 230 grains. From that point on is where the .338WM steps up from the .300WM, and starts kicking on the hills of the .375 H&H. And no, the .338WM is not a .375 H&H either. It just overlaps the lower ballistics range of the .375 H&H, just like the .300WM overlaps the lower ballistics range of the .338WM.

We can argue and argue about these three cartridges until we turn blue, unless we look at the facts. Every one of us has a preference for a cartridge or two, but preferences are only emotions.

But again, I am not a gun writer. I am just sitting here looking at ballistics tables. An armchair shooter? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

John, just one final question. Is the Ruger Hawkeye in 375 Ruger a dumb(er) choice for Elk hunting compared to the 300WM? I like the idea of a bigger bullet but now am not convinced the 338 WM is the right way to go.

Thanks JB, your one paragraph above seems to answer everything this thread churned up.

Ray's quote above pretty much sums it up for me. You have to figure out your optimal bullet weight for the game being hunted and then pick the cartridge that has the best ballistics for it. This has been a great thread by the way.

I was in your shoes a year ago.

I researched the heck out of rifles, loads, bullets, etc.... I spoke with every big game hunter, gunsmith and range shooter with vast experience that I could access. I didn't want to make a mistake, as the rifle I would purchase would be my "baby" for a while to come.

I already owned an '06 and is a shoot'in son-of-a-gun, but I just wanted a little extra ooomph...especially if I was eventually going to do Alaska.

I just about went with a 338WinMag, but I have had 3 friends that have been using a 338 for the past decade on elk....and in the past three years they changed to a: a 7mm WSM, a 300 WSM and a 7mm Mag. They felt the 338 just wasn't the best. These are guys in Oregon and Idaho who have chased Elk, Moose and Bear for two decades with amazing success.

After having chosen....I would offer the following advice... If you are going to handload, I would highly recommend the WSM's. I eventually chose the 325WSM and am sooo thrilled with my decision, I am beside myself. I am getting 2,800 fps muzzle and 0.7" groups at 100 yards with 220 grainers with my reloads. But, I will admit...the factory loads absolutely sucked through my rifle....3-4" groups at 100 yards. My experience....with a WSM...you gotta reload if you want MOA.

If you don't reload, I would choose the 300 Win Mag if you are going to stay in the lower 48....or if you think you will do Alaska, then go with the 338 Win Mag. You can find very accurate factory rounds.

Either way, the bottom line is.....The '06, the 300WM, the 338WM, the 270Win, the 270WSM, The 7mmMag, The 280 Rem, the 7mmWSM, the 300WSM, the 325WSM.......Plus a dozen others........

Heck they will all kill an elk.

Jimmy--

As I noted during all this, I have never had any trouble killing elk with a .30 caliber (or with a 7mm or .270, for that matter). If you put a good bullet in the right place, they will all do the job. And if you don't hit the right place, you have a wounded elk--and that applies to a .338 or .375 as well.

Moose (and eland) are easier to kill than elk, even though they are bigger. A case can be made for requiring more bullet to break shoulder bones on those big animals, but in general what will do for elk will do for moose.

A .375 is certainly an OK elk cartridge, but like the .338 I think its bullet weight (and hence recoil) isn't needed. Both kick noticeably more than a .300, and neither shoots as flat, despite what .338 lovers like to think.

On the other hand, it depends on where you'll hunt elk. I gather from your posts that you don't live in elk country, and thus hope to hunt them "somewhere in the West' somday. In certain areas long shots are pretty common, in others almost all the shots will be in timber.

If you don't know where you'll be hunting the .300's are much more flexible. They will work anywhere from 75 yards to 400 yards, believe me. And even if you're not particularly recoil sensitive, placing the bullet tends to be easier, especially with a lighter rifle.

I have always wanted a lighter .375, the reason I bought the Hawkeye. With a scope it weighs exactly what my bolt-action .375 H&H (a semi-custom Mauser) weighs with iron sights. But I probably will never hunt elk with it. It may go after brown bears, and will almost certainly go to Africa, but it would not be my own choice for an elk rifle.

JB

There is no dumb choice, it is your choice and your confidence is usually based around your decision and experience with that decision.

I believe that the .375 Ruger will be a very good cartridge and also a very efficent cartridge suitable to many hunting applications. I think it would recoil too much for the average hunter, remembering that although infrequently mentioned, the manageable recoil of the .375 H&H is the major reason behind its universal acceptability. The performance of the H&H in the field simply qualifies that judgement.

If you are asking whether the Ruger offering is the lesser cartridge in flexibility than the .300, then I would say yes, but only on the basis of shootability, as most hunters will use factory ammo or reload to factory specs where the recoil will be harder on the shooter than the .300.

Shooter confort plays a much larger part in shooter competence. The ability to place shots at longer ranges is directly related to shooter comfort, which means the ability to squeeze off a shot totally uninhibited and unconcerned with recoil, blast and trajectory.

I think this is where the .300's actualy provide a benefit, as the bullets are so good these days, you can use lesser bullet weights than in previous generations and still get the results.

My experience with the .338/.340/.338-378, has illustrated similar results in the fieldapart from recoil, blast and rifle weight. The 250 grain weight gives the impression of a lot more power than the .300's provide because of the audible thump when the bullet hits, but I can't state with fact, that the animals fall any faster, that a .300, given like holds.

A combo or brace of identical riles in .300WM and .375 Ruger would be a terrific choice to make but the .300 will get carried more because of shootability.

Try to remember that an elk is a deer, not a mobile bomb shelter. If the .30/06 loaded with a factory 180 at 2650-2700fps will drill an elks' chest, if an accepted whitetail cartridge like the 7-08 loaded with a 120gn X bullet can get it done, then need is not the question, nor is caliber above .30.

The .375 Ruger will only be a dumber choice if you buy it for the wrong reasons. If you can handle it as proficiently as a .300, go for it. If not, stay with the proven .300.

AGW

Jimmy, just for the fun or it, let's just say you took a great-big chance, rolled the dice, and went with a 338 Win. Mag.

Just exactly what do you think might be the worst thing that'll happen to you if you do? What are the potential failings or disappointments that you envision?

Just so you know, and since elk seems to be your primary mission for this new rifle, J.Y. Jones, in his great book, "Ask the Elk Guides" interviwed some of the most experienced and respected professional elk outfitters in North America, and as it turns out, the 338 Win. Mag. was the most often recommended cartridge that these world-class guides suggested................ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

AD

I'd never place much trust in what a guide or outfitter claims is a good elk cartridge. I've spent a fair amount of time around guides and outfitters who guide alot of elk hunters outside yellowstone.

The most common BS,you still hear is that the 30/30 deflects brush like no other. I had one this year tell me the reason his .450 marlin failed to fully penetrate a bull elk.Was because the bull was in the air during one of its leaps over blowdowns and the elk simply wasn't stable enough to allow the bullet to pass through. This same guy has guided several 400 class bulls and i've met the hunters that shot them.

The 300 is by far a more popular elk round in wyoming. You still see alot of guides and residents using 270's and 30/06's with smatterings of 7mags. The 243 makes alot of appearances also. The .338 shows up with guys that are scared of bears,made a bad shot on elk once with a lesser caliber and blamed the rifle. And nonresidents who read elk hunting books by the dozen.

I still contend that with factory ammo, both the .300WM and the .338WM have similar bullet trajectories out to perhaps 400 yards when bullets of the same weight and construction are used. Any difference in POI out to 500 yards should be within 1". The 180-grain .300-caliber ammo is loaded to produce around 2,960 fps at the muzzle, but such a bullet weight loaded for the .338WM would have to produce 3,120 (or so) at the muzzle in order for it to match the trajectory of the first. Federal just produced such a load for the .338WM (P338A3), and as far I I know, the first load ever with a 180-grain bullet.

However, depending on where one hunts, medium or heavy-per-caliber bullets are most desired by hunters, and that's why factory ammo is produced with the bullet-weight range that is most appropriate for the individual rifle caliber.

Regardless of how we feel about our favorite rifles, there is not denying the fact that one can make a .375H&H shoot much like a .338WM by using lightweight bullets. A .338WM shoots much like a .300WM when lightweight bullets are used, and a .300WM with reduced loads can shoot much like a .30-06 with bullets of similar weight and construction.

Finally, all that stuff about, "game shot with this caliber drops with more authority than when dropped with that caliber" is based more on one's emotions than anything else. Using the right ammo/bullet combination for the game being hunted is of utmost importance, but so is shot placement. There is no way for one to exactly match the conditions that existed at the moment one bullet travelled through flesh, compared to another bullet fired from the same (or another rifle) on the same animal. How do I know this? Because it's impossible for two bullets to occupy the same space in time, and I, as well as you, know that when we develop confidence on certain rifle/ammo combination it means that we have become proficient with that combo. Proficiency is interrelated with experience relating to a certain gun (s), and as one kills more and more of the game one hunts with "that gun," we learn what works and what doesn't.

But again, I am not a gun writer. I just read every book I can get my hands on relating to the great hunters of the past and present, and listen to what they have to say (or have said) relating to these things. For example, would anybody here would consider the .30-06 and lesser cartridges, coupled to the old ammo produced in the past, "bear guns"? Well, we have had professional hunters in the interior of Alaska using exactly these rifles/ammo combinations back in the early 1900's.

What I believe it's happening with today's hunters, including some some gun writers, is that most of us don't really have the time to learn about the game we hunt, its environment, nor are we proficient with the guns we use. We just don't depend on hunting for our survival, but some have and do to this day. I am certain that you know of have known hunters who use "puny little guns" to kill their game and bring meat to the table, and regularly. How and why do they accomplish this with their little and slow guns, while we can't with our big and fast guns?

Ray--

Well put.

And you're right about the .300/.338 trajectories, or close enough. The .300's shoot 3-4 inches flatter at 500 yards with the same bullet weights. But you limit your comparison to factory loads, and this thread was started by a handloader.

My point is that the .300's have proven more than adequate for elk hunting, even with bullets that are far lighter than you can shoot in a .338. The deeper peentrating 165's will shoot entirely through an elk's chest from any sane angle, and some of the really tough 150's will as well. Start these up at 3200-3400, and they'll shoot a foot flatter at 500 than a .338 with the 210 Nosler Partition--and kick a lot less.

Part of the problem here is that too many people believe that elk are almost unkillable--especially people who have never hunted them. They hear from Cousin Ed, who went to Colorado twice in the last 10 years, that a .338 is the absolute minimum. How does Ed know this? Because he wounded his first elk with a .300 magnum. Why did Ed do that? Because he (take your pick): got excited, had never shot anything beyond 150 yards before, can't take the recoil of a .300, was too slow, etc etc.

Or they read an article by one of the professional big-bore gun writers. From what you read in many articles, everybody out west uses a .338. This is far from true. I live in a town of 2000 where probably half the people hunt. I know two who use a .338 Winchester Magnum. One does it because it's his only rifle, and he uses 225 Hornadys.

The other is a rifle loony, who owns a .338 just in case he can ever get back to Alaska again (though I don't know why, since the one time he went he killed a moose with a Sharps reproduction and cast bullets).

He has killed three elk in the past 15 years with his .338, however. He mostly uses the 200-grain Hornady Spire Point or Nosler Ballistic Tip--and killed his bull this year at 400 yards with the Hornady, no problem. But mostly he uses a .270, either Winchester or Weatherby, with 130 Nosler Partitions. He has never had any problems with those either, including the 6-point he killed at about 350 with the .270 Wby.

Of course, about every third year he kills his elk with a bow, and over the past decade or so that has been a recurve. I don't bowhunt much anymore, but when I did (quite a bit in the 80's) I never had trouble killing elk with an arrow either, despite the fact that they don't develop 4000 foot-pounds.

Everybody else I know around here uses anything from the 6.5x55 to the .300 Winchester on elk. Probably 2/3 use a .270 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum or .30-06. One other rifle loony (who doesn't bowhunt) has killed 7 elk with 7 shots from a 6.5x55. He decided to try a .338-06 this year. He said it killed just as well as the 6.5x55 or .30-06.

Of course, some would say this is an unfair comparison. Local hunters, they say, get to hunt all the time, and can pass up risky shots. I have always found this to be bullshit, mostly because I live here. The average local hunter only gets to hunt on weekends, and often only one day then. During Montana's 5-week rifle season most don't hunt more than 5-7 days, less than the length of a normal non-resident outfitted hunt. And the locals are mostly hunting public land, with the rest of the locals, while most of the non-residents are hunting private or hard-to-access public land.

No, the local hunters do not pass up any reasonable shot at an elk, because they work to hard to get that shot. Yet they use "inadequate" rifles. These are incredibly effective when carried by anybody that can shoot reasonably well, like my aforementioned buddies.

JB

Local hunters, they say, get to hunt all the time, and can pass up risky shots. I have always found this to be bullshit, mostly because I live here. -- JB

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Plain talk from a straight shooter; highly enjoy Barsnessism's <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />. I've thought this for quite a while. Most/all the guys I know that live "out west" have the same limitation most of us do - jobs and family. You can't be too big a' butthead towards either party or you'll have alot of time to hunt............

This has been a very good thread and should be mandatory reading for all of us that don't live "out west" - usually defined as anything west of the Mississippi River.

Darn it John, please stop talking sense!

We NEED 357 Ultra Bang Magnums just to kill rabbits here in the West, we really really do.

That is why I just ordered a 30-06 . . . . . . . . <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

BMT

Some ground just won't stay plowed...

MD,

"Both kick noticeably more than a .300, and neither shoots as flat, despite what .338 lovers like to think. "

Yes, but the 338 doesn't have to shoot as flat as a 300. It shoots flat enough. It's good enough to shoot dead on out to 300 yards.
I've proven that on mule deer taken at 300 yards two years ago in the eastern WA wheat field.
Anything past 300 yards with the 338 or 300 you had better know your rifle or have turrets. So its really a mute point, especially since it come's within inches of a 300 win mag anyways.

Also, my 300 win mag shooting 200 NP's had a sharper more noted recoil than my current 338 and my 338 weighs less.
Maybe it was stock design, never the less a mute point for me. I did not enjoy shooting the 300, I can live with the 338.

I've taken 6 elk with the 300 win mag using 200 NP's, effective, YES! but they were brutal on elk. So brutal that I lost whole shoulders, and I like to eat elk! That was the number 1 reason why I dumped the 300 win mag.

I took an elk this past year, 06, with a 338/250 wow, just a nice 3" exit hole with no meat damage. Bang flop. Same performance on mule deer as well.

I've witnessed buddy's with 7 mags, fill elk full of lead and they kept running. I've never seen that with an elk hit with a 338.

I've only taken 30 or so elk with 270's and 280's and I should of had more including some trophy bull's but passed on several shots because I didnt feel I had the angle for the bullet to reach the vitals and/or do its job.
With the 338 shooting 250 NP's I wont hesitate at any angle shot, even at distance.

My experience tells me that there is a huge notible difference when killing with a 338 win mag over the less than
30 caliber magnums. I also use M1 turrets on my 338, shooting
250 grain bullets I get the wind bucking and penetration that I personally require of a round. It give's me just the right amount of velocitiy and weight for it to be a tool that I know how to use to it's full advantage.

I believe Federal offers a 250 NP at 2,800 fps as well, that puts it right up there with the 375. AND if I was using the 375 on elk
my bullet of choice would be a 260 or 270 grain. Again, I can take the 338 on that ground without hesitation and feel I was the equal of the 375. Will a 375 kill an elk better than a 338? Come on, if the 30 cal mags do it just fine how is the 375 going to be any better than a 338. The 375 would be my first choice for Africa DG and plains. One rifle could do it all there, but to say the 375 is better than the 338 in NA. I'm not buying that.
I also wouldnt exactly call the 375 a deer round but I can call the 338 one for sure when shooting
180/185's. That's a plus of versatility it offers. This is proven in my own experience

If I was hunting elk and I do, and trophy bulls were something that was on my venue as well as big bears. The 338 does it for me.
I call it "the no if's and's or but's round". It just takes care of business in a no nonsense way.