Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game 300 magnum vs 338

Does a .338 win mag offer a whole lot over a .300 magnum shooting 200-220 grain bullets for game elk size and up?

My .338 Win Mag has LESS recoil than my .300 Weatherby.

Any time you can shoot same or similar bullet weights from 2 different calibers the smaller caliber always wins. You can shoot 200-220 gr bullets from a 30 caliber about 50-100 fps slower at the muzzle, but the better BC's of the 30's will catch up and be same speed or faster somewhere between 50-200 yards down range. It just depends on the exact load. At the same weight a 30 caliber bullet will be longer than a 33 and give deeper penetration at any range. The difference in diameter between 30 and 33 just isn't enough to matter.

If you go to 250 gr or heavier bullets the 33's start to show some advantage.

Any time you can shoot same or similar bullet weights from 2 different calibers the smaller caliber always wins. You can shoot 200-220 gr bullets from a 30 caliber about 50-100 fps slower at the muzzle, but the better BC's of the 30's will catch up and be same speed or faster somewhere between 50-200 yards down range. It just depends on the exact load. At the same weight a 30 caliber bullet will be longer than a 33 and give deeper penetration at any range. The difference in diameter between 30 and 33 just isn't enough to matter.

If you go to 250 gr or heavier bullets the 33's start to show some advantage.

I'm curious about this myself...I hunt with a .300 Winchester, killed white tails, mule deer, and an elk with it...but bought a .338 for elk/moose. The .338 I bought didn't give me the accuracy I wanted, so I just continued using the .300, but I still have an itch for a .338, even though from what I've read, you really can't tell the difference between the 2 on game.

So- can anyone here tell the difference on elk/moose/bear with the .300 vs .338? Is penetration similar using the "standard" 180-grain .300 against the 250-grain .338 Winchester? I would say the .338 with 250's should give more penetration given from what I've read, but I've never tested them out myself, but that's worth exactly what I paid for the advice...nothing!

To me you really can't as far as killing.. The last .338 I had kicked like a mule when I got to the speed I wanted, and I could do the same with less recoil out of them .300's.. To me the next step above the .30's is to the .375.. My .375 has taken elk, moose, and antelope.. I like it for timbered country, but I seldom hunt there.. I have a nice .340 I probably haven't fired in 10 years.. For some reason the recoil seems less than the last .338 I had build, both were on rebarreled 700's..

Bob Hagel did penetration tests with Nosler Partitions.. The 7 mag won with the 175, the .300's were next with 200 gr. He felt the .33's would be right in there if there was a 225 Nosler Part. Now there is.. My attitude is if something interests me, I am going to try it.. If a .338 has your interest, get it.. Then you will know if it suits you or is better for your style of hunting..
Even though I seldom use my .375 or .340 I still like having them.. I have plans for using them come fall..

When you have a good 7mm mag. or .300, you are at the top of performance.. The next step is sheer power and bullet wt.. That is where the .375's step up.. The .338 is a good caliber.. For hunting in timbered areas it would be excellent.. No need in today's world of not having something you want.. Go for the .338 or .375 or both.. That is what make life interesting..
If I only hunted with my first .30-06 which I still have, I would have given it up long ago..

I had this conversation with Allen Day once upon a time. He was an unapologetic fan of the 300 Win Mag and used it extensively. He owns 30's and 338's of identical construction. He shot them both a bunch and in our conversation confided that the 338 with 225's was an easier animal to shoot than the 300 with 180's. Performance on game wasn't discussed.

I can't say that the 338 is easier to shoot IMHO, but it sure isn't much different.

I like the 338 bore better than the 300 when its all said and done. Can't quantify that in any real way though. I've made longer shots with a 338. I"ve shot more accurate guns in 338.

As to 7mm penetrating deeper, could be, but erractic non straightline penetration vs a 338 from the times I've shot them, bothered me. Some. Granted all I have is 7/300 wtby mag to compare with though, no 7 Rem Mag. I have shot some really accurate 7 rem mags but 7mms over 7/08 were known to have fliers in longer shots by a well known competitor, and they were not seen much on the ranges.

But then bottom line if its 300/338 its about like 308/30-06. Both extremely close, but at the end of the day you can't deny a bit more powder or a slightly larger bullet would ever hurt a situation.

Said from someone that shoots most of his deer size game these days out to 200 max, with a 194 30 cal at about 950 fps...

These conversations tend to follow a theme based on what was, what was known and what can be easily recalled and perpetuated. That is human nature. Where a change of events has occurred is with the additional and expanded range of bullets for the .338 caliber.

The .300's will always be a good as promoted and as bad as experienced, usually it coming down to rifle fit, stock design with bullet weights thrown in to validate which is legitimate personal concerns by each person.

I like 30's and have for decades, but lean towards the .30/06 as I get older for a lot of reasons. I also keep coming back to the .338 caliber as bullets continue to breed on my shelves and I have it all covered from 180 grains all the way to 300 grains, but as for cartridges, there is no better looking cartridge that a .340 Weatherby, but it is not for everyone. As I have written before it is the best .270 every made, meaning, it covers similar turf in most gun racks, though with more thump, bigger, wider, wound channels and instant results more often than not.

The .338/378 is more .378 than .338 with tremendous recoil and blast which is why more people talk about the .338 Winchester as we cover here. So what is my contribution to this conversation as outlined in the opening sentences? How about the overlooked 265gn bullets?

Most people are familiar with the 225's as they emulate the familiar .30/06 type trajectories with common BC's and excellent SD's for caliber and then conversation moves to the 250's which you either love, or feel are too heavy for immediate needs or, in other words, the turf covered by the .300 end of the discussion.

This is an interesting area because if the game is large and potentially dangerous, these newer 265 grainers offer perhaps not much in immediate consideration over the 250's but when you dig a little deeper, they have BC's and SD's that flatten trajectory and maintain that medium caliber thump way out where most of us will never shoot.

There is a 265gn Barnes TTSX and a LRX version for the purist and also a 285gn TSX that looks like a javelin and although "designed and planned" for the .338 Lapua, actually stabilize and shoot quite well in the standard Winchester case.

Conversation commonly extends to the .375 H&H as a practical step up but you guys with the short action fetish likely choke on that option and as long as I am teasing you here, there is a remarkably similar action cycle between the .300's and the .338 Winchester simply because they are the same action length, so the muscle memory and general feel is home ground for the user. I have 300gn Woodleigh Weldcore's on my shelf should I hunt timber or want expansion to next week with bullet weight retention and you will also get that from the 265's if you decide to take a look in that direction, as velocities up to around 2600-2650fps are achievable in standard 24 inch barrels, which is inline with the .30/06 factory loads most are used to, but there is a wallop there if you believe you need it.

Now the picture changes a little from .300 caliber and 180's, the usual conversation point, up to .338 caliber and 265 grainers. Doesn't that sound a little more interesting, particularly once you check your notes to see what ranges you commonly drop game?

The answer depends on how you define "a whole lot".

I have and have used both for elk. Both have done the job. In the .300 I tend to shoot 180g Barnes MRX, TTSX and North Fork SS bullets and use 225g Nosler AB in the .338.

I see bigger holes with the .338.

This is not nearly as entertaining as the .308 vs the .30-06 thread. Crank it up a notch, eh?

There is no way of resolving this as it will all be based on anecdotal evidence. One guide I hunted with said the .338 just thumped Elk harder but his personal rifle was a 300WM.

I think you would need to shoot upwards of a 1,000 Elk to come up with anything meaningful and perhaps even not then. Elmer Keith used the 30-06 with FMJ military bullets with the nose filed off and decided it was no good on Elk, no wonder I wouldn't even use that combo for squirrels. In his case due to lack of good bullets the 33 bore was a superior choice. With today's really incredibly good bullets you can drop down in caliber quite a bit. Idle speculation but I would venture that a 7mm mag. with today's projectiles would far exceed anything Elmer had at the time.

Awesome! Another 338 thread and I didn't even have to start it I'd rather hunt with a 338 than a 300 and would rather hunt with a 30-06 than a 300 but would take a 270 over a 30-06 where I could. So just get a 270 and be done with it.

Both are great cartridges, I prefer the 338 in that I just don't see any advantages in the 300 for the type of hunting I do and enjoy my latest 338 more. On North America big game they are catagoricaly perform the same I'd say. Sometimes the 338 looks like it visibly hits harder but the game have 8-15 or so seconds of do whatever the heck of life left in them just like most any other cartridge.

I enjoy the .338 more. I don't feel like I'm getting that much more over my .30-06 by using a .300win mag. However, the .338 feels like allot more rifle... Notice I said "Feels..." no elk will know the difference in my opinion.
-Jake

This. This man 'knows' what he is talking about.

I've killed plenty of elk with both and neither cartridge lacks for anything.

As said above the 250s start to show some advantage, in my experience.

It's kinda like comparing a 270 and 30-06. Jiminy Christmas

I just don't see it the way you do. By the way, I am not a gun writer, so probably what I have to say makes no sense, so please take it with a grain of salt.

The way I see the .300WM when comparing its ballistics to the .338WM's ballistics is as follows: the first overlaps the lower ballistics range of the .338WM up to 220-230 grain bullets, but from that point on the .338WM overlaps the lower ballistics range of the .375 H&H up to 265 or so grain bullets. Also, in relating to penetration, one can't forget bullet SD. For example, of two similarly constructed bullets of the same caliber, the one with the greatest SD has the potential for deeper penetration. It's just physics, not imaginary stuff.

If you look at the factory loads with 180-grain bullet for both the .300WM and the .338WM, you will notice that the first is loaded from 100-200 fps slower than the latter. Since the .30-caliber 180-grain bullet is longer (and more aerodynamic), it hits the 500-yard mark about 1-1/2 inch above the .338WM Bullet. The .30-caliber bullet has more speed and punch (more SD) than the .33-caliber bullet of the same weight. But there is nothing wrong with a .338WM load with 180-grain NOS for those who like to hunt pronghorn, for example, even if this 180-grain bullet ammo hits a little lower than the same bullet for the .300WM.

Finally, take a look at the SD of a 250-grain, or even a 300-grain .33-caliber bullet, and see how close it is to the same bullet weight for a .375H&H. I know, I know...ballistics means nothing. But for me in Alaska, I prefer a .338WM to a .300WM with bullet weights past 225 grains.

Bullet SD:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_SD_list.htm

From my experience, yes, a 338 offers more than the 300.

After seeing and witnessing elk killed with 243 to 375, being in Africa last year with 5 other guys with a 300 H&H, 330 Dakota, two 338's, two 375's and 30 some animals taken from steenbok to eland.

My subjective opinion is that bigger diameter bullets hit harder. All the other calibers worked just fine, but for visible impact, the bigger calibers have it. That line starts at 338 and bigger in my opinion. YMMV

I tend to agree that bigger bullets seem to hit harder, but I cannot point to any quantitative evidence to prove it. I look at what my .45-70 does and - just "wow", slow bullets and all.

I've often thought a short-barrel .338 Fed would be just the thing for a lot of close range hunting environments.

For me this is the very grey area of performance. The 30-338 factor. I agree with the Weatherby philosophy of that shock oomph factor. For me it stops at the 30vs338 level. The punishment on the shoulder vs the crumpled game is up in the air. Once its kicked up to 375 levels I no longer go with the Weatherby philosophy of speed,hydrostatic shock etc... Guys, this is just me and my limited expierences. I've seen the 340 Weatherby absolutely crush game. Same as the 338 win. No difference except in the shoulder. I will say that I truly believe that the 300 Weatherby or for that matter the RUM are far superior to the 300 win and offer more than the 338 family.