|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,790
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,790 |
They still make .300 WSM? Hadn't seen any in awhile.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 216
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 216 |
for 2014 it was Federal's #9 best seller of all cartridges. I think that's pretty remarkable considering this cartridge has only been on the market since 2001. 30-06 was #3 which has been around for 110 years.
Last edited by Adams; 10/18/17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,499
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,499 |
I know I'm just wasting my time. But when I started my original post I asked for opinions from those that have experience .338 wm. Somehow how the .270, .280, and 30-06 owners with no .338 wm experience need to get there opinion in. I notice the 30-06 guys always have to chirp in about the 30-06. I agree that the 30-06 is a great caliber I've owned them but really have no need for them as I own a number of guns and for me the 30-06 is a tweener meaning it fits in between the calibers I have. The die hard 06 guys will tell you it's the only caliber you need, or if you can only own one gun get the 06. Well I'm hear to tell ya that there are many great calibers to choose from and the 06 is definitely not a do everything caliber. There is no such thing.
If I could only choose one gun I would take the .300 wsm hands down. Why? Well here is goes. If I want to shoot a 180 bullet at the speed of an 06 I can do that using slightly more powder, slightly. Same is true with the 200 grain bullet. I don't know if you would even be able to tell the difference in recoil. If I put two identical guns next to each other and you were to shoot each, I don't think most would be able to pick which gun was which. Short cartridges are inherit-ably more accurate than long cartridges. Short cartridges are not as dependent on the length of the barrel to produce speed. Good example of these are the .300 wm and 7mm rem mag. These two caliber in most rifles will come in a 26 inch barrel length and it because of the length of the cartridge. The .308 win is so revered because of it's short cartridge, it's easy to load for, has great accuracy (just look at the competition shooters), and it's recoil is light. Same is true for wsm's. The wsm came about as there was one guy who developed the cartridge and was winning so many accuracy competitions. Because short cartridges are so accurate it allows you to shoot a wider verity of bullets and powder while achieving good accuracy. Longer cartridges are more bullet and powder picky narrowing your choices. I could go on but I thinks that enough.
In the chart I put together I used the Nosler reloading data for bullet speeds. I used Nosler Partition as it is the standard by which all bullets are measured, or so they say. I used the Speer manual for my calculations. When picking speed from the Nosler manual I used the highest bullet speed listed. We can argue all day about how much more powder we can safely load in our guns to get more speed but I'm not going there and neither should anyone else as exceeding max for a few feet per second isn't to smart. It is all relevant. I rounded the 06 up on 200 grain bullet by 32 feet per second and the .300 wsm mag 6 feet per second so numbers are slight higher, slightly for the 06 with this bullet.
According to Nosler there bullet needs to be going 1800 fps up to 3200 fps to work correctly. However 1800 is pushing it as I've seen some bullets recovered from 1800 fps and I would not myself shoot them at that low of speed. My opinion is 1900 fps at least for proper expansion and I think that it is pushing it. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife minimum Pounds per foot to kill an elk is 1500 lbs so that is what I am basing my opinion on.
So looking at the data for the 06. With the 180 grain bullet at 400 yards the fps is 1965 which is 65 fps faster that what I think minimum is for needed expansion. Foot pounds is 1543 barely over the minimum suggested by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The 200 grain bullet is 1965 fps, again barley over the 1900 fps mark. Foot pounds are still adequate for elk at 1754. But because of expansion on the 200 grain I wouldn't shoot it at 400 yards for elk. This is why I consider the 30-06 a 300 yard cartridge for elk. I believe in ethics when killing animals so me I can't shoot the 06 at 400 yards for elk. Everybody has different ethics. Just watch the hunting shows if you want see a lot of unethical shooting. There are a few exceptions out there one of them being Jim Shockey. But please note that all of info I just based the 06 on is maximum speed. Very few are achieving these speeds with accuracy again why I say it is a 300 yard elk gun.
Now let's look at the .300 wsm at 500 yards. The 180 bullet is traveling at 2014 200 hundred fps faster than Noslers recommendation and 100 fps over my minimum. Foot pounds is 1622 which I think is pushing the ethical 1500 foot pounds recommended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. However, the 200 grain bullet just shines at 500 yards. Fps is 2036 and foot pounds is 1841 which is well over the 1500 foot pounds recommend by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
I think these number prove my statements. I'm not going to comment on this any further. But I will sit back and laugh at the guys who try to come up with different theories as to why I'm wrong. But the numbers don't lie.
Nothing wrong with your ideas, but if you don't mind allow me to ask you a question: Wouldn't a .300WM accomplish the same things you have mentioned above? The case is longer, and I can understand that, but you are using the same .30-caliber bullets at relatively the same speeds.
Last edited by Ray; 10/18/17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,066
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,066 |
JoeBob - I'm thinking you may be right. I was looking at tables the other day and saw that the difference in MV between an '06 shooting 150 grain Hornady Superperformance, and the WSM with (generic? - no specs) 150's was only 40fps. Which would tend to back up your point some, tho I'd like to see a few more specifics on the WSM load used. It was an oline chart, I don 't remember which.
Heck- the difference in trajectory at only 300 yards with my 27 inch bbled '06 between the Hornady SP SST and GMX 150 gr. factory loads is 6 inches verticle, and 4 inches horizontal. Same advertised MV for both. The GMX is impacts higher and more to the right than the SST loads. It must be the difference in bullet lengths that causes this? I don't know. Don't really care, either. I'll see how the GMX terminal performance works on game this year if I can. I've been using the SST.
Interesting....
But- back to the OP topic. When Sheister claims "same point of impact", I assume that is at 100 yards. I get the same with some POI handloads of .225 and 250 grain in my .338 at 100, or within a quarter inch or so. Ain't true at 300, and out tho! It's certainly not true at even 100 yards between the 250 Hornady RN, and the 250 Gameking! May well be true with same gr, but different bullet brands at all ranges as Sheister claims for his rifle - he didn't say if it was at one specivfic range or worked foon out there. Be nice if it did!
I would advise, if you handload, to headspace your reloads off the shoulder, not the belt, for best accuracy.
Last edited by las; 10/18/17.
The only true cost of having a dog is its death.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988 |
JoeBob - I'm thinking you may be right. I was looking at tables the other day and saw that the difference in MV between an '06 shooting 150 grain Hornady Superperformance, and the WSM with (generic? - no specs) 150's was only 40fps. Which would tend to back up your point some, tho I'd like to see a few more specifics on the WSM load used.
Heck- the difference in trajectory at 300 yards with my 27 inch bbled '06 between the Hornady SP SST and GMX 150 gr. factory loads is 6 inches verticle, and 4 inches horizontal. Same advertised MV for both. The GMX is higher and more right than the SST loads.
Interesting....
But- back to the OP topic. When Sheister claims "same point of impact", I assume that is at 100 yards. I get the same with some handloads of .225 and 250 grain. Ain't true at 300,and out tho! But for most practical purposes at relatively short ranges , not enough difference to be worrisome for minute of moose, or elk. Pick a bullet weight in that range that is accurate and stick with it.
I would advise if you handload to headspace your reloads off the shoulder, not the belt, for best accuracy. las, you are right, I was mentioning shooting the bullets at 100 yards but didn't fill in the rest of the information. I get too long winded as is, so thought it best to cut my post off at some point. The fact is, my Pre 64 with the 22" barrel shoots the .225's at around 2650 fps at the muzzle and the Win Classic 70 with the 26" barrel puts them down range around 2920 fps. However, point of impact as far as I've been able to test at around 300 yards has been pretty consistent at all those ranges given the same load with the 3 different bullets. I do shoot the Nosler Partitions for game and make sure to be sighted for them before heading out for a hunt, but in many years of using these three bullets the results have always been the same- The Hornady Interlocks, Nosler Partitions, and Swift Aframes have always shot to the same point of aim in the 225/338 bullets. Even in my other rifles with same bullets in these three manufacturers I have compared them in a 25-284, 300 H&H AI, 30-06, 270, and a couple others, I''ve had the same results. Comparing these bullets, the form and BC's are very close so I shouldn't be too surprised by my results. Not sure if anyone else has had these results but it works for me. Bob
Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988 |
I know I'm just wasting my time. But when I started my original post I asked for opinions from those that have experience .338 wm. Somehow how the .270, .280, and 30-06 owners with no .338 wm experience need to get there opinion in. I notice the 30-06 guys always have to chirp in about the 30-06. I agree that the 30-06 is a great caliber I've owned them but really have no need for them as I own a number of guns and for me the 30-06 is a tweener meaning it fits in between the calibers I have. The die hard 06 guys will tell you it's the only caliber you need, or if you can only own one gun get the 06. Well I'm hear to tell ya that there are many great calibers to choose from and the 06 is definitely not a do everything caliber. There is no such thing.
If I could only choose one gun I would take the .300 wsm hands down. Why? Well here is goes. If I want to shoot a 180 bullet at the speed of an 06 I can do that using slightly more powder, slightly. Same is true with the 200 grain bullet. I don't know if you would even be able to tell the difference in recoil. If I put two identical guns next to each other and you were to shoot each, I don't think most would be able to pick which gun was which. Short cartridges are inherit-ably more accurate than long cartridges. Short cartridges are not as dependent on the length of the barrel to produce speed. Good example of these are the .300 wm and 7mm rem mag. These two caliber in most rifles will come in a 26 inch barrel length and it because of the length of the cartridge. The .308 win is so revered because of it's short cartridge, it's easy to load for, has great accuracy (just look at the competition shooters), and it's recoil is light. Same is true for wsm's. The wsm came about as there was one guy who developed the cartridge and was winning so many accuracy competitions. Because short cartridges are so accurate it allows you to shoot a wider verity of bullets and powder while achieving good accuracy. Longer cartridges are more bullet and powder picky narrowing your choices. I could go on but I thinks that enough.
In the chart I put together I used the Nosler reloading data for bullet speeds. I used Nosler Partition as it is the standard by which all bullets are measured, or so they say. I used the Speer manual for my calculations. When picking speed from the Nosler manual I used the highest bullet speed listed. We can argue all day about how much more powder we can safely load in our guns to get more speed but I'm not going there and neither should anyone else as exceeding max for a few feet per second isn't to smart. It is all relevant. I rounded the 06 up on 200 grain bullet by 32 feet per second and the .300 wsm mag 6 feet per second so numbers are slight higher, slightly for the 06 with this bullet.
According to Nosler there bullet needs to be going 1800 fps up to 3200 fps to work correctly. However 1800 is pushing it as I've seen some bullets recovered from 1800 fps and I would not myself shoot them at that low of speed. My opinion is 1900 fps at least for proper expansion and I think that it is pushing it. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife minimum Pounds per foot to kill an elk is 1500 lbs so that is what I am basing my opinion on.
So looking at the data for the 06. With the 180 grain bullet at 400 yards the fps is 1965 which is 65 fps faster that what I think minimum is for needed expansion. Foot pounds is 1543 barely over the minimum suggested by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The 200 grain bullet is 1965 fps, again barley over the 1900 fps mark. Foot pounds are still adequate for elk at 1754. But because of expansion on the 200 grain I wouldn't shoot it at 400 yards for elk. This is why I consider the 30-06 a 300 yard cartridge for elk. I believe in ethics when killing animals so me I can't shoot the 06 at 400 yards for elk. Everybody has different ethics. Just watch the hunting shows if you want see a lot of unethical shooting. There are a few exceptions out there one of them being Jim Shockey. But please note that all of info I just based the 06 on is maximum speed. Very few are achieving these speeds with accuracy again why I say it is a 300 yard elk gun.
Now let's look at the .300 wsm at 500 yards. The 180 bullet is traveling at 2014 200 hundred fps faster than Noslers recommendation and 100 fps over my minimum. Foot pounds is 1622 which I think is pushing the ethical 1500 foot pounds recommended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. However, the 200 grain bullet just shines at 500 yards. Fps is 2036 and foot pounds is 1841 which is well over the 1500 foot pounds recommend by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
I think these number prove my statements. I'm not going to comment on this any further. But I will sit back and laugh at the guys who try to come up with different theories as to why I'm wrong. But the numbers don't lie.
Adams, Have you had a chance to put together a similar chart for the 338 WM? Might be some interesting reading there. That is the same thing I did with several cartridges and it led me to the 338 WM, which I've always thought of as the most efficient Mag round to put energy down range, IMHO. Bob
Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 216
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 216 |
[/quote]Nothing wrong with your ideas, but if you don't mind allow me to ask you a question: Wouldn't a .300WM accomplish the same things you have mentioned above? The case is longer, and I can understand that, but you are using the same .30-caliber bullets at relatively the same speeds.[quote] The .300WM is a great cartridge and is used by snipers over 1000 yards. My experience has been when reloading between the two cartridges the .300 wsm has been easier to load for. Now I'm shooting a Sako which has a longer throat allowing me to seat the bullet further out giving more powder room. But every bullet I have picked off the shelf Nosler, Speer, and Sierra in weights of 165, 180, and 200 I've been able to achieve sub MOA with every one using either H4350, H4831, RL19, and RL22. When I had my .300 WM in Browing Abolt I could only find one bullet 165 Hornady SST that I could achieve consistently sub MOA. Now maybe it was that particular rifle but I tried a lot of different bullets and different powders. Also the wsm had less recoil, not a lot but I could notice it. But again a different rifle. Also achieving this with about 6-8 less grains of powder. I also have a .270 wsm in Browning A Bolt. I had the same sucess Sierras, and Noslers, 130's 140's and 150's. The gun likes 130's the best and I could cover leaf 5 shot groups with both Sierra and partitions. 140 partitions and 150 partitions also gave sub MOA. Using IMR 4350, H4350, and H4831. So my experience has been easy accuracy with a lot different bullets and powders which I could never do with my Remington 700 30-06 or my Browning A Bolt 7mm Mag, or my Browning 300 WM. So I have since got rid of all these rifles. I have just purchased but not shot yet a .308 win Xbolt white gold medallion and another Sako but this time a finnlight in .300 wsm. I've got my fingers crossed and hoping both will be shooters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 216
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 216 |
[/quote]Adams,
Have you had a chance to put together a similar chart for the 338 WM? Might be some interesting reading there. That is the same thing I did with several cartridges and it led me to the 338 WM, which I've always thought of as the most efficient Mag round to put energy down range, IMHO.
Bob[quote] I have done the same chart with the .338WM and I think it looks like an awesome cartridge and is why I started this post. If you were to take the .308 win and make it proportionality larger I think it would match .338WM cartridge very very close. This was another reason it really caught my interest. If I didn't have every thing I needed to reload for another .300wsm to hunt with I would have went with .338WM. I tend to be a perfectionist "not saying I'm correct in all my thinking by any means" but the one rifle I wanted was difficult to get and after many phone calls I only find one Sako dealer that knew they could order factory direct and they kept screwing up which gun I wanted so finally I just ta hell with it and ordered the .300wsm. Some day I think I will have a .338 win mag as it is another level above the .300 wsm and .300 wm with bullets of 250 bullets and higher. However with 200 grain bullets they shoot about the same speed and the .300 has much better density and will penetrate better at longer ranges. However this is just theory for me as I've never shot and killed game with the .338WM but again I think it is a great cartridge from everything I've read about it and what I've seen for kills on youtube.
Last edited by Adams; 10/18/17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988 |
Adams, Have you had a chance to put together a similar chart for the 338 WM? Might be some interesting reading there. That is the same thing I did with several cartridges and it led me to the 338 WM, which I've always thought of as the most efficient Mag round to put energy down range, IMHO. Bob I have done the same chart with the .338WM and I think it looks like an awesome cartridge and is why I started this post. If you were to take the .308 win and make it proportionality larger I think it would match .338WM cartridge very very close. This was another reason it really caught my interest. If I didn't have every thing I needed to reload for another .300wsm to hunt with I would have went with .338WM. I tend to be a perfectionist "not saying I'm correct in all my thinking by any means" but the one rifle I wanted was difficult to get and after many phone calls I only find one Sako dealer that knew they could order factory direct and they kept screwing up which gun I wanted so finally I just ta hell with it and ordered the .300wsm. Some day I think I will have a .338 win mag as it is another level above the .300 wsm and .300 wm with bullets of 250 bullets and higher. However with 200 grain bullets they shoot about the same speed and the .300 has much better density and will penetrate better at longer ranges. However this is just theory for me as I've never shot and killed game with the .338WM but again I think it is a great cartridge from everything I've read about it and what I've seen for kills on youtube. Half the fun is in the experimenting and trying new things, IMHO. I've shot elk with my 338's from 30 yards to 600 and result is always the same- complete pass through and dead elk in short order. Penetration has never been a problem, accuracy has also been stellar in my Win 70's and the couple Remington 700's I've had opportunity to shoot in this caliber. Good luck with your 300 WSM, I've heard good things- I'm just not a 300 Mag kind of guy I guess (except for my Pre 64 300 H&H, which my son has laid claim to). Bob
Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,462
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 14,462 |
I have 300 Wins and WSM's. Killed a lot of animals with them.
I like and prefer the 338 Win Mag.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Get a fierce carbon fiber stock for that 85.
Or... what about a Fierce tri-lug "Sako 85' Titanium action rifle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQj3Cfq2jHUMy yrs with the excellent .338win are done, Today I would get a 7mm Mag.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 3,734
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 3,734 |
I've killed one cow elk with a 338wm and the older 185xlc. I shot zebra/Impala/and the big Namibian Gemsbuk with the 210xbt/340W. I killed most of Plains Game though with the 35 Whelen AI using the older 250X and 200X. Mostly elk sized game from zebra to wildebeest, both Blue & Black and hartebeest. I have shot a few head of Plains game with the 200x for the 338wm and with the 375 H&H & 270 Failsafe. I earlier mentioned the 300wm use as it was indeed a good one on elk sized game too. I even used a friends 300wm with the 165xbt on the bigger Gemsbuk too. I love Medium bores though and I have found that the lighter monos kill great with less recoil but with the same big holes as heavier cup n core. I like the big heavy round nose cupncore as they really do 'thump" a big animal, especially a solidly built one like elk and big hogs,etc. I have had people tell me that when I use the lighter weight monos in a Medium " I might as well use a 300 magnum"...but, the "wound cavities and entrance/exit holes are bigger with the Medium. So hey, to each his own. And I too have had great results working up loads for the 300 wsm, but it was not hard to do the same with the 300wm, ha. I did work up a load for a friend in his 300 wsm with the 168TSX and he has shot Moutain goat, bighorn sheep, fallow deer, Red Deer, and elk with it with complete satisfaction. Its a good round. Back in the 90s, Federal had a High Energy 180PT load that went 2970fps from a 23 inch 30-06 I had. I gave that rifle and a 100rds of that ammo to a Missionary friend of mine in south Africa. he had no problems even killing eland with it. So, for me, I 'could" get by w/o a Medium Bore from 338-375, but I like them. They "do" cut bigger holes if that is important. Good luck to you pard!
Last edited by Jim_Knight; 10/19/17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,472
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,472 |
I know I'm just wasting my time. But when I started my original post I asked for opinions from those that have experience .338 wm. Somehow how the .270, .280, and 30-06 owners with no .338 wm experience need to get there opinion in. I notice the 30-06 guys always have to chirp in about the 30-06. I agree that the 30-06 is a great caliber I've owned them but really have no need for them as I own a number of guns and for me the 30-06 is a tweener meaning it fits in between the calibers I have. The die hard 06 guys will tell you it's the only caliber you need, or if you can only own one gun get the 06. Well I'm hear to tell ya that there are many great calibers to choose from and the 06 is definitely not a do everything caliber. There is no such thing.
If I could only choose one gun I would take the .300 wsm hands down. Why? Well here is goes. If I want to shoot a 180 bullet at the speed of an 06 I can do that using slightly more powder, slightly. Same is true with the 200 grain bullet. I don't know if you would even be able to tell the difference in recoil. If I put two identical guns next to each other and you were to shoot each, I don't think most would be able to pick which gun was which. Short cartridges are inherit-ably more accurate than long cartridges. Short cartridges are not as dependent on the length of the barrel to produce speed. Good example of these are the .300 wm and 7mm rem mag. These two caliber in most rifles will come in a 26 inch barrel length and it because of the length of the cartridge. The .308 win is so revered because of it's short cartridge, it's easy to load for, has great accuracy (just look at the competition shooters), and it's recoil is light. Same is true for wsm's. The wsm came about as there was one guy who developed the cartridge and was winning so many accuracy competitions. Because short cartridges are so accurate it allows you to shoot a wider verity of bullets and powder while achieving good accuracy. Longer cartridges are more bullet and powder picky narrowing your choices. I could go on but I thinks that enough.
In the chart I put together I used the Nosler reloading data for bullet speeds. I used Nosler Partition as it is the standard by which all bullets are measured, or so they say. I used the Speer manual for my calculations. When picking speed from the Nosler manual I used the highest bullet speed listed. We can argue all day about how much more powder we can safely load in our guns to get more speed but I'm not going there and neither should anyone else as exceeding max for a few feet per second isn't to smart. It is all relevant. I rounded the 06 up on 200 grain bullet by 32 feet per second and the .300 wsm mag 6 feet per second so numbers are slight higher, slightly for the 06 with this bullet.
According to Nosler there bullet needs to be going 1800 fps up to 3200 fps to work correctly. However 1800 is pushing it as I've seen some bullets recovered from 1800 fps and I would not myself shoot them at that low of speed. My opinion is 1900 fps at least for proper expansion and I think that it is pushing it. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife minimum Pounds per foot to kill an elk is 1500 lbs so that is what I am basing my opinion on.
So looking at the data for the 06. With the 180 grain bullet at 400 yards the fps is 1965 which is 65 fps faster that what I think minimum is for needed expansion. Foot pounds is 1543 barely over the minimum suggested by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The 200 grain bullet is 1965 fps, again barley over the 1900 fps mark. Foot pounds are still adequate for elk at 1754. But because of expansion on the 200 grain I wouldn't shoot it at 400 yards for elk. This is why I consider the 30-06 a 300 yard cartridge for elk. I believe in ethics when killing animals so me I can't shoot the 06 at 400 yards for elk. Everybody has different ethics. Just watch the hunting shows if you want see a lot of unethical shooting. There are a few exceptions out there one of them being Jim Shockey. But please note that all of info I just based the 06 on is maximum speed. Very few are achieving these speeds with accuracy again why I say it is a 300 yard elk gun.
Now let's look at the .300 wsm at 500 yards. The 180 bullet is traveling at 2014 200 hundred fps faster than Noslers recommendation and 100 fps over my minimum. Foot pounds is 1622 which I think is pushing the ethical 1500 foot pounds recommended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. However, the 200 grain bullet just shines at 500 yards. Fps is 2036 and foot pounds is 1841 which is well over the 1500 foot pounds recommend by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
I think these number prove my statements. The numbers don't lie.
Stop wasting time reading charts. We have all done it, but in time most realise it doesn't matter much. The reason rounds other than the 338 were brought up was because of your preferance for a lighter rifle. A light 338 will take alot of work to be proficient with. I have never ran into a bitchy 300 win mag. Certainly no less accurate than the 300 wsm's I have had. Never had any issues with a 7mm rem mag either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651 |
There is so much here I hardly know where to start. So I'll start at the top - more or less. ... The die hard 06 guys will tell you it's the only caliber you need, or if you can only own one gun get the 06. Well I'm hear to tell ya that there are many great calibers to choose from and the 06 is definitely not a do everything caliber. There is no such thing. My own opinion is the die hard .30-06 guys are right. You could say the same thing, more or less, about a number of other cartridges that do pretty much everything acceptably well. My own favorites (based on what I own) in this category include the .280 Rem, 7mm RM, .308 Win, .30-06, and .300WM. But in terms of flexibility, I think the .30-06 outclasses them all. One advantage of the .30 calibers is the range of bullet weights available - from 100g to 240g - and construction types. The .30-06 can shoot them all. With the .30-06 you have one of the widest selections of factory ammo - Midway lists 155 types for the .308 Win, 147 for the .223, 127 for the .30-06, 95 for the .300WM and 70 for the 7mm RM. The .300WSM comes in at 45 types. Midway lists .308Win ammo starting at $8.99 per box, .30-06 at $16.19 and .300WSM starts at $26.09. Midway has .308 brass at $15.48 per 50, .30-06 @ $21.99 per 50 and .300WSM starting at $33.59. When Daughter #2 got married I purchased a rifle as a wedding gift for my new son-in-law. Daughter asked if he would be able to afford to shoot it. I told her not to worry - it was a .30-06. If I could only choose one gun I would take the .300 wsm hands down. Why? Well here is goes. If I want to shoot a 180 bullet at the speed of an 06 I can do that using slightly more powder, slightly. Same is true with the 200 grain bullet. I don't know if you would even be able to tell the difference in recoil. If I put two identical guns next to each other and you were to shoot each, I don't think most would be able to pick which gun was which. ... I agree - so for me there is no reason to choose one over the other unless one wants to shoot those bullets faster than a .30-06 can manage - and you're willing to pay the price in increased recoil. Those are the choices I make when I shoot my .300WM. Of course, the same statements are true when comparing a .300WSM and a .300WM. ... Short cartridges are inherit-ably more accurate than long cartridges. Short cartridges are not as dependent on the length of the barrel to produce speed. Good example of these are the .300 wm and 7mm rem mag. These two caliber in most rifles will come in a 26 inch barrel length and it because of the length of the cartridge. Nosler lists their 180g velocities for the .30-06, .300WSM and .300WM using 24" barrels for all, with increasing velocities respectively. Pretty much apples-to-apples and the larger case wins the velocity race. For 200g Nosler shows a 26" barrel for the WSM with the others remaining at 24". My 7mm RM and .300WM both have a 24" barrel, my .30-06s have a handier 22" barrel and my .308's are handier yet at 16.1" and 18". Velocity isn't always the most important criteria or even in the top several. Differences in individual rifles, ammunition and the shooter often nullify any differences in the 'inherent accuracy' of various cartridges. Daughter #1's boyfriend shoots a Winchester Model 70 .300WSM. Hand me any of my bolt rifles in .243 to .300WM and I'll outshoot him all day long. ... The .308 win is so revered because of it's short cartridge, it's easy to load for, has great accuracy (just look at the competition shooters), and it's recoil is light. Same is true for wsm's. The wsm came about as there was one guy who developed the cartridge and was winning so many accuracy competitions. Because short cartridges are so accurate it allows you to shoot a wider verity of bullets and powder while achieving good accuracy. Longer cartridges are more bullet and powder picky narrowing your choices. I could go on but I thinks that enough. While I agree the .308 is an easy cartridge to load, I haven't found any of the cartridges I load for to be 'difficult' in any way. One again, differences in individual rifles will generally have more impact on accuracy than will differences in their chamberings. In the chart I put together I used the Nosler reloading data for bullet speeds. I used Nosler Partition as it is the standard by which all bullets are measured, or so they say. I used the Speer manual for my calculations. When picking speed from the Nosler manual I used the highest bullet speed listed. We can argue all day about how much more powder we can safely load in our guns to get more speed but I'm not going there and neither should anyone else as exceeding max for a few feet per second isn't to smart. It is all relevant. I rounded the 06 up on 200 grain bullet by 32 feet per second and the .300 wsm mag 6 feet per second so numbers are slight higher, slightly for the 06 with this bullet.
According to Nosler there bullet needs to be going 1800 fps up to 3200 fps to work correctly. However 1800 is pushing it as I've seen some bullets recovered from 1800 fps and I would not myself shoot them at that low of speed. My opinion is 1900 fps at least for proper expansion and I think that it is pushing it. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife minimum Pounds per foot to kill an elk is 1500 lbs so that is what I am basing my opinion on. As a rule of thumb, I generally prefer a minimum 2000fps impact velocity for the mono bullets I use but am quite comfortable dropping well below that for various lead-core bullets. For elk I tend to use 1500fpe as a minimum but again it is just a rule of thumb - I know elk can be quickly killed with much less. After looking at the ballistic tables I look at bullet construction and factor that in. Some of my hunting loads start out at less than 1500fps and 1200fpe. Two other factors I consider when determining the effective range of a cartridge (i.e. the range at which I'd be willing to take a shot) are trajectory and wind drift. So looking at the data for the 06. With the 180 grain bullet at 400 yards the fps is 1965 which is 65 fps faster that what I think minimum is for needed expansion. Foot pounds is 1543 barely over the minimum suggested by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The 200 grain bullet is 1965 fps, again barley over the 1900 fps mark. Foot pounds are still adequate for elk at 1754. But because of expansion on the 200 grain I wouldn't shoot it at 400 yards for elk. This is why I consider the 30-06 a 300 yard cartridge for elk. I believe in ethics when killing animals so me I can't shoot the 06 at 400 yards for elk. Everybody has different ethics. Just watch the hunting shows if you want see a lot of unethical shooting. There are a few exceptions out there one of them being Jim Shockey. But please note that all of info I just based the 06 on is maximum speed. Very few are achieving these speeds with accuracy again why I say it is a 300 yard elk gun. You might want to recheck your calculations. You start out using a .410 B.C. for the 180g Partition. Nosler lists it at .474, which makes a big difference. (.410 is for the 165g Partition). Using your 2800fps velocity for a .30-06/180g/Partition (B.C. .474), my calculator shows it retains 1948fps and 1516fpe at 500 yards, not 400 as you suggest in your table. My calculations for the 200g Partition also vary from slightly yours, and show 1877fps and 1565fpe at 500 yards. In any case, I'd use either at 500 yards. Now let's look at the .300 wsm at 500 yards. The 180 bullet is traveling at 2014 200 hundred fps faster than Noslers recommendation and 100 fps over my minimum. Foot pounds is 1622 which I think is pushing the ethical 1500 foot pounds recommended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. However, the 200 grain bullet just shines at 500 yards. Fps is 2036 and foot pounds is 1841 which is well over the 1500 foot pounds recommend by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
I think these number prove my statements. The numbers don't lie.
The numbers do lie when you use the wrong ones. As computer nerds like me say, "garbage in, garbage out". Once again you use .410 instead of .474 for the 180g Partition B.C. And you apparently failed to realize Nosler gets close to 3100fps using a 26" barrel for the WSM. Oops. You also sang the praises of light recoil in your text above. Yet to get the performance in your table, using Nosler #9 Edition powder charges and an 8.3 pound rifle, your 180g WSM load generates 22% more recoil than the .30-06 load and your 200g WSM load generates 19% more recoil than the .30-06 load. Oops. The fact is there is no free lunch. If the .300WSM lifts your skirt, by all means go for it. But your arguments for doing so are not only unconvincing, at least to me, they are based on incorrect data and contradictory criteria.
Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 10/20/17. Reason: spelnig
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,691
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,691 |
My knock on the. .338WM, without going to a custom build, is weight. I have owned something over a half dozen .338s, hauled them thousands of miles, and never blooded one of them. When it came time to hit the hills on foot, a lighter .30-06 was the choice.
I'm not much on do everything rifles, so my brain got twisted and I had the bright idea that a . 338-06 might have merit. I hunted everything with it for about five years. I would say that it was definitely a step up from the ..30-06. I pretty much settled on .200 Speers for deer and liked the idea of 210 NP for real oomph. I tried some 250s for hogs, but found them not really needed.
My one lightweight .338WM was a super ugly Blaser Ultimate. Other than looks, it had a lot going for it. Accurate and controlled feeding, and a 22" barrel to name few. With 250s loaded according to Elmer Keith, it did come back smartly, but I was young and bullet proof. I never did take it hunting.
ALL of my belted magnums have been sold off. At eighty, the .223 and .243 are more attractive than they used to be. Since I don't walk far, my old pre-war Model 70 .270 is a sweet shooter. The weight doesn't bother the Kawasaki Mule at all.
Jack
"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people...who have...rejoiced in their loss of freedom....Blame the people who hail him when he speaks of the 'new, wonderful, good, society'...to mean ,..living fatly at the expense of the industrious." Cicero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 10,910
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 10,910 |
jt402, Can you clarify “light”! We didn’t see 8.5 lbs (scoped, loaded,slung) to be heavy! In my judgement that makes it neither a “lightweight” nor a “heavyweight”, But.....am curious as to what is a practical, lightweight hunting rifle? memtb
You should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everything goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." -Bob Hagel
“I’d like to be a good rifleman…..but, I prefer to be a good hunter”! memtb 2024
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,133
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,133 |
Love all the 338 WM confessionals 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,601
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,601 |
Mine is a Model 700 action with a Kreiger #2 barrel, bedded in a McMillan Hunter. I've settled on 125 grain Accubonds with a max load of RL19. Light enough to carry and not punishing to shoot. A couple of bears have fallen to a single well-placed shot each.
I have found over the years that its more gun than normally needed. Good bullets and placement seem to trump everything else.
Nut
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 3,734
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 3,734 |
I had a MatchGrade Arms custom Mod 700 made up in 340W. (mentioned above) it weighed around 5# w/o scope. It had a "holes all around" brake (equals "loud") it was hard to hold still. It shot well with H4350/210 XBT at 3200fps, but the effect of the brake on such a light rifle had the "air rifle gas piston" effect on the scopes. It gutted a Leupold VIII 2.5x8 a week before my trip to south Africa. I put a Zeiss conquest 3x9 on it and it lasted on 1 impala/1 zebra/1 blesbuk then wounded (lost) my first big Gemsbuk. Scope was gutted. I finished the trip with a 300WM (Mod 700 classic) and a friends 338wm (Mod 70 SS) Upon return home, I sent the rifle back to MGA and had them rebarrel it with a slightly heavier barrel, 24" in 338wm. I had the rifle Magnaported (to keep it out of my face) I then put another Leupold on it and only shot the then Barnes 185XLC. I gave the rifle to my Pastor in Texas for his bear gun. I learned that I didn't want a rifle "too light". For me, the easiest shooting 338wm was my first one, back in '93. It was a wood stock MKII, with a 2.5x8 on it. Handled very well, easy to control. I'm getting another one just like it soon!  Over the years, I found a "Sporter" was light enough and the only brake (if I used one at all) was a 3 hole Artillery type...no holes on top or bottom. Mag na Port is still OK, but won't do it on this next MKII. A good pad is all that's really needed and this time I'll put my Leupold 1.5x5 on it. I only had a brake put on early rifles as I had several surgeries, 3 years in a row. Neck/arm/wrist/eye. I think a 338wm is kinda like the "30-06 of Medium bores if one is a handloader, but really, now there are many factory loads in all weights around.". The 340W and the 338 RUM are just awesome, but do need more rifle weight than 5#! ha. That Mod 700 Classic in 35 Whelen ( later had it Ackleyed) was "just right" with good handloads. It got rebuilt into a 358 Norma Mag than got sold along with another Mod 700 Classic Whelen. ( I hate Obammacare taxes!) When it got time lately to get another Medium, every Whelen I saw was anywhere from $800 to $1200. I found a real nice MKII like my first one on GB for $500....and Layaway!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,472
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,472 |
Magna porting is intriguing because it's suppose to tame muzzle lift, although not tame recoil much. The recoil doesn't bother me as much as the muzzle lift and its effect on getting back on target quick.
|
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,175
Posts18,465,446
Members73,925
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
