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

A very interesting post. However, one thing that has not been discussed is that the .300 WM can be sighted in at 300 yards and still have a max height above the line of sight of 4" using a 168g Barnes TSX. Using the same bullet, the .308 would have to be sighted in at just under 250 yards to keep the max height around 4". With that in mind - the .300 WM will then hit 9.2" low at 400 yards compared to 19.1" low at 400 for the .308 Winchester. For me, that is a big difference but others may disagree.

A fine observation, Buzz. I wonder if anyone will take issue with it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

When you shoot at said critter that is 400 yds distant, you have to make a correction in order to hit it where you want to. If the hunter is properly skilled to be shooting at that range in the first place, the amount of the correction does not matter. It takes no more time or skill to correct for 19" of drop than it does for 9".

If the shooter does not have both the skill and technology to accurately determine the range, then he should not shoot beyond PBR. If he does have those skills or tools then as long as he knows his stuff, he can hit equally well with either example.

JimF

That's a very good point. But shouldn't we assume that different power levels at PBR might still be considered?

41:

Sure, there is of course no question that of the two examples, the 300 WM carries more of that "energy" stuff. But I wonder how much that matters?

One of our posters swears that a 300 WBY is dramatically more effective than a 308 and therefore he does not want to go back to std cartridges. I guess it depends upon ones definition of effective, but I have been down the magnum road too and generally I have not seen much difference. That (I think) was MD's point as well.

My definition of effective is as follows................Boom+Splat!! = dead critter.

I have reached the desired result with 300 Wby, 7 RM, &338 WM. I have also had the same results (dead critter) with 270W, 30-06, 7-08, 7x57, 25-06, 240 Roy, 6mm Rem, the Bob, and 284. I guess the animals killed with magnums may have been (more dead?) but it would be tough to verify.


JimF

JimF - I agree you DO have to make a correction and the question is at what point does it start to matter? 10" of difference in trajectory in the field is huge and is 2X the difference in the scenario I discribed. The smaller the adjustment that has to be made gives me more confidence in the field and IMO that confidence is worth consuming more powder and taking more recoil.

My use of hunting rifles at longer range (over 400 yards) is somewhat limited compared to some, but I have used both the .270 and the .300 WM to do the job far more often than once or twice with either cartridge. The game I hunted was either Whitetail or Mule Deer. The .270 did as well as the .300 in the way of killing the animal, but the edge clearly goes to the .300 with regard to damage -- it's a better long range bet more often than not, in my experience, even if the choice of bullets for either is comparable.

So maybe I'm saying when a .270 doesn't seem to be clearly enough, I'll maybe wonder if the .300 is justified -- the long and the short answers are: more than occasionally yes and on a few occasions no.

One simply can't replace power with wishes where power is needed -- that's a fact even with the fine and worthy .308 compared to a good .30 mag.

Buzz:

I practice shooting at a homemade gong at between 300-400 yds. I shoot prone over my backpack. My 338-08 (200's) and my 6.5x284 (129's) are dramatically different in drop at those ranges but there is no difference (to me) in the ease of hitting the gong.

However, there (IS) a decided difference in which one I'd rather shoot from that prone position.

JimF

So....are you saying that the deer you killed with the 270 were not as dead as the ones kilt with the 300???

Sorry, just couldn't resist............ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

JimF

[quote
If a hunter can't shoot past 300 yards where I hunt elk he had better just stay home.

Jim, mighty hunter! lets see that ole' thutty thutty in action. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> [/quote]


Many shooters I know can flat shoot at most any range you throw their way...400, 500, 800, 1000 yards. You name it. I think I can hang right in there with the above average shooters too. However, most hunters I hunt with firmly beleive in getting close, as close as possible. I lived in Nebraska and hunted coyotes, mule deer and whitetails on the prarie. I was always able to get close. Thinking back I killed only one buck past 200 yards. I took a number of deer in the prarie with a bow and I was introduced to muzzleloading my some friends who hunt with nothing else, yes, on the prarie. There is always a way to get close. I seldom seen it where one could not.

But that is just me. You shoot far shots if you want to. I am there to hunt. It is more important to me.

BTW, I killed a big cow elk @ 300 yards a couple years ago here in the Idaho Desert with my Win. m88 308 Winchester with a 150gr Hornady FB. The bullet penetrated the lung area completely and was not recovered. The cow (which was huge) went 30 yards max and fell over dead, which is probably what she would have done with the same shot from my 300 Weatherby.

PS, I have some loads for my m94 30-30 that will flat amaze you. You name the range as long as it is not past 1000 yards. I can hang them right in there. @ 300 yards, the thing acts more like a 308 or 30-06 than a 30-30.

CM

They were most certainly as dead. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The problem is the author's point seemed to be that the 308 is relatively equal to the 300 mag, and a lot of us think 7" is huge difference.

So not only is there a large difference in bullet drop in my opinion, the 300 has more energy too. So all around it is a better bet atleast in 30 caliber rounds. And a 300 win does not kick that bad especially compared to the Ultras etc.

Why is it that I sense ol' MD is sitting at his computer rollin' with laughter????

Oh well, I guess everything that can be said, has been, except to note that the info cited is a darn fine set of reasons why the .270 is STILL one of the finest "deer rifles" around. The recoil of the .308 with the trajectory of the .300. Not a bad combination, eh? Jack O'Connor may not have been what I thought he was, as a man, when I was younger, but he WAS right on the combination of traits that the .270 offers (or .280 or .284, etc.) makes it a VERY apt choice for a great percentage of us.

As a BPCR shooter, I can tell you that the biggest factor in placing a bullet where you want it to go is knowing the trajectory and the range. Given that, and knowing what your gun will do in the wind, there just isn't any significant difference in being able to hit a game animal at fairly long range. I'd also agree with MD's statement that the point of making that shot is to put a hole in the vitals, too. A bigger hole really isn't all that much "better" than a decent sized one, either, IF it's properly in the vitals.

Therefore, if you CAN hit (and you can) with either the .308 or the .300, AND either WILL kill a deer (and either will), then the point I think he intended to make is that maybe we make MORE of the differences than we really should, considering the realities of the pursuit.

Want to have some fun? If watermelons grow in your locale, find yourself a good field that's been picked over its final time. Set up with something in the .308 class and something in the magnum class of trajectory. If you don't own a magnum, a .270 or the equivalent will do. Now, pick out some long range melons, and don't use your laser rangefinder. Try shooting from sitting positions, like sitting with a sling, if any of you still do that sort of antiquated type of thing. See how much difference there really is afield without a rangefinder.

The mag. (or .270) WILL be a bit easier to hit with when you don't know the distance. It needs to be a big field, though, so you can keep changing directions so as to not use previous melons as your mental "rangefinder."

Now, go get the rangefinder, and have at it again. I assume (yeah, I know that's a dangerous thing to do, but ....) you DO know your trajectory, right? Now take your shots AFTER using the rangefinder. I don't think you'll find much difference in your hit rate out to 400 yds. or so.

When you KNOW the range, it's a simple matter compensate. Simple. Effective.

Yes, the .300's WILL usually (but not always - depends on the bullets you use) cause more damage, but unless you're talking about bigger herbivores, that doesn't make much difference unless you hit the "fringe areas" MD talked about a few issues back.

A lot more people ... and I mean a LOT ... use more gun than they can handle than there are those who don't use "enough." Using milder guns OFTEN (no, not always, just "often") allows a LOT of folks to HIT while using a magnum makes them flinch and miss, or worse, wound poorly.

These are matters that have been known among the pros since forever, and they aren't apt to change much, I think, either.

The magnums are fine for those who can handle them, and actually, I think most who can't handle a magnum (no, not all, but "most") probably don't shoot enough or know their rifles well enough to shoot past 200, much less 3 or 400. That's what I've observed.

A lot of underpaid, hard-working folks just don't have the time, money or inclination to put in the time it almost always takes to get really good with a rifle at distance, and giving them a magnum isn't going to cure much, and may well in fact make their shooting worse!

Magnums are for those who can handle and shoot them well, or even casually, without thinking a thing about the fact it's a magnum. As I've gotten older, and my neck and back injuries tend to get my attention more frequently, I find I like recoil less and less. My Whelen Ackley is about as much as I really want to sit down at the bench with and shoot a couple of boxes with. I can handle more, but not in volume, or at least I just don't DO it in volume. Getting older IS supposed to make one wiser, isn't it?

As to deer rifles - I'll let you guys with more experience discuss the elk question - even when my son's buddies got '06's and 7mm and .300 mags., they's STILL point at his little 6mm. Rem. and say, "Yeah, but if you want to see the killingest rifle here, pick up David's 6mm. over there!"

It really IS where you hit them, provided only (as MD said) penetration is sufficient. BTW, that deadly 6mm. never shot a deer with anything other than the 85 gr. Speer BTSP, and it worked at everything from 12 yds. to 350 and a bit, and that was two at 350, too.

As to MD's assertion of the penetration factor, I'll cite a buddy's experience. He shot a decent sized buck (@ 170-180 lbs.) at a mite over 300 once with his little 16" barreled .30/30 and a 150 gr. WW Silvertip. He shot that rifle nearly daily, and it had a peep sight on it. He's always been one to shoot for fun at what many others would call "rediculously long range." There was no wind, and the light was good, and all his instincts just told him to shoot, so that's what he did, and the shot was a good one. A heart shot, in fact, though he was aiming for the lungs. It was a broadside shot. The deer ran off about 30 yds. and piled up. On dressing it out, he found the bullet against the hide on the far side, and it hadn't expanded a great deal due to velocity loss. Those RN bullets DO shed velocity rapidly at distance. Yet, with minimal expansion, that bullet had dispatched his deer very neatly.

The point of that story is that, just as MD said, it IS penetration that matters most, IF you make a good, solid hit. A 190 or 200 gr. BTHP match bullet from a .300mag would probably have to be on the far side of 1,000 yds. to drop to the velocity of my buddy's 150 gr. .30/30 bullet, but with a heart shot, or a good, solid lung shot, the deer is yours if you can track a short distance.

Trajectory DOES make hitting at UNKNOWN ranges easier, and sometimes afield, you may not have TIME to lazer a shot, so all that ought to be factored in, of course. However, I can't help but wonder if just HAVING a magnum doesn't make at least some of us hunt differently, at least some of the time. Perhaps it's just human, and not always unreasonable, to change one's choice of tactics according to the rifle we carry? With all things human, sometimes this serves us well, and sometimes it just fools us into doing things that may NOT be to our advantage.

Most of the guys I know who kill the most deer use very standard calibers. A lot of them .30/30's. They hunt according to their and the rifle's capabilities, of course, but they ALSO hunt where the game will be. They know the land, the game, their rifle, and they're extraordinarily successful.

Maybe all this is a lot like that old carpenter's adage: "It ain't the tools, it's the workman?" But that doesn't sell guns and keep us happy, does it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Oh well, I for one am GLAD they've got magnums, short magnums, super short magnums, and whatever else they come up with next. It gives me stuff to read about and querry folks about, and new reasons to do autopsies, and all that keeps me out'a trouble, so I guess I really ought to thank all the hard working folks that provide us with the best guns, powders, bullets and gear mankind has ever known. I don't think my wife is going to bail me out'a jail many more times anyway, so ..... "THANKS!" to any of you who work in the fields of making this stuff, writing about it, and otherwise keeping me busy and out'a trouble. You just don't know how valuable a service you provide! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'm no Camp Perry shooter, so it does take more of both. Judging 9", as in "aim at the hairline and it'll hit mid- to lower third- chest", is much easier than a 19" "wave it around in the air above and pray". I'm all for a long point-blank range (although not at the expense of toting and resisting a SooperBoomer).

My everyday deer gun is a Mod 7 7-08 with a 20" barrel but once again I'll be taking my 22" M7 300 SAUM out to the sage flats this year. Last year I jumped the biggest buck I'd seen all week. He and his buddies ran over the narrow mesa and then along the base of the rimrock (the young bull elk with them ran another direction). I got to the edge and saw them stop at the corner of the rimrock for a last look back, and was able to quickly aim at hairline, rather than spend time calculating and estimating, and drop him. The trajectory and the 350-yd energy gave me full confidence, confidence I'd not have in the very worthy 7-08.

You say you did not take time to estimate the range or calculate the drop. You just held on the backline and shot.

I don't think so............I think your mental computer took over.

Didn't you mentally compute in the proverbial blink and say "OK, about 350 thats 10" of drop, I'll hold on the backline annnnnnd...........bang!

You could just as easily, in the same blink said "OK, about 350 that's 20" of drop, I'll hold half a body over the backline annnnnnnd........bang!

Either way, it takes the same time and the same skill and would produce the same result. It would have taken far longer to assume the proper shooting position (as I'm sure you did) for that distance than it would to do this instant calculation.

There is another unlikely possibility of course, and that is a blind azz guess. No calcs, no thought, just guesswork. If that was the case, then you got lucky and the magnum might have helped and it also might not have. Of course, that is not real responsible shooting and I'm certain that it is not the case here.

JimF

Sorry for being unclear. "Calculating and estimating" referred to airspace between crosshair and animal, not distance of shot. I had wasted a precious second zapping the distance (I know my [dis]ability in that arena too well).
I spent some time with 10x16" plates from 300-550 yds this Spring and have found that the greater the hold-over needed, the harder it is to estimate that amount correctly and consistently (even with a personal ballistic table at hand and the distance known).
You bet my abacus beads were clacking furiously.
I strongly disagree that figuring and holding "half a body" over is as quick and easy as with lesser amounts. (Granted, I could be unnaturally handicapped in that ability, but I don't think so.)

(BTW, prone over the daypack. And I've got a few friends who can testify that I can 'assume the position' pretty quickly.)

Somebody way back in this thread asked why I was going to use a .300 Weatherby on my Colorado elk hunt.

The answer to the question: Because Weatherby invited me on the hunt, and the rifle model we decided to use (the new Vanguard Sub-MOA) does not come in .270 Weatherby, which would have been my first choice. So I decided on the .300 instead.

It appears that this thread has once again come down to a shouting match between the non-magnums and the magnums. My original point was to show that there isn't as much difference between the trajectory of the two as many of us would like the believe. Before my "experiment" (I already know about what the results would be, having done essentially the same shooting before with various cartridges) several of the boys guessed that the .300 would shoot at least a foot higher.

Whether 7" is or is not a lot is beside the point. The point is that it wasn't nearly as much as most people think.

I use both magnums and non-magnums a lot. As mentioned earlier, I own three .300 magnum rifles myself, and have used them all. Apparently I am not particularly recoil sensitive, as even a .458 Lott doesn't both me much. (A .505 Gibbs starts to, especially in a 9-pound rifle.)

It makes sense to use as much rifle as you can truly handle. A lot of people can't shoot a .300 magnum of any sort. However, to claim that a .308 or .30-06 is inadequate or simply not in the same league as, say, a .300 WSM or .300 Winchester Magnum (which in factory loads are esentially the same thing) at normal hunting ranges indicates to me that the writer lacks experience. If you hunt enough with any of them, and can shoot reasonably well, then you would know differently.

Oh, and my last elk was killed with the .300 Winchester Magnum, using 200-grain Nosler Partitions handloaded to about 2950 from the 25-inch barrel of my custom Sisk rifle. The bull was an average sort of 6x6, taken at the vast range of 75 yards. He was quartering slightly toward me, and the bullet broke the near shoulder and went on through the top of the heart and both lungs--and out the other side. He still ran about 35 yards before stopping, still standing, though weaving. So I shot him again.

Would a .338 have done it quicker? Would a .308 have "failed"? My experience makes me doubt it. I have used the same bullet from the .30-06 for the majority of my elk, and results have been similar. Still haven't recovered one of those 200-grain Partitions, either.

Oh, and one more, for the guy who likes a .300 magnum because nilgai are so tough, and supposedly often "have" to be shot in the butt: I have shot end-to-end through a bull nilgai, though from the other end--with a .270 WSM and a 140-grain Fail Safe.

MD

MD,

I don't see any shouting match, just good, fun debate.

You started it! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'll bet MD IS laughing over this discussion, or at least waiting to make some solid counterpoints.

All of what I'm about to say only represents my personal opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but when you compare cartridges of the same bore diameter, it's easy enough to come up with evidence that'll prove almost any point that you'd care to make. Lawyers do it all the time in court, and gunwriters have done very well following this practice for decades. This is what fuels the market and fuels the entire industry. It's good business and a lot of fun any way you care to look at it.

I started out with the 30-06 in 1972 at age fifteen. I still have my original rifle, a Model 700 ADL which I purchased with money I earned myself on the farm I grew up on, in my collection to this day. I've always had uncommonly good luck with the 30-06 in terms of accuracy, shootability, and good, solid performance on game from blacktails to elk. It's a great cartridge, no question about it, and still probably the most practical general-use hunting cartridge in the world for most hunters.

For some reason, every 308 Win. I've ever owned has been a dog -- don't ask me why..........

When I really started hunting in earnest with the 300 Win. Mag. in 1994, I sort of did so by accident. The previous year, I'd ordered a rifle from a custom gunbuilder I met at SCI, and when he asked me what cartridge, I said 300 Win. Mag., sort of as an afterthought.

But it sure turned out to be a great choice, and as time went on, it was pretty clear that the 300 Win. ironed stuff out more convincingly than the '06. It shot demonstrably flatter, brought animals down faster, and has been the most effective general purpose cartridge I've ever used. From Alaska to Tanzania, and from B.C. to Mexico, on all sizes of game from sheep to Coues deer to elk and moose, plus all manner of African game from lion to eland, it's done the job better than 'well', and quite honestly, I find simplifications comparing it to cartridges like the 308 to be just that -- simplifications that don't come close at all to telling the complete story.

It's true that at known ranges and with ample time, a good rifleman can largely compensate for differences in bullet drop. But I've found that ranges are often long and uncertain, sometimes the exact wind speed is uncertain, and sometimes it's a matter of shoot RIGHT NOW, within the next few seconds, from a hastily-assumed rest, or else forgo the opportunity. You don't always have time to get the rangfinder out and use it, and sometimes conditions are such that rangefinders just don't work.

So........that mere 7" difference in drop in favor of the 300 Win. has come in quite handy more than once, particularly on Coues deer and stuff like Vaal rehbok at long range, and the extra energy it's delivered hasn't exactly been wasted either, particularly on the some of the tougher animals like elk, moose, eland, gemsbok, and zebra that I've taken at long range.

The extra energy hasn't hurt anything up close either, not so as I have been able to determine..........

AD

When I re-read my post earlier it did seem to bash the 300 mags a bit. I want to come back and say that wasn't my intention. My intentions were to point out the fact that the benefits of trajectory and energy of the .300 mags aren't typically utitlized where I hunt. I hunt with one gent in WV that uses a 300 Win. mag every year with great success. Although I have jokingly pointed out that it's a bit much for 75-100 yard deer kills which is probably average for where we hunt. I don't have anything against magnum( used a .44 MAGNUM revolver last year to take a deer) but then again, I don't get long shots. A 200 yard shot where I typically hunt is pretty far, so you can see where I'm coming from. In addition, if I were to use a magnum and have to take a beating, I figure that I might as well move up in bore size to, like the .338 Win. mag or the like. I don't shoot far with standard cartridges because I A)don't have access to a range much over 200 yards, B) don't have to worrry about taking shots much longer than I practice, and C) don't really care to. However, I do realize that other people's hunting evironment could be very different and the benefits of a flatter shooting rifle would help them.