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.

I had to go and get some popcorn...

Coulda made me a sammich while you were in da kitchen.

Just make sure the popcorn is not evil looking.

For elk size and up? Conventional wisdom says yes. Though, with today's tougher copper bullets that penetrate and destroy like much heavier bonded lead ones, weight isn't as important as it once was. For me, the decision relies on how long of a barrel I can tolerate; which isn't long so I would pick the 338.

.338win has been my favorite for some decades,....but If you took it away and gave me an accurate .300mag
I would not feel lacking.

Something else is different about the rifles if you can shove 25% more bullet with the same amount of powder and find less recoil in the lighter round. Yes, the 180gr 338 is going slower, but the difference in bullet weight is big.

I have never enjoyed any 338WM.

I have a large bunch of 30 caliber magnums and have considerable time with them... but I am moving to the 30-06 more and more. My last several bull moose have been with the 06 and TTSX.

Denying simple physics is not a good idea.

I have taken elk/deer with both the 338 Win, 35 Whelen and a few different 300's. With great bullets I haven't seen anything that shows me the 338 does any better than the 300's. Saying that, I love the 338, but honestly I really like the 338 with the 200/210 class of bullets. Don't gain a darned thing over a 300 with a 200, but it does work well and usually whomps elk pretty hard. Going to try the 210 Swift's this year in my 338, just to try something a little different.

It's not as simple as physics though. While his statement is not entirely true, the felt recoil could be lower due to the build and fit of the rifle. Thus making his .338 more enjoyable to shoot.
-Jake

I've enjoyed my synthetic stocked 300 H&H for years now, been a great elk gun. I load 180 TTSX's to 3050 fps. 2 years a go I found a deal on another like stocked pre 64 M70 in 338, I bought it and loaded up some 225's, although it shot great , I came to find out that I had crossed the line when it comes to how much recoil I can handle well, so I sold it. No doubt the .338 is a great round, but I'll get by ok with my 300 H&H, for me the 338 was too much of a good thing.

Interesting discourse - and no one has told someone they are an idiot. Simply amazing!

Pondered this myself a while back. Settled on the 200 gr Noz in the 300. I don't have huge experience with either combo beyond a small sample of animals. The more big game I shoot or see shot the less I believe in 'knock down' 'oomph' 'shock' or any other term used to describe the effect of bullet impact on flesh, bone, and blood. The keys to knockdown seem to be bone and CNS disruption. In my mind the distinction comes down to the volume of the wound channel - a bigger wound channel wins. Slight differences aren't all that significant which is why some of the bullet/cartridge arguments are exercises in observation/experience. I think JB should shoot a bunch of bullets from a bunch of different cartridges into ballistic wax and measure the volume of the wound channel. I'd hazard a guess that 3-4 classes of wound channels would exist.

Duplicate post.

Your comments don't even relate to what I said. But whatever. He was speaking about felt recoil, both rifles were indeed the same (Echols Legends) and that is what he said.

This is very true. The conversation reminds me of the 7RM vs. .300WM or the .270 vs. .30-06 debates. Slight differences between chamberings that are far more alike than different.

BG animals don't DIE unless there is sufficient TRAUMA to the CNS or in the case of body shots; trauma sufficient to
cause enough BLOOD LOSS that they simply cannot continue to function.... yet myths perpetuate in some peoples
minds about 'knockdown' and 'shocking' an animal to death.

People have wrongly used WDM Bells experience with .318 on elephant to claim that larger dia. gave him better results
than his .256 and .275 due to increased wound channel, but Bell himself didn't put it down to wound channel size, rather
he maintained .318 was better for more difficulty shots simply because he found the larger dia.heavier bullet maintained
a straighter course through the animal to the brain.(ie; less incidences of deflection than .256 and .275).

But even In the case of .275, he stated only about 10% of ALL brain shot elephants required a follow-up, a problem which
diminished with .318 WR especially with the oblique-angling away shots through the mass of the neck...(256 and .275 were
prone to bending when hitting the spine) Naturally this will have some effect on the original intended course of the projectile.

Had Bell had something like the luxury of say modern tungsten 7mm solids, it may well have largely solved that problem!

90% of .275 brain shots were properly accomplished with ONE shot....rational conclusion:

shot PLACEMENT trumps calibre in the overwhelming majority of hunting situations.

WDM Bell and and Harry Selby were advocates of the primary importance of shot placement.
Phill Shoemaker, Boddington and anyone on 24CF with rational sense...will tell you the same.

Most people carry cartridges that are capable performers well beyond the capability of the people using them.
More often that not the cause of grief will be lousy shooting and/or poor choice of projectile.

Boddington must've changed his tune. I've read a bunch of his stuff where he touts the .338 for elk, and a minimum of 2000 ft-lbs of energy at the animal, not at the muzzle.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/shooting-tips/shooting_tips_rs_essentialrifle_200808/

"The PHs and I are in total agreement: The best all-around choice for African hunting is a .375. Okay, but “all-around” is a general term,
and if there’s no dangerous game on the menu, I am convinced that the vast majority of African plains game are best and most
easily taken with a hunter’s favorite deer cartridge, be it a .270, a 7mm or a .30 caliber.

Yes, I know, African game has the legend of being extra-tough. Mostly this is hogwash. Animals such as wildebeest are tougher than others,
and some such as zebra can be both bigger and tougher. But there is no African antelope, pig or equine that will not succumb to a
well-placed, well-constructed bullet from any of these calibers.

The eland is a special case because it’s more than twice the size of any other antelope. A big bull of any of the several races can weigh as
much as a ton. I believe in a .375 for eland, but if you’ve read any of my stuff you know I’m a heavy-caliber, heavy-bullet sort of guy.

Honestly, even for eland you don’t need a .375. Perhaps a better and more versatile choice would be any of the fast .33s, a fast 8mm
(.325 WSM or 8mm Remington Magnum) or a fast .35 if you can find one (like the .358 Shooting Times Alaskan).

If you have such a rifle, and if it’s accurate and you shoot it well, you really don’t need anything else. On the other hand, if eland is not of
interest to you, you probably don’t need anything larger than a .30 caliber–and most of us will shoot better at a sustained rate with cartridges
that produce a bit less recoil. So if the largest antelope is on the game list, perhaps you should mate a fast .33 with something smaller and
more manageable, perhaps a .25 or 6.5mm, or your favorite .270, 7mm or .30 caliber.

If I had to choose the perfect single rifle for plains game, it would be my 8mm Remington Magnum. It’s a rifle I have used in Namibia,
South Africa, Ethiopia, Zambia and Chad, several times as a one-rifle battery. I have used it on eland, no problems, and I’ve also used it for
longer shooting in wide-open country, including gemsbok in the Kalahari and the tiny dorcas gazelle on the edge of the Sahara.

But if I decided to take two rifles I would probably go a bit larger on the upper end, perhaps to a .338 Winchester Magnum, and drop down a
whole bunch on the other end to something like the 7×57 in brush country or a fast 6.5mm or .270 in more open ground."

**despite Craig Boddingtons preference for .375H&H -8mmMag for eland, his young daughter successfully used 7mm/08
on her 200yd bull eland. The 7mm/08 says CB, being the rifle she has most confidence in using.

I wouldn't think so, and would use the 300 mags with 200 gr Partitions for elk sized animals without concern, to me the 338 really comes into it's own with 250 gr A-Frames or Partitions, I would really like to use my 338 on Eland, Nilgai or the Great Bears of Alaska.

Damn, I ran out of popcorn. I'll be right back..

[quote=JMR40]Any time you can shoot same or similar bullet weights from 2 different calibers the smaller caliber always wins. /quote] But everyone knows that a 243 will only wound deer while the 257 Roberts is Thor's hammer. :-)

Scotty, I'm with you and our buddy gunner on this one. I don't think there's a hill of beans difference between a good 300 magnum running 200gr. partitions and a 338wm running a good 210,225 or even 250gr pill. Those bullets are just going to plow through elk, stem to stern and hammer the fu ck out of them. However, I'm like you and love my 338wm. It's accurate, it's light, it's reliable and well balanced and easy to carry. If you can shoot a big rifle well, there's no reason not to use it. Pick either one, stuff it with partitions and you'll be golden.

There is no real difference between the two.

If you want to see a bit of a difference, up the velocity of the 33 to 340 Wby or better yet 338 RUM or Lapua.

But who the hell would want to pack something shootable in any of those on an elk mountain?

Pass the 308 Win or, 30-06, or 270...

Yup, it's like I said, Boddington's changed his tune. He sure sold a lot of books and articles using that old tune though.

I see you've come around, just like Boddington.

Just told my wife about this "very" active thread. She said, "Not interested in their opinions, I'll keep using my .338 "! That pretty much ends all debate.... at least in our house! memtb

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


Have you had the chance to take your new 338 to the range yet?

Man needs to know his place...

DF

And using Energy as a requirement tells me everything I need to know about CB...

There is no question that energy is required. Without energy transfer, nothing happens.

Even with massive energy transfer, if it happens over a large enough area or time span, nothing interesting happens.

Those two facts should lead one to the more interesting questions and useful answers.

This is my experience as well. 7mm STW and the fast .30s pop the crap out of me, .338 pushes bigger but doesn't hit as hard because it's slower coming back. .375 H&H is nicer yet. That's in same-weight rifles, of course. One of the most pleasant-to-shoot "big" rifles I ever owned was a 700 XCR in .375 H&H. With a Leupold 3-9X40, it was nice to pack and nice to shoot. Pushy, but not jabby.

Tom

Yes but we're talking about bullets killing animals, not the laws of physics writ large. There is no question about whether any bullet not at rest has "energy."




Once again, bullets and animals. Bullets impart their energy in a small area over milliseconds.

The question is, in that context is "kinetic energy" a good yardstick.

And the answer is no.

I added back in the line from my post that you left out of your quote.

Your response tell me the "more interesting questions" have totally eluded you.

Nothing has eluded me, especially your need to hear yourself talk.

Much has eluded you. If you had a clue what the "more interesting questions" were you response would have been totally different.

Exactly.

Okay, here is a question for you... how was my son able to kill multiple animals at up to nearly 350 yards with single shots with 80gr TTSX in a 25-06? At animals like bull moose, bull caribou, brown bear, mountain goat, and others? No where near 2000 ft. lbs at the critter, either.

You will never find me saying 2000fpe is required. Nor will you ever find me saying 0fpe is required..

The "more interesting questions" appear to elude you as well.

300 WBY is the best elk cartridge around. Even Coyote Hunter know it.

They've eluded neither one of us. We just don't think they're interesting questions.

You don't even know what the questions are.

It's a good choice. Best? Not as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.

IMO, It's not what cartridge is better, In many ways it boils down to what caliber do YOU like. I've like the 338WM for years, I've had one since the late 70's and used it a lot. It's never failed me. I like the 250 grain partition and have a lot of confidence in it. I still have 2 of them. If that doesn't work for me, there is always my 375 H&H. If I want to go light I have some 30-06's. People like cartridges for all kinds of reasons. Energy, penetration, or bullet has nothing to do with what you like any more than it does with women.

The most pressing one is, why are you such a dumb ass.

That's rhetorical by the way.

Another display of your maturity level. Congrats.

Your wife truly has my respect. Give her my regards...

Thanks. I align it with the level of discourse. That's the proper level for a discussion of kinetic energy. You never disappoint.

PS, don't let this stop you from posting a dissertation on kinetic energy. You know you want to. It'll be entertaining.

Another display of your maturity level. Congrats.
[/quote]

Thanks. I align it with the level of discourse. That's the proper level for a discussion of kinetic energy. You never disappoint.[/quote]

By "level of discourse" you mean your descent to grade-school name calling because you are incapable of actually discussing the issue at hand. More of the same and pretty much what I expect from you.

I mean exactly what I said, a discussion of kinetic energy. It's an exercise in mental masturbation. It's a huge surprise that you're drawn to it by the way.

Yes, yes, and yes. 200 gr A-Frame with max H1000 is my medicine. All bull 1 shot DRT.

The simple truth is that without energy, nothing happens. That is not a guess or a statement of supposition but one of fact that leads thinking people to rather interesting questions - questions apparently beyond your ability to grasp.

As I said before, I grasp them just fine. They're just not interesting.

But don't let that stop you, please expound.

Energy is like S.D. its not wise to generalise with either.

Sitka Deers BG with 80grain mono SD .173 with about 1200 ft/lb.
is far from the minimums typically recommended by old school trains of thought.
If he had told 24cf readers they was planning to hunt moose with such projectile,
he would have been shot down by some.

TYPE of projectile can have significant effect on where energy is spent inside an animal,
and effect how much minimum energy is required for lethality. Its possible to spend less
KE and achieve superior performance.

The amount of KE in bowhunting demonstrates how little KE is needed if you select the
correct projectile... ..tests by Ashby are valuable reading.( abbreviated)


"Longbow 788 grain compressed cedar arrow, 190 grain Grizzly broadhead, at 148 fps 38 ft.lbs KE
was used to repeatedly shoot through the scapula of a large zebra stallion and through the thorax to the off side, often
breaking off-side ribs (never failing to penetrate the scapula and completely through the thorax). ......
compared to:
Compound 555 grain aluminum shafted Black Diamond This combination gives 229fps 65 ft.lbs. KE,
penetrate only 5 to 8 inched beyond the scapula, and occasionally failed to penetrate the scapula at all on that same
zebra carcass......next,
Compound 450 grain carbon arrow - three blade head, vel. 259fps 76 ft.lbs. KE ,unable to penetrate the zebra scapula."

I don't know Owl, but will draw a little heat away from him anyway.

I've got one .300Win and one .338Win. It's an apples to oranges comparison that should favor the .300 for lighter recoil but that's simply not the case.

My .300Win is a Ruger #1B with a 20yr old Burris 6-18X. Burris didn't know how to make light scopes back then (maybe the still don't?), and the whole rifle weighs a lot. I tried packing around the alpine country for two seasons then wised up. I forgot the weight, and it's in the back row of the safe right now.

My .338Win is a much lighter Ruger MkII with a much lighter Burris 3-9x from about 10yrs ago. Again, sitting in the back row right next to the .300 (I know there's a pattern here).

My .300Win load is a 180gr BTs over enough H4831SC to reach an accurate 3100fps.............and easily accomplished.

My .338Win load is a 225gr NPT over enough H4350 to make 2900fps on the nose. And yes, I realize that's a lot higher than normal, so I'm lucky or that pound of powder had fairly dust in it or something.

Anyway, not being a mathlete, I can't calculate whatever energies need to be compared to make sense of this, but my much heavier .300Win shooting a lighter bullet (albeit faster by 200fps) kicks like a miserable SOB (hence it's sitting in the back row), while the ligher .338Win shooting a heavier bullet with a faster powder isn't miserable at all. And honestly I had to talk myself down from a flinch before taking that first shot with the .338 because I'd heard all the complaining about recoil, and was sure I was about to receive a beating. Both are equipped with OEM Ruger tank track pads.

Please feel free to explain this for me, because it's been a head-scratcher for years. All I've come up with is the Ruger#1 is somehow a "bad design" for felt recoil, and/or the muzzle velocity factors higher than rifle and bullet weight. A friend of mine owned two #1 .300Wins and both of them ate scopes and kick like a bastid, so I know it's not just me. He sold one and rebarreled the other to a heavier contour for more weight.

Stepping away from the recoil and energy discussion for a second, I'll mention one REAL difference between the .300's and the .338...............and that's bullet price and availability. If the two cartridges are too similar to tell a difference in the field, I'd pick .30cal simply for the economics.

I had the same experience with a Browning Safari Grade in 338 WM and a Ruger M77 Mk II in a Bell & Carlson stock. The recoil is not as bad as the urban legends imply, but it's still substantial. The Browning weighed 9 pounds scoped. When I carried it, I wanted it to be a pound lighter. When I shot it, I wanted it to be a pound heavier. The Ruger was lighter but the more modern stock design handled recoil better. I killed one elk with the Browning, breaking its spine at 110 yards. I could have done that with a 30-06. Or a 30-30.


Okie John

There's nothing better.

Stock shape is a huge factor in felt recoil... just as shooting posture and the weight of the shooter contribute heavily, pun intended. But you cannot change the basic facts that Physics insists on. Sitting up straighter and riding with the recoil is better than hunching over and stopping the movement. Stocks with a little bit of cast allow the gun to move away from the face and greatly reduce felt recoil. None of that changes actual recoil.

Now when someone starts talking crazy numbers and saying things like a lighter rifle shooting a much heavier bullet at nearly similar speeds kicks less than a smaller bullet in a heavier rifle you have to accept the unwritten. The shooters interpretation leaves out the fact they expect Physics to reign "and it really wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. "

Both rifles had the loads worked up and zeroed off a bench, so the posture was same/same...........and ideal for maximizing the felt recoil. Both rifles "feel" llike they're coming straight back, and neither bites me in the cheek bone.

My best guess is the increased muzzle velocity also causes proportionate recoil velocity, and that's what creates the painful bite. My .338 is more of a heavy push (which mathematically might be heavier than the .300's numbers), but is spread out over enough milliseconds to not hurt, while the .300Win gets recoils so quickly that my body takes a full hit rather than recoiling with the rifle.

I know that mathematics always tells the truth, so I don't doubt the lighter .338, shooting a heavier bullet is technically the "heavier recoiler" on paper. But the perceived "recoil curve" is very tolerable, while the heavier gun/lighter bullet .300Win isn't. And Ruger's idea of a recoil pad does a fine job of staying out of the equation altogether. Someday I'll buy a Simms slip-on for my .300, and give it another try.

I would certainly agree that the .338 seems to push while the .300 magnums seem to hit much more quickly. So much so I rarely use mine.

I did just buy a .300 Weatherby M-70 push feed and except for a Limb saver pad and bedding it is pretty stock. It doesn't seem to recoil as bad as the .338 when loaded with 180's. I hope it stays that way when I get a 200 grain load worked up. I really like the way 200 grain .308 Noslers perform on game.

For me the math is easy, Two Ruger MKII rifles, one in .300WM, the other in .338WM. Both have Zytel .with boat paddle stocks. Have not weighed the rifles but assume about 8.3 pounds with scope.

300WM = 180g @ 3033fps using 70.0g powder, calculated recoil = 29.2 ft-lbs
338WM = 225g @ 2742fps using 69.0g powder, calculated recoil = 33.8 ft-lbs

"Shoulder math" concurs with the calculated recoil - the .338WM hits harder, and noticeably so.

I have had some interesting experiences with 300 win, 300wby and 338 win.

Mark V chambered in 300 wby had serious recoil. SS Fluted barrel Synthetic stock model 180 grain Factory Ammo

Salvage 110 in 300 win mag felt even worse then the Mark V Wood stocked 110 180 grain Factory Ammo

Weatherby VAnguard deluxe 300 wby absolutely sweet shooting --recoil is not an issue 180 grain Factory Ammo

RUger M77 338 wood stock --recoil more of a push then a shove - quite docile 225 Remington Factory Ammo


I would like to try out a 340 weatherby but would have to make a custom vanguard deluxe to get that , think the Mark V would have more felt recoil.

That is one tough round to beat I concur

I have fixed several brutal-recoiling Savages with a simple pad change...

Worst recoiling rifle I have ever owned and it had a 1" recoil pad.

And I have spent a bit of time looking at that very stock to see what can be done to avoid every aspect of its design!

Do you always have to get the last word in ? I had a pretty darn good smith look at it as well. Had I held on to it I was putting another stock on it. I don't own it anymore so your input matters not one iota. Only mine matters since I owned it and shot it . I sure has hell would not have shipped it to Alaska so you could work on it.

How in the Hell did you get the idea I was suggesting anything even remotely like that???

My reason in looking at it was to see what aspects of the design contributed so strongly to poor recoil handling... for building other stocks!

I was just reading The Hunter's Guide to Accurate Shooting by Wayne Van Zwoll last night and he addresses this situation directly.

From The Hunter's Guide to Accurate Shooting:

So a better comparison would be to drive those bullets at the same velocity. Some might say drive bullets of equal weight, and I suppose that's one way to do it, but the .308 180 vs a .338 225 have very similar sectional densities, which I think makes for a better comparison. I don't see any load data where the 225 gr bullet in.338 Win Mag can be driven as fast as your .300 Win Mag. Perhaps a better comparison for the recoil would be with the .340 Weatherby or .338 RUM, or download the .300 to the same velocity and then decide. Of course, the rifles and their weights you have on hand are still different which mucks things up a bit.

Well said, Gringo. I've also surmised the only way to really contrast cartridges is to look at the bullet weights that each can send at similar velocities.

Recoil Vel. is higher with 225gn 338win than 300win 180gn. I performed various calcs using a range of typical powder charges for each,
including the heaviest charge weights for both cartridges from Nosler data. (75gn for .338 and 81gn for .300win)

One is effectively applying a higher level of whats technically called "Tamping" of an explosive charge when loading with a heavier projectile.
Increased tamping even on a lower charge can produce more redirection of HE/HV force than lighter tamping of a heavier explosive charge.

Cases, primers,chambers, bolts and barrels are also forms of mechanical tamping, as they are designed to contain and re-direct blast force.
then you carefully complete the tamp process by capping with a projectile.. if against the lands you may be dangerously tamping too much!!..

Anyone here who has trained with setting up various forms of demolition charges will understand what I mean.

My choice is to compare loads I actually use, as I did here:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...141380/re-300-magnum-vs-338#Post12141380

The primary difference between the two rifles (.338WM and .300WM) is the .338 has a Limbsaver recoil pad while the .300WM has the Ruger tire tread pad. THe .338WM still hits much harder than the .300WM.

Here are some similar calculations made on JBM ballistics software:

Assume a .300 WM and a .338, both in 9 lb. rifles.
.300 WM = 180 gr., 69 gr. powder, 3100 fps MV, - Recoil velocity 14.0 ft/sec., Recoil energy 27.4 ft.lbs., Recoil impulse 3.9 lb/sec.

.338 WM = 225 gr., 70 gr. powder, 2850 fps MV- Recoil velocity 15.4 ft/sec., Recoil energy 32.2 ft. lbs., Recoil impulse 4.3 lb/sec.

The .338 in these identical weight rifles has more recoil, and does so at a higher recoil velocity, than the .300- so much for the theory that the .338's recoil is more of a 'push'. It is not.
It boils down to stock design, how the rifle fits the shooter, recoil pads, etc. that factor in to the subjective nature of felt recoil. One of the hardest 'kicking' rifles I have ever shot belongs to my daughter in law- it is a Savage .270, shooting factory 130 gr. ammo.

Didn't read thru all the posts, so this may be redundant. Short answer is NO.

The GAME (NA, anyway- all I have experience with) can't tell a bit of difference from .243 to .375 as far as I can tell, properly hit. This is based on something over 100 head (a piddling amount compared to some posters here) of BG animals killed with everything from .243 to .375, whitetail to moose. The moose double-lunged at 70-80 yards with .243 100 gr. C&C went about 20 yards. One moose quartering one-lung hit with a .30-06 180 gr. at 160 yards (my longest shot ever on 20+ moose) went about 100 yards. An elk hit with 140 gr. .260 bullet was bang-flop. Neck spine shattered. Several caribou double lunged with the same .260 loads beyond 300 yards also bang-flopped or almost. One or two seconds thinking about it doesn't count.... A caribou double lunged with .30-06 150 gr at 300 yards two years ago went 120-150 yards all told, out and back, dying within yards of where first shot. A second caribou at 433 yards less than a minute after the first one went down, similarily hit, went about 5 yards. These were 150 gr factory loads leaving the muzzle at an advertised 1080 fps.Hornady SuperPerformance factory loads.

Be it noted one will frequently not get a bang flop on moose without a CNS or large bone hit. It can take a bit of time for the lungs to fill up and/or the blood pressure to drop enough for the tip-over. I had a yearling (running at 35 yards), make about 100 yards after I neatly centered a large artery just under his spine with a 12 guage slug immediately behind the shoulder. His meat was durn near white- very pale, anyway. Best eater I've ever had. I missed. I was trying for the spine, since he was between the boat and me, on the trail when I fired..

I don't have a .300, but do have several .30-06s, and one .338WM. I can't tell the difference in "killing power" between them, no matter what loads I use. More importantly, neither can the game. The .300WM is an excellent compromise (I hate to use that word in this context) between them. You are fine with it- you don't need a .338 for anything in NA. You might WANT one for brown/griz bear, but don't really need one. It's why I got mine, as I hunt moose in thick cover, and those 2 gallon piles of steaming bear chit were a bit unsettling. I haven't fired the .338 in 8 years..... . I'm hoping to take my next moose with the .260, but not this year - I've only an '06 up here.

I almost never recover a bullet from any caliber, with any load, - unless it hits bone. Then only sometimes, or it is so badly fragmented as to not count. I simply do not worry about "penetration" unless a BULLET proves itself deficient - and I've largely gone back to C&C anyway, which have proven sufficient for most of what i do.

I have only had one bullet fail to penetrate sufficiently to kill the animal. The one that blew up on the shoulder blade of a moose at 100 yards was a Nosler Partition 210 gr. from the .338. First and last animal I ever shot with that load, tho the second one up the nose (more or less) at 10 feet did the job. I prefer not getting that close to a wounded animal, before it lurches it's way back to its feet.... I now usually use an insurance shot from a few yards out.

I used some '06 Federal Hi-Shok (I think they were called) that expanded and separated immediately on a sheep at 330 yards, and a moose 4 days later at 70 yards. They killed but I didn't like the bullet separation an inch or so under the near hide. The moose didn't need the second shot, and possibly not the sheep (shot placement was too high, just under the spine, paralyzing hind legs). Most accurate ammo I ever had for that rifle, however, but no good for hunting anything larger than coyotes, IMO.

Those are the only two loads I have ever found "deficient" and won't ever use again, providing the load is matched to the use. Caliber is down the list a ways... Mostly what I choose to use nowdays is the gun I feel like hunting with, and caliber is secondary.

I would add that the best bang/flopper I've ever used to kill game with was a Ruger 77V in.25-06, using 120 grain Speer handloads. 23 caribou in 3 years with it, only the first was not an impressive, right now bang-flop. He took two, only needed one. The first went in at the base of his neck and lodged against the opposite hind leg bone, turning him broadside. The second double-lunged him and was, as all subsequent animals, a Hammer of Thor slap down.

I do like big exit holes, but one does not necessarily need big bores for that.

And incidently, that .243 moose taken with 100 grain Corelokts was a pencil through between ribs on both sides. Mushed the lungs, tho.

Good post +1

Yes, stock design and fit, plus weight have a lot to with perceived recoil. I got a .338 Ruger Hawkeye African (without the muzzle brake) that has a McMillan stock with a Decelerator recoil pad. The LOP is 12-1/2" (includes the pad). This rifle does not kick as one would expect, more like a shove against my shoulder.

In the past I had identical model 70 classics in 300 and 338. To me the 338 was more mild mannered. As it pertained to muzzle rise, blast, etc. Recoil was about the same until you went to 225g bullets in the 338, then the recoil was slower, but stiffer.

Btw, does the 338 work better than the 300 for gut shooting elk?

I dunno about 300's and elks, but I know a 250 gr. TB factory load out of a .338 will exit the opposite shoulder blade of a yearling 600 plus pound moose on a raking shot which enters, just creasing the front of the near ham. Through the forage-filled paunch of course. That's roughly 3 feet of animal, with that dense mass of vegetation right in the middle. Messy. And yes- I was holding for the opposite shoulder on purpose.

He had already taken the first one through both shoulder blades without going down, and a second "a bit low" (knee cap, ok? ). He was leaving post haste straight away for heavy cover, 3 legged, so, as he turned a bit from "Texas heart shot" placement, I kept shooting. He went down with the 4th shot, a Sierra GK 250 gr. hand load, broadside. He was going down within seconds anyway, so the last one was superfluous. As it was, so were the second and third shots. Tough little bugger!

I'm kinda proud of my shooting on that moose. I was firing standing, off-hand, from a rotten, crumbling downed birch log about 3 feet off the ground, through a screen of alder leaves at starting @120 yards and ending at @ 140 (paced off across ice a few months later) The first and third rounds exited the same hole, the fourth about 4 inches higher. I have that shoulder blade in my cull corner.

For gut shooting and knee busting moose, .338 Trophy Bonded bullets worked great..... . The GK had an exit wound twice the size of the 2 TB combined, inch and a half or so vs 3/4 inch. The GK just missed the top of the shoulder blade. It looks like all 3 exited the same hole, but that's just the way the bone chipped.

I could tell you so, and who would know?

If you want "overpenetration", those TBs will do it! I have no doubt they would have gone full length through him (or a full grown bull) had I chosen so.

las,

If you want to bust moose gut to pieces (lungs too), nothing better than one of the old Federal 250-grain NOS HE loads coming out the barrel at 2,700 fps

I still have a few left. I shot a moose "in" the lungs from about 175 yards, and there were pieces of lead all over in the chest cavity. The moose dropped like hit by lightning, too. A couple of days later I saw a huge grizzly walking away from the gut pile, something I wasn't prepared to see, but there was no way that I was going to shoot that grizzly with the same type of ammo. By the time I thought about it, the bear was gone.

Yes! And it is sweet. I got a great deal on a Bushnell Elite 3500 that I put on it. I hadn't had any of the elite series, but I really like it so far. Although I haven't shot it in low light yet or past 150 yards.. I've put 60 rds of factory stuff through it and have my first batch of handloads ready to go. Selling a .270 (supposed to show up tomorrow) that I had as a "backup" rifle because I like this one so much. Ready to shoot some doe with it this deer season hopefully.
-Jake

A 300 mag can shoot a lot flatter.

Trajectory compensation is elementary... windage not so much, at least for me. (SWAG usually works... ) Which would drift less, a 225 gr .338 round, or a .300 220 gr. load (or use 210 and 200, respectively, if you prefer) at comparible near max respective velocities? Seems to me , considering offhand, faster velocity would give the wind less time to act on bullets of similar weight the same way gravity has less time to influence?

I will add that perceived recoil also depends on muzzle blast. I've found I have less perceived recoil (and the better I shoot) the more better my hearing protection with the same gun and loads. I double up plugs and muffs on the "range", if I can.

Also include visual muzzle-jump. A porting system (Mag-Na-Port on my .338) also reduces felt recoil by dampening recoil energy , and by reducing muzzle rise. It may contribute to it by increased decibels, however.

I can tell you that my RU77 , 17 inch barreled, .30-06 with shortened/slimmed stock (probably around 7.5 lbs with scope) is not as pleasant to shoot under any circumstances as the 9 lb or so scoped RU77 .338 with Magna-port. The 9 lb M98, 27 inch heavy barreled '06 is a real pussycat - almost down to the same felt recoil as the Rem725 .260, (20" bbl?) both of which I can shoot off sandbags or whatever with no forend hold without problem.

Since I already have a 7mm rem mag that shoots good I think I will pass on a .300 magnum unless the deal is exceptional. I think I'll direct my search towards a .338 win mag or 9.3x62. Should be more than up to the task of whacking moose inside 300 yards and bison or elk should I get drawn.

It offers a slightly larger hole, which some people care about. I am one of them. Other than that it comes down to personal preference, both will be more than up to the task of what you have planned.

Pass the 338...

Me too.

But the size of the hole has a lot to do with the projectile chosen and velocity rather than caliber, within reason. A Superperformance 150 gr. SST through my '06 tends to leave a larger hole through caribou, than a 250 gr. Game King through my .338 on moose with similar shot placement and range. Different constructions, and over 500 fps difference in MV.