I'm trying to put together an elk rifle in .338 WM. I do all of my own reloading. I have owned one .300 WM which I couldn't get to shoot worth a crap so I got rid of it. I currently have a Sako .300 wsm that does a heck job shooting 200 grain bullets but this gun is to pretty and to heavy to take in the hills. I want something light in the big hills but something heavy enough to control kick on the .338 wm. I don't want a muzzle break as they hurt my ears and people at the range don't like em.
I want something in 70 degree bolt turn or less with a 23" or 24" barrel. I'm thinking of a gun that weighs about 7lbs + Scope + Shells when loaded I'm guessing that would get me to about 8 pounds. I'm only guessing that this would be a good weight but need opinions on this????
I could get a Sako Finnlight in .300 wsm but this gun weighs 6lbs 6oz's and I'm thinking this is a little little light for 200 grain bullets. Also I leaning toward .338 wm as I may do an Alaska moose / Bear Hunt in the future.
I can order a Sako Synthetic Stainless which weighs 7lbs and has a 24" inch barrel. It has to be ordered factory direct as Sako doesn't sell this gun in the U.S. so might take a while to get here if I order it.
What are your experienced opinions on this setup for big hills and big caliber???
Thanks
Adams
Get a good .300 and for get it.. Anything a .338 can do the .300 does better except shoot 250 gr. Bullets. If you go there, then get a .340 or bigger..
Bull chit. Get you that 338 and rock on. No need to go with the short necked 300wm if you can get away with it. You already have a good 300WSM that will do anything a 300wm will and recoil less to boot. Win win situation there... Guys that badmouth the 338wm, have never used one or can't handle one... Trust me, they put elk down in a hurry. Not a damn thing wrong with your choice or way of thinking. An 8 pound (all up) 338WM built right is a thing of beauty...
I would do another 300 WSM before a 338 WM personally, not a big fan of cramming the 300 Win Mag into a standard length action either. The 338 is good if you choose to go that route but I still think the 300 WSM is just as good in the real world.
I'm thinking you're going to have a tough time finding anything other than that custom ordered Sako that fits the bill. As far as rifles with short bolt lift I can only think of Sako, Browning, Tikka and Weatherby Mark V.
With the Browning you're going to end up with a thin 26" barrel. By the time you get it cut down it'll probably be around 6.5 pounds. The Tikkas are lighter yet and I'm not sure that they chamber the new T3X in a 338 win mag. I don't know if Weatherby chambers the Mark V in 338 win mag but I'm guessing not. You might be able to find a Sako 85 Grey Wolf over here but that's going to be closer to an 8 pound bare rifle.
Any other common short lift actions I'm not thinking of here? Besides Ruger American etc.
Taking my .300WM and .338WM elk hunting this year. 180 TTSX for the .300 and 225g AB for the .338.
The .338WM definitely makes bigger holes. Part of that is bullet choice.
The .338 also recoils more, although the two rifles are very similar (skeleton 'boat paddle' Ruger stocks, MKII actions).
If you start with a 7lb rifle, you'll likely end up at 8.5lbs or more with ammo and scope. My .338 is fairly light with a 22" fluted barrel and skeleton stock. Recoil with a 225g AB @ 2742fps is substantial. You either put up with more weight or higher recoil. I chose a somewhat reduced velocity for the .338 to help reduce recoil as well. It still works just fine.
I had a pre'64 Winchester M/70 .338 Winchester Magnum, I handloaded the long discontinued Speer 275gr. RN bullet. With a stout charge of IMR 4350 that rifle would put three shots in a nice tight group at 100 yds., it had a Canjar non-set wide trigger that broke cleanly at 3# that made it a joy to shoot. Never needed a second shot on elk or mulies with that rifle and load.
No, you don't want a braked .338. I used to have one and one time I forgot to put my ear protectors over top my ear plugs. Mind you, I still had plugs in. I fired that gun and my ears ring to this day. If I had tinnitus before that I never noticed. Now I can never forget. I gave up on the brake after that and kept shooting the .338 but it gave me heart palpitations each range visit so I had to part with it. Always wanted a .338 but when I got one I just couldn't make it agree with me. Awesome round though.
Just took a nice 6x7 elk two weeks ago with my Sako 338. As bsa says above, it puts em down in a hurry. I shoot 225 grain North Forks in it and the terminal performance on the multiple elk I've taken with it is a sight to behold.
The 338 with 225 grain bullets, bull elk....it's a match made in heaven. Go ahead and get ya one!
My .338 WM is in a Browning Abolt. I don't know the exact weight but guess it's approx. 8.5 lbs. with a Bushnell 4200 3-9x40. I've had it in a fiber stock but it's now in a factory hunter wood stock that's bedded. I use 225 gr. bullets at 2850 fps. I find this combo very comfortable to shoot. I've taken moose, caribou, black bear and whitetail with it. Nothing has walked off after being hit with it. My opinion on the 300/338 debate is if I need more than the 30-06 I want more bullet not a faster bullet.
Adams, Continue to do your research on the rifle that fulfills your wants.....and certainly go with the .338 WM! A muzzle brake is certainly “not” needed (unless you have some sort of shoulder issue) on a rifle weighing in at 8.5lbs ( scoped,loaded and slung). I’ve watched my wife do some pretty darn work with a .338 for over 20 years ( without a brake). On game from antelope to moose, at ranges from around 30 yards to a measured (after the shot) 400 yards. IMHO, there is not a common, factory produced round than can surpass the .338 WM as a “do it all” cartridge. She uses ,one rifle,one bullet type ( Barnes 225 only...started with the X and progressed through to the TTSX) zero for all of her hunting, and has no desire to change. When you have confidence and comfort with your firearm, your generally more proficient with that firearm! memtb
Of course this isn’t personal experience, I only do the handloading....she and the rifle do the job!
I've had 5 or 6 338 WM's, three of which had 22" barrels, my favorite length for the round. I've taken several bull elk with the 338, including a good 6pt, and always used 210 NP's at around 2,950.
I've had 5 or 6 300 WSM's, one of which had a 22" barrel, one a 23" barrel, and the rest 24" barrels. I've taken a fair bit of game with the round, antelope to bull elk, including a number of good 6pt bulls, most everything with a 180 NP at 2,980 - 3,030.
My own somewhat limited 338 WM experience leads me to believe it's really not any different than the WSM, while kicking more doing it. A 22" barrel is the main reason I'd choose a 338 over the WSM. I believe the 300 WSM is at its best with at least a 23" barrel. I doubt there's anything a 338 can do that a 300 WSM can't do, and I've found the 300 WSM a fair bit more accurate generally, while kicking less.
My current 300 WSM is an M70 EW. With its 30 oz factory B&C Stock, PT&G Al Bottom Metal, a 3.5-10x40 CDS Leupold, Talley X-Low Lwt's, Butler Creek Mtn. Sling, and three rounds it weigh's 8lbs 4oz's. I'll put it in a Bansner to get it to an even 8lbs, which is perfect for a round of this power. It's the most accurate rifle I own.
Course I generally just use a 308 Win or 270 for the game you describe...
Thanks for all the great feedback. I didn't expect this much good information. I am a big fan of the WSM's. I think they are a great cartridge, offering many advantages over similar cartridges especially in the the .300 caliber. So after listening to all of you and being very familiar with reloading for the WSM's I have decided to get a Sako 85 Finnlight in .300 WSM. Getting a great deal on a new riffle for $1386.00 also changed my mind a little bit. This gun maybe a little light for the 200 grain bullets I want to shoot, if so I can probably make some stock adjustments to increase the weight a little bit. Also reading this article helped me in my final decision. The below article is great information on calibers and bullets. Most calibers are out there to read about and I encourage people to read this information if they find this kind of stuff interesting. Very well written and thought out backed with very good science.
http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.338+Winchester+Magnum.htmlAlso making this decision give me an excuse to buy another gun if I someday make it to Alaska at which time I will be buying the .338 WM.
Again I greatly appreciate all your input and time you put into answering my question.
Thanks,
Adams
Get a fierce carbon fiber stock for that 85.
I have a 338 Win Mag in a Nosler Model 48 TGR with Leupold VX6. It is a sweet set up for brown bear and bison but I haven't bloodied yet.
I have a .338 WM built on an early 1950's Win M70 action by Stuart Satterlee. Swaro V6i scope. Very fine rifle. Killed a few dozen head of African game, including a leopard. For sale. PM me if interested.
Otherwise, unless you intend do do a lot of long range hunting, consider a Sako 85 Black Bear in 9.3x62 Mauser.
Bull chit. Get you that 338 and rock on. No need to go with the short necked 300wm if you can get away with it. You already have a good 300WSM that will do anything a 300wm will and recoil less to boot. Win win situation there... Guys that badmouth the 338wm, have never used one or can't handle one... Trust me, they put elk down in a hurry. Not a damn thing wrong with your choice or way of thinking. An 8 pound (all up) 338WM built right is a thing of beauty...
The short neck of the 300 win mag ever caused you grief? I sure haven't had any issues with it.
When Inthink light rifle I don't think magnum. I'd look at a 270, 280 or possibly a 30-06 if you want to go sub 7.5 lbs all up.
I've killed a whole lot of Plains game (and seen killed with the same rifle used by others) with a Mod 700 classic 300WM and the older Barnes 180xbt. I see no need at all to use a 200gr in a 300WSM. In fact, the 168TTSX will do everything you could want of your 300WSM! But...if I used a 200, I'd use the Partition so as to get all the powder room I could. But no kiddin...try that 168TTSX!
No offense meant, but why would I consider taking a 270, 280 or 30-06 when I have a .300 wsm. If I want to tone loads down to those calibers I could. But if I want to put a whoppin on a Bull at 400 yards those are calibers I would not choose (just my opinion). The 30-06 is a great round for elk up to 300 yards but there have been many great rounds produced after 1906 that will well out perform the 30-06 at longer ranges. On one of the guide site's I visited they did not want .270's and they said if you're bringing a 7mm caliber use heavy bullets as they lost 3 bulls over 300 inches with 7mm bullets last year. I don't think they were referring to the 7mm magnum guns as we all know they are great short to long range calibers to kill big elk with. If they lost elk to 7mm magnums I have to believe it was either very poor bullet selection or bad shot placement.
No offense meant, but why would I consider taking a 270, 280 or 30-06 when I have a .300 wsm. If I want to tone loads down to those calibers I could. But if I want to put a whoppin on a Bull at 400 yards those are calibers I would not choose (just my opinion). The 30-06 is a great round for elk up to 300 yards but there have been many great rounds produced after 1906 that will well out perform the 30-06 at longer ranges. On one of the guide site's I visited they did not want .270's and they said if you're bringing a 7mm caliber use heavy bullets as they lost 3 bulls over 300 inches with 7mm bullets last year. I don't think they were referring to the 7mm magnum guns as we all know they are great short to long range calibers to kill big elk with. If they lost elk to 7mm magnums I have to believe it was either very poor bullet selection or bad shot placement.
Your talking about light weight rifles. IMO light weight magnums are a step in the wrong direction.
As for the guides. That's a bunch of BS. Hit them wrong with a 375 and you will have a rodeo, hit them right with any of the -06 based rounds and it's feet in the air. IME most guides a pretty clueless to ballistics..
I’ve owned two 338s, a blue-and-walnut Browning Safari and a stainless Ruger M77 in a Bell & Carlson stock. I’ve put maybe 400 rounds through them. I’ve killed a whopping ONE animal—a Roosevelt bull elk—with the Browning and nothing with the Ruger, so take my comments with that in mind.
I agree that lightweight magnums are a step in the wrong direction, but there are ways you can make it work.
The first is load choice. People say that the 338/250 matches the 30-06/180, which is true if you go by velocity. Going by sectional density, a .308” 180-grain bullet matches a 220-grain .338 bullet, and a 250-grain .338” bullet matches a 210-grain .308” bullet. Cutting the 338’s bullet weight to 225 grains won’t hurt anything, especially with today’s bullets, plus it cuts recoil considerably and gives you another 150 fps or so.
Second is the stock and recoil pad. My Ruger weighed about eight pounds scoped and my Browning weighed nine. I never hunted the Ruger, but I wanted the Browning to be a pound lighter when I was carrying it and a pound heavier when I was shooting it.
The Ruger was in a Bell & Carlson stock with a big, squishy recoil pad, which did a superb job of mitigating recoil. The Browning was in this walnut stock:
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/OuqMIDy.jpg)
The Browning’s stock design didn’t mitigate recoil like the B&C so it kicked harder with the same load despite being a pound heavier. Also, the Browning’s recoil pad was over 50 years old, and it turned hard as a rock outside in cold weather.
I agree with the folks who say that you should stick with your 300 WSM if it shoots well. I see no need for 200-grain bullets unless you want to use a cup-and-core design. I also see no need to go heavier than a 180-grain Partition or a 165-grain TTSX. Plenty of folks hammer elk with lighter loads every year, but I’d feel good about either of those.
With all of this in mind, I’ll probably do the rest of my elk hunting with a 30-06. About the only way I’d get another 338 is if I go to Alaska. That rifle will be a stainless Model 70 in a McMillan stock with a 22” barrel. Ideally, it will weigh about 8.5 pounds loaded, scoped, and ready to go. It will be loaded with 225-grain ammo and will have the mother of all recoil pads.
Okie John
My experience with my 338's is stock design is everything, IMO. I have a customized Pre 64 338 with a 22" barrel that carries very well and is a great shooter. Nice wood stock that was a club when I bought the rifle and my gunsmith at the time reshaped it to be a very nice looking piece. The stock on that rifle is very comfortable to shoot with stout loads and I've never had a problem with shooting from the bench with it- my personal test for how a rifle feels and recoil tolerance. My second 338 is a Classic Win 70 Stainless. The original factory tupperware stock was okay, but not great. Okay for load work up from the bench, but got pretty old after 30-40 shots. I put a Mcmillan swirly stock on it that I had laying around and it feels like a completely different rifle. Much stiffer stock than the factory plastic, but a slightly better stock design and handles the recoil much better and more comfortable to shoot from the bench, bipod, in the field, and offhand.
My son has laid claim to my Pre 64, which is fine with me- I really enjoy carrying and shooting my Classic and it has accounted for a number of elk since I've had it. Personally, I see a completely different level of impact when shooting elk with the .338WM over the 300, 30-06 and other rifles I've used and my son and brother have said the same thing when they have been present when I've killed elk with them. I load 225 Hornadies for target practice and 225 Partitions and Aframes for game and they all shoot to the same point of aim. A stout load of H4831 takes care of pushing them along with CCI 250 primers. Both these rifles shoot the same load into well under an inch when I do my part. Longest two shots on elk were 525 yards and 600 yards and they went down like you would expect. Up close is just plain dramatic when hit in the boiler room or shoulders . You might say I'm a fan....
Bob
My experience with my 338's is stock design is everything, IMO. I have a customized Pre 64 338 with a 22" barrel that carries very well and is a great shooter. Nice wood stock that was a club when I bought the rifle and my gunsmith at the time reshaped it to be a very nice looking piece. The stock on that rifle is very comfortable to shoot with stout loads and I've never had a problem with shooting from the bench with it- my personal test for how a rifle feels and recoil tolerance. My second 338 is a Classic Win 70 Stainless. The original factory tupperware stock was okay, but not great. Okay for load work up from the bench, but got pretty old after 30-40 shots. I put a Mcmillan swirly stock on it that I had laying around and it feels like a completely different rifle. Much stiffer stock than the factory plastic, but a slightly better stock design and handles the recoil much better and more comfortable to shoot from the bench, bipod, in the field, and offhand.
My son has laid claim to my Pre 64, which is fine with me- I really enjoy carrying and shooting my Classic and it has accounted for a number of elk since I've had it. Personally, I see a completely different level of impact when shooting elk with the .338WM over the 300, 30-06 and other rifles I've used and my son and brother have said the same thing when they have been present when I've killed elk with them. I load 225 Hornadies for target practice and 225 Partitions and Aframes for game and they all shoot to the same point of aim. A stout load of H4831 takes care of pushing them along with CCI 250 primers. Both these rifles shoot the same load into well under an inch when I do my part. Longest two shots on elk were 525 yards and 600 yards and they went down like you would expect. Up close is just plain dramatic when hit in the boiler room or shoulders . You might say I'm a fan....
Bob
What shape McSwirly did you use?
Can't remember for sure. I bought this stock and one other way back when Rick used to have access to Mcmillan seconds and it set in the shop for a very long time. I actually forgot I had it until I was cleaning up the shop one day and found it. It had some white lightweight epoxy type material in the action cut out and barrel channel due to it being a second. But it did come with a recoil pad and sling swivels Had to inlet it and do some glass bedding but it works great. I believe it was a Model 70 style if I remember correctly.
Bob
I've had several 338's & it's a great round & easy to load for.
Take your time & find a Remington Custom Shop KS Mountain Rifle or a Custom Shop Alaskan.
Both are discontinued, but if you can wait a bit, they do come up for sale from time to time.
Just understand that light 338's will beat you up & are hard on scopes.
MM
I'm thinking you're going to have a tough time finding anything other than that custom ordered Sako that fits the bill. As far as rifles with short bolt lift I can only think of Sako, Browning, Tikka and Weatherby Mark V.
With the Browning you're going to end up with a thin 26" barrel. By the time you get it cut down it'll probably be around 6.5 pounds. The Tikkas are lighter yet and I'm not sure that they chamber the new T3X in a 338 win mag. I don't know if Weatherby chambers the Mark V in 338 win mag but I'm guessing not. You might be able to find a Sako 85 Grey Wolf over here but that's going to be closer to an 8 pound bare rifle.
Any other common short lift actions I'm not thinking of here? Besides Ruger American etc.
Weatherby did chamber the Mark V in .338 Winchester in the 1st US series Mark V with the SB serial numbers. I have one.
John
Pretty pleased with mine, a Shilen DGA, McMillan stock, 8#s all up.............. I think there might be a CF member that would like to have it if/when I 'move on' as it were........... he has expressed interest!
shoots everything from 210s to the Barnes 300grn Originals, not too picky about powders. Does not like Barnes X-Bullets.
Wood stocked Mod 700 in 7 Mag. is a beast on my shoulder, not the Shilen..............
I'm trying to put together an elk rifle in .338 WM. I do all of my own reloading. I have owned one .300 WM which I couldn't get to shoot worth a crap so I got rid of it. I currently have a Sako .300 wsm that does a heck job shooting 200 grain bullets but this gun is to pretty and to heavy to take in the hills. I want something light in the big hills but something heavy enough to control kick on the .338 wm. I don't want a muzzle break as they hurt my ears and people at the range don't like em.
I want something in 70 degree bolt turn or less with a 23" or 24" barrel. I'm thinking of a gun that weighs about 7lbs + Scope + Shells when loaded I'm guessing that would get me to about 8 pounds. I'm only guessing that this would be a good weight but need opinions on this????
I could get a Sako Finnlight in .300 wsm but this gun weighs 6lbs 6oz's and I'm thinking this is a little little light for 200 grain bullets. Also I leaning toward .338 wm as I may do an Alaska moose / Bear Hunt in the future.
I can order a Sako Synthetic Stainless which weighs 7lbs and has a 24" inch barrel. It has to be ordered factory direct as Sako doesn't sell this gun in the U.S. so might take a while to get here if I order it.
What are your experienced opinions on this setup for big hills and big caliber???
Thanks
Adams
I don't know about your end of the pond, but for me in Alaska there is nothing better than the .338WM with bullet weights from 210 at the lightest, to a 275-grain A-Frame from close-range hunting. But for me the best do-all bullet is the 225-grain 3-Shock X Tipped.
My favorite .338WM rifle this year is a Ruger Hawkeye African model, but not the one Ruger shows on its online catalog. The one I have does not have a muzzle brake, and has a 22" barrel. Other than that, it looks exactly like the "African" models.
Since the wood stock is quite nice, I put it away and bought a synthetic McMillan Classic one with a Decelerator recoil pad. Before I ordered the stock, I had a gunsmith friend of mine measuring my LOP, so McMillan built the stock with the right LOP to include the recoil pad length. However, I did not want a light .338WM, so I kept it heavy around 8 pounds. What I like about this rifle other than being a good-shooter is that the shorter barrel makes it easy to point or to bring on target.
This one, but without a muzzle brake:
http://www.ruger.com/products/HawkeyeAfrican/specSheets/47120.html
I’d take a 338 WM over a 300 WM at anytime. And as for hunting elk specifically, I’d take a 270, 308, or 30-06 over 300 WM as well. If I thought I needed the range I would use a 7mm Rem Mag.
I shoot a Ruger .338 for all my big game hunting up here, unless it's winter time caribou.
Sheister! Good to see you are still with us! I’ve either “not” seen your posts or you haven’t posted in quite a while. Whatever the case....welcome back! memtb
I have shot out 2 barrels on my 338 WM Kimber 8400. My last barrel was something similar to a #4 which is heavier than the factory tube. I think the 338 WM barrel lasts longer than the 300 barrel which is a benefit. In the end I used 3 different bullets(tried just about every 338 bullet out there): 185GMX, 225 TTSX and 250gr Bergers. Each of those are good enough to kill just about anything. The 185GMX worked well for culling as it shoots really flat out to 300. The 225 TTSX is a great all rounder with decent BC at around 2850fps and the 250 Berger at 2700fps and a G7 BC of .351 is great for long range. I think the 250 berger in the 338 WM gets overlooked as a long range combo. The Kimber stock is good for recoil. I shoot mine with and without a suppressor depending on type of hunt I am doing. Recoil for the 3 bullets are very different and bullet choice can reduce recoil if it bothers you.
I know when shot placement is good, most cartridges can do the job, but we are humans and humans screw up from time to time. With that in mind, if it is one of those screw up days and the bullet flies through the edge of the vital zone, I might just prefer it to be a 338 cal bullet.
Regardless of how effective the cartridge might be, it is expensive to shoot. It might not be as expensive in the US but when you shoot a lot and you pay more or less double the price for bullets compared to 30 cal it does ad up.
Back in the mid-80's the 338 WM was widely touted as the perfect all rounder for North America and beyond. Since then I've had two, a Rem. 700 "Classic" and I had a custom built on a Sako AV action with a Shilen barrel and a laminated Sako stock; it's no light weight but it does shoot.
I've shot most bullets from the 200 gr. up to the old 275 gr. Speer (I think I still have a box of those on the bench) and settled on 225 Gr bullets for most of my hunting (Hornady for practice and Partitions/ original TBBC's for hunting).
After hunting and shooting with the 338 WM for thirty years it's been a long love affair; it's accurate, shoots flat enough to kill elk at 400 yards and stun moose at 100 yards, recoil is manageable and for me the rifle/cartridge combo has been lucky.
My current rifle weighs 9.5 lbs all up with Warne rings, Leupold 2-7X, sling and 4 rounds of ammunition; when I was in my late 20's it wasn't heavy, now as approach 60 it feels like I'm humping the "Pig" (M-60) again. I need to restock it, that should lighten it up some as those old laminates are a bit heavy.
If you want a 338 WM, get one.
May you have as much fun with it as I have.
StarchedCover
No offense meant, but why would I consider taking a 270, 280 or 30-06 when I have a .300 wsm. If I want to tone loads down to those calibers I could. But if I want to put a whoppin on a Bull at 400 yards those are calibers I would not choose (just my opinion). The 30-06 is a great round for elk up to 300 yards but there have been many great rounds produced after 1906 that will well out perform the 30-06 at longer ranges. On one of the guide site's I visited they did not want .270's and they said if you're bringing a 7mm caliber use heavy bullets as they lost 3 bulls over 300 inches with 7mm bullets last year. I don't think they were referring to the 7mm magnum guns as we all know they are great short to long range calibers to kill big elk with. If they lost elk to 7mm magnums I have to believe it was either very poor bullet selection or bad shot placement.
So, at 300 yards the .30-06 just falls from the sky? Please enlighten us.
No offense meant, but why would I consider taking a 270, 280 or 30-06 when I have a .300 wsm. If I want to tone loads down to those calibers I could. But if I want to put a whoppin on a Bull at 400 yards those are calibers I would not choose (just my opinion). The 30-06 is a great round for elk up to 300 yards but there have been many great rounds produced after 1906 that will well out perform the 30-06 at longer ranges. On one of the guide site's I visited they did not want .270's and they said if you're bringing a 7mm caliber use heavy bullets as they lost 3 bulls over 300 inches with 7mm bullets last year. I don't think they were referring to the 7mm magnum guns as we all know they are great short to long range calibers to kill big elk with. If they lost elk to 7mm magnums I have to believe it was either very poor bullet selection or bad shot placement.
So, at 300 yards the .30-06 just falls from the sky? Please enlighten us.
The ballistic tables I've seen show that it at 600 yards the difference in trajectory between the 30-06 and the 300WSM is less than six inches and there is slightly more than 100 foot pounds difference in energy. I'm thinking that is much ado about nothing.
No offense meant, but why would I consider taking a 270, 280 or 30-06 when I have a .300 wsm. If I want to tone loads down to those calibers I could. But if I want to put a whoppin on a Bull at 400 yards those are calibers I would not choose (just my opinion). The 30-06 is a great round for elk up to 300 yards but there have been many great rounds produced after 1906 that will well out perform the 30-06 at longer ranges. On one of the guide site's I visited they did not want .270's and they said if you're bringing a 7mm caliber use heavy bullets as they lost 3 bulls over 300 inches with 7mm bullets last year. I don't think they were referring to the 7mm magnum guns as we all know they are great short to long range calibers to kill big elk with. If they lost elk to 7mm magnums I have to believe it was either very poor bullet selection or bad shot placement.
So, at 300 yards the .30-06 just falls from the sky? Please enlighten us.
The ballistic tables I've seen show that it at 600 yards the difference in trajectory between the 30-06 and the 300WSM is less than six inches and there is slightly more than 100 foot pounds difference in energy. I'm thinking that is much ado about nothing.
There that. And the fa t that elk are not going to walk off after a properly placed hit from a "7mm".
I just had to scratch the 338WM itch. Used one for a year or two until I realised for killing stuff my 30-06 was as effective and a whole lot more pleasant to shoot!
I sent the .338 down the road. My biggest now is a 9.3x62 which pretty much fills the same niche with a little less bark and bite in a smaller and handier package.
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.
They still make .300 WSM? Hadn't seen any in awhile.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
[/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.
[/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.
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
I have 300 Wins and WSM's. Killed a lot of animals with them.
I like and prefer the 338 Win Mag.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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
Love all the 338 WM confessionals
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.
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!
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.
I have a 24” Rem 700 in 340 Wby. Scoped and loaded it weighs 7 3/4 lbs. Because virtually no factory stock fits me a proper length of pull, drop and recoil pad goes a looong way for me. Fantastic cartridge.
I have a 24” Rem 700 in 340 Wby. Scoped and loaded it weighs 7 3/4 lbs. Because virtually no factory stock fits me a proper length of pull, drop and recoil pad goes a looong way for me. Fantastic cartridge.
MacMillan and others build stocks to any LOP you want. I bought one with a Decelerator recoil pad installed, for a total LOP of 12-1/2".
Nilla 38 is a bad bitch.... great elk medicine
memtb, I think you are asking about the Blaser Ultimate. Over thirty years ago so I don't recall the exact weight. Barrel length and contour were the same as my .270 barrel, same saddle mount, but with a 4X Leupold it would have been a few ounces lighter than the not heavy .270. The receivers have always been alloy since the lugs lock directly into the barrel. With close to max loaded 200-210 loads, it was not bad. Max loaded 250 off the bench were unpleasant, offhand, OK.
As to heavies, the champion had to be my Sako Safari. With the pot belly magazine and some close grain wood, all up it was pushing ten pounds. Shot nicely, carried terrible.
To give you an idea of where I draw the line, without using scales, I find the lovely pre 64 Winchesters standard weights, too heavy to enjoy packing around, even in standard calibers. I have done it when younger, but my pre-war has been relegated to stand duty. I have toted Featherweights lots of miles.
I have never been a person who weighed very many rifles. I go by feel. Balance is important in the way they feel to me. 8.5# likely is a middle of the road weight for magnums.
Jack
I use a 338 quite a lot on the Elk Mountain. Can’t really say it’s needed but my rifle is very comfortable to shoot and with its current scope sits at about 8-13 ounces. Sitting in the Legend it carries really nicely for me and comes to bear quickly. I’ve used a few different Bullets for Elk, 200 AB, 210 PT, 210 Swift, 225 and 250 PT. For me, I kinda like the 200-210’s. They don’t do anything a 300 of the same wouldn’t but they for sure do exactly what they should and dig wide, deep holes in Elk.
If you want one, get one. 8-9 lbs isn’t that danged heavy for hunting in my opinion if the rifle is set up correct. Mine even has a 25” barrel on it that I wouldn’t dream of shortening. It works well for me. We get pretty wrapped up in weight, myself included but if it is proportionate and feels good, run with it.
![[Linked Image]](http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww233/beretzs/2017%20Wyoming%20Elk%20Hunt/77830F39-E004-43F3-AE43-2D34DAC6BC7F_zpspf1jomma.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww233/beretzs/BULLETS/338%20bullets/2E15CB2E-DCC6-4D0B-8BDB-FCEE885C1ECC_zps8vs6nxpg.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww233/beretzs/BULLETS/338%20bullets/3E8065BC-ED8C-4154-8143-09BCF6B98935_zpsdqqacku9.jpg)
Good luck with your pick, I’ll never be without a great 338. Not needed but it also doesn’t hurt to have extra either.
Great looking recovered bullet. Wish I had one to show but I've never been able to keep one in an animal. Usually pass right through...
Only time I've gotten a couple recovered bullets, is a couple animals we killed in Africa with my .338. They were Aframes and they looked just like that. My favorite hunting cartridge by far for large game.
Bob
Thanks Bob. Agreed about the 338...
I bought my first .338WM, unfired Winny Alaskan, in January, 1968 and started handloading. I have since owned a dozen and loaded for and shot several others. I have now owned about 150 big game rifles in most chamberings and models.
I worked alone in the BC-AB bush for extended periods, using a rifle every day and after all of this, my favourite is still the fabulous .338WM, 225-250 CE bullets at 2650+ to 2800 depending on bbl. and load. I carried 250Npts in synthetic stocked P-64s, mostly and would again if I were young and fit enough to work in the mountains.
I love 7mms, .270s included, but, for general BC uses, much prefer a .338WM and am also a big 9.3 fan. JMHO, YMMV.
There is some sound device here, 338WM should be around 8-9 pounds with a good limbsaver pad, mine has a recoil reducer in the stock as well, build the rifle around the cartridge and it won’t end up collecting dust cause of recoil, mine was a 375 Ruger mod77 before a semi custom job to 338. The m77 is a perfect platform for this cartridge, 22” barrel is minimum and laminate a good choice... I have 2 friends with 338 synthetics that have been pushed to the rear of the safe.
Recoil is tolerable up to about 20 shots of the bench for me and I’m really happy about that. It really shines out to 400 meters which is my max distance at present, do it right and you’ll reach for it when ever you want that extra insurance.. do it wrong and you will shun an amazing cartridge, keep us posted
![[Linked Image]](http://s723.photobucket.com/user/beretzs/media/2017%20Wyoming%20Elk%20Hunt/77830F39-E004-43F3-AE43-2D34DAC6BC7F_zpspf1jomma.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s723.photobucket.com/user/beretzs/media/BULLETS/338%20bullets/2E15CB2E-DCC6-4D0B-8BDB-FCEE885C1ECC_zps8vs6nxpg.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s723.photobucket.com/user/beretzs/media/BULLETS/338%20bullets/3E8065BC-ED8C-4154-8143-09BCF6B98935_zpsdqqacku9.jpg.html)