I already have an R1, looking at getting a new barrel, ideally this will be capable of going to Alaska with me some day, and many outfitters advertise that they require a minimum .300 win mag (need to actually talk to a few to see how they feel about 7mmstw). This brings it down to .300 vs .338, I don't actually care for either cartridge. That being said, I have never found an instance, hunting, that couldn't be solved by the .300 that the .338 would have solved betterer, especially with bonded/partition/monometal bullets.... soooo is there any REAL reason to go .338? This will only be shot enough to stay proficient, not a regular use rifle.
Find the flaw in my logic .300wm vs .338wm (Benelli R1)
- Thread starter horsey300
- Start date
- Status
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,008
The power benefit from the larger piston of the 338 bore is minuscule - we can push a LITTLE heavier bullet at the same speed in the larger bore as we can the smaller - getting a 250 to roughly the same speed as a 230 - but overall, it’s a horse apiece. Neither is a wrong answer behind the other at the top end for hunting, but we can do more with the 30cal than the 338.
I’d be much more tempted to measure the action to see if a 300PRC will fit into the R1 action, given the option of changing.
I’d be much more tempted to measure the action to see if a 300PRC will fit into the R1 action, given the option of changing.
JFrank
Member
I would leave the fancy R-1 auto loader at home and grab a Tikka bolt action 300 WM just for Alaska hunting.
Nope, I have other rifle options period, this is specifically for R1 purposes.
Oooooohhhh!!! Good point! I'll try and measure sometime between now and the weekend!!
At one time I owned 30-06, 338-06 and 35 Whelen at the same time. The more I looked at the numbers and actually shot each of them the more I was convinced the 338 and 35 offered zero advantage and were in fact a disadvantage. You can shoot 200-220 gr loads in the 30-06 while 225-250 gr loads were commonly used in the 33's and 35's.
With similar bullet weights the 33's and 35's are a little faster at the muzzle and show more energy at close range, but the more aerodynamic 30's catch up somewhere around 200 yards. And similar bullet weights in 30 caliber penetrate deeper.
A .358 bullet is less than the thickness of a dime greater in diameter than a .308 bullet. A .338 is roughly 1/2 the thickness of a dime. They don't make a bigger hole. At least not enough to matter if you look at a dime's thickness.
The same logic applies to 300 mag vs 338 and 350 magnums as well as 308 vs 338 Fed and 358.
An article written by Finn Aagard sealed the deal for me. Aagard was a well-respected African PH and gun writer. He tested just about every cartridge ever made on large non-dangerous game in Africa and concluded that 30-06 or 300 WM when loaded heavy outperformed cartridges such as 338 WM, 35 Whelen, and 45-70. He saw no gains in performance over 30-06 until he got to 375 H&H.
In his testing 300 WM and 30-06 tied. The 300 only offered more performance at longer ranges.
With similar bullet weights the 33's and 35's are a little faster at the muzzle and show more energy at close range, but the more aerodynamic 30's catch up somewhere around 200 yards. And similar bullet weights in 30 caliber penetrate deeper.
A .358 bullet is less than the thickness of a dime greater in diameter than a .308 bullet. A .338 is roughly 1/2 the thickness of a dime. They don't make a bigger hole. At least not enough to matter if you look at a dime's thickness.
The same logic applies to 300 mag vs 338 and 350 magnums as well as 308 vs 338 Fed and 358.
An article written by Finn Aagard sealed the deal for me. Aagard was a well-respected African PH and gun writer. He tested just about every cartridge ever made on large non-dangerous game in Africa and concluded that 30-06 or 300 WM when loaded heavy outperformed cartridges such as 338 WM, 35 Whelen, and 45-70. He saw no gains in performance over 30-06 until he got to 375 H&H.
In his testing 300 WM and 30-06 tied. The 300 only offered more performance at longer ranges.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
What are you hunting? If I'm hunting the bigger critters of Alaska like moose and grizzly, I want more than a .30. Adding velocity doesn't make up for a lack of mass. Folks need to pay attention to the dwindling selection of 200-220gr hunting bullets for the .30 caliber. I've been trying to buy Partitions for two years.
Dimes and energy don't amount to a hill of beans. Jrm40's post is always the same. He also thinks that the .30-30 is a more effective cartridge than the .45-70.
Dimes and energy don't amount to a hill of beans. Jrm40's post is always the same. He also thinks that the .30-30 is a more effective cartridge than the .45-70.
That's part of my dilemma I can still land 200-220 gr a-frames, monos, prohunters, and bondeds but the heavy .338s are starting to dwindle, not nonexistent, but shrinking nonetheless. Could be a "shortage" could just be shrinking supply for shrinking demand, I don't know? As far as target species, I don't want to say I can't take a moose or brown because I didn't bring enough gun, but at this point, truthfully? Santa might just end up missing a reindeer and call ot good. I'll likely have the .458 and/or a .375 ruger along, with this being a spare/loaner for my oldest....
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,432
Alaska DNR tests confirm this conclusion. Physics and terminal ballistics have not changed since then. We all know that Craig is a contrarian that believes velocity and energy have no meaning. He believes a .22 LR and a .223 have the same power as well as .38 Special and .357 Magnum. I believe jmr40 is correct and is supported by real experts.
someguy2800
Member
Tends to be the achilles heel of everything outside the norm these days. I would like to reply that a 338 win mag shooting 265 grain nosler accubond long range with a BC of .732 will run with any 300 win mag hunting load, but good luck finding any. I've been looking for several years and all I've been able to find is a few boxes on gunbroker for very high prices.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Two things. The DNR tests are what, 40yrs old? It was also limited in scope. They also concluded that the .45-70 was lackluster because all they tested was the Remington 405gr. That test is useless today.
Second, no, I do not believe that. You're taking my comments out of context, which is usually that of handguns, where energy doesn't tell us a damned thing. Energy greatly exaggerates the role velocity plays in terminal ballistics, while trivializing mass and ignoring diameter and bullet construction. Which is exactly what you two are doing here. You've been duped by the marketing.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,432
No you have been duped but no one can convince you so we will probably always disagree. And no, I did not take you comments out of context because you have repeatedly said just what I posted. Velocity and energy have no meaning. You probably also think that gun companies have been lying about everything. Lol.
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,530
I just wanted to stop by and say, this is what I would take to Alaska if/when I were to go. I would want some more @ss up there, just because it would be a reason to buy that 375 Ruger.
Carry on, I got my popcorn.
Last edited by a moderator:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
And you're telling me that diameter and mass don't matter.
Duped by what, my own experience??? You ever hunt with a handgun? No. You have no idea what you're talking about and neither does jrm40. We've spent years arguing with rifle hunters about energy, who always repeat the same nonsense, yet they have zero experience to back it up. Books have been written that support what I write here.
And are we to believe that the .375 is a meaningful step up from the .30-06 but none of the increments in-between make a difference? Pure, unadulterated BS. Why don't we all just hunt everything with .243's then?
Last edited:
luv2safari
Member
If one can find the 338 265 AccuBonds, even at a scalper price, which is trivial in the whole scheme of things, the 265gr 338 would be the obvious choice, IMO.
I'm a firm believer in mass against mass when the critters bite or trample and have attitude problems. Penetration is also important. Bigger tough 30 cal bullets do bore on in. But, why not 338 bullets that do the same?
I'm a firm believer in mass against mass when the critters bite or trample and have attitude problems. Penetration is also important. Bigger tough 30 cal bullets do bore on in. But, why not 338 bullets that do the same?
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,432
Everything you said is a straw argument, I didn't say any of those things, and your assumptions are wrong as well. Nobody has said the things that you claim.And you're telling me that diameter and mass don't matter.
Duped by what, my own experience??? You ever hunt with a handgun? No. You have no idea what you're talking about and neither does jrm40. We've spent years arguing with rifle hunters about energy, who always repeat the same nonsense, yet they have zero experience to back it up. Books have been written that support what I write here.
And are we to believe that the .375 is a meaningful step up from the .30-06 but none of the increments in-between make a difference? Pure, unadulterated BS. Why don't we all just hunt everything with .243's then?
someguy2800
Member
someguy2800
Member
I am not a dangerous game hunter and the biggest animal I've ever shot was a 500 lb black bear, so my opinion doesn't matter. My observation from shooting or recovering lots and lots of whitetail deer is that the most important factor in terminal performance is the specific bullet you are using and the velocity it impacts at. A 308 with a really really good bullet is better than a 338 win mag with a really ****ty bullet, so to just say this cartridge is better than that cartridge without addressing what specific bullet you are going to put in it is meaningless to me. I would rather go after a grizzly bear with a 6.5 creedmoor loaded with a swift A frame than a 300 weatherby loaded with a 150 gr hollow point. If I have the luxury of knowing that my shot will be at shortish range I'll take a cast 44 or 45 bullet with a 20+ brinell hardness over either of them, but when you pick up a rifle to go hunting to don't know what animal you are going to see that day or what range it will be or what kind of shot you will be presented with. And unfortunately there are some gaps where the bullet you would really want for a certain cartridge doesn't exist or is just too hard to get, and that increasingly is affecting the calibers over 30 cal. When I look at cartridges the first thing I do is go bullet shopping and find the bullet or bullets that fit the task I have in mind and then figure out what cartridge I need to push it to the velocity I want.
JFrank
Member
I’ll take a 30 cal moving at 3000 fps any day.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,432
Jmr 40 is correct, that is what he quoted Aagard as saying and that agrees with the Alaska DNR findings in that specific instance. And craigs own statements refute what he said. He clearly stated that only bullet size and mass matter and that energy or velocity does not. He also said that the Alaska DNR results don't count because they only used the Remington load, but by his stated criteria the load should not matter. So an argument for something he said is not true can hardly be accepted.
Last edited:
someguy2800
Member
If you can find the comment where he said that I would like to see if because I can't find it. What he did say is that "Energy greatly exaggerates the role velocity plays in terminal ballistics, while trivializing mass and ignoring diameter and bullet construction." and I agree with that. That is not saying that energy or velocity is not important, obviously the bullet needs energy in order to perform work, but energy by itself as a metric to compare bullets is not useful.
Ok, gentlepeoples, I guess I'll put it this way, with the readily available components, is the .338 truly more gooderer enough to stand out against the .300 decisively? I've yet to see this and having used my brother's .338 am having a hard time truly seeing the benefits when it's (to me) noticeably more obnoxious and the components don't seem to be as readily available....also, I know the .338 CAN be utilized for smaller game, but again, the components favor the .300wm so is there enough "awesome" that I'm missing to justify it? A .250 .338 has an SD of .313, a 212 .30 is .319, and s.d. isn't the only deciding factor but they help illustrate "heavy for caliber", 265 accubonds and 275 aframes aren't obtainable at the moment from what I can find. So currently, it's going to require much more effort to get the mostest out of the heavy end of the .338 and without the heavy end, what’s it really have over a premium .300 wm load? That's what I'm not understanding? 200+ gr are in the "plenty heavy" district with proper bullets so is the .03" diameter really that big of a difference? Admittedly I've never seen a reason for anything from .300 to .35/.375??? (I.e. .325 .338, .35 anything)
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,432
A couple posts up he says that tissue is damaged by bullets, not energy. He has stated that a number of times over the many years we have been on here, That energy doesn't matter at all. If he backtracks that is a step in the right direction. I am not responding anymore to senseless contrarianism and twisted arguments. He also claims that energy was a falsehood started by Roy Weatherby and gun makers for marketing. Really. Pretty much excludes all history of ballistics since the invention of smokeless powder. Have it your way, I don't care. If the earth is flat for you guys, who am I to care. Also you claimed that I said the opposite of what I said.
Last edited:
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,530
How about putting it in %'s? If using a controlled expansion bullet, all things being equal and assuming that all the cartridges will give adequate penetration given their SD, does the below provide a different way to look at it?
a 13% increase in frontal diameter is not nothing when going up from 30 cal to 338.
I do enjoy large caliber straws with my thick malted milkshakes...mmmm, extra malt! 13% can be the difference of passing out before getting any malt to my tastebuds.
Last edited:
- Status