what's the big deal with the 300 win mag?

[Zak Smith]

ArmedBear- Question-

I ran the numbers and "100 yards of effective range" seems to be based on terminal velocity. At 300 yards, the .300WM might hit at 2400 vs. 2200 fps for the .30-06; at 800 yards the .300WM would hit at 1680 fps while the .30-06 would hit at 1550 fps. (In both cases, moving the .300 out another 100 yards evens out the impact velocity.)

Does this really make a difference?

Is it your argument that a 180gr hunting bullet hitting at 2221 fps simply not work, while the same 180gr hunting bullet would work at 2400 fps? Put in perspective, it's a 17% difference in impact energy or 8% difference in impact momentum, and all other aspects are identical.

If I do the same experiment for windage and drop at say 500 yards, the 300 has maybe a 25 yard advantage over the .30-06 for from (ie, .3006 drop at 500 same as .300 drop at 525), and for wind it's about the same.

If I were to make an argument for .300WM over .30-06, I would do so on the basis of heavier bullet for terminal effects and - typically - higher BC values for long-range shooting.

-z

 

[ArmedBear]

Is it your argument that a 180gr hunting bullet hitting at 2221 fps simply not work, while the same 180gr hunting bullet would work at 2400 fps?

No.

However, if you look at expanded hunting bullets, it's clear that there are plenty that won't work all that well at <2000 fps. OTOH, some of the ones that do, are known for blowing apart, aka "not working" at high velocities.

Bullets of various types are engineered to work best at certain ranges of velocities and energies. Note that people who have used high-velocity magnums for a lot of hunting tend to have different opinions about bullets, based on their experiences, from those who use middling loadings.

Anyway, if your spec is that you want a particular bullet to hit at 2000-2800 fps, a .300 WinMag will do that at a longer distance.

For example, this relatively new bullet from Hornady is pictured after impacts at 3400, 2700 and 2000 fps. Under 2000 fps, it's a ball round. You'd probably want an impact velocity of what, 2200 minimum, for it to do its intended work on big game?


Obviously, all of that only applies to bullets designed to expand in certain ways for big game hunting. It's not relevant to anything else.

 

[Zak Smith]

Ok, I should have used an example at approx 550 yards, then. I get your point. We have some very good bullets available nowadays, especially compared to the state of the art only 20 years ago.

 

[jimbeam]

Don't forget ACCURACY! For about 20-25 years the .300 Win Mag ruled in 1000 yard target matches. (Wimbledon & Leech,etc.) In recent times the 6.5's, (.260 Rem. and similiar) have been the main winners but you still see .300's on the firing line at big matches and doing well. I have a couple of .300 Win Mag rifles that are "keepers" for that reason. One is built on a Shilen DGA action. Anyone remember those?

Got to agree about the accuracy. I never would have bought one, but I won a Model 70 stainless 300 mag and it is absolutely a great shooter. I would not be without it, but I don't carry it around the woods tracking or still-hunting. Great for stand hunting clear cuts. That's why we have more than one gun, for the purpose at hand.

 

[skiking]

Anyway, if your spec is that you want a particular bullet to hit at 2000-2800 fps, a .300 WinMag will do that at a longer distance.

Using the GMX example as a pretty tough bullet, you get the same performance a longer ranges, but just from the photo, it looks like you also get better expansion at equivalent ranges.

So is range the only advantage, or do you actually get better performance at equivalent ranges?

 

[mickeydim468]

I have what may be deemed a dumb question.

Why do people hate the belted case?

What is the big deal?

I don't get it!

Mikey!

 

[Big Bill]

The Indians did with bow and arrow. So I guess people need more range on their rifles to compensate for their lack of skill in getting close to the animal.

HA HA HA! The indians could walk outside their teepees and kick animals dead with their feet because they were so plentiful. We don't live in those days and animals are more wary now. It takes long range guns and ammo today, expecially if you're sniping them from a fixed position.

Why does everybody start off with a comparison to the '06?

Because, it was the only thing available back in the early 1900s. And, if you've got one, I guess you feel a need to defend the old dinosaur.

 

[Handgunner]

I have what may be deemed a dumb question.

Why do people hate the belted case?

What is the big deal?

I don't get it!

+1

 

[skiking]

Because, it was the only thing available back in the early 1900s.

Why don't we compare everything to the 30-30 then? That bad boy predates the '06.

 

[jmr40]

The belted case on MOST of the modern magnums is purely for decoration and serves no purpose. For the most part they hurt very little, but add nothing.

I've had several rifles over the years in both 7mm and 300 magnum. No longer own any. I'm no long range expert, but read an opinion from someone on another forum a while back that stuck with me. This person was of the opinion that with modern bullets, and scopes with dots, the magnums were no longer needed for hunting. Makes sense to me

 

[schlockinz]

Hrmm, I guess my friends that kill by stalking with stick bows must have the RUM willow limbs. No way that they could be killing those deer with such old technology

 

[Big Bill]

My problem now is that I can't get out an stalk deer with my bow. I'm too damned old and stoved up. But, I can drive to the top of a ridge and sit on a rock and snipe one as my sons drive them too me.

BTW, I've killed several deer with my bow in the old days. Here's my son with the evidence.