# .300 Weatherby Mag. v. .338 Winchester Mag.



## Marishka (Jun 7, 2010)

Doing my first Alaska bear hunt this fall and did lots of research before deciding that the .300 Weatherby Magnum was my choice of gun. Choosing caused me to do research which gave me the comparison of the .300 Weatherby Magnum and the .338 Winchester Magnum. Many discuss the .300 Winchester when comparing to the .300 Weatherby but, the .338 Winchester is a much closer comparison. My .300 Weatherby will be loaded with 250 grain Hawk roundnose bullets. So, for the comparison below, the statistics are for both the .300 Weatherby and the .338 Winchester Mag using 250 grain RN bullets.

.338 Winchester Magnum .300 Weatherby Magnum
MV 2660 fps 2650 fps
100 yds 2456 fps 2433 fps
200 yds 2261 fps 2229 fps
300 yds 2075 fps 2037 fps
ME 3927 ft lbs 3898 ft lbs
100 yds 3348 ft lbs 3256 ft lbs
200 yds 2837 ft lbs 2757 ft lbs
300 yds 2075 ft lbs 2037 ft lbs
Sectional Density .313 .376
Ballistic Coefficient .291/.332 .417

The .338 Winchester has a very slight edge with velocity and energy. But, when you take into consideration the killing factors of sectional density and ballistics coefficient the .338 Winchester Magnum is pale in comparison.


----------



## Marishka (Jun 7, 2010)

Just to clarify, since the submission merged too much, everyting is restated below.

.338 Winchester Magnum w/ 250 grain RN bullet 
MV 2660 fps
100 yds 2456 fps 
200 yds 2261 fps 
300 yds 2075 fps

ME 3927 ft lbs 
100 yds 3348 ft lbs 
200 yds 2837 ft lbs 
300 yds 2075 ft lbs

Sectional Density .313
Bal. Coefficient .291/.332

.300 Weatherby Magnum w. 250 grain RN bullet

MV 2650 fps
100 yds 2433 fps
200 yds 2229 fps
300 yds 2037 fps

ME 3898 ft lbs
100 yds 3256 ft lbs
200 yds 2757 ft lbs
300 yds 2037 ft lbs

Sec. Density .376
Bal. Coefficient .417

The .338 Winchester has a very slight edge with velocity and energy. But, when you take into consideration the killing factors of sectional density and ballistics coefficient the .338 Winchester Magnum is pale in comparison to the .300 Weatherby Magnum.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Switch that 250 gr round nose to a 200 gr Barnes X and make that comparison again. I'm not saying I know, I am saying I am curious. I know the Barnes X 200 will penetrate enough.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Just curious,why the round nose?


----------



## KRAKMT (Oct 24, 2005)

I have been watching for a 338 Win and happened to mention it to a Court reporter friend who ownes both your choices. He said he has shot about a dozen elk with each caliber and ended up giving his brother the 338. His experience was that not all dropped in their tracks with either caliber but that the Weatherby did so more often. He said he struggled with having to shoot elk twice with the 338 and when he did he ruined their rear hind quarters.
I was a bit surprised.But their is a miriad of variables that go into picking the right cartridge which probably doesn't exist.
Technically it is probably really only gak.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you reload I think I would go with the 300 Remington Ultra mag. I have a 300 Win Mag, and I can get the Berger 185 VLD up to 3250, but have to drop to 3200 to get good accuracy. I'm not talking under an inch, I am talking about under .3 inch. If your shooting to 1000 yards you need very good accuracy and high ballistic coefficient. I wonder what I could push the 300 Rem ultra mag to?
Anyway, I think the Remington Ultra Mag has an edge of the Weatherby in velocity, and more importantly cost of ammunition. If you could push a 200 gr bullet with good construction and high ballistic coefficient to 3200 fps you would have one heck of a killing machine.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Where'd you get the numbers? Curious why the 300 mag with a much higher BC actually shed more velocity than the fatter .33 bullet.

Would also like to hear what bullet KRAKMT's friend was shooting for elk with his .338


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hmmm Csquared, I went back and looked at that. If you start bullets of equal weight at near equal velocity and the 338 has a ballistic coefficient of .332 and the 30 caliber has a balllistic coefficient of .417 there is absolutely no way the 338 has the advantage in either energy or velocity. That would have to defy physics.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Yup! Funny how physics ends lots of discussions here 

If you can get the same weight bullet in .30 going the same speed as a .33, it is a force to be reckoned with. The only thing I would add is my .338 can do it with a 22" barrel and weighs less than 7 pounds with a 4x compact scope. My guess is it takes more barrel length to duplicate that with a .300, but I could be wrong...and I might be the only one who cares about short barrels :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Heavy calibers are less affected by short barrel length. Also heavy bullets of a same caliber are more efficient than light bullets when shooting short barrel firearms. The whole thing comes down to the amount of powder burned, the weight of the projectile pushed, and the size of the hole (caliber) the bullet and gasses have to escape out of. Those control pressure, while the length of the barrel controls the amount of time that pressure gets to act on the projectile. Once it leaves the barrel velocity and ballistic coefficient becomes the controlling factors.


----------



## big dan (May 30, 2010)

either one would be fine... i'd load a 200gr barnes tsx in the 300 or a 225 or 250gr tsx in the 338 and go hunting. i recently picked up a 338 RUM barrel for my remington 700 switchbarrel rig and must say that i really like it... think about that 250gr tsx @ 3000 fps hammering a big critter!!


----------



## KRAKMT (Oct 24, 2005)

I just asked the court report that I mentioned above and he was shooting Nosler partitions in both. He said he has some Bitterroot bullets that he also used. (I am not familiar)
He said 210's for the 338mag and 180s for the 300 weatherby. He is currently working up some 200's for the weatherby.

It is always a bit of internet gak when talking ballistics and it probably matters less than the actual fir of the rifle, but hey it beats talking about sports.
K


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks for the info, KRAKMT.

I gotta confess though, the smartass in me had to resist the urge to run with why your friend wasn't killing his elk.... 



> He said he struggled with having to shoot elk twice with the 338 and when he did he ruined their rear hind quarters.


I assume you've told him he's been aiming at the wrong end! :beer:


----------



## KRAKMT (Oct 24, 2005)

I resisted giving him a similar comment- it was his story.
It did remind me of another buddy who was shooting a doe- when he missed and she ran off I suggested he shoot one over on my right. The one he missed took off at a sprint so I assumed it was a miss- he said nah he better shoot her again. 2nd shoot took out both front quarters. Not much left of her after he shot all four hams/shoulders with 300 h and h.- first shot took out her *** cheeks. 
Ended up with backstraps and dogfood.

I can't vouch for the effectiveness of either cartridge, although I have been considering the 338 to compliment my 264.
Didn't really see benefit of the 30 cals but hey.

K


----------

