.300 Wtby mag vs. .338 win mag

<< < (2/2)

Thomas:
Please excuse my delay in jumping into this topic, but I feel it is time to put a few things in perspective. The 300 Wtby mag is one of the greatest cartridges to ever come along. The so called big companies usually flatter us by using terms like: "It shoots just like a Weatherby, or It hits just like a 300 Weatherby." Imitation is the best form of flattery, and it clearly states that people know that a Weatherby will get the job done.

Now the 338 Win Mag is a good round, however, Roy saw that this could be improved upon so he came up with the 340 Wtby Mag. In so doing he could claim that his company produced the top 338 caliber round. Little did he know that he was about to set the hunting world on fire, again. The 340 Wtby Mag produces more energy and velocity than the 338 Win, and the recoil is just slightly more, depending on the rifle. Gun writers all over the world have stated that the 340 Wtby is about the nearest thing to perfect that has been produced by any gun company.

Trying to compare the 300 Wtby against the 338 Win is not really fair. The 300 Wtby can come very close to equalling the 338 Win, but as mentioned earlier, the frontal area of the 338 caliber bullet is greater and will provide more shock. Now if you compare the numbers of the 340 Wtby against the 338 Win you have a true comparison, apples to apples. The 340 Wtby just eats the 338 Win up in all categories. I love to read hunting stories where the guide or hunter uses a 340 Wtby Mag and describes the impact and reaction of the game. I have watched many TV programs and have seen a Weatherby of some caliber used and the game was always taken quickly and cleanly.

The main thing to take from this post is that shot placement is the best way to take an animal, but when you combine good shot placement with a great gun and caliber good things usually happen. The 300 Wtby is a get it done cailber, the 340 Wtby is a get it done caliber with a little more muscle, the 338 Win is a get it done caliber that is mass produced by a big company and the ammo is easier to find, it ain't a Weatherby by no stretch of the imagination.

Tom

Marishka:
The 250 grain bullet now available, for the .300 Weatherby, is by Hawks. I had some loaded by Superior Ammo and am taking them with me to Alaska, on Sunday, to hunt Coastal Black Bear.

The ballistics of the .338 and .300 Weatherby, using a 250 grain bullet are very similar. The only published ballistics for the .300 Weatherby using a 250 grain bullet is that for the Barnes Original. The comparison at MV is .338: 2660 fps and .300 Wby: 2650 and at 100 yards, .338: 2456 and .300 Wby: 2433. Out to 300 yds the comparison is very similar. On the issue of energy, at muzzle, .338: 3927 ft lbs and .300 Wby: 3898 ft lbs and at 100 yds, .338: 3348 ft lbs and .300 Wby: 3256 ft lbs.

While it is true that the .338 has a slightly larger diameter there are other factors consider, ie., sectional density and ballistic coefficient. On sectional density the .338 is .313 and the .300 Wby is much greater at .376. Equally impressive, for the .300 Wby, is the ballistic coefficient. For the .338 it is .291 and for the .300 Wby it is .417.

So, with a 250 grain bullet there are arguments for both. My preference is the .300 Wby which is why I own one. It is incredibly flexible, bullets available from 110 grains to 250 grains, and when equipped with the Pachmayer and with the Accubrake there is practically no recoil.

To take this one step further, when you get to bullets of less than 250 grains the superiority of the .300 Wby is without question. Using a 180 grain Accubond the .338 has a mv of 3100 and the .300 Wby a mv of 3250. At 100 yards the .338 is at 2840 and the .300 Wby at 3051. On energy at the muzzle the .338 is 3842 ft lbs and the .300 Wby at 4223. Then at 100 yds the .338 is 3225 ft lbs and the .300 Weatherby is at 3721 ft lbs. Again, out to 300 yards the comparison is abut the same. Sectional density for the .338 is .225 and for the .300 Wby is .271.

Then there is the issue of flatter trajectory.

In my opinion, the statistics speak for themselves. Roy Weatherby simply outdid the world when he came up with the .300 Weatherby Magnum.

johnp034:
Thank you Marishka, that was the point of my question.  Without a doubt the .340 is superior in all aspects, but I want to go with the .300 wtby to avoid the excess recoil.  If I opted for the .338, no doubt It would make sense to just move up to the .340.

Thanx,

James:
Assuming that you are shooting at a sensible distance and that your bullet placement will be correct, it is hard to imagine that any creature on the North American continent would notice one iota of difference between any of the larger magnum calibers, so shoot what you shoot best and enjoy most. Just select a good quality bullet and shoot well! Good hunting to you.

Marishka:
I can now give one more point on penetration using a .300 Weatherby that is loaded by 250 grain Hawk bullets.

I just returned from a successful Black Bear hunt in the southern Alaska area with a guide out of Petersburg. My shot was from 220 yds at a bear that facing away and quartered towards me. The point of aim was a few inches behind the right shoulder.

Just as I pulled the trigger the bear seemed to get our scent and moved abruptly to its left. Consequently, the bullet entered, shoulder high, just in front of the right hip, destroyed the mesenteric artery, destroyed the left lung, shattered the left shoulder and came to rest in the muscle just about 3 inches in front of the left shoulder.

I vote for the .300 Weatherby.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page