Winchester did move the shoulder of the .300 Win Mag forward (as compared to their .264 and .338 magnums and Remington's 7 mag), gaining a little case capacity and of course confusing people ever since....

Agreed; if you aren't going to shoot bullets of 225-250 grains in a .338, it isn't necessarily any advantage over the .300 Win mag.

I think the answer to your last question has to do with 'marketing!'

 

so the 300 came later on eh? That's what I figured.

I am not against these calibres, I just don't think they are always used to their full potential. If it is your only rifle then a reduced load for targets and deer can be a good idea.

If I were to get one of these it would be the 338, I would load as heavy as I could(I have smaller rifles for other things). I think it is a good large game round for North America when used to it's potential.

 

I have had all three of the cartridges you mentioned and do believe they each have their place. There is considerable overlap between the 7mm and 300, also between the 300 and 338. I believe Winchester did introduce the 458 first, the 338 and 264 next, then the 300.

I've never given a lot of attention to the 200 grain 338 loads, though I suppose if you were a one rifle hunter, the 200 grain load would make a snappy pronghorn and deer rifle out of the 338. In my opinion the 338 really shines when using bullets in the 225-250 grain loads, as Mike suggested. These bullets make the 338 a fine long range elk, moose, and bear rifle. The 250's do very well on all the animals at muzzle distances too.

The 300 is great for long range hunting of all the animals mentioned above. I have felt a bit undergunned when in the big coastal brown bear ranges here in Alaska, though. It may just be me, but I swear I have noticed a difference in the way something as big as the Alaskan/Yukon moose have reacted to shots in the boilerroom between the 7mm Mags, 30-06, 300's, and 338. There appears to a noticeable difference between the moose getting hit with a 200 grain NP from a 30-06 or 300 and it getting hit in the same place under similar circumstances with the 250 grain NP from a 338. Bullet diameter and area do have an effect.

That's not to say the 7mm Mag won't handle all the animals that 300 and 338 will, but as the animals get bigger, there is a difference in the reaction to the shot.

 

thanks 338, I thought I might hear from you!

Good points, I agree. I get that feeling about larger diameter lead to, most of the game I have taken has been with .25, .27, and .30 calibres. I just don't see a point in having a belted mag cartridge and not getting the most out of it. I suspect most folks on a forum such as this have the same idea.

 

It is kinda like having a Ferrari and keeping it under the speed limit all the time, isn't it?

Versatility means many things, I guess. For instance, you can load a 7 Mag down to 7-08 performance, but you can't do the opposite.

I do agree that there isn't much call for a 338 Mag if the biggest animal you are hunting is deer. I won't harbor any ill feelings if someone does though!!! Even if a particular round isn't needed by the shooter, the guy (or gal) may just enjoy the round.

As your name implies, you must enjoy the big blackpowder and nitro cartridges from years gone by. Surely something less would suffice when hunting anything but elephants, hippo's and rhino's? But that doesn't take the fun away from hunting with the big guns, or the pleasure of owning them.

Nothing wrong with the 577, nor is there anything wrong with opposite of the spectrum, the small and fast cartridges.

 

Yes, I am a bit stuck back in time. Old rifles, large slow moving bullets, clouds of smoke from the muzzle etc. I certainly know what it means to use rifles not necessarily ideal for the hunting situation!! But I still try to maximize the potential of the cartridge, as I would with a belted magnum or other sporting cartridge.

I have just seen a few guys go to a lot of trouble to get a 338 or the like to compliment a 30-06 they have, only to load it light with 200gr bullets. A heavy load and a similar bullet weight in their '06 might do the same thing.

 

Yeah, the 338 really shines with 225-250 grain bullets. The 250 grain NP would be the classic bullet for the cartridge.

 

I also like the 338. It is a bit more gun than I need, but it gets the job done with insurance, and it is more efficient than some of the smaller bore magnums on the same case.
I also like the 350 Rem-Mag and the 376 Steyr, which are a bit more efficient yet. These work well in shorter barrels in the 20-22 inch range, which makes them very handy. I am not sure if it is actually true, or if I am imagining it, but it also seems that a 200 gr bullet launched at 2600 fps from an 8 lb 30-06, kicks more than the same bullet wt at the same velocity from a 350 Rem-mag of the same weight. Could there be less gas generated recoil from a less over-bore cart.?

 

Carignan577 - I've lived out your way and I think I can offer some suggestions. If you're going after the full range out there including bears, I would consider the.338 as your do it all rifle. First of all I agree with you on heavy for calibre bullet weights for taking advantage of the most a given calibre has to offer. My own preferences have been 230 grain FailSafes and 250 grain Swift A-Frames. I also believe in one bullet weight for everything. A lot of shooters may disagree with that philosophy and that's OK, but that has worked for me for many years. I don't know what you shoot or how far but I can tell you that after having just praised the heck out of the .338, there isn't much you can't due with a .30-06 (I have both). Without knowing your background, let me say that the increase in recoil is substantial. Cost of ammunition is also substantially more. I have a Remington 7600 synthetic carbine that will do anything I need close up or far off. If I had to limit myself to just one I would go with the .30-06. Again I use good quality bullets in 180 grains for anything. Good quality bullets and shot placement will stand you in good stead. Hope that helps.

 

thanks cobra.

I have a small variety of rifles I am currently using. .577 Sniders, 577/450 Martini, 30-30, 12 gauge, and a custom sporter being built in 30cal something(still deciding). The longest shot I have ever had to make so far is 200 yards.

I really don't need a bear gun other than for protection, but agree that the 338 would be a good choice for overall rifle.

 

cal. choice!??!?!

Hello Carignan577

I have one 300win mag and one 338win mag so, both cal. is perfect for all hunting.. It´s just how you reload the brass and which bullet you use. But if you want can you se at the picture a send is the mean distance then after the fist shoot. The Test test made of one of Sweden biggest forestcompany, Stora Skog
Good luck...

/Andreas

 

Alyeska 338 covered things pretty well In his posts! I will only add that the 7mm mag is more comfortable in the recoil department, most hunters will shoot it more accurately, if they haven't been pulling the trigger on big guns or if recoil bothers them a lot.

I carried the 300 Win mag for 20 plus years and didn't ever feel undergunned, until I came in contact with big bears and got advice from those that had tons of knowledge in the field.
Myself, I carry the .338 mag for most of my big game hunts and have two loads and bullet weights I use. The 225 grain Speer TBBC bullets for deer, elk and the 275 grain Swift A Frames now for any moose or bears.

However, if I am going to hunt a big bear in the wild, it will be with my model 70 Winchester in a .416 Rem mag and 350 grain Swift A Frame bullets in the magazine.

 

I have questions about the 3 very popular belted magnums that most guys seem to have up my way. As I am just a rimmed cartridge shooter I am not totally sure about these.

Now the 300 Win. mag is a bigger case than the 7mm Rem mag and 338 Win mag(these are basically the same case with different neck sizes)

It seems to me a heavy load in the 300WM and a 220gr bullet would be slightly superior to a 338WM loaded with a 200gr bullet. True? I would think the 338 would really start to shine with bullets in the 250gr range. But why did Winchester not just neck up the 300WM to get the 338WM? I assume the 338 came out first.

Now the 7mmRM due to the small bore cannot be compared as well, but is normally loaded with bullets in the 160gr range from what I have seen.

Most shooters have moderate loads in the 3 magnums and medium weight bullets which makes me wonder why not just get a 30-06?

I am going to take you to task for saying you are JUST a rimmed cartridge shooter! That statement tells me that you somehow feel inferior to those guys with the belted magnums. Balderdash! The belted magnums are also rimmed cartridges! They function exactly the same as more traditional rimmed cartridges, except that Holland & Holland moved the rim forward in an attempt to make the base of the case a bit stronger - and as Mike G said - as a marketing ploy. The belted case headspaces on the rim just like the .30-30 Winchester. They may look different but they are functionally the same. That's why the new "short " and "super short" magnums are being introduced on a equally old rimless case design - so they can headspace on the shoulder - a more precise arrangement. Of course it's a marketing ploy, as well. Bottom line is that there isn't a smidgen of difference between any cartridge throwing the same diameter and weight of bullet at similar velocities. The .35 caliber 250 grain bullet from my .35-348 Winchester Ackley Improved at 2700 fps is going to perform just like the 250 grain bullet from the .338 Winchester Magnum at 2700 fps. The three cartridges you list are all equal to any task given the modern "super bullet" designs available - all will work, or will fail on game depending on many variables that have nothing to do with the rifle/cartridge combination. Look at the .450 Marlin versus the .45-70, there ain't a single ballistic reason for that case to exist, except that the .450 won't fit into a old Trapdoor Springfield, so it can be loaded hotter than factory .45-70 loads. It was designed to satisfy liability lawyers and as a marketing ploy. The old .45-70 can do anything the belted .450 Marlin can do - and it makes bigger holes through any critter than all those puny belted magnums. So quit feeling inferior to those guys with the belted magnums, they ain't so hot!

axlenut

 

Belted case feeds better out of a box magazine than a rimmed case, as the belts can't hang up on each other. Not entirely useless.... just 'extra' on anything with a decent shoulder, which is most of our belted magnum cases.

Definitely need the belt on the .458!!!

 

Belted case feeds better out of a box magazine than a rimmed case, as the belts can't hang up on each other. Not entirely useless.... just 'extra' on anything with a decent shoulder, which is most of our belted magnum cases.

Definitely need the belt on the .458!!!

Mike:

You're right! I forgot to mention cartridge feeding in a magazine rifle. Although the rimmed cases feed slicker than a bicycle on an ice patch from the Siamese Mauser. The .458 needs the belt only for one reason, headspace - like a rimmed cartridge. If the .458 were slightly bottlenecked it could be rimless. The .450 Marlin design could have been based on the .45-70 case, if they would have made it with the body blown out straighter and a slight bottleneck, it would not have needed the belt. But then cases could have been formed from standard .45-70 brass. It could have been designed on a standard belted magnum case, but then cases could have been made from .458 brass - can't sell proprietary brass that way, so they claim it might be accidentially chambered in a standard small bore magnum chamber and lengthened the belt. Truth is, that cartridge design these days is about creating market interest and brand name exposure, reducing production costs, and limiting liability. There is little ballistic justification for any of the cartridges introduced in the last couple of decades - other than creating market share, and stimulating the market place. Some will be hits - the .17 Hornady rimfires for example, or failures - anybody have a 5m/m Remington out there?

Point is - folks shouldn't fall victim to the market hype, or feel inferior about what cartridge they shoot, just shoot it well and take home the bacon.

axlenut

 

Nothing feeds slicker than a Lee-Enfield, unless you get a rim hooked on the cartridge below it. The Brits had enough experience with rimmed cartridges in magazine rifles when H&H patented the belted case in 1904. They introduced the first belted cartridge, the .400/375 H&H, the next year. As you can see below, there's not much of a shoulder to headspace on, about .030" on one I have.

Ken Waters had a Pet Loads article on the .400/375 in Handloader #185, February 1997. He made cases from .244 Weatherby Magnum cases.

The .375 H&H Magnum and the .300 H&H Magnum have very tapered cases, possibly to ease feeding or loading. Cordite is difficult to stuff into a necked case, so the cases were necked after the powder was loaded.

Step forward to the early 1940s, when Roy Weatherby wanted to design a better magnum. Western was loading the H&H cartridges, but the bigger British cases must have been scare, thanks to the war. So he used what was available, added a bit of his car salesman's hype, and the belted cartridge became the standard for the next 50 years.

Bye
Jack

 

One thing I think we may lose sight of in blaming marketing hype for all the belted cases is to remember when H&H introduced the 275 H&H Mag (1911-2) and the 300 H&H some years later was that they needed a case to base it on. While they could have come up with a beltless and rimless design, or indeed chopped down the 404 Jeff or 350 Rigby, their own belted design was working fine and cost were minimized by using an existing in-house case.

The first WBY mags introduced were also based on an existing case, the H&H belted magnum, as was the pre-cursor to the 7mm Rem Mag, the 7mm Mashburn. It was more cost effective to use a case that was already in production by these companies than to retool up for a new case design altogether or bring in another case they weren't making yet. Why go to the expense of a totally new design, or bring in a more expensive case to make, or at least heavily modifying bolt face, magazines, and bottom metal to accomodate a different case when they had one that filled the bill? Especially if you don't know if it will sell or not? When Winchester decided to bring out their magnum line, they began with shortened and straight walled H&H case for their 458. It seem only natural and economical to base the rest of their newly introduced line of high performance cartridges on that same case.

I see it more as economics of design, research and production rather marketing hype. Remember, it doesn't have to have a belt to be a magnum.

 

I don't feel left out not having a belted magnum, I like my old rimmed cartridges. This discussion is quite interesting. I just found a few 300 RUM cases and was struck by the huge powder capacity of these cartridges. And like 338 says, does not need a belt to be a magnum.

 

Sorry to go even more off topic but this seemed like a good place for this question: I read that belted cases should be loaded less times than nom-belted cases. Is this because the belt makes them weaker somehow? or is it just because they tend to be higher pressure cartridges?

 

Nope, but since they headspace on the belt, not the shoulder, chambers may be cut a bit long. Anyway the cure is to resize only enough to chamber easily, just basic sizing die adjustment. Something like the RCBS Precison Mic, or even some simpler tools (see my tech note 'reloading on the cheap) can help with this.

Here's the tech note:

http://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/50

 

Hi NathanL,
Mike has the answer there. I use Redding neck-size dies for my 300WM and 300Wby. A properly adjusted die of this type will help both standard and belted cases last longer. However, I feel that cases get work hardened after a certain number of firings and loadings. I have some cases that have been fired 8 times with full power loads and show no evidence of excess brass flow towards the neck. But I notice that group size has expanded versus new brass, an indicator that neck tension is changing. I could anneal them, but I'd rather just buy new brass than risk a shot.
Good shooting,
HP

 

7mm Rem Mag vs. 338 Win Mag

stoke up a 7mm Mag to as fast as you can get a 175 partition going and then do the same with a 225 Accubond, SST or Interbond - Now crunch the 500 and 600 yard calculations and see what you come up with - at 500 yards the 338 will deliver about 500 lbs more energy terminally with a 225
As far as the 200 gr 338, take a look at the 210 Swift Scirocco and calculate the entended performance with that one at 3000 fps MV - NOTHING lesser matches the punch a 338 slug hits with and there are a lot of "bigger" ones that just cannot match up when you actually shoot something with them - 338 as "overkill" for deer and stuff ? WHAT ! you worried about killing something TOO DEAD ?? and bugger and heavier bullets don't shock the meat as dramatically meaning there is less bloodshot - It's best not to get caught up in the "numbers game"