More recoil .300 or .338
Question:
I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both of these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard conflicting stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 but that doesn’t sound right.
Response:
>I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both of >these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard conflicting >stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 but that doesn’t >sound right.
My Dad has a .300 Win Mag in a Remington and I have a .338 in a M77. I would much rather shoot my .338 any day. I know alot of people will disagree with me but this is my experience with the two. The .300 "SMACKS" you while the .338 pushes you. Tim M/OR
Response:
>I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both of >these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard conflicting >stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 but that doesn’t >sound right.
Tim- If you are talking about the 300 Weatherby and the 338 Win, both have equal potential for power or recoil, about 4,000 ft-lbs at the muzzle. Either can be loaded to kick more than the other. The factors are bullet weight, powder weight, bullet velocity, and rifle weight. The 8mm Rem Mag fits here too. The 300 Win Mag has less power by about 400 ft-lbs. but could be loaded to recoil more than a lightly loaded 338 if you wanted to prove a point. Of course this can be modified by recoil reducers and different action types. In general, when thinking about recoil and hunting guns, bullet weight and velocity are the things to consider more than cartridge. Most hunting rifles weigh about the same (though a one pound change can make a big difference in felt recoil) and powder charges are pretty directly related to bullet weight. So in general, heavy bullets kick more than lighter ones. For example, you could expect that 150 gr bullets fired from a 270 Win, 280 Rem, or 30-06 would all kick the same in the same weight rifles with the same muzzle velocity. And 200 gr bullets from magnums would be equal for equal weight rifles at equal muzzle velocities, but have more kick than the 150s. When trying to compare different weight bullets at different velocities in different weight rifles you need a calculator. That’s why I included one on my CD-ROM. author of CD-ROM "Tim Calvin’s Hunting the West" check it out at http://www.quiknet.com/hunting.html
Response:
Depending upon which version of the M-77 you’re using and which load you’re firing in .300 Win Mag and .338 Win Mag, recoil can be nearly equal (i.e. a stainless, zytel stocked M-77 firing a 220 gr. Silvertip vs. a wood stocked .338 firing a 210gr. Nosler partition over a minimum load of powder). However, the .338 usually recoils more forcefully in the same weight rifle, as the loads normally used in the .338 fire heavier bullets than loads used in the .300 at nearly equal velocities. I’ve used a Magnaported .300 M-77 R and found it quite pleasant. My cousin has a magnaported .338 stainless M-77 in Alaska and finds it quite a bit to handle. A great deal depends upon the shooter and the style of gun. If you’re trying to choose between the two, choose on the basis of the game you want to hunt. The .338 is best reserved for dangerous game. The .300 is a fine long-range elk rifle.
Response:
> I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both of > these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard conflicting > stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 but that doesn’t > sound right.
Actually, this can be true as the .300 has a larger case than the .338. Also, the quality of recoil (force over time) tends to be less harsh with heavier bullets.
Response:
writes: > I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both of > these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard conflicting > stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 but that doesn’t > sound right. >Actually, this can be true as the .300 has a larger case than the .338. Also, >the quality of recoil (force over time) tends to be less harsh with heavier >bullets.
I own a M-77 .338 Win Mag and have shot my hunting partners M-77 300 Win Mag. My .338 weighs 8 lbs 3 oz. and I was using 250 gr Nosler pushed by 74.0 gr of WW-785. We were feeding Jeff’s rifle 180 gr factory Winchester ammo. There is no comparison in the amount of felt recoil, the .338 wins this contest hands down. My rifle is slightly lighter than the .300 due to the larger bore diameter, but I believe the real difference is caused by the momentum difference between the two calibers. John
Response:
While I agree with Tim C. regarding recoil based on bullet weight, powder charge, and rifle weight, I must also agree with with Tim M. I have a Ruger M77 in the .338, a friend of mine has a .300 in the same rifle. Neither rifle is modified in any way to reduce recoil. Both are the stainless steel-synthetic stock type, ie. identical except for caliber. I have shot both. Actual recoil and perceived recoil can be two totally different things. My perception of the two is that the .338 pushes, the .300 jabs. I realize that that does not concur with scientific logic, but as I said, actual and perceived can be two totally different thing. Incidentally, I have shot both rifles using the same bullet weight. The perception is still the same. Darrel K.
Response:
>>I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both of >these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard conflicting >stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 but that doesn’t >sound right. >My Dad has a .300 Win Mag in a Remington and I have a .338 in a M77. I >would much rather shoot my .338 any day. I know alot of people will >disagree with me but this is my experience with the two. The .300 "SMACKS" >you while the .338 pushes you. >Tim M/OR
I agree with Tim. My Ruger .338 is my FAVORITE gun without question. Loaded with 210 Nosler Partitions it’s PERFECT for sheep, goats and deer, and with a 225 BARNES-X or 250 Nosler Partition it’s superb for everything else in North America. The .300 seems to "SNAP" a lot more, even if it IS 400-500 foot-pounds less than the .338. I’ll take my .338 EVERY time over ANY .300 or 8 mm Mag. Regards de Mike, in British Columbia.
Response:
Sitting at a bench, shooting the Ruger 77 and a Browning Stainless Stalker…everything else being equal…the 77 kicks harder in both .300 and .338 IMHO and from my experience.
Response:
-=> Quoting Tim Rapp to All <=- TR> I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both TR> of these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard TR> conflicting stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 TR> but that doesn’t sound right. Tim: the absolute numbers for recoil for either gun are obtainable via a simple equation relating muzzle velocity, powder charge, rifle weight, bullet weight and… I think that’s it, been awhile since I used it. Check your reloading manuals for it. what you might want to consider is what *kind* of recoil these guns have. My 338 when loaded up with 250 Speer GS has alot of recoil, but it’s more of a big push. The closest thing I’ve shot to a 300 was a wildcat and, while the numbers said it was in the same ballpark, the recoil felt much harder and *sharper*. SMN … "Yield to temptation, it may not pass your way again." – L. Long ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
Response:
I have shot several of both of these calibers, being on my second .338 Win Mag and having shot the .300 Win Mag and .300 Weatherby with fair regularity. The .338 wins the recoil competition with a somewhat healthier jolt. This is not to say that it is necessarily more uncomfortable than the .300s, just that it does push harder and farther. The shape of the stock has more to do with how uncomfortable the recoil actually is. I am just saying the .338 wins with about 20% – 25% free recoil energy to spare. I haven’t fired either of these calibers from the model 77 but the Rugers stock is not ill-formed so I wouldn’t expect any great problem.
: > : > I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both of : > these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard conflicting : > stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 but that doesn’t : > sound right. : Actually, this can be true as the .300 has a larger case than the .338. Also, : the quality of recoil (force over time) tends to be less harsh with heavier : bullets. — Robert Payne
Response:
> > I am looking for comments from anyone who has experience firing both of > these calibers (preferably from a Ruger 77). I have heard conflicting > stories that the .300 has more kick/recoil than the .338 but that doesn’t > sound right. > Actually, this can be true as the .300 has a larger case than the .338. Also, > the quality of recoil (force over time) tends to be less harsh with heavier > bullets.
Well, lets see what my handy dandy HyperCard Recoil Calculator says. Figure 8lbs. for wt. of rifle and scope. A quick check of the Nosler #3 manual: Load 1 .300 Win Mag 200gn bullet, 70gn H4831 powder, 2900fps Load 2 .338 Win Mag 210gn bullet, 75gn H4831 powder, 2900fps Load 3 .338 Win Mag 250gn bullet, 71gn H4831 powder, 2750fps Survey says: Load 1 recoil velocity 17.2fps, recoil force 36.6 ft.lbs. Load 2 recoil velocity 17.7fps, recoil force 38.8 ft.lbs. Load 3 recoil velocity 18.4fps, recoil force 42.0 ft.lbs. Right around the force of a 12ga 3in. mag. (20.3 fps and 40 ft.lbs) Hope that helps. Blair
