Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Long Range Hunting & Shooting' started by motrapper, Oct 15, 2007.
ballistics etc what the overall improvement
1: Some smiths will not chamber the 338 Lapua on the Remington 700 due to the very large base which if you dont want a 700 it is no big deal. If you do want to use a 700 for a project, the 338 RUM is one of the next best things.
2: 338 Lapua brass is phenominal brass. They can take a pounding and still hold a primer. They last along time and can be reloaded many more times than RUM brass. The quality and concistency of the Lapua brass is much better.
3: Both are very accurate (inherently) and both produce good muzzle velocities. However, there are a number of improved versions of the 338 Lapua that will blow the RUM out of the water. Stock for stock, they are pretty close to eachother all being equal.
4: Lapua brass is more expensive and harder to come by. For some it is worth it and for others it isnt.
These are only a few points to concider. Some time ago I was faced with choosing between what caliber I wanted and the smith I wanted to use. I really wanted a 700 action and the most important thing was my smith choice. I also wanted a 30-338 LM improved. The smith would not build the LM on the 700 bolt. I would have rather used that particular smith than use another and get my LM. I settled for the 300 RUM instead. One of these days though, I will have a 338 LM based cartridge chambered rifle in my safe.
Michael summed it up very well.
If you use Norma brass in the Lapua I don't think ballistically there is a pennies worth of difference in the two, although dimensionally the Norma is much more consistant than the Rem.
Because of the harder more consistent Lapua brass I think the 338 Lapua is a far better choice if you are using a custom action and use Lapua brass. If you are going to use a commercial action such as a Rem 700 I would go with the 338 RUM or 338 Edge.