something I really would like to know. if you are going to say that it is too much for anything under 700 yards....you need to provide some type of explanation as to why. this is what I am looking for. a lot of posts online have that same statement....nobody but nobody explains....why?
The only reasons it could be too much for anything under 700 yards have nothing to do with terminal performance on game animals, or varmints, or targets.
These are however, some other legitimate explanations for too much:
1) Too much recoil, compared to other cartridge options;
2) Too expensive to shoot (factory ammo or reloading) compared to other cartridge options;
3) Too heavy of a rifle required in order to control the additional recoil compared to less powerful cartridge options;
4) Too expensive to purchase a .338 Lapua, compared to rifles chambered in other cartridges;
5) Too much muzzle blast and noise, compared to other cartridges;
6) Too long of barrel required to obtain full MV potential compared to less powerful cartridges;
7) Too much of anything else one finds irksome, compared to other cartridges...
To my mind, the best single reason to select a less powerful cartridge compared to the 338 Lapua, where the power of the 338 Lapua isn't required or isn't desired, would be recoil and muzzle blast reduction with a less powerful cartridge. Most shooters don't appreciate muzzle blast and recoil. Many can learn to tolerate these and shoot well in spite of these nuisances, but almost everyone would prefer less recoil and muzzle blast, given the opportunity.
If you've never shot a powerful 338 cartridge before, you really ought to try to do so before selecting a .338 Lapua as your one rifle do everything cartridge. I think the popularity of the 6.5 cartridges is largely due to the reduced recoil from a 6.5 compared to the larger caliber rifles. And if you're hunting game like antelope and deer, the 6.5 offers plenty of power for adequate terminal performance. A rifle that recoils less is more pleasant - even fun - to shoot, compared to the heavy recoiling rifles. A cartridge delivering less recoil to the shooter can be used in a lighter weight rifle, and still be enjoyable to shoot, compared to that same lighter weight rifle with a heavy recoiling cartridge.
I know a guy that killed a snowshoe hare with a 460 Weatherby at 20 yards. It wasn't too much cartridge or bullet with respect to terminal performance on the hare. A 22LR could have also killed that hare and just as quickly with good shot placement. Now the guy with the 460 Weatherby wouldn't even had to have hit the hare to kill it. He could have hit the ground 1 foot in front of the hare and still killed it.
To stress my logic even further, one could use a 50 BMG to kill a hare at 20 yards. It won't necessarily do any more meat damage to the hare than a .220 Swift. I contend that the 50 BMG isn't too much caliber, cartridge, or bullet for a snowshoe hare, strictly with respect to terminal performance on the hare. It's the non-terminal performance related considerations that cause most to say a caliber or cartridge is too much for such and such purpose(s).
Hope this helps. Sometimes going to extremes is helpful to illustrate an explanation.