300 SMK VS 300 Lapua Scenar


Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2009
Sierra list the 300 SMK BC @ .768 and Lapua list the 300 Scenar @ .785 In addition the Sierra meplats are more often non-uniformed than the Scenar. While they are more expensive...they are more readily available. Just curious why I'm always hearing about the 300 SMK and by comparison rarely the 300 Scenar...Is it price or ??? Any thoughts or personal experience anyone wantys to share. ps-I'm a fan of 300 SMK's so please no pee pee contest...they're both excellent bullets. I'm just looking for input.
Neither the SMK or the Scenar are designed to expand. However it is widely known that even though the 300 grain SMK wasnt designed for it, it does with alot more predictablity than other SMK sizes. I personally have not been able to get a Scenar to expand whatsoever in test mediums. I have yet to talk with anybody who has be it on a test medium or game. Its a shame since my 338 Edge shoots the SMK well but the Scenar exceptionally well.
I shoot the Lapua for everything but game. I use the sierra for killing. In my 338 edge, the Lapua is more consistant from 1,000 yds. out to 1,500, and beyond. I like the nose profile better and the trimmed meplats and point forming die they use I think makes the difference. Besides it looks more accurate and to my way of thinking adds confidence when the tips are uniform, not jagged like the sierra. Also, the doppler radar figures on lapua's web site list the B.C @ .825. Sierra is .768.
Not to hijack your thread or change the topic, but I've been shooting the Hornady 250 g. BTHP match for a couple hundred rounds at 1,425 yds. and they are really consistant also. B.C. is .675gun)
Of these 2, then is it fair to say that for hunting=300SMK and for paper=300 Scenar?
I know its an old thread but I thougth I'd add my person experience with 250gr scenars.
542yds and he didn't travel

exit wound from just under 400yds DRT

shot angled back a bit. exit wound from just under 400yds

100yds. Had to track this one a LONG ways. lol
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.