Clearly you didn't read my response. I linked it twice.
338 lapua v. 338-378 weatherby
- Thread starter ccsykes
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Clearly you didn't read my response. I linked it twice.
I wouldn't disagree with any of that, except the last part. I would say most guys TRYING to shoot game further than 600 yards are doing it with off the shelf firearms. Not that I recommend that, but I would bet most people are doing just that.
RDM416
Well-Known Member
I have been off deer hunting in KS for the past week so I missed the last part of the discussion on this thread............ no KS deer pics, did not see any big ones 
First of all, to ccsykes.......... sorry we hijacked your thread, but it looked like Kirby got your questions answered before we went off on a tangent!
Lapua Guy, You are new to this site and may have made some assumptions about the shooters on this site that are not entirely accurate, and we may have done the same with you. I'm not going to get into the who made what military "kill" for two simple reasons....... first I don't really follow the military side of "long range" that closely so I have little knowlege of such other than what I occasionaly watch on the military channel.......... second, it has no bearing on the comparison of 338 Lapua and 338/378 or 338 "KUBLA KHAN".
First, a belated welcome to the site and I hope you find it as usefull as I have over the past several years.
I think your biggest mistaken assumption is that most on this site shoot factory ammunition, with factory rifles. There are guys on this site at all levels, some do shoot factory stuff and thats great, but most of us who are shooting at longer ranges 800 to 1000 and longer are at minimum handloading and most have custom or modified rifles with optics suitible for the ranges we are shooting. At first I did not even realize you were trying to make your comparison using factory 300 grain Lapua ammo and factory 338/378 wby ammo with whatever 250 grain bullet they load. That is not a valid comparison in any way. As others have said, when you load a 300 grain SMK or 300 grain Lapua Scenar in both, the 338/378 will push the 300 grain bullet about 200 fps faster than the Lapua. When handloading, the same bullets, powders, and primers are available regardless of which one you are loading for.
So, that is what led me to challenge your statement that the 338 Lapua shoots flatter than a 338/378. Myself and others on this site are not looking at "factory" loads, we are looking at the maximum performance of both cartridges, and by that measure the 338/378 is a faster more powerfull round than the Lapua.
Final thing...... "KUBLA KHAN" "KAHN" "KHAN" I think your assumption that I simply don't know what I am talking about or that I don't own one is a little presumptuous based on a different spelling. I have seen it spelled "kahn" and "khan" and I commonly transpose the "a" and the "h". I will grant you that I think the correct spelling is "KHAN". However, as you will see from the attached pics Kirby Allen (Fiftydriver) spells it "KAHN" and that is good enough for me.
First of all, to ccsykes.......... sorry we hijacked your thread, but it looked like Kirby got your questions answered before we went off on a tangent!
Lapua Guy, You are new to this site and may have made some assumptions about the shooters on this site that are not entirely accurate, and we may have done the same with you. I'm not going to get into the who made what military "kill" for two simple reasons....... first I don't really follow the military side of "long range" that closely so I have little knowlege of such other than what I occasionaly watch on the military channel.......... second, it has no bearing on the comparison of 338 Lapua and 338/378 or 338 "KUBLA KHAN".
First, a belated welcome to the site and I hope you find it as usefull as I have over the past several years.
I think your biggest mistaken assumption is that most on this site shoot factory ammunition, with factory rifles. There are guys on this site at all levels, some do shoot factory stuff and thats great, but most of us who are shooting at longer ranges 800 to 1000 and longer are at minimum handloading and most have custom or modified rifles with optics suitible for the ranges we are shooting. At first I did not even realize you were trying to make your comparison using factory 300 grain Lapua ammo and factory 338/378 wby ammo with whatever 250 grain bullet they load. That is not a valid comparison in any way. As others have said, when you load a 300 grain SMK or 300 grain Lapua Scenar in both, the 338/378 will push the 300 grain bullet about 200 fps faster than the Lapua. When handloading, the same bullets, powders, and primers are available regardless of which one you are loading for.
So, that is what led me to challenge your statement that the 338 Lapua shoots flatter than a 338/378. Myself and others on this site are not looking at "factory" loads, we are looking at the maximum performance of both cartridges, and by that measure the 338/378 is a faster more powerfull round than the Lapua.
Final thing...... "KUBLA KHAN" "KAHN" "KHAN" I think your assumption that I simply don't know what I am talking about or that I don't own one is a little presumptuous based on a different spelling. I have seen it spelled "kahn" and "khan" and I commonly transpose the "a" and the "h". I will grant you that I think the correct spelling is "KHAN". However, as you will see from the attached pics Kirby Allen (Fiftydriver) spells it "KAHN" and that is good enough for me.
I apologize for the assumptions. That is a beaut of a gun. I personally will never need more than the Lapua for any range of shot, but tip my hat to those that shoot bigger. I apologize for saying it was a waste. No new wildcating should ever be characterized as such. I just shot a 338-408 Chey Tac this weekend. Wow. Very cool
As far as my point, I think there is an argument to energy retention and downrange accuracy tipping towards the Lapua, especially in hunting rifles. Now that is what I have seen shooting the two rifles. My best friend disagrees (he shoots the 338/378). He is a better shot than I am, but I think I load a better round. Whatever the case, he seems to shoot my gun a bit better. I will say he is shooting a stock Mark V.
One thing we can agree on is captured in this story of when we went hunting in CO for Elk.
The guide had four of us and looked over what we brought to shoot. The two others in our party had 300 WSMs, one with a Nikon Monarch 6.5-20 and the other with a Zeiss 6.5-20, I think, not sure, I just know it was pricey. He said that max shots he wanted them taking was 600 yards because he wanted to make sure we recovered the game. He look at me and my buddy's gear, I had my Rem 700 custom 338 LM, with a Leupold Mk 4 6.5-20, and my buddy had his Weatherby with his Zeiss Conquest of the same magnification. He told us, "if you can see it in your glass, and have a good shot, shoot it."
Appreciate everyone's candor, and now that my British friend got the accolades he deserves and the furtherest combat shooter, I will refrain from posting more on the thread.
As far as my point, I think there is an argument to energy retention and downrange accuracy tipping towards the Lapua, especially in hunting rifles. Now that is what I have seen shooting the two rifles. My best friend disagrees (he shoots the 338/378). He is a better shot than I am, but I think I load a better round. Whatever the case, he seems to shoot my gun a bit better. I will say he is shooting a stock Mark V.
One thing we can agree on is captured in this story of when we went hunting in CO for Elk.
The guide had four of us and looked over what we brought to shoot. The two others in our party had 300 WSMs, one with a Nikon Monarch 6.5-20 and the other with a Zeiss 6.5-20, I think, not sure, I just know it was pricey. He said that max shots he wanted them taking was 600 yards because he wanted to make sure we recovered the game. He look at me and my buddy's gear, I had my Rem 700 custom 338 LM, with a Leupold Mk 4 6.5-20, and my buddy had his Weatherby with his Zeiss Conquest of the same magnification. He told us, "if you can see it in your glass, and have a good shot, shoot it."
Appreciate everyone's candor, and now that my British friend got the accolades he deserves and the furtherest combat shooter, I will refrain from posting more on the thread.
elundquist
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1
I just had to register to reply to this thread. I was afraid that it wouldn't end well and had to commend you both on being the "bigger man". A very respectful finish. Well done.
Excellent read. I appreciate the patience shown by the older hands. I dont spend enough time here. I have a 338 Lapua magnum and am looking hard at a 338-378 Weatherby but not so much for long range. I am in S. Texas and am killing pretty good sized hogs with my Lapua. It sure enough makes them "dead right there"!
I was intrigued by the use of the lighter faster bullets in these calibers. But more than anything I was impressed at the way the "disagreement" was handled here. Thanks again for the excellent read and information.
I was intrigued by the use of the lighter faster bullets in these calibers. But more than anything I was impressed at the way the "disagreement" was handled here. Thanks again for the excellent read and information.
I like both guns, but I have much more experience with the Weatherby. I make custom guns and have made many in the Keith Thompson version of the 338/378 because it fits more actions. I am curious why W'by loads their round so lightly, namely, 3050 fps with a 250 gr bullet. I have loaded the KT version (with less powder capacity) to 3450 fps with a 250 grain bullet. Unfortunately, this is a barrel destroyer so I cut it back to 3250 FPS and suffer no ill effects. This is with a standard powder-nothing exotic. I won't give out the loads as someone might try a high load without gradually working their way up and carefully looking for high pressure effects.
Both rounds have been here a long time. W'by made 5 guns chambered for it in the 1960's. The first 4 were called the 338'378 W'by and the 5th gun that year was called the 340/378 although it was the same cartridge. A friend actually owns one of the former. I have heard both it and the 300/378 were developed to satisfy a govt request although they went nowhere until more appropriate powders were developed. I don't know if the KT or W'by was developed first, but think they came out about the same time.
Both rounds have been here a long time. W'by made 5 guns chambered for it in the 1960's. The first 4 were called the 338'378 W'by and the 5th gun that year was called the 340/378 although it was the same cartridge. A friend actually owns one of the former. I have heard both it and the 300/378 were developed to satisfy a govt request although they went nowhere until more appropriate powders were developed. I don't know if the KT or W'by was developed first, but think they came out about the same time.
