Berger is coming out with a 329 grain 338 long range hunting bullet

Elk Hunter 338

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
2,445
Location
GODS COUNTRY
My guess is it was too much of a good thing. You can only make them so aggressive before they just wont shoot. Even the current 300 hybrid is finicky about seating depth if your trying to make it shoot as small as it can. As a community Id love to see us less interested in ballistic charts that dont even play out in the real world anyhow, and more interested in a bullet that really shoots well across a wide area. The hybrids are no more friendly to deal with than a vld and are a chore to maintain sub .5 moa at 1k and beyond. The less aggressive bullets, like the lrbt are an absolute pleasure to deal with in comparison. I just wish more people had access to long range to shoot a lot more on paper (not rocks). Having a consistently accurate rifle is much nicer than one your constantly tuning. Im just not interested in any new higher bc bullets, in fact Im going the other way. Try a 300 SMK, forget looking at a chart, just go shoot them.
yeah but those numbers on the ballistic program is all that matters.. 😂 😂 😂 very much kidding
 

Alex Wheeler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
1,404
Location
Montana
The ballisticians will disagree with me, but 90% of my shooting for over 10 years has been groups at 1000 yards. My opinion is that the BC is only good for drops. It does not accurately predict windage. This has repeated so many times over the years, but I'll give a recent example. Last week, a friend of mine shot his 6BRA next to his 300 saum imp. His 6 just broke some records, so its a very good tune. They are both shooting a bullet roughly with a .550 bc and the 6 is running about 40 fps faster than the 300. The 6 shot a 12" wide 5 shot group with a minute more wind in the scope. The 300 shot a 3.7" round 10 shot group like there was no wind at all. I just wish more guys could see this stuff so we could forget about that bc number. We'd have better bullets imo.
 

Blancoalex

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
501
Location
Texas
not a pro but can agree if two bullets have similar bc's the heavier bullet is better in wind. Wind(s) is something we cannot give exact number to especially when the distance increases and you get into mountainous conditions. Practically every shot is in slightly different wind(s).

In defense of shooting rocks :) if know the yardage and able get good mil or moa reading you can have pretty close numbers out there. Not accurate as on paper but close.

Appreciate the good info shared here.
 

surgeon260

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
147
Even the current 300 hybrid is finicky about seating depth if your trying to make it shoot as small as it can. As a community Id love to see us less interested in ballistic charts that dont even play out in the real world anyhow, and more interested in a bullet that really shoots well across a wide area. The hybrids are no more friendly to deal with than a vld and are a chore to maintain sub .5 moa at 1k and beyond.

Nothing but respect for you sir, but this hasn't been my experience with Berger Hybrids (338 300, 308 215, 264 140). I'm just a gun bum and certainly am not setting any records, but I have found Hybrids to be extremely easy to get dialed in. I shoot all of them at around 10 thou off and they all shoot plenty small for me. I'm sure my standards are lower than yours.

You definitely have far more data at 1000+, so I will take your word that they aren't as repeatable at long range. So maybe the calculus comes down to what your goals are? If 0.5 MOA at 1000 yards and in is what you are after (the bucket that I fall in), my data supports the case that Hybrids are an easy button. But I'm not into the time and effort of squeezing every last tenth of an MOA out of every bullet. I appreciate that other bullets might be easier for those that are.
 

Alex Wheeler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
1,404
Location
Montana
I do shoot a lot of hybrids. For best grouping the seating depth window is about .003". That does not mean they wont shoot well outside of that but they will open up. This is for an average barrel. You really want to tune a long range rifle to peak accuracy, because things are changing. You want to se some of those 2-3" groups on good days so when your tune is off some your still 5-6" hopefully. If you go out and the best you do is .5 moa at 1000, its only going to get worse as conditions change. The farther out you get, the smaller the windows get as well. Thats been my experiance anyhow. I see way too many variables at 1000 to personally want to shoot game at that distance but I still want my rifles to group small :)
 

Alex Wheeler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
1,404
Location
Montana
not a pro but can agree if two bullets have similar bc's the heavier bullet is better in wind. Wind(s) is something we cannot give exact number to especially when the distance increases and you get into mountainous conditions. Practically every shot is in slightly different wind(s).

In defense of shooting rocks :) if know the yardage and able get good mil or moa reading you can have pretty close numbers out there. Not accurate as on paper but close.

Appreciate the good info shared here.
No one wants to believe me, I know ;) Just humor me, put a target up near a rock at 1000 or farther if you want. Shoot at that rock a few times and have guys watch, everyone guess how the rifle is grouping, then put 3 on paper. Its so hard to judge and you always think its better. We shoot rocks or clay birds all the time to sight in then go to the target. I know how it fools you and I still think Im shooting them in the same hole on the dirt mound, then you put them on paper and :( reality sets in. I only keep saying this to hopefully help some one improve their system. Not to be rude.
 
Last edited:

yobuck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
1,799
Location
east central fl. /n.c. pa.
No one wants to believe me, I know ;) Just humor me, put a target up near a rock at 1000 or farther if you want. Shoot at that rock a few times and have guys watch, everyone guess how the rifle is grouping, then put 3 on paper. Its so hard to judge and you always think its better. We shoot rocks or clay birds all the time to sight in then go to the target. I know how it fools you and I still think Im shooting them in the same hole on the dirt mound, then you put them on paper and :( reality sets in. I only keep saying this to hopefully help some one improve their system. Not to be rude.
Well target shooters have been trying to improve their system for a very long time havent they?
In the mid 80s and old friend by name of Earl Chronister set a new heavy gun 10 shot record at Williansport with a group measuring about 3 3/4”.
Unless something happened recently im unaware of, the current heavy gun 10 shot record is about one inch smaller.
So in that regard at least there hasent been much improvement, even though millions of rounds have been sent down range trying to do just that since the mid 80s.
But from the standpoint of hunting accuracy, my personal belief is that hits on small targets like clay birds or small rocks on a consistent basis are adequate.
Fact is not all of us care about measured groups anyway, and its not always as easy putting up and retrieving targets as it is to just shoot at a rock.
Fact is that the most successful hunters arent necessarily always the best shooters also.
 

Alex Wheeler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
1,404
Location
Montana
Well target shooters have been trying to improve their system for a very long time havent they?
In the mid 80s and old friend by name of Earl Chronister set a new heavy gun 10 shot record at Williansport with a group measuring about 3 3/4”.
Unless something happened recently im unaware of, the current heavy gun 10 shot record is about one inch smaller.
So in that regard at least there hasent been much improvement, even though millions of rounds have been sent down range trying to do just that since the mid 80s.
But from the standpoint of hunting accuracy, my personal belief is that hits on small targets like clay birds or small rocks on a consistent basis are adequate.
Fact is not all of us care about measured groups anyway, and its not always as easy putting up and retrieving targets as it is to just shoot at a rock.
Fact is that the most successful hunters arent necessarily always the best shooters also.
Its improved a lot actually. You have to look at agg records. Individual small groups are usually flukes, although 3"s are now not uncommon in HG. I only have records back to 2005 from the IBS, but the LG 10 match agg was 6.183" (10 5 shot groups) the HG agg was 7.499" ( 10 10 shot groups). Today those aggs are 3.794" and 5.337". A considerable improvement in only the last 15 years. If I could find records from the 80s Id guess they would be 2-3 times larger. So there has actually been a huge improvement.
What Im telling you about hits on rocks or clay birds are not as centered as you think. I sight in on small rock all the time and go directly to paper for group and its hard to get closer than .5 moa to the aim point. Thats just not a good enough zero to verify drops in my opinion. And hunters should care about measured groups, thats how you predict your hit %. If the rifle is not shooting well enough to hit the intended target consistently you should fix that before worrying about all the other stuff. Accuracy gets blown off by a lot of hunters, but I can tell you a really good shooting rifle will make you a lot better shooter. Just my opinion. But the fact is no matter what your doing, if your putting rounds down range and paying attention then your learning.
 
Top