Why do so many people not like the 338 Lapua?

[Pdvdh]

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.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

What gets me is when people say you "have" to have a certain caliber to kill certain animals.

Mud, I don't recall anyone saying you have to use a certain cal/cartridge. What many of us are saying is you increase your odds and critters go down quicker, etc., when you use larger cartridges. Bigger bullets make bigger holes, hit harder and cause more damage. I now a guy who has taken 4 bull elk with a 243. Yes, it can be done but I prefer something larger.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

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?

from my point of view, it would appear I should therefore buy a rifle for ...
whitetail...0-200 yards
whitetail....200-400 yards
whitetail....greater than 400 yards
elk....0-100 yards
elk...100-200 yards
hunting in thick woods
hunting in mountain ranges
hunting in between.

does not make sense. I will not be picking up rifles for all possible scenarios. will make it work with what I have...hopefully with one.

so...not to insult anyone but here are questions.
all having to do with hunting with the 338 Lapua.

1. what if a white tail is shot within 200 yards? with barnes 210 tsx, with berger 300 grain?
2. what if feral hogs are hunted at any range?
3. what if hunting moose in Maine....lets say 50-300 yards with either bullet?

Bottom line, very generally speaking is, as long as your muzzle velocities with a Berger are lower than 3000-3100 fps and your terminal velocity is above 1800 fps or so, you are good from point blank to whatever distance you remain above a terminal velocity of 1800 fps. With a Lapua the muzzle velocity of a 300 gr Berger is going to usually be in the 2800-2900 fps range. You are going to get good expansion and deep penetration. I would use 300 Bergers on anything from small antelope to the largest game in NA excluding big coastal bears. The 300 Berger would probably work on a large coastal bear but I want to see someone else do it first... a few times. I would switch to 275 A-Frames for the big bruins.

As far as meat damage goes, 95% of my shots have been double lung shots. No meat damage with whatever cartridge and bullet I used. If you get into a situation where you have to make a less than desirable angle shot then IMO, it's better to loose some meat and put it down quick. In any case, you take a less than desirable angle shot and your going to loose meat with any cartridge/bullet you use.

 

[7dawg9]

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.

that's what you call a " bad hare day"

 

[RonS]

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.

All valid points and I like your imagery. Still, I'll keep my .338 Lapua and my 6.5 Creedmoor.

P.S. There are a couple of guys who were doing fly shoots when the fly's were hatching with their .308's at 200 yards. Now that's over kill.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

that's what you call a " bad hare day"

Too bad there isn't a "like" button to click

 

[Clever]

Hunting Load
Barnes 338 cal. 185gr TSX BT
RE-22 93.0gr
Lapua Brass: 2.714
Federal 215
Ogive ; 2.815
OAL; 3.681
3000 FPS
Out of a Sako Trg 42 338 Lapua Mag

 

[RonS]

Hunting Load
Barnes 338 cal. 185gr TSX BT
RE-22 93.0gr
Lapua Brass: 2.714
Federal 215
Ogive ; 2.815
OAL; 3.681
3000 FPS
Out of a Sako Trg 42 338 Lapua Mag

What twist is the barrel on that?

 

[Timber338]

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?

so...not to insult anyone but here are questions.
all having to do with hunting with the 338 Lapua.

1. what if a white tail is shot within 200 yards? with barnes 210 tsx, with berger 300 grain?
2. what if feral hogs are hunted at any range?
3. what if hunting moose in Maine....lets say 50-300 yards with either bullet?

I think I understand where you are coming from, and maybe you are referring to my comment that you don't need a Lapua to shoot under about 750? If so, I was more making the point that the 210 TSX is not the best bullet of choice with any 338 to shoot beyond about 700 yards. Out to medium range the 210 TSX out of the Lapua is going to be a hammer. Maybe you were not referring to my comment, but to be clear, I think a 338 is great for close range shots and has some benefits over smaller calibers.

To directly answer your questions:
1. Within 200 yards either bullet is going to perform very well on any big game as long as you put it in the right place within 200 yards. That is true for any bullet/cartridge.
2. the low BC of the 200 TSX is going to limit how far you can successfully put the bullet into the kill zone. The low BC is also going to limit how far the bullet retains enough velocity to expand properly.
3. again, either bullet will work great from 50-300 yards.

To me the question you are not asking, and should be asking, is what is the best bullet to maximize the long range potential of the 338 Lapua. Afterall, you did start this thread within the Long Range Hunting forum about one of the king cartridges of long range shooting ....

Everybody can come to their own conclusions with nothing more than running some numbers using a ballistics calculator. I suggested to do this in my last post, and I don't think you've done that. You don't need answers from people on this site, you can do it yourself, and you should do it yourself. This will shed some light on those answers you are looking for. You won't care what anybody else has to say about the cartridge because you can educated yourself with nothing but facts about what the various bullets can do at different ranges.

So please take the time to make a spreadsheet listing all the bullets you could potentially shoot out of the 338 Lapua, and compare energy, trajectory and wind drift. The Lapua is capable out to ELR distances, so compare those energy, trajectory and wind drift numbers at 200 yards, 500 yards, 750 yards, 1000 yards, 1250 yards, 1500 yards ... out to however far floats your boat. The bullets max effective range is typically when it slows down to about 1800 fps. Some people do their own testing to verify that velocity limit for themselves.

Once you run these numbers you will quickly see why the 210 TSX is a poor choice for long range shooting once you factor wind drift. You will also see at what range wind really is not a factor. And you will also see why, even at medium ranges, the high BC bullets dominate on a windy day.

No, they do not make a calculator for bullet performance at close range. Will a barnes or nosler hold up better with high-velocity close-range shots? yes. If your shot is a double lung and does not hit the shoulder, does it matter? no. Like everybody else has said, shot placement is key.

 

[FAIRCHASE]

What twist is the barrel on that?

Why would that even matter since the slowest of twist will stabilize a 185gr bullet?

 

[bdpayne2000]

This is the most legitimate reason I have heard yet. Thank you for being honest.

Isn't it a great country Mud. I know we have our problems but if you have spent much time beyond the borders of our great nation (and I have been to quite a few places across the globe) nothing else even begins to compare IMO. No deference to our friends down under you have a pretty good gig going too.

 

[RonS]

Why would that even matter since the slowest of twist will stabilize a 185gr bullet?

In addition to accuracy problems, over stabilization would be an issue as well. Are you striping jackets? What kind of accuracy are you getting?

 

[FAIRCHASE]

I always hate it when my bullets are "over stabilized".

 

[MudRunner2005]

Isn't it a great country Mud. I know we have our problems but if you have spent much time beyond the borders of our great nation (and I have been to quite a few places across the globe) nothing else even begins to compare IMO. No deference to our friends down under you have a pretty good gig going too.

I've been outside the US borders a few times. It definitely makes you glad you're not living in mud huts and houses made from shipping crates.

Alot of people mistake my comments as offensive, when most of them are not intended that way. Everyone knows I'm a 7mm fan (even though I also own a number of other calibers both smaller and larger than 7mm), people usually get on the offensive when I make comments in .338 posts. I almost expect it. I don't do it for that reason, but I am aware of what's most likely going to happen. I just like to hear honest posts and not about something someone claims to "need". I hear it locally alot and it irritates me so much sometimes that I have to walk away from it. I have several friends constantly feel a need to be bigger or badder, and the arguements usually end in, "whatever dude...Don't say I didn't warn you it was gonna be expensive..." Then less than 6 months later they want something smaller "just because". Yeah right...