300 wby vs. 340 wby

[eman98]

Today I was comparing calibers on the ammo section of the site and I noticed that not only did the .300 wby have better bullet selection than the .340 wby but at 300yrds plus it had better velocity, ft lbs of energy, and a flatter trajectory with the 200 grain bullets.

[Oregon Jim]

On paper the two calibers can appear quite different, but under ordinary hunting conditions there is truly little difference. Both are great calibers for hunting game. It isn't until you begin shooting at very long distances that the .340 will begin to outshine the .300, and then only if you are shooting heavier bullets in the .340. The ballistic coefficient for a .30 caliber 200 grain bullet is much superior to the same weight bullet in the .338 caliber.

Consider that 200 grains is heavy for a .30 caliber bullet, but a .340 will shoot a 300 grain bullet, and then compare the long range ballistic performance of each. It is there that you will see where the .340 beats the socks off of the .300 magnum.
   

[eman98]

thanks jim your posts are always helpful.

[HuskyMusky]

Are you saying the 300 has more juice than the 340 at 300+ yds or just the opposite?

I remember comparing the 2, and I think the 340 is faster/flatter with 225 than the 300 is with 200's...

Either way the .340wby is just plain awesome! and the ultimate elk cartridge!
225gr tipped TSX@3100
High BC's
Fast/Flat
Big Heavy Bullet

[terminator]

http://www.weatherby.com/product/ammunition/ballistic?ammo1=.300+Wby.&ammo2=.340+Wby.&compare=Compare&compare=Compare

[Marishka]

The .300 Weatherby is, indeed, magnificent. You can go to 250 grains (Hawk bullets) with it if you load or buy custom loads. I've never compared it to the .340 Weatherby. But, I did compared it to and it does a job on the .338 Winchester. But, the .340 Weatherby is better than the .338 Winchester. Both are superior rounds.

[.300 ultramark]

Under no circumstances will the .340 shoot as flat as a .300 and it is a better all around load especially if hunting medium sized game. With a 200gr. Accubond and it's BC of .588 it is simply a stunner and can easily take any game on the continent and I wish it would replace the partition load.

The .340 excells as a Large Game load when Elk, Moose, Brown Bear, Caribou are solely on the menu. Sectional Densities even with a 200gr. load are high and a 180gr. load in the Accubond would be excellent for medium sized game. Norma's reloading manual lists this load at 3353 fps and with a SD of .225 which is more than enough for medium sized game. The recoil of the .340 is going to be worse than the .300 though.   

[HuskyMusky]

My .340 in a fibermark I swear kicks less than my 300win.mag in a wood stocked browning even with a muzzlebreak.

IMO once you get to the 300mags, whether it's a 300 or 340 they all kick hard.

I wish WBY would replace all TSX loads with Tipped TSX loads.

IMO you don't get a 300wby for medium game, its an elk rifle and more...and when you're talking big and/or dangerous game I'd want a .340wby.

But sure the 300wby with 180s will be flatter than probably any 340 load...200-250 at least, but is still as flat as a 270win. w/130grs,

WBY should market the 340 as "shoots as flat as a 270win, hits like a 375 H&H" 

as the 7mm rem.mag was often promoted...as flat as a 270, hits like a 30-06...

I think the big magnum really drops off after 300's though, most guys don't want or care to handle more gun than a 300mag on a routine basis. Which is a shame the 338's aren't more popular, I love it, it's somewhat unique/niche market, and just awesome. talk about a great AK gun, flat shooting for long shots, even on sheep etc...but plenty of gun and big enough for up close dangerous bears...etc...

and with 275gr A-Frames, if you want sectional density, check those out!

also the 300win.mag and 300wby are closer than the 338win.mag and 340wby are, ie the shorter 338win.mag case compared to the 300win.mag, just another reason the 340wby should be even more popular.

[Oregon Jim]

You say "Under no circumstances will the .340 shoot as flat as a .300".
Never say never. 
I cannot remember the load right off the top of my head, but I was shooting 180 grain Nosler ballistic tip bullets at a touch over 3400 fps with my .340 Wby, and I think 3500 fps was within reach if I had wanted to push that hard.

We could discuss all the variables forever, but I'd bet my trajectory was about as flat as any factory 180 grain loads, or those most would shoot with their .300 Wby. magnums with the same weight bullet.

Just for the record, my velocity was awesome, but my accuracy was terrible with those light weight bullets.

As I wrote earlier, the .340 really has its edge way out yonder where heavier bullet retain energy and velocity better. At normal hunting distances the difference between the abilities of the two is more academic than anything. Animals sure can't tell the difference.

[WildTigerTrout]

Shoots as flat as a 270 Win with the power of the 375 H&H. Says it all about the 340 Weatherby Mag. GREAT cartridge! IMO one of Roy's best creations.

[Marishka]

My .300 Weatherby has an Accubrake and I use it with the Accubrake when at the range. The recoil of my .300 Weatherby with the Accubrake is slightly less than that of a 30-06. In the field, I remove the Accubrake - it screws on and off - and have yet to feel any recoil when releasing against my quarry.

Terminator gave you a great Weatherby comparison chart link. But, it does not give the full range of available bullets with their ballistics. The Weatherby charts, on that link, only are those applicable to factory loaded bullets. To look at ballistics from a custom loader, which shows up to a 250 grain bullet for the .300 Weatherby, go to the site for "Conley Precision Cartridges". There you can compare their loads when loading the most rounds including all Weatherby rounds. Start with a comparison of the .338, the .340 Weatherby and the .300 Weatherby loaded with a .250 grain bullet. When doing that insert the data presented into the online calculators that will give you sectional density and ballistic coefficients. You will need that data as well to have a true picture of comparative performance. Once you do that you will have published data from several sources which you can use as a guide.

I love the .300 Weatherby but I have heard that the .340 is a great round. I do not have a .340.

Some like Chuck Hawks opine that a .338 should be the minimum used on Coastal Browns. Some guides require no less than a .375 when hunting Coastal Browns. But, when you make a complete comparison of these rounds with 250 grain bullets you will see that the .300 Weatherby is nothing to be trifled with. It is truly a magnificent round.

But, you are theo one who must choose so compile and compare all of the published data so that your choice will be informed.

[grizzly340]

Great Topic Love this Suff. But I cant help but sence that some of the Hunters adding to this topic may be A little confused when it comes to the Energy tables they have to be takin with A grain of salt. Specaly when they are of diffrent calibers. It is easy to run thru the chart and say at 452 yards and at the right temp.And bullet selection.The 300 has more energy than the 340. That is simply not the case and sence the 340 apples for apples has the higher B.C. it is impossible. What some dont understand is that the numbers for the 300 covers A .308 Dia where the 340 covers .338 Dia. An Example would be something  like this. Imangine Poking yourself hard with your index figer and your pinky at the same time. There on the same hand so speed and energy are the same. But the tenderness and the bruse the next day would be much diffrent the index finger wich is larger just like the 340 would hurt more and be much larger. Thats the same effect that would go thru the animal the full depth of the wound channel.Thats why The 340 is MUCH Better for the big nasty stuff with teeth.

[Chip]

I don''t poke myself with my fingers and if I did they would not expand into my hand and dump a couple of tons of kenetic energy so I'm not getting that logic.  I think Jim nailed it with this one in that there isn't any practicle difference at normal hunting ranges between the two.  I wouldn't feel any better or worse armed if bears with teeth were on the menu with a properly loaded 300 as compared to the 340. As with a lot of choices it just comes down to what you like best and what works for you.  Both outstanding performers for sure.

[greyrider]

I believe what Grizzly340 is trying to account for is frontal area.
There are many different schools of thought on what is most important ballistic-ally speaking. Some of these are as follows.Explosive wound damage occurs at somewhere above roughly 2100 feet per second. Of course sectional density is important to penetration but so is frontal area and energy to "stopping power" or turning power as Pondoro Taylor called it when applied to rogue elephants.Let's consider Mr. Taylor's Knockout Value.-caliber x bullet weight x velocity/7000.When this formula is applied, the 340 Weatherby 250 grainer scores a 35.5 TKO value. The 300 Weatherby 220 grainer scores a 26.8 TKO value. Ballistic info from Weatherby Website.
I do not think this formula is the last word on effectiveness but it also makes a good deal of sense too.

[Chip]

So we will all be switching over to round nose bullets then I guess to get some bigger frontal area?
I think Taylor primarily had solids in mind when he cooked that TKO stuff up back in the stone age. Most of us are not shooting round nose solid bullets.  Not sure how you get it to apply to the bullets we have today in any meaningful way.  I'm sticking with my answer there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two in the real world when loaded with bullets made since 1952 that are not made for elephants.  Go with what ever floats your boat they are both great rounds.   I'd pick a 7mm over both of them.