fbpx

300 Norma Mag – Ballistics and Caliber Comparison

by Dec 19, 2017 9 comments 4.1 (17)

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team

    ABOUT Ryan Cleckner
    Ryan is a former special operations sniper (1/75 Ranger) and current firearms attorney, firearms industry executive, university lecturer, and bestselling author of the Long Range Shooting Handbook.

    Recent Posts

    9 Comments

    1. george fournier

      You really should compare the 250 gr Badlands SICBM in the 338LM to the Berger 230 in the 300NM. The 250 can be pushed at 3050 fps with a higher BC than the Berger, making the 300LM look like a BB gun.

      Reply
    2. Jonathan

      Hi Ryan,
      Thanks for the read. I have your book. It’s great.
      Could you elaborate on the politics of AI?
      Thanks
      //J

      Reply
    3. Paul

      The 230 grains in 30 caliber has a sectional density of .3464. The 250 grains bullet has a sectional density of .3126 and a lower ballistic coefficient than the 30 caliber bullet you use to illustrate your example. This is not an apples to apples comparison. Not even close since the Lapua can use a 300 grains bullet and a 250 grains bullet in .338 caliber is really equivalent to a 208 bullet in 30 caliber. See where I’m getting ?

      In order to make an apples to apples comparison, the .338 caliber bullet should have the same sectional density…That bullet would have to weigh 276 grains…Anything between 275 and 280 grains is fine for comparison’s sake. These heavier bullets can be pushed at over 2800 fps and have exceptionally high ballistic coefficients. They beat the 300 Norma on all counts at all ranges except for recoil. If your interest is to portray the practical efficient side, then the comparison you use is acceptable but only in illustrating recoil, far from it in total capability. It is easy to view your article as biased in favor of the 300 Norma Mag, not to take anything away from its practicality and usefulness, the 338 Lapua is still a far superior round. More pertinent information is needed in order for your article to provide good comparative and informative values. As a writer, you are obligated to provide sound information, not incomplete biased information.

      Reply
      • Paul

        My post isn’t to take anything away from your other accomplishments which are clearly shown by your credentials nor is it to ignore the most commonly used weights in these two calibers. It does seem to me that the 300 Norma mag, being a new round is heavily marketed at the expense of its competitors true qualities which should be present in an article discussing or comparing them to others. I read far too many articles boasting of “better” ballistics between one or another, usually the 7mm VS the 30 Cal. They’re mostly all done in the same vein and the bullets they use are a far cry from an apples to apples comparison and one wonders why…

        Reply
    4. Jerry

      Lol, I’ll stick with the 338 lapua. Sold the norma. Might want to do an equal comparison. Stating it is meant to shoot heavier bullets depends on the application.

      It’s sort of like saying, “Hey guys, let’s give up the 300 win mag for the 6.5 creed for our sniper platform. Lol

      Be a man and take the recoil or put on your wife’s muzzle break. If you don’t know how to handle the recoil, you probably should have the weapon your shooting.

      Reply
      • Paul

        May I quote you in the future ? I like the “be a man” part and especially the “put on your wife’s muzzle brake”.

        Reply
    5. Paul

      Sorry to invalidate your stats but it is essential to provide accuracy when discussing ballistics and to approach this science with exact numbers. Not just what seems to carry the current biased flavor.

      The 300 Norma Magnum with a 220 grains bullet shot at 3000 feet per second at sea level stays supersonic to 1950 yards. NOT to 1500 yards as you claim in your article.

      The 338 Lapua with a 270 Grains bullet (b.c. 0.757) at 2900 feet per second at sea level (how often do shots take place at sea level in the mountains of Afghanistan, I wonder…) remains supersonic to 1925 yards.

      This isn’t to compare which is better or which is more practical to carry but simply to provide ACCURATE information.

      When comparing the efficacy of projectiles in different calibers you do not pit sizes at whim. You compare bullets that share the same form factor. “form factor” is misused constantly in various literature as meaning ergonomic…This is not what form factor is.
      This means that when you compare a 230 grains bullet in .30 caliber as you do in your example, you DO NOT compare that bullet to a 250 grains bullet in .338 caliber but you compare it to a bullet that shares an identical sectional density…Ballistics 101..

      The bullet that has an identical sectional density to a 230 grains caliber bullet in .338 caliber must weigh much more than 250 grains as you enter for comparison in your faulty example. A 230 grains .30 caliber bullet has a sectional density of 0.3464
      For your information, the sectional density is a relationship of the square of the diameter of an object in inches to its weight in pounds (not grains). The sectional density is an inertial value which means it is the same whether you hold it in the palm of your hand or in flight as long as it is not deformed which would alter its sectional density.
      The .338 equivalent to a .30 caliber 230 grains bullet is a bullet that weighs precisely 277 grains. Therefore your comparison should be of these two bullets. You are slanting things in favor of the 300 by ignoring this most fundamental rule of comparison. Apples to apples please.

      FYI, the sectional density of a 250 grains bullet in .338 caliber is 0.3126, therefore its equivalent in .30 caliber, or the bullet in .30 caliber that will share the same form factor will have to weigh NO MORE than 208 grains. 207.61 grains to be exact. That 208 grains bullet will not reach long distances as well as the 230 grains bullet you chose to use in your comparison. A substantial difference in mass. Mass and weight retention go together. Mass carries further. Unless the speeds of these two cartridges are very substantially different which they are NOT. The heavier projectile will always carry more energy at the target. Energy is one factor. Mass weighs heavily in that equation. The more mass the more damage to the target.

      All that being said, both cartridges are excellent and both serve their purpose very well. This is not what I am approaching here. What I am doing is bringing the importance of exactitude in numbers to the fore. Any valid comparison must have proper input, not random input which may very well unintentionally slant results as in your examples.

      I did not take transonic (highly variable) speeds into account in providing distances at which both projectiles remained supersonic but used the last few feet to the edge of the subsonic speeds without crossing that threshold for both projectiles. They each are within less than 10 feet before crossing into subsonic but they are still supersonic and these distances are accurate.

      You may decide not to publish my post but please understand that not all readers are uninformed. Some, like myself, have been keen on these subjects for decades.

      Reply
      • Ryan Cleckner

        Why wouldn’t I publish this? I, above all else, want the truth and am always willing to be corrected. As a note, are you interested in writing for us? I think we could all learn some from you and you seem to enjoy explaining these things.

        Reply
    6. Paul

      Ryan, thank you for your very courteous acceptance of my post which I sincerely appreciate. I do enjoy this whole subject and enjoy speaking about it. I replied to your email and thank you once more for your offer to write which I find extremely interesting.

      Reply

    Submit a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    We've helped

    Choose the best weapons,
    improve their shooting and
    increase their knowledge
    on their rights.

    Gun Grades

    Popular Posts