.338 Lapua, what am I missing here?

[Tim K]

Idle curiosity here. I'd like to know why there's so much interest in .338 Lapua and the other similar cartridges. The ballistics are inferior to the .50 in every respect, and cost to shoot is roughly the same. Is it just that the rifles are lighter?

[birddog]

It's all in a name, .338 Lapua just sounds bad ass. That and other things I don't understand, I actually agree with your first statement.

[Hoser]

The rifles are lighter, have good downrange energy, easy to suppress and dont kick like a mule.

And there is also the Ninja factor... The 338 not as high on the chart as the 50, but it is more Ninja-esque than a 308.

[Monky]

Some people are men and some aren't.

[kidicarus13]

Quite a few ranges do not allow 50BMG

[J]

Many long range competitions that I have seen don't allow 50 either. Not that you would want to lug one on something like the 24hr challenge anyways.

[C Ward]

338's as a rule are way more accurate than 50's with any projectile other than lathe turned solids . 50's are also one of the most temperamental in regards to ammo . Balistically with other than solids the 338 is the same or better except for energy .

[Dinosdeuce]

plus you don't need a special press to reload the 338 ninja.

Dino

[jimmym40a2]

there have been some good new bullets that make the 338 even more attractive.

[Hoser]

As a comparison...

I shot a railroad tie stood on end at 600 yards with both a 308 loaded with 175 gn Sierras and with my 338 and 300 gn Bergers.

The first shot with the 308 did not exit. Not even close.

The 338 exited out the back side with about a 45-50 caliber hole.

I tell people if you want to kill it, a 308 is fine. If you want to kill it and/or break it and can afford it, get a 338 or a 50.