The fuss over .338 Lapua

[saucy]

G'day,

I've read in a couple of places now of ranges banning the .338 Lapua.

Or people getting license applications knocked back and so on.

It's just the range that is the concern for this cartridge? Right?

[Bourt]

Same "logic" as the .50 cal.

"ZOMG military sniper rifle!" "It shoots forever!" and other well thought out arguments...

[Wobble]

It's just the range that is the concern for this cartridge? Right?

In short yes, thought for some reason the powers that be seem to be going for a blanket ban instead of letting people shoot it in suitable areas.

If you've got a property that's big enough to shoot it without risk, what's the harm?

My 2c anyway.

[Gregg]

If you've got a property that's big enough to shoot it without risk, what's the harm?

Agreed. There are plenty of people with properties which are either thousands of acres, or have suitable back drops that range is no issue at all.

Typical "scary" calibre BS.

[yoshie]

Basically the authorities are concerned with civies shooting at public figures from 2km and not being able to prevent/react in an emergency. And if we don't already shoot a prescribed match with it, then we don't need it, and thus don't have a genuine reason to own one.

[Harper]

Basically the authorities are concerned with civies shooting at public figures from 2km and not being able to prevent/react in an emergency. And if we don't already shoot a prescribed match with it, then we don't need it, and thus don't have a genuine reason to own one.

Which is stupid logic really (theirs, not yours)

Where do you draw the line?

1,000 metre 300 win mag is fine? No?

800 metre .308 win? No?

500 meter 300 AAC blackout?

And on it goes...

[Chickenhawk]

It would be cut off at throwing stones if some of the anti's had their way.

[Old Fart]

It would be cut off at throwing stones if some of the anti's had their way.

Pretty sure that's illegal already

They're burning the candle at both ends.

[bunnybuster]

It would be cut off at throwing stones if some of the anti's had their way.

What ? stones aren't banned yet ? s*$t , better stock up now,

BB,

[bunnybuster]

Basically the authorities are concerned with civies shooting at public figures from 2km and not being able to prevent/react in an emergency. And if we don't already shoot a prescribed match with it, then we don't need it, and thus don't have a genuine reason to own one.

If the public figures behaved in an honest forthright manner what would they have to fear ?

BB,

[jordy]

What ? stones aren't banned yet ? s*$t , better stock up now,

Also tins of fruit, and frozen juice boxes

[BRNOmod2]

I was led to believe that issues at some (not all) ranges have come about due to reviews of the safety template (area behind stop buts) of particular ranges - some range authorities have come to believe they do not have a large enough safety template zone for the long reach of the .338 lapua.

(I don't have a view either way so don't want to get into an argument over that) but believe that's why some ranges have tried to stop use of .338 Lapua. )

As for any license issues, I'm WA based so no need to say any more there.

[Lyam]

I was led to believe that issues at some (not all) ranges have come about due to reviews of the safety template (area behind stop buts) of particular ranges - some range authorities have come to believe they do not have a large enough safety template zone for the long reach of the .338 lapua.

Of course, ranges need to have appropriate space and/or backdrop to shoot them. I'm sure everyone here supports that.

Who's calling for these reviews and influencing them though?

If it's been considered safe to shoot the .338 Lapua at shooting range X for the last 20 years, why is it unsafe now?

Obviously some ranges won't be suitable for shooting these kinds of calibres, and that's fine. But that's no reason to deny them to people. If I want to drive for an hour or two to a range which is suitable, that's my business.

It's all just round about ways of restricting them from us IMO.

Just my 2c.

[1290]

Its the energy more so than the range, the lapooa does not necessarily shoot farther than most other larger/ standard mags and certainly not certain super or ultra mags. ..
Simply because the cartridge has been adopted by nations as their sniper round it gives the policy 'influencers' aka the police a seemingly logical reason to restrict the civil use of the round......to the easily convinced and those who generally couldnt care less about firearms and shooting activities.

[Jessie]

Simply because the cartridge has been adopted by nations as their sniper round it gives the policy 'influencers' aka the police a seemingly logical reason to restrict the civil use of the round

Not even just influence, isn't the wording in the legislation something like 'similar to military firearms in appearance or function'? It's been written here before as something like that anyway.

Carte blanche to start banning stuff

[andreweden]

Does anyone actually have the safety template they use for .338 Lapua? I was surprised to see SSAA Ripley does not allow it with that huge hill behind the range.

[southeast varmiter]

Template differences between 338 lapua and 300 WM are no different.
338 just has long range stability and accuracy - that's all.
Rest is BS.

[<<Genesis93>>]

So the 30cal doesn't have LR stability or accuracy.....

[AusTac]

You see marksmanship skills transfer with the caliber of the rifle, if its a .50bmg = pro .338 = semi pro

[andreweden]

Template differences between 338 lapua and 300 WM are no different.
338 just has long range stability and accuracy - that's all.
Rest is BS.

So where is this actually written down?
How are the templates determined (my assumption is that the round has to be under a certain velocity and/or energy before it gets X metres downrange for the case that someone shoots over last stop butt?)

SSAA Ripley allows 300WM but not 338 Lapua. Does this mean it is the SSAA that has an issue with .338?

I don't have an issue with rules - I just want to know where they are and who is responsible for them.

[andreweden]

For arguments sake -

Hornady 338
Test Barrel (24") Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE 100 200 300 400 500
2745/4768 2630/4378 2519/4015 2410/3676 2304/3359 2200/3064

Hornady 300WM
Test Barrel (24") Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE 100 200 300 400 500
2850/3607 2702/3243 2560/2909 2421/2603 2287/2323 2157/2066

The 338 does have 50% more energy at 500 yards despite the velocities being similar.

So what are the limits when it comes to a particular range?