I'm going to guess you're comparing the energy of 180 grain 308 loads to 180 grain 338 Fed loads
You don't have to guess, I said that.
the 338 Fed loads do provide more energy, but comparing bullets of the same weight in different calibers will almost always provide similar results.
No kidding. That was my point. He's comparing similar weights, and lower velocities, and I'm stating the drastic increase in energy, showing the difference in the rounds.
He's stating that the .338 doesn't do more because of the similar speed, I'm showing the impressive difference in the rounds because of what that speed does to the energy.
Want to compare just speed without the energy? .338 can add 20gr to a bullet and still match or beat the speed of a 180gr .308.
This merely illustrates how tricky using energy as a comparison is
It's energy. It's not a trick, it's math.
I know that if I had a shot at an elk and had my choice of an 180 grain 308 and a 180 grain 338, I'd take the 308 because of it's vastly superior sectional density and penetration.
I guess you just can't understand that drastic increase in energy can actually provide more penetration, with almost no increase in wind drift in normal hunting ranges. Light bullets don't penetrate more, especially when they are moving slower from the start. If you're hunting elk, ammo in .338 gives you a few options that will be much more worthy than any .308 load.
See, once we're off the paper, and you're going elk hunting in the real world, at the distances that are generally considered reasonable hunting distances, under 300 yards in most cases (or almost every case around here), one round becomes a better choice than the other.
Vastly superior? You gotta be kidding me.
A 180 is a decently heavy bullet in 308 and a rather light one in 338.
You're right, a 180gr is a heavy load in .308, so we should compare that to a heavy load in .338, say 225gr.
Now who's got superior sectional density and penetration?