Semisane,

Thank you for going to all the work to post the pics in response to my ignorant question (ignorant because I have not chrono'd a 250 lately so I was guessing based on past experience). I did not mean to imply that I thought it would make a world of difference.

I think the discussion between these particular 250 and 300 bullets and deciding between the 200 .40cal SW and 300 .45cal SW are two very different arguments and I have a different position on the two.

Let's assume your main concern is drop for long range shots (we could argue that it should really be wind drift since drop is 100% predictable but that's another discussion). Draw the comparison to centerfire. Typically, the argument for long range shooting is that you should always use the heaviest bullet you can shoot to maximize your BC -- it reduces wind drift and while you may drop more up-front at extended ranges you will drop less due to better retained velocity. Edited to add: With a centerfire, however, you are always dealing with a fixed caliber so you are really only choosing a heavier bullet in the same caliber. The exception is the "accelerator" loads that were (are?) marketed that were saboted and shot .223 bullets from a .30-06 for varminting. Which draws a NICE analogy to MLing.

This is why I say the 250 vs 300 and 200 vs 300 are two different arguments. 300gr bullets are usually .45 cal and 250s are .44 or .45, right? Basically the same caliber. To extend the example from centerfire above, even though you give up a modest amount of velocity the 300 should be better. Now the 200gr bullet is significantly smaller, .40, so it has an increased sectional density and can have a better BC even at a lighter weight. Since it's in a different caliber class than the 300 you can't draw a direct comparison and would have to look directly at the ballistics to make a decision.

So I looked up the BCs for the three SW bullets. There are numerous different sources and who knows who is correct...so I took them all from 1 source (chuckhawks as I do not want to promote the individual who wrote the article!):
200gr .40cal - .211 (pretty close to what I see with it out of my gun)
250gr .45cal - .207
300gr .45cal - .249

Then I ran them through the calculator with a 100yd zero at the following velocities:
200gr -2100 fps - This is my load
250gr -1900 fps - From this thread
300gr -1800 fps - From this thread

Here is the long range output

Drops:
200gr 250gr 300gr
300 yd36.4in 46.5in 47.3in
400 yd 88in 109.3in 108.5in

So you can see here that the increased BC of the 300gr makes up for the decreased velocity compared to the 250gr; it is just as flat and hits harder. But the 200gr beat it by a SUBSTANTIAL margin on drop.

Wind drift 10mph:

200gr 250gr 300gr
300 yd 26.1in 29.5in 25.3in
400 yd 48.6in 53.2in 45.5in

Again, the 250gr is inferior to the 300gr as we would expect. The 300gr beats the 250gr at all but closer ranges where the difference is small and doesn't matter anyway! The 300 also has a small advantage in wind drift over the 200gr here.

So you can see my decision that I made several years ago. At that time I did not even know about the 300 gr and the 200 was the clear winner over the 250. I have always wanted to test the 300 but not had time, and given these numbers just a few inches advantage in wind drift to the 300 did not make up for the 20 inches in drop at 400 or the increased recoil that would be generated. I'd have to drive the 300 to max charges (and have it be accurate there).

But here's the catch:

Energy:
200gr 300gr
300 yd 637849
400 yd481688

Now I did have a good success at 338 yds with the 200gr bullet but, as much as I like to weigh experience over numbers I do have to start doubting performance when evergy numbers get down around 500 fl-lbs. And a 300 certainly does smack them harder at any range, no doubt about it. This is why I wish there was a heavier .40cal bullet that would stabilize in my ML. I wish the heavier.40cal DC's (240, 260) shot well in my gun but they do not.