300 Gal - What dimensions would you prefer?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo

Pyramid_Party

Fire Eel
MFK Member
Aug 6, 2008
4,916
4
68
Monterey, CA
Well, I am planning to pick up a 300 gal within the next 2 years. The dimensions I am thinking are either 8'x3'x20" or 8'x2.5'x2' .


What do you think is better? More width, or more height? The width is nice, but I lie the height as well, because it gives some more space between the bottom dwellers and the mid-top swimmers. Although, 3 feet of width sounds good too, but 20 inches seems rather short. I dont know, does it seem that way to you? What would you prefer?
 
What do you want to put in it? That may help you decide on the dimensions.
 
I know what youre saying, but I dont have any plans really for what I want in it.

I guess I am just trying to find out what is better, Width or height? I know width works good for certain fish, but is height as important?


Only thing I can think of that height might have thats good is for space between bottom fish and mid level - top swimming fish.
 
I have several large tanks, including a 300 std. (8' x 24" deep x 30" high). I also have some 30" deep larger tanks, but not 8' wide. Hands down, my vote would be for a 300 with 30" deep and 24" high footprint no matter what fish we're talking about. Even if it's an upper water fish you want, like an arowana for instance, the extra surface area would give it more room to turn. The only exception I can think of is if you wanted Discus or Angels. Then maybe the taller version would be better. You don't see too many 300 gallon discus or angel tanks though.

8' x 36" x 20" would be a little more limiting. It would be a great ray tank.
 
wider is better than taller
 
it all depends on stocking

if you were keeping aros rays then the extra depth is also good for mid water fish

i think its best to keep the width and depth the same then the tank looks more even
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com