Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Thoughts on the .338 Federal (reviews)

I must have missed publications of the introduction of this new cartridge. Or are they still to come? Has anyone tested out the .338 Federal in the Sako 85. Has anyone really tried to wring it out in an article instead of fluff.

I find the cartridge interesting and wish I knew more. Has a formal stand been made from the gun-writing aficionados? Thanks

seems to me that it would have been better suited in a 57mm case. indont think that any benifit comes froma 33 cal bullet over a 30 unless the bullet is heavier and then due to OAL you pushing the round down past the shoulder and/ or eating up your case capacity. most rifles would have been able to handle the 57 w/ slight modifications. i dont ecpect the field results to ba any more impressive than a heavy 308 and i doubt accuracy will be as good in anything abouve a 180 gr.

I'm sort of interested in it, too, for the same reason I like the .358. Have a donor SA Sucks sitting around pining for a new barrel, and giving serious thought to the .338 Fed. Practically, not real sure how much you'd gain over a .308, but I like the idea of a 210 NP at reasonable velocity for a lightweight timber rifle.

I am not a gun writer, but in my view the .338 Federal is a neat .308 that punches a bigger hole, and has similar ballistic to the .358. What is wrong with that?

I also believe that existing .308 shooters and hunters would not mind at all a sort of ".308 bigger brother," the .338-08.

As good as it may or may not be. I don't think that it will catch on, maybe wrong though. The 358 Win didn't sell very well and that maybe because it is 35 cal and they aren't very popular in the U.S. Still if I wanted a 338 Cal smaller than the 338 Win. personaly I would go for the 338/06 This can be loaded to a performance level very close to the 338 Win. and hold one more in the magazine than the Mag. Even with all of this going for the 338/06 it has not sold that well ............ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The 225 Accubond may be just right for it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I have plenty of 358's so I will pass on the 338 Fed.

Cohiba--

The reasons they didn't put it in a 57mm case:

1) The .338-08 wildcat has gotten some interest in the past couple of decades. The .338x57 has not.

2) They wanted it to fit in a short (2.8") magazine. A 57mm case with any decent spitzer seated normally will not do that.

3) The .338-06 (.338x63) had already been tried as a milder .338 wildcat for magazines 3.4" long. It did not do too well, so why chamber an even more obscure 57mm case, with virtually no customer interest?

4) The basic 57mm case, whether 7x57 or 8x57, has only a very tiny velocity advantage over the .308 case, so small that the gains produced would effectively be zero.

John Barsness

Petr,

Federal is at least publicizing the rifles being made for the .338 Federal. See:

http://glarp.atk.com/Featured_Articles/pdf/338JournalSpread.pdf

Also Beretta/Sako is adding the chambering to their Tikka lines.

In theory a .358 Win should be a better killer than a .338 Federal just because you get more cross-sectional area of bullet. But practice is not the same as theory, and there never were very many .358 Win chambering choices out there in the woods.

There are already five makers selling rifles in .338 Federal.

jim

I also read somewhere that the 338 Federal "approximates the 30-06" and that ain't too shabby.

John, I also enjoyed your NULA article, notwithstanding that it may cost me some.

Chris

After you've owned and hunted with a NULA, it's hard to do without at least one in the safe!

JB

chris, i am not disputing the small difference in velocity. i am saying the caliber choice is best when used in a heavier bullet and that is just not gonna work well in the short case. i would prefer the 57 because i case seat the longer bullets w/o eating up case capacity and seating below the shoulder.
if im gonna shoot 180's or less i'd just as sson shoot a 30 cal.

[color:"#666666"] The NEW .338 Federal

By Chuck Hawks



The first big cartridge news of 2006 was Federal's announcement of a new .33 caliber medium bore rifle cartridge to be known as the .338 Federal. This is the first time in their long history that the Federal Cartridge Company has put their name on the headstamp of a cartridge.

Federal's new offering is based on a .308 Winchester case necked-up to accept standard .338" diameter bullets. The fundamental specifications and dimensions of the .308 case remain the same, meaning the .338 Federal brass can easily be formed from .308 Winchester brass. The rim diameter is .470", rim thickness .049", base diameter .470", shoulder angle 20 degrees, and case length 2.015." The maximum cartridge overall length is supposed to be 2.86", rather than the 2.81" of the .308, but Federal factory loaded ammo is reportedly being loaded to a length not greater than 2.80".

The heavier 225 and 250 grain .338 bullets popular in the .338 Win. Mag. are pretty long and would take up too much internal space in the case, unacceptable reducing powder capacity, so Federal's factory load options are confined to bullet weights between 180 and 210 grains. The new Federal loads, all of which are in their Premium line, include:

P338FA1 - 180 grain Nosler AccuBond (BC .372, SD .225) at 2830 fps.
P338FC - 185 grain Barnes Triple-Shock (BC .437, SD .231) at 2750 fps.
P338FB - 210 grain Nosler Partition (BC .400, SD .263) at 2630 fps.
The downrange ballistics of these loads looks like this:

180 grain Nosler AccuBond - 2588/2676 at 100 yards, 2359/2224 at 200 yards, 2143/1835 at 300 yards.
185 grain Barnes Triple-Shock - 2547/2664 at 100 yards, 2353/2275 at 200 yards, 2169/1932 at 300 yards.
210 grain Nosler Partition - 2415/2719 at 100 yards, 2211/2279 at 200 yards, 2016/1895 at 300 yards.
The trajectory of those loads fired from a rifle with a scope mounted 1.5" over bore and zeroed to take advantage of the +/- 3" maximum point blank range (MPBR) of each load would be as follows:

180 grain Nosler AccuBond - +2.7" at 100 yards, +1.6" at 200 yards, +/-0 at 233 yards, -5.6" at 300 yards; MPBR = 274 yards.
185 grain Barnes Triple-Shock - +2.7" at 100 yards, +1.5" at 200 yards, +/-0 at 230 yards, -5.9" at 300 yards; MPBR = 271 yards.
210 grain Nosler Partition - +2.8" at 100 yards, +1.1" at 200 yards, +/-0 at 219 yards, -7.8" at 300 yards; MPBR = 258 yards.
As you can see, the ballistics of the new cartridge are pretty impressive, but what sort of game is it good for? One indication of that can be gleaned from the Optimum Game Weight of the various .338 Federal loads. As regular readers of Guns and Shooting Online doubtless already know, Optimum Game Weight (OGW) is a method of estimating the killing power of rifle cartridges developed by Edward A. Matunas. Here are the OGW figures for the Premium .338 Federal factory loads:

180 grain Nosler AccuBond - 1102 lbs. at muzzle, 842 lbs. at 100 yards, 638 lbs. at 200 yards, 478 lbs. at 300 yards.
185 grain Barnes Triple-Shock - 1068 lbs. at muzzle, 848 lbs. at 100 yards, 669 lbs. at 200 yards, 524 lbs. at 300 yards.
210 grain Nosler Partition - 1203 lbs. at muzzle, 931 lbs. at 100 yards, 715 lbs. at 200 yards, 542 lbs. at 300 yards.
There really isn't too much difference in OGW between the three loads. All appear suitable for large animals (CXP3 class game) within their MPBR. But OGW isn't the whole story, of course. The sectional density and design of the bullet are also key factors in load selection.

The 180/.338 Nosler AccuBond is a boat-tail, plastic tipped bullet with a lead core bonded to a gilding metal jacket. It opens reliably against fairly light resistance, creating a wide wound channel. Its bonded core eliminates core/jacket separation, thus retaining more weight for deeper penetration than a similar Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet. In this caliber and weight, with a SD of .225 (ideal for deer) the AccuBond is presumable intended primarily for use on CXP2 class game.

The Barnes Triple-Shok is a homogeneous copper hollow point bullet. The small hollow point in the streamlined nose of the bullet initiates expansion, which is accomplished by folding back the nose of the bullet in four copper "petals." Expansion stops when the bottom of the hollow point cavity is reached. This bullet is noted for deep penetration for any given sectional density as it typically retains nearly all of its weight after expansion. However, with a SD of only .231 it can not be considered a heavy game bullet. It might be a viable choice for a combination deer/elk hunt.

The Nosler Partition is a dual core bullet design. Its partitioned lead core allows the front section of the bullet to expand much like that of a typical soft point bullet, creating a wound cavity of considerable diameter. But expansion positively stops at the internal jacket partition, which retains the rear core for deep penetration. According to the folks at Nosler Bullets, the 210 grain Partition is adequate for both CXP2 and CXP3 game up to and including moose. Because of its superior .263 SD, this is the bullet that I would choose specifically for hunting elk and other CXP3 game.

It is a bit light for the big bears, where a SD of at least .270 is recommended, but would undoubtedly do the job given proper bullet placement. Anyone carrying a .338 Federal rifle for protection in bear country would be wise to choose this load.

All well and good, but how about recoil? Objectionable kick is what has always plagued medium bore cartridges and kept all but the .338 Win. Mag. off the best seller lists. How does the .338 Federal stack-up? Here are some estimated recoil energy and recoil velocity figures from the HuntAmerica.com recoil calculator for the Federal Premium factory loads when fired in an 8 pound rifle:

180 grain, MV 2830 fps - 23 ft. lbs.; 13 fps
185 grain, MV 2750 fps - 22 ft. lbs.; 13 fps
210 grain, MV 2630 fps - 24 ft. lbs.; 14 fps
Compared to the .338 Win. Mag. in a typical 8.5 pound rifle shooting a 200 grain bullet at a MV of 2950 fps (about 33 ft. lbs.), the recoil of the .338 Federal is much lighter. However, most potential .338 Federal buyers probably don't already own a .338 Magnum rifle. More likely their standard of reference is a cartridge along the lines of the .308 Win. Shooting a 180 grain bullet (SD .271) at a MV of 2600 fps, a typical 8 pound .308 rifle belts the shooter with about 18 ft. lbs. of recoil energy.

Few casual hunters really enjoy shooting 180 grain bullets in the .308, and they are going to enjoy shooting a .338 Federal rifle a lot less. It is well over the 20 ft. lbs. of recoil energy estimated to be the maximum endurable by the average hunter.

On the other hand, the hunter who feels the need for a medium bore cartridge will find that the .338 Federal kicks a little less than the .338-06 A-Square with the same weight bullet at the same velocity, because the .338 Federal burns less powder to achieve the same pressure.

The cartridge to which the .338 Federal is most likely to be compared is the .358 Winchester. The .358 is also based on a necked-up .308 case and the recoil of the two cartridges should be pretty much identical when shooting bullets of the same weight at the same velocity.

The .358 Winchester, long ignored, has made something of a come back in recent years, so it will be interesting to see how it and the .338 Federal fare in the market place. It is hard to believe that there will be enough demand for medium bore cartridges and rifles to support both calibers, so something will probably have to give. (For more on that subject, see "Compared: .338 Federal and .358 Winchester" on the Rifle Cartridge Page.)

For any new cartridge to be successful the rifle manufacturers must support it. New cartridges from Remington and Winchester automatically appear in rifles of the same name, an advantage that the other ammo companies, including Federal, do not have. But because the new .338 Federal can be adapted to any rifle suitable for the .308 Winchester, there are many possibilities. I hope that Ruger and Savage, among others, will quickly support the new .338 Federal by introducing rifles in the caliber.

Other "infrastructure" is also necessary for any newly introduced cartridge to succeed. Reloading dies are one example. I hope that RCBS, Hornady and others will quickly offer dies in .338 Federal. Fortunately, there is already a good selection of .338" bullets due to the popularity of the .338 Win. Magnum. And most of the powders suitable for the .308 Win. and .358 Win. will also be suitable for the .338 Federal. Load development should not be a problem. Hodgdon/IMR, in particular, is usually quite prompt about adding reloading data for new calibers to their web site.

Overall, the .338 Federal is going to be an easy cartridge to adopt. Its design and ballistics are such that it could easily become "every man's" medium bore hunting cartridge. For decades there has been a perceived need for a medium bore woods and big game cartridge more powerful than the .35 Remington, but with less recoil than the .338 Win. Magnum. This is the very niche that the .338x57 O'Connor wildcat, about which I have written extensively, was designed to fill. If that demand is real and consumers step up to the plate with their hard earned dollars, the .338 Federal may be around for a very long time.




[/color]


[color:"blue"] The .338x57 O'Connor

By Chuck Hawks




Jack O'Connor, the Dean of American gun writers, proposed this wildcat cartridge over 50 years ago. O'Connor suggested necking-up the 7x57 Mauser case to accept .33 caliber bullets. He wanted to drive a 200 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 2400-2450 fps. He felt that this would make an excellent brush cartridge for the deer and black bear hunter.

In 2003 I stumbled across O'Connor's description of his proposed .33 caliber brush cartridge. The more I thought about it, the better and more practical the idea seemed. (Perhaps not surprising, as the late Jack O'Connor was an eminently practical shooter and writer.) I became interested in the cartridge's possibilities, so I began to do a little research on the subject.

I could not find mention of a wildcat .338 on the standard 7x57 case anywhere, and when I asked Bradford O'Connor (Jack's son) about the cartridge he told me that he had no knowledge of it ever having been developed. I did find a few references to the .338x57 Mauser Ackley Improved, which is based on a blown-out 8x57 case. Since for our purposes there is absolutely no need to fire form (blow-out) the 7x57 case, the .338x57 MAI was not what I was looking for. I decided to pursue Jack O'Connor's idea myself, did more research, and ultimately fleshed-out O'Connor's concept.

I named the cartridge the .338x57 O'Connor in Jack O'Connor's honor. I wrote about it in considerable detail in my article "New Woods Cartridge: The .338x57 O'Connor," which you can find on the Rifle Information Page. That article has generated considerable interest among the readers of Guns and Shooting Online and I have received quite a bit of e-mail about the cartridge, so I decided to include the .338x57 on the Rifle Cartridge Page. The article you are reading is the result.

O'Connor's concept was a medium bore cartridge with moderate recoil that the average woods and brush hunter could use for shooting deer, black bear, and possibly elk. Such a cartridge should get through brush quite a bit better than the .30-.32 caliber cartridges (.30-30, .307 Winchester, .300 Savage, .308 Winchester, .30-06, .32 Special, etc.) and hit harder than the .35 Remington or .38-55, making it a better elk cartridge. If the new wildcat's recoil could be kept below 20 ft. lbs. the average deer hunter could take advantage of its benefits.

O'Connor felt that the 7x57 case had the right capacity, overall length, and neck length to be just about ideal as the basis for such a cartridge. The .338x57 O'Connor is therefore based on the 7x57 Mauser cartridge simply necked-expanded to accept .338" diameter bullets. I resisted the temptation to get fancy by "blowing out" the case for greater capacity and a sharper shoulder. Moderate recoil is part of the requirement and the case does not need greater capacity to achieve its performance goals. I decided that simpler is better.

This means that we will retain the basic dimensions of the 7x57 case. The 7x57 is a bottleneck, rimless case that headspaces on its shoulder. It accepts standard large rifle size primers. It has a rim diameter of .474 inch, a rim thickness of .046 inch, a base diameter of .4729 inch, a shoulder diameter of .4294, and a shoulder angle of 20 degrees 45 minutes. Its neck is .3686 inch long. The maximum case length is 2.2350 inches (trim to 2.225 inches).

Modern rifle actions are routinely designed to safely handle cartridges loaded to a maximum average pressure of 52,000 cup (or 62,000 peizo psi). Since there are no weak rifles chambered for the .338x57 O'Connor, I suggest a MAP of 52,000 cup/62,000 peizo psi.

I estimate that a 200 grain bullet could be driven to the target MV of 2400-2450 fps at a MAP of somewhere around 51,000 psi in the .338x57 O'Connor. Which is good; it is always nice to have extra "headroom" available for unforeseen requirements or circumstances. At some point someone may want to load 250 grain bullets at maximum pressure and go moose or grizzly bear hunting.

The overall cartridge length of the 7x57 is 3.065 inches. This length should also be adequate for the .338x57, as the longest bullets ordinarily used in either cartridge (175 grain bullets in 7mm and 250 grain bullets in .338) are about the same length. Thus, bullets as heavy as 250 grains should not protrude into the case below the bottom of the shoulder, a common complaint about most short action (.308 Winchester length) calibers. The .338x57 O'Connor should be able to avoid such complaints. I recommend a COL of 3.065 inches.

When developing loads for the .338x57 O'Connor it should be remembered that the primary goal is an effective woods cartridge that kicks less than the best previous woods cartridges such as the .338-06, .348 Winchester, .35 Whelen, and .358 Winchester. And it must outperform such old standbys as the .30-30 Winchester, .35 Remington, and .300 Savage.

The lack of popularity and commercial success of the previously mentioned medium bore cartridges is directly attributable to their recoil, which is greater than most shooters are willing to tolerate in a lightweight woods rifle. In the .338x57 O'Connor, deer and black bear loads that exceed 2450 fps with a 200 grain bullet defeat one of the primary purposes of the cartridge. To enhance the cartridge's versatility, I suspect that a 225 grain bullet could be driven to a MV of about 2300 fps and would make an excellent elk load.

Obviously, to develop loads we must select appropriate bullets and powders. Due to its generous neck and moderate overall length, the .338x57 O'Connor can use practically any sort of bullet. Let's start with 200-210 grain bullets (SD .250-.263). In those weights Barnes offers X-Bullets, Hornady offers flat point and Spire Point Interlocks, Nosler offers a Ballistic Tip and a Partition, and Speer offers a Hot-Cor.

If a heavier bullet is desired for elk hunting, a bullet weighing 225 grains (SD .281) could be substituted. Hornady, Nosler, Speer, Swift, and Woodleigh offer 225 grain bullets. These are widely recognized as suitable bullets for large game.

Powder must be carefully chosen for safety's sake. The 8x57JS Mauser has somewhat greater powder capacity and a slightly smaller diameter bullet than the .338x57 O'Connor, but it is in the same ballpark and can handle similar bullet weights. The .356 Winchester and .358 Winchester have case capacities similar to that of the .338x57 but somewhat fatter bullets. They also use bullets of similar weight, and they share the same 62,000 psi MAP as the .338x57. One would think that powders recommended for all three of these calibers might also be reasonably suitable for the .338x57 O'Connor.

Popular powders for 200 and 220 grain bullets in the 8x57JS, .356 and .358 include (from fastest to slowest in approximate burning rate) H4895, RL-15, IMR 4064, IMR 4320, W748, and VIHT N140. If I were developing loads for 200-225 grain bullets in the .338x57 O'Connor, I would start with one of those powders.

Let's take a look at the ballistics bullets weighing 200 and 225 grains could provide when fired at our target MV's from a .338x57 O'Connor rifle. I chose the Hornady 200 grain Interlock flat point and the Nosler 225 grain Partition spitzer as examples.

The 200 grain Hornady FP at a MV of 2400 fps has muzzle energy (ME) of 2558 ft. lbs. At 100 yards the velocity is 1996 fps and the energy is 1770 ft. lbs. At 200 yards the velocity is 1638 fps and the energy is 1191 ft. lbs. At 250 yards the velocity is 1507 fps and the energy is 1008 ft. lbs. And at 300 yards the velocity is 1368 fps and the energy is down to 831 fps, about the minimum recommended for deer hunting. So, in terms of killing power, the .338x57 O'Connor is a 300 yard deer cartridge with the 200 grain flat point bullet.

The trajectory of the 200 grain FP bullet, assuming a scope mounted 1.5 inches over the bore, should look like this: +1.6 inches at 50 yards, +2.9 inches at 100 yards, +2.1 inches at 150 yards, 0 at 185 yards, -3 inches at 214 yards, and -7.9 inches at 250 yards. So zeroed, the maximum point blank range (MPBR) of this load is 214 yards (+/- 3 inches), just about what O'Connor predicted.

The 225 grain Nosler Partition spitzer bullet at a MV of 2300 fps would have ME of 2640 ft. lbs. At 100 yards the velocity would be 2128 fps and the energy 2262 ft. lbs. At 200 yards the velocity is 1963 fps and the energy is 1925 ft. lbs. At 250 yards the velocity is 1883 fps and the energy is 1771 ft. lbs. And at 300 yards the velocity would be 1806 fps and the energy 1629 ft. lbs.

The trajectory of the 225 grain Nosler bullet should look like this: +0.3 inch at 25 yards, +2.9 inches at 100 yards, +2.4 inches at 150 yards, 0 at 196 yards, -3 inches at 230 yards, and -12.6 inches at 300 yards. So zeroed, the MPBR of this load is 230 yards.

With either bullet the MPBR exceeds 200 yards, plenty for a woods and brush cartridge. The .338x57 is ultimately limited by its trajectory, not its killing power.

The theoretical killing power of the .338x57 looks pretty good. The optimal game weight for the 200 grain Hornady flat point bullet at a MV of 2400 fps is 253 pounds at 215 yards, 368 pounds at 150 yards, and 487 pounds at 100 yards. As anticipated, that should be a very effective deer and black bear load.

The optimal game weight for the 225 grain Nosler Partition bullet at a MV of 2300 fps is 533 pounds at 230 yards, 649 pounds at 150 yards, and 732 pounds at 100 yards. That looks like a pretty good elk load for the woods hunter.

Okay, the trajectory is adequate and the killing power is excellent, but what about recoil? I ran the numbers and found that a .338x57 rifle weighing 8 pounds and shooting a 200 grain bullet at a MV of 2400 fps should generate about 19.2 ft. lbs. of free recoil energy. A 225 grain bullet at a MV of 2300 fps delivers about 19.8 ft. lbs. of free recoil from the same rifle.

These recoil figures demonstrate that Jack O'Connor's original concept was valid, as they are slightly below the 20 ft. lb. figure often quoted as the maximum free recoil energy the average shooter can tolerate. They are, in fact, a little less than the 20.4 ft. lbs. of recoil attributed to an 8 pound .308 Winchester rifle shooting a 200 grain bullet. At last, a practical medium bore caliber that kicks like a popular small bore!

[/color]

Insert Winchester, Kimber, FN etc. Change "safe" to safes.

I met a part time gunwriter who pumped out four articles every month for local rags like the Vermont Sportsman etc. He had a couple of rifles on loan from the majors and had bought the ULA 284 that had been loaned to him. He said that it was his favorite rifle.

He had a point. Today I feel the Kimbers are similar and a better value.

Cohiba,

I wasn't disputing your contention with respect to the heavier bullets in the 338, although I doubt that most game will be able to discern the difference in velocity. Just in case though, as we speak, Mickey is building me a 338-06. Its all good!

I was just giving a well deserved plug to Mule Deer's recent
"Rifles & Woodsmoke" article.

Chris

Cohiba,

I wasn't disputing your contention with respect to the heavier bullets in the 338, although I doubt that most game will be able to discern the difference in velocity. Just in case though, as we speak, Mickey is building me a 338-06. Its all good!

I was just giving a well deserved plug to Mule Deer's recent
"Rifles & Woodsmoke" article.

Chris

Edited: When did I develop this internet stutter??!!!

i just dont see a use for a 180 gr-200 gr .338 caliber bullet. i doubt the animal will be able to tell the difference in that either.
we have had enough fantastic calibers to kill animals w/ since the 40's. whats in short supply is fantastic rifles to shoot them in.
whats really changed in rifle actions since 1898?

As to the difference between the 338 Federal and the 338X57 O'Connor it seems that you and Chuck are splitting a mighty fine Frog hair.............. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

[Quote] by Cohiba
"whats really changed in rifle actions since 1898?" [Quote]

Quite a lot acctualy. For instance the Blaser bolt comes to mind not to mention the Pump that Rem Makes and the Semi Auto's just to mention a few

"i would prefer the 57 because i case seat the longer bullets w/o eating up case capacity"
-----------------------------

Here we go...........again!

For whatever reason this cartridge turns my crank and has me dreaming such expensive dreams as matched Kimber M84s in 7-08 and .338 Fed.

Expat

If the 358 win is good, the 338 fed should be even better with a wide selection of bullets and good SD. 35s have never really taken off in the US, with the exception of the 35 rem - still limited, but the 338 win mag has a solid following. there have been many successes with the 308 case so I can see no reason why the 338 fed will not do ok. most folks dont need a 338 and especially a 338 win mag but I can see the virtues of a 338 bullet, say a 210 partition, launched from a light and handy bolt action rifle as dandy close cover deer rifle. the reason I sold off my 300 win mag, 338 win mag, 350 rem mag and 375 h&h is that I simply did not need that much power for anything I was likely to hunt and did not want the recoil that went with them. the 338 fed does appeal to me and I hope it makes it for the long run.