Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 33 Nosler

W260 - Yup - In his pre WWI day, the Intermediate Length action was more common. 7 and 8 x 57mm fit the IL magazine which was also designed around the tapered cases.
Are you sure about that 6.5 caliber 140 VLD in a 10" twist ?

The 33 has greater capacity than the .338 Win because it is based upon the shortened RUM case, which in turn is based upon a rebated .404 case. No Belt.

The 33's performance with 225 ABs; is being compared to the 338 Lapua, again - No Belt.

The Lapua case has also been refined by shortening it for a better fit into magazine confines with the 300 grn VLDs ( 338 Norma, No Belt ;-) )

The belt on the .338 Win case is an anachronism.
I'm not clinging to straws.

Belted cases feed great from staggered box CRF actions as they have since the inception of the H&H rounds about (what?) 100 years ago? You can't say that about all straight tapered, sharp shouldered wonder cartridges that seems to pop up on a weekly basis.

Go into any BG camp world wide and I bet you are far more likely to encounter a bunch of rifles chambered for belted cartridges and virtually none at all chambered for boutique cartridges like the Dakota, Lazzaroni, and (now) the Noslers. This is a not a new rodeo but might be if you haven't been paying attention.

Since the most popular magnum cartridges in terms of sales, and general usefulness are ALL belted, with ammo and brass sales numbering in the millions annually, and rifles up the wazzoo I don't think anyone can claim that a belt is an "anachronism" if by that we mean the cartridges are "out dated". They certainly are not if we consider the amount of use they still get today.

Not a thing wrong with the new Nosler cartridges and I would not hold it against them that they have no belts.....just like the Dakota series and the lazzarroni cartridges that preceded them by one or two decades. This kind of marketing is tried every so often, like Johnny B said earlier. They never relegate belted cases to the scrap heap.But that does not mean they aren't good if a guy wants the something different.

The first "beltless" magnum was the 30 Newton, which preceded the H&H rounds but died on the vine by the 1930's or so (along with the 256 and the 35 newton), I guess I have to ask.......which design is the real anachronism?

I keep saying none of this stuff is really new but people love to think we are making huge strides with case designs. The real advancements aren't cartridges...it's bullets, powders, and scopes.

One of the more laughable comments I've seen about belted cases (which isn't uncommon) is the belt "interferes" with smooth feeding from a typical bolt-action magazine. But the belt was developed specifically for smooth feeding, for cartridges that didn't have enough (or any) shoulder for firm headspacing. In fact, a number of military cartridges for automatic weapons have been belted, for the same reason.

That said, a belt on any round with sufficient shoulder for headspacing is superfluous, but not exactly a detriment. Which is why the vast majority of "official" sniper rifles for so many of the world's armies and police departments are chambered for the .300 Winchester Magnum. Part of this, of course, is widely available ammunition, but .300 Winchesters far outnumber .300 WSM's for such use, including new rifles chosen by various departments since the .300 WSM appeared.

Bob : I don't think there is any real risk of any serious diminishment of the supply of quality 300 Win Mag brass for your 7mm Mashburn Super ;-)

Your point(s) above, about the steep sharp shoulders and lack of body taper are well made, and are probably more detrimental to smooth feeding than any belt ever was.

I first saw these Beltless Long Magnums, when I stopped and chatted with Aubrey White about his Canadian Imperial Magnums cartridge family. This was back in the early 90's at a Calgary Gun show. His customs were offered chambered in the very nice Sako AV long action.

I applaud Nosler for developing their family of LR magnums " Sans-Belt "

They are all also "sans-decimal," and I applaud you for typing the 33's name correctly.

This is not usual. In fact most magazines routinely put a decimal point in front of the numbers of the Nosler rounds. I don't know why most do, but the copy editor of one magazine, after being informed of the mistake, said it Nosler's naming was incorrect, so they were correcting it.

MD - They didn't call it the 1/3" ?

Any chance you will be writing a review for one of the publications ?

Perfect for size queens and the ones keeping up with the Joneses.

338 I recall the Imperial Magnums....another blast from the past.


I tried the boutique cartridges with the 7mm Dakota and think it's one of the two "best" 7mm mags ever. I got a Mashburn because it did the same things and I could make my own brass from the cheap and available, common belted stuff.

I think the Noslers are swell but will leave them to the younger crowd.

John those H&H cases feed slick from a staggered box magazine.

Your remarks about the straight tapered cartridges popping up, reminds me that they often need a center-feed dbm style magazine to function. Fine in a Tactical / LR rig, but the dbm is a bit limiting in a Hunting configuration.

Thank You for sharing your experience so eloquently

338 thank you. Unless my memory is foggy the 378 and 460 Weatherby were center feed rounds as well.

Even fat belted cartridges have their unique issues in a magazine fed sporting rifle..

I have always wondered what the point was of adding a belt to the .416 Rigby.
Was it Wby style, or did it make them feed better in the Mark V ?

Definitely not my cup of tea. My interest ended with the .375 Wby.
Buddy had one that I shot a bit. It was a rechambered Brno 602 in .375 H&H.
No problems feeding as I recall.
About like my .338 A-bolt for recoil, but the Brno was heavier. Neither had brakes.

I think that a lot of feeding problems could be resolved with a bit of case taper and a moderate shoulder angle up-front in the cartridge design, and some slo-mo video during fast & slow cycling during tuning.

Makes me wonder how the Creedmoor with its .462" shoulder fares in this regard ?

I am sure they wont work in a 1-10 " twist, but nowadays a 6.5 bore without a 1-8" twist is laughable. I think the only company using less then that is Remington and they are not into 6.5 too much....
Newton did tend to follow the crowd as far as twists, with the conventional wisdom at the time being the least amount the better because the bullets were not good enough to spin faster......

Excellent post Bob. Well said, as per usual...

338 I think Roy Weatherby wanted to sell rifles with a proprietary cartridge. I guess 416 Rigby cases were the largest practical at the time so he added a belt. JOC used to turn the belts off 416 Weatherby brass and neck it down to make 416 Rigby cases. I guess 416 brass was pretty scarce back then.

My understanding is the Creedmoor was designed as a match cartridge so the case shape was designed to feed correctly. Pretty sure the shoulder angle is 30 degrees.

Hence the Rigby Romance



Yes 30 degree shoulder angle, and a little bigger diameter ( .008") than the usual .454" at the shoulder. This probably works out to the same internal capacity of a typical AI shoulder geometry (40 degrees, and .454" diam )

I am really looking forward to seeing the case dimensions,
and some pressure tested load recipes on this Nosler Thirty Three.

What's not to get?

The .300 Weatherby (with 200 grain bullets) fires a faster bullet with a better BC, and therefore is better at wind resistance and trajectory than the .33 Nosler at ALL ranges, though the advantage is slight.

As for action length, so what? A couple of ounces? Shorter bolt throw? Anyone who knows how to work a bolt slaps it back to the stop, and short stroking is not a problem.

The reason the 6.5 Creedmore is more popular than the .260 Remington is the case and chamber shape are such that you can use longer (better BC) bullets. Dennis DeMille of Creedmore Arms developed it for long range target shooting.

So I reiterate: The .33 Nosler, despite its hype, does not seem to be a meaningful improvement over the 72-year old .300 Weatherby. I can't comment on the .340 Weatherby because I have no knowledge or experience with the .340. I would not be surprised if it beats out the .33 Nosler as well. My concern is that "new" cartridges that don't offer meaningful improvements don't seem to last long in factory loadings.

You have no knowledge or experience with a 340 why, but you have knowledge and experience with a 33 Nosler? Why would you be concerned about cartridges you don't shoot not lasting long? Everyone doesn't buy the end all be all cartridge in down range velocity and trajectory, otherwise everyone would be shooting the same cartridge.

I doubt I'd own a 33 Nosler and have been happy with the 338 WM and 340 but if the 33 Nosler gets someone more interested in shooting I am all for it.

33 Nosler = .338 RUM short?

I'll stick with big brother...

Indy,

You're missing stuff on several levels.

First, Dennis Demille did not "develop" the 6.5 Creedmoor (not "Creedmore"). Instead he provided Dave Emery of Hornady the parameters of what DeMille thought would be a great long-range target round. DeMille didn't even suggest a caliber, and Emery went from there.

The 6.5 Creedmoor was developed to provide a consistent FACTORY cartridge, which would be short enough to allow longer, high-BC bullets to be seated correctly, and avoid having to chamber target rifles for various wildcat rounds. They not only didn't have consistent dimensions, but were often hot-rodded by handloaders. This is exactly why the first Hornady factory ammo had load data listed on the box.

The 33 Nosler, like many these days, is also designed around parameters allowing the proper seating of very high-BC bullets. Whether or not the .300 Weatherby will "beat" the velocity of the 33 with 200-grain bullets is irrelevant. Many of today's hunters want the superior accuracy and down-range performance of higher-BC bullets--while you seem to be fixated on muzzle velocity.

The .300 Weatherby is a fine round, one I've used myself, having owned three. But because of the freebore it doesn't match the accuracy of purpose-designed modern cartridges like the 6.5 Creedmoor and others. Even some more recent cartridges than the .300 Weatherby are too long to accommodate really high-BC bullets--and those bullets do provide real downrange advantages.

They may not within YOUR idea of "downrange," but that's your personal opinion, apparently based on parameters meaningless to many of today's shooters--and therefore just as incorrect as your version of the origin (and spelling) of the 6.5 Creedmoor. To many of those shooters, the 33 Nosler or other new rounds DO "offer meaningful improvements" over older rounds. And just because those improvements don't fit into your personal parameters doesn't mean they don't exist.