Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 33 Nosler

Bob-

The 30 Adolph Express briefly preceded the 30 Newton in 1913. Newton's first rifles were listed in his catalog as chambered in Adolph Express cartridges. The names were later changed to the Newton cartridges with no change in the cases or chambers.

The belted 375 H&H was introduced in 1912, the 30 Adolph/Newton in 1913.

Arguably, the 280 Ross, introduced in 1906, is a beltless magnum with a case capacity about equal to the 7mm Rem Mag. Heads of the Ross and Newton cases are of almost identical diameters; the Newton case is a shortened, blown-out, necked-up, slightly rim-turned Ross.

(Yeah, I know: quibble, nitpick, cavil and carp.)

--Bob

MD:

WHO said I was fixated on velocity? I didn't. I don't understand what you think I'm missing.

I merely said that if the VELOCITY is higher, and the BC is also higher, there is no improvement.

Can you please tell us what that improvement might be? I can think of only two minor issues: (1) the action is shorter and (2) you indicate it MIGHT be more accurate. I dispute the latter because (a) I think it depends on the individual rifle, (b) Warren Page's writing about Remington's research (Gun Digest 1970) that IN GENERAL smaller calibers are more accurate than larger ones and (c) the higher recoil of the .33.

As for the 6.5 Creedmoor, Mea culpa for spelling it wrong and inferring that Dennis DeMille actually did the physical development. As you indicated, Dennis conceived of the idea based on his shooting at Camp Perry. But Hornady would never have implemented Dennis's ideas by themselves, in my opinion.

Incidentally, it has been known since at least 1962 that, all things (bullets) being equal, 6.5s are better for long range than .308s. That was the year when Homer Powley made up a 6.5 and had my friend Al Gutta shoot it in the Wimbledon (1000 yard national any sight championship). Bob Hutton wrote about this in one of the Gun Digests.

It doesn't take any experience with either the .33 Nosler or the .340 Weatherby to note that THE MARKETING PEOPLE TRYING TO SELL YOU the .33 Nosler are the ones claiming ballistics inferior to the .300 Weatherby!! So if the Nosler round is not inferior to the .340 Weatherby, then the .340 Weatherby is inferior to the .300 Weatherby (which I doubt). Same point either way.

So why am I concerned about all these "junk" cartridges clogging up the distribution channels? Because they leave less room and raise the cost for all ammo and rifles. That's the way it works. If they fulfilled some need, like the .338 Winchester did when it was introduced, that would be one thing. But many of these "designer cartridges" are nothing but marketing gimmicks. Buyers who fall for them are likely to end up with the need to buy exceedingly expensive and scarce ammunition or being reduced to handloading as the fad ammo becomes scarce.

OK "if the 33 Nosler gets someone more interested in shooting I am all for it." It's a free country. But it's more likely to disappoint someone.

Not a rant against Nosler alone. Remember the .376 Steyr or the .370 Norma?

Indy,

You completely passed over the accuracy issue with the Weatherby freebore. The latest Weatherby rifles are more accurate than they used to be--far more accurate than the original three shots in 1.5" guarantee--probably because they tightened up the diameter of the freebore to just over bullet diameter. But that doesn't mean they'll shoot alongside a rifle chambered for a cartridge with a minimal throat.

In my experience the freebore usually prevents them from shooting well with longer, high-BC bullets. I know this because I've tried to get several Weatherby rifles chambered for their cartridges with freebore to shoot well with Berger Hunting VLD's and similar long-ogive bullets. There are exceptions, but most of the time accuracy has been mediocre at best. Which negates your argument that "if the VELOCITY is higher, and the BC is also higher, there is no improvement."

I never said that shorter actions were more accurate. (It's probably true, but the difference is very small.) I said that shorter cartridges are designed to be able to seat long, high-BC bullets where they need to be for fine accuracy, the reason for the modern trend toward cartridges like the 6.5 Creedmoor and 33 Nosler--rather than long rounds like the .300 Weatherby.

I'm very familiar with the Warren Page article in the 1970 GUN DIGEST, but a lot more has been discovered about cartridge design in the almost half-century since it was published--which is why the 6mm PPC beat out the .222 Remington as the top benchrest round.

The knowledge that 6.5mm bullets work better for longer-range shooting has been around a lot longer than 1962, but most American ignored them. The 6.5x55 turned out to be a terrific long-range round as soon as the original 156-grain round-nosed bullets were replaced by 139-grain boattaol spitzers, which took place before WWII. But Americans kept pounding away with .30 calibers for quite a while, apparently because 6.5's weren't "invented" here.

John,

Nosler likes you. You need them to make a 35 Nosler. That would be a heck of an Alaskan Do Everything Pretty Freaking Well cartridge.

Sincerely,
Thomas

I sincerely doubt that's going to happen! But will ask about the possibility next time I contact their writer-info guy.

Bullshooter I was working from memory.....close enough.

I don't recall the Adolph Express but do recall the 30 Newton. Point been there was a belted and a beltless 30 caliber magnum right around the same time...they are both "old". One survived and thrived into the various popular magnums we have today and the other did not but seems to be trying to play catchup today.

It is s nothing "new"....just resurrected and refined for another generation of shooters.

And new generations of powder, bullets and rifles. All of which are part of why the .30 Adolph Express/Newton isn't a standard today. Aside from WWI creating severe financial problems for both Adolph and Newton, it would have been impossible to keep producing commercial ammo for rifles of that generation and keeping velocities anywhere near what Newton claimed.

Even the original British version of the .300 H&H was designed to essentially duplicate .30-06 ballistics, due to the heat-sensitivity of Cordite. It didn't become a "magnum" until the 1930's when American powders could safely boost velocities.

Part of the reason for introducing "new" cartridges that are essentially the same as older cartridges is advances in steel and powder: The new round won't quite chamber in older rifles that might not take the strain, but only in modern rifles that will.

True. Those are the refinements.


Had a buddy with a nice Mauser custom he discovered is too soft....that sort of thing tends not to happen today.

The are promoting the 33 as "The Patriarch", probably that is the biggest of the LR calibers, but a 366, 375, or 416 wouldn't surprise, or offend me.

Are saying that a Pre 64 M70 in 33 won't take the strain ?

Wasn't that the .370 Sako ?

After thinking about it, I missed an obvious point about Indy's criticism of the 33 Nosler: It was NOT designed to compete with the .300 Weatherby. Instead it was designed to compete with other .33-caliber cartridges, which have always been about more bullet weight than commonly used in .30 caliber. So comparing the comparing the downrange ballistic performance of 200-grain .30 and .33 caliber bullets is specious.

Plus, Nosler already introduced a cartridge to compete with the .300 Weatherby, and other .30 caliber magnums, the 30 Nosler. Like their other rounds, it was specifically designed to work with higher-BC bullets, including the Nosler AccuBond Long Range. While the 30 Nosler is indeed very similar to the .30 Newton--which was also meant to work in .30-06 length magazines--it was designed specifically modern powders AND long-range bullets. I recently got done with testing a 30 Nosler with both factory and handloads, and it does exactly what it was designed to do.

More weight with the .33's, but almost 25% more frontal area as well.

The Initial Nosler loads for the 33 are 225, 265, and 300 grain.
All tuned for ballistic reach.

MD,

That's a good point about the Weatherby freebore. But it may not pertain to all bullets.

One thing we learned when I was shooting long range at Camp Perry concerned seating bullets out so they just about touched the lands, which means seating them less deep as the throat wears. The Weatherby freebore makes this difficult to say the least, which is why most of the 1000-yard shooters used .300 Winchesters instead of .300 Weatherbies. I suppose that Weatherbies could be chambered with less freebore as, I understand, was done with the ones made in Germany, but that would increase pressure a little.

However, we also learned that the effect was pronounced with very long bullets like Bergers. Sierra Match Kings did not seem to be as much affected by distance to the lands. The BC data I cited was for Weatherby factory ammo, which almost certainly has lower BCs than Bergers, probably closer to Sierras.

Going back to Warren Page in 1970, what do you think of recoil as a factor in accuracy? I think it's a major reason why the 6.5x284 displaced .300 Magnums for 1000 yards at Camp Perry as choices of bullets became available.

And regarding recoil, a 225 grain bullet has 26% more foot pounds of recoil energy than a 200 grain bullet, velocity being the same. Since my .300 Weatherby is the UltraLightweight, I would want any .33 Nosler to weigh a lot more.

Maybe a picture? These are all seated to 3.6" (rem 700 max)

300 ultra on the left, 230gr berger, notice how the bullet is well below the ogive at magazine length.

next is the 300 wby, also with a 230 berger..almost below the ogive.

next is a 28 Nosler with a 195 EOL, to indicate how a 33 would stack up I threw in a 338 Lapua with a 300gr OTM.

If a guy cant see any value in the shorter Nosler with is .534 rim vs. the Lapua's .588, then I guess there is no reaching you.

I guess I need to point out the wiggle room you have in regards to chambering/seating depth with the nosler.?

Seat the 28 Nosler to 3.34" OAL where it's suppose to be...

Why? I dont use Nosler rifles..Whats the Lapua and Weatherby "supposed" to be at? I'll never stuff one in a 3.4" magazine.

My 28 comes in at 3.530 OAL.

I'm curious now, what you feeding "big brother". stuffing 20lb's of crap in a 10lb bag? The 338rum, a cartridge that cannot use the best bullets available due to not fitting in the case at magazine length, and even if you do get it in there you're suck with that OAL..Sounds like a superior design

Same effect you'd get by stuffing a 300gr Berger into a 33 Nosler and maintaining the factory OAL. You'd have an inch of bullet behind the case mouth impeding case capacity. At least with the .338 Ultra and a 700 you can throat the barrel and use an extended mag box.

Looks to be a very good caliber design. Too bad it's on a 700 clone action...