Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 33 Nosler

It's been announced for Q1 2017 availability on Nosler.com

There is an article in this months G&A.

I looks like the 33 Nosler case is shorter to accomodate the realities of magazine length and the VLD ogives.
Similar to the length differences made to the RUM and RCM cartridge families.

Doesn't look like it will clean up a .338Win chamber without some setback.
This was something I liked about the .338 Campfire cat.

I've been obsessing about re-chambering an M70 EW and shortening the barrel to 23.5"

Nothing wrong with the Nosler 48s as is, Just that in that caliber, for my purposes; I want CRF.

Any thoughts from the GunWriters and forum regulars?

Try www.33Nosler.com for a more direct link.

They don't appear to have their case dimensions, or load recipes up yet.
Maybe in print with Edition #9 ?

It appears to be making some tremendous velocities with the 225AB, compared to the 338 Lapua. I'm guessing there's lots of extra pressure with the 33 Nosler, given the real case capacity differences.

Exciting times in the magnumb cartridge world ;-)

Should be heck of an Elk cartridge.

Will it kill deader that a 270WCF?

I suspect it might be one of those "Kills on Both Ends", and
"Knocks You Out From Under Your Hat" kind of monster slayers.

More Dead than a 270WCF ? Depends if Mr.Griz comes Callin'

It's funny the conundrum we have of the new boomers such as the OP with folks killing BIG game with many small old and new "puny" rounds. Appears many still read magazines.

How much better is it than the 338WM???

Did the 325 WSM really sell that well?

I guess I understand Nosler attempting to establishing a whole new line of cartridges, but IMO it's akin to the auto industry deciding to start making 17.5" truck wheels just to offer something new.

Lots of guys wont like anything new..Not that the design is new but..

I've said a few times that I feel the ultra mags should have looked like the nosler line up..IMO it is a superior design to the longer RUM or belted H&H, long or short.

Gives you a bigger boiler room with more room to work with in the magazine..Those two things are lost on most, and thats fine.

Basing these cartridges worth on how much faster they will spit a bullet than whats already out there, is like judging scopes solely on "glass clarity".

Only thing holding them back is relatively limited brass, from one manufacturer.

It was a compromise instead of shortening the 300 WSM case for a 338 magazine fit.

Lots of satisfied .338-300WSM cat shooters out there though

How well did the lengthened ( and delayed ) 7mm WSM really sell ?

Was its popularity mostly due to the greater case capacity, in spite of the shorter neck ?

Yup shoot a deer with it and will instantly already have been dead for an hour.


So much more betterer especially when you put it in a full length action. I'd rather have a 338 WM or 340

Probably "better" enough to need a brake!

338Rules,

Nosler isn't trying to compete in a big way with the .338 Winchester Magnum. Instead they're introducing cartridges that work in their rifle action, with an emphasis on ammo, handloading brass, and rifles that are a step up in quality from the basic mass-produced rifles and ammo offered by major companies.

This has always been a viable "marketing strategy." Charles Newton did it, unfortunately starting just before World War One, which ruined his chances. Roy Weatherby used it to start his company in the 1940's, though his products became more standardized in the 1950's.

But it's become more common in the past couple of decades, due to newer manufacturing techniques that make producing "proprietary" actions less expensive. There are a bunch of shooters who desire rifles and ammo a cut above average factory products, but don't want to invest the time and hassle of putting together a custom rifle, or even handloading. They're willing to pay the price for more expensive out-of-the-box rifles with many custom features, and high-performance factory ammo.

As a result, I doubt whether Nosler is concerned about some of the stuff rifle loonies will endlessly discuss, such as whether the 33 offers "new" ballistics, or whether rechambering a .338 Winchester Magnum factory rifle would be easier if the 33 case had slightly different dimensions. Instead they're offering an upscale "package" for a specific market. They want their rifles and ammo to sell well, but they're not looking to directly compete with Remington, Ruger and Winchester.

What technical feature enables them to get similar velocity (+25FPS) as the 338 Lapua with 18% less powder? Just a marketing line based on one particular set of circumstances such as a specific powder?

This will be both fun and aggravating to watch on gun boards such as this. We all seem to have a single criteria of "if it doesn't do what that one does then it should not exist". We as gun nuts should relish new developments and then choose accordingly. As I've said before, every cartridge designed has, on the continuum of all other cartridges, advantages over the one directly above it and below it on that continuum. Those same cartridges, to obtain those benefits, have shortcomings over those same cartridges above it or below it on said continuum.

We have otherwise knowledgable individuals who put forth huge intellectual arguments such as: "The deer/elk/pig/sheep/ad infinitum won't be able to tell the difference", as though these animals somehow have the ability to discern said differences and, since they do, one should base his choices accordingly. Arguments such as "this was an answer to a question that was never asked". Said argument itself presumes no improvement should ever be sought, whether or not it is found. It's a good thing most developers of any new product do not hold themselves to such absurd criteria.

Our group on this board is generally comprised of capitalists who somehow view manufacturers with disdain for providing us more options while trying to improve their businesses. We somehow believe the shooting world would be better off if only our 3-5 favorite cartridges were available and then defend those cartridges ferociously.

I, for one, hope Nosler succeeds with all of these new introductions.

Yes.

Nice post Big Sky. I agree 100% with what you said.

With an elk hunt this fall, I was pondering a large caliber rifle like the 338WM. It is not that my 30-06, 300WSM, 7-08 would not work ;-) but I figure the larger frontal diameter would have more impact/shock on a bull. I thought how neat it would be if Nosler would chamber their 30 Nosler in 338. Sure enough, two days later they announced it. Certainly, it will be a chambering I would use with a brake or suppressor.

I know the dimensions are not identical, but it seems to me that it has taken the gun industry 100 years to catch up to Charles Newtons imagination....... He listed a 33 newton which is almost the same as this 33 nosler.............

I'm not impressed with the .33 Nosler.

It shoots a bullet weighing only 25 grains more than a plain old .300 Weatherby, but 35 fps slower than the Weatherby, and with a slightly worse ballistic coefficient. Does anyone believe that a slightly slower bullet, weighing only about half as much as a .22 long rifle bullet more, would be even noticeable?

One would think that they could have made more of an improvement in the last 72 years.

Tom Beckstrand G&A Dec 2016 :

"the additional case capacity of the 33 Nosler makes it about 200 feet per second (fps) faster than the .338 Win Mag when used with bullets of the same weight."


He goes on to describe performance with the 225 Accubond that is very close to the .338 Lapua. This is truly impressive.

In some ways I have to compare this to what the 6.5 Creedmoor has done for 6.5 LR shooting.

I also hope that Nosler meets with success with each of these new Long Range offerings.

Newton was way ahead of the game and his time....

The improvements have been in bullets, which has brought the Newtons full circle.

You're talking about how fast a cartridge can throw an ashtray at "hunting ranges"..We are on totally different pages. Do you also judge rifle scopes on "glass"?

Noslers timing for these is perfect, even tho they still market it like its 1960,shooters will see the advantages.

I would think they'd offer it in a LR platform to go along with their hunting rifles, then offer a factory load with their custom comp bullets. I think they're missing the boat there. (maybe its in the works, i havent really been paying attention to their ammo/gun offerings)


Maybe I can put it a different way. Look at how popular the 6.5 creedmoor is..Noslers are the same concept on a larger scale.

I have a brand new Pac Nor .33 caliber fast twist barrel waiting on deck.... curious to see the dim's of the cartridge. If it's in the realm of a Lapua but fits a M700 action more gracefully (which it should due to boltface alone) then I'm interested. Single-source brass is a bit of a bummer but to be expected I guess.

MD - I couldn't agree with you more . Thank you for your comments.
I enjoyed your articles reviewing the 26 and 28 Nosler.

The .338 Win is just fine, As Is.
It is purely my own loonyism, to look for a donor that will give me the .338 Win package w/o the belt.
? .338-375Ruger CF with a bit longer neck ?

It's been my experience that used .338s don't generally have burned out throats.
A good cleaning, minor tuning, and they shoot just fine.

In all honesty a .338 RCM (20" SS Lam w/Sights) would have suited my purposes quite nicely for a factory SR/MR hunting .338 , but Alas...

My take on the 33 Nosler is that it is a very well designed LR & Hunting cartridge that fits their 3.34" magazine, and it appears to compete ballistically with larger and longer cases ( Lapua, 340 Bee, RUM Edge)

Will it compete as well with the 300 grain VLDs , again remains to be seen, but I am optimistic.

"It's the answer to a question no one asked". There, it has to be said whenever ANY new cartridge is introduced.

As Elmer Keith asked way back at a meeting introducing the 8mm Remington Mag to industry gun writers, "what the h--- is it good for"? My rendition of his comment, "why"?

As John put it, there is nothing new ballistically here (how could there be?), just a new concept product

This is great; never understood why they did 30 before 338 makes no sense glad they got on this I may need one!

Reason being... one of these on an 03 or LR98 action seems great to me.

Why Not ?

It fits in the 3.34" magazine of Noslers M48 etc., and doesn't have the dread belt affliction.

My only sad, is that making the neck geometry work wrt the ogive of the LR AccuBonds, put the Neck Shoulder junction closer to the bolt face than with the .338 Win.

Who cares ? Loonie Me , That's who!

I just wanted to re-chamber an M70 EW w/ 26" barrel, work up loads, and start trimming back the barrel by a couple centmetres at a time until it is 23.5" , or I am deaf, flinched, and shoulder dislocated.

Re-Barrelling on the other hand allows me to get the 33 Nosler throat specs, and start even longer ! :-)

His .256 had a standard twist of 1 in 10",
and a bunch of taper ( .418" at the shoulder )

It's the case being shorter for better bullets. I'm sure you still don't get it though.

.300 Wbee doesn't fit in a 3.34" Std length magazine !
Neither does a .340, for that matter.

Right...its like the 6.5 Creedmoor but on a larger scale.

The so-called "belt affliction" is akin to a severe neurosis for which the pharmaceuticals sell mood-altering drugs. Though it may be real to you, it's in your head.

Recoil in a properly stocked barreled-action will not be bad at all.

Edit: As I said it is a packaged, marketing concept which is not to say it is a bad idea.
Have at it.

I'm sure the 33 Nosler is a great cartridge, but do we really need new cartridges. Currently, there is a cartridge available for any conceivable purpose. However, something new is always interesting.

And even with those limitations a .256 will still push a 140 gr vld at 2850 and fit into a normal long action. Newton did not pick a 2.8"OAL because it was unheard of in his day and is still unnecessary. JMHO

I'm a walnut fan and have an M48 Heritage in 26 Nosler.
Damn nice stick for $1500
Takes care of my "Cooper Want" very nicely.

I see you've mentioned the belt on the 338 win mag a couple times in this thread. Why is this even a concern? The 33 is better than the win mag because it has no belt?? You are really grasping at straws here..

One guide I hunted with is a big advocate for the .338 Lapua, even on deer-sized animals. The reason is wind drift, it is substantially less than with smaller catridges

Belts are out of fashion now, don't you know ?
All the cool kids are going beltless.

Hmmmm......where am I going to hang my sidearm and still look cool ?
Maybe a paddle.

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.

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...

Or you could use the 33 in a factory Remington L/A,or Winchester "H&H" length mag and have your cake and eat it too.

One last picture and I'll bow out.

28 at 3.330" (which is a stupid move by nosler,imo)with a 195..crazy how it still works, as would a 300gr in the 33.

It is?

Its no wonder how Big Stick got the way he is around here.

Indy,

D'Arcy Echols chambers the .300 Weatherby in his Legend rifles with a custom reamer with somewhat less freebore, just enough so factory ammo will work without excessive pressures. Of course, .300 Weatherby factory ammo is loaded right up there, but not as much as it used to be!

One of the reasons for the 6.5 Creedmoor is it's short enough to "chase the lands" by seating bullets out further as the throat wears.

I think recoil is a major factor in accuracy, the reason long-range target rounds have kept shrinking over the past few decades. By chance, the guy who holds the 1000-yard record for the smallest 10-shot benchrest group at 1000 yards, Jim Richards, lives right here, and is a member of the local rod & gun club, partly because our range goes out to 1000 yards. He shoots a 6mm Dasher, a cartridge quite a bit smaller than the 6.5 Creedmoor, using 105-grain Bergers.

Yeah, .338 magnums with heavier bullets do kick somewhat more than .300's, one reason a lot of .338 magnums used for long-range shooting with heavier bullets have muzzle brakes. I've only fooled around with a couple of .338 Lapuas, but each came with a brake, right from the maker!

My own present .300 Weatherby is one of the original South Gate sporters made on FN Mauser actions, the first "standardized" Weatherby rifles. With scope it weighs slightly over 8 pounds (just about the same as the 7mm Weatherby ULW I hunted with for a while) and I wouldn't want it much lighter, especially when shooting 200-grain loads!

Let's just say the 700 is the baseline for the action. Better?

Dontcha mean Howa-Like ?

Looks like a 700 to me, especially with the non-bolt locking safety.

JB, my stating the .30 Newton was to point out that very little is new in the gun world , as the makers would have you believe. I you chambered a rifle in .30 newton with modern components and used the more suitable twists now used, you would have a .30 nosler. He also listed a .33 Newton , but I do not know if it was ever made....
I bet the designers at Nosler never had a thought of the Newton cartridges and how close they really are.

Actually, I bet they did know about the .30 Newton. Any member of SAAMI has to go through a review process for any new cartridge to be accepted, and if the Noslers didn't know about the .30 Newton before that process (which I doubt) they certainly did afterward.

But as I pointed out in my previous post, they couldn't just use the .30 Newton case (though that would certainly be an interesting publicity move) because new ammo loaded to modern pressures might not do old .30 Newton rifles any good. Many were built on 1903 Springfield actions, which varied in strength, and in fact the .30 Adolph Express was at least partially designed for the 1903 action.

Just to add that there is an article by Brian Pearce in Rifle 291 March-April 2017 issue, which was just rcvd by digital subscription.

Anyone planning on chambering to this boomer instead of the Lapua, Norma, RUM, or any of the host of other 338s in this performance range ?

Anyone planning on chambering a .338 Campfire, or similar ?

I found it interesting that Pearce did a 45 shot "break in" before shooting groups. You'd think the hand lapped barrels Nosler uses wouldn't need it.

I am running the .338 Campfire again. .

A 338 works.

RickBin : Any chance of getting another peak at the original article,
Or a Combined article with follow up comments ?

Inquiring Minds want to Know. OK - Sign me Loonie Obsessed !

Thanks