Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters SA .338's

I'm partial to short action bolt guns. Black bears and moose tend to get shot at close range here in eastern Canada, and I can't help but think that a .338 of some flavor, in a short handy rifle wiould be really effective. My first thought is a .338 vesion of a SAUM, as I have lots of components, and a R700 SA with magnum bolt face, but the RCM is another option, or maybe even a .350 RM, necked down? Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

A 338 WSM for an elk hunting pard works killer good and was stupid simple to do. We did it with a single stack magazine...feeds like butter.

Good shootin -Al

I used a 338 Jamison for the record book elk in my avatar. Last elk went down @ 346 lasered yards, one shot, bang/flop. Not sure how "short" a 22" barreled action is but I used it on many hunts off horseback with nary a problem. Incidentally, that Jamison is "available" as I'm done hunting.

My Kimber Montana in 338 Fed carrys like a dream and points like a fine shotgun. It shoots just fine out to 300+ yards and has the power to get the job done at the distance.

A young friend uses a Tikka 338 Federal and the 185 TSX on elk out here just fine. My SIL used my Hawkeye 77 in 338 Fed/180 Nosler AB on mule deer, no ruined meat, shot was close too!

The .338 Federal gets about the same velocities as the .30-06 with the same bullet weights, so there's no reason it wouldn't work on a wide variety of big game at "normal" hunting ranges. And I have used it, and seen it used by others in various places in North American.

Whether the extra .03 inch in bullet diameter makes any difference in "killing power" over the .30-06 is debatable, along with whether rifles chambered for short-action rounds are "handier" in the field, given the same barrel length. Which may be be why the .338 Federal never became a best-seller.

One of the things I've noticed over the decades is that more and more hunting rounds have been introduced to fill various ballistic "slots" in the line-up--no matter how small. This may have something to do with the "shortage" of brass in some less-popular rounds--though luckily .338 Federal cases can be easily formed from widely-available .308 Winchester brass.

I am a long time user of the 338Fed. I geek out on 338 diameter bullets. It is why the 338WM was the first magnum rifle I ever bought. The 338 Fed works great but in reality plenty of other cartridges work too. If you want a SA 338, consider one where brass is easily available and or easily formed. Like MD wrote, 308 is readily available. I have no idea about WSM brass.

I appreciate the input guys. This is certainly not need, but more of a gun nut itch that I want to scratch. I have lots of SAUM brass, and even more .308 brass, and necking either one up to .338 seems about as easy as falling off a log. Will either one do a better job than the 7 saum or 7-08 that I'm hunting with now? Probably not. I shot a young bull moose last week with a 120 tsx from the 7 saum that went 10 meters and tipped over.

In a 6.5 lb, open-sighted carbine, the 338 RCM is my general purpose winter and mountain rifle here in interior Alaska. It's mostly loaded with 225 grain fusions or interbonds. There are scores of high-bc; premium 225 grain hunting bullets in .338 caliber. The scoped .338 RCM is 3/4 lb lighter than any of the three 9.3x62 Mausers Ive owned.

When my 416 ruger cracked a stock, the .338 RCM was used to back up another moose hunter. Those 275 grain a-frames are close in velocity to my 300 grain 9.3x62 Mauser handloads.

Anyhow, the .338 RCM carbine with compact 2-7 scope is my ideal, general purpose Alaskan rifle. The open sights are zeroed at 200 yds using 275 grain a-frames, and the scope is sighted to the 225 grain bullets.

The magazine follower was flipped, so I can fit 4 rounds under an unloaded chamber. 3-down rifles are not sufficient on winter subsistence hunts where the caribou bag limits range from two, to as high as five caribou.

** Hornady just did another run of 338 RCM brass. There are at least 4 online vendors that have brass in stock. I don't need any. The past couple of years, it's been too easy to build up a life-time supply of brass and factory ammo. Checking vendors and visiting local reloading supplies places.


Left to right:
308 winchester 220 grain partitions
338 RCM 225 grain Interbond or Fusions
338 RCM 275 grain A-Frames
9.3x62 Mauser 300 grain A-Frames



The best-buy .338 RCM bullet I've found to date, is the 225 bonded fusion bullets. At the time, they were $18 a box of 50.

To put that in perspective, the 220 grain .308 partitions were $100 a box of 50. Quite the expensive fashion statement.

I'll be going for more of that brass. Ast year I was picking up Speer 338 225gr for $18-$21 per 100. I bought a few.

Are the 338 225 Bonded Fusion bullets available for reloading? Thanks.

225 fusions are out of stock, everywhere. The jackets on these bullets are thicker than other fusion bullets. Probably because the factory .338 win mag/225 grain fusion load @ 2850 fps would've been used for more than just deer.

I'm going to test these against 225 grain partitions and 225 grain interbonds. Might as well throw in some .308 220 partitions in the test as well.

I look forward to your report

I have a 20" LH Ruger 338 RCM for me and a 20" RH SS Ruger for my wife very nice LW rifle 61 GR of RL 17 with any 225 Gr bullet about 2600 FPS should work well LW well balanced and with backup sights. And in LH!

@mainer_in_ak. How long a barrel and what are you getting for velocity with the 225’s and 275’s in the 338 RCM? Thanks.

+1!

I run Woodleigh 225's at 2720 and 250's at 2530 in 20" .338 RCM with Reloder 17.

Thanks @Riflehunter.

I would think from the numbers that these things would be everywhere.

To those who have them, whats the down side? I've always wondered why these were not more popular.

The downsides are 1. brass availability 2. The Ruger Hawkeye short action which is what they were usually chambered in, like many short-actions, would do better with a 3" internal magazine length so you could seat the longer higher bc 225 grain projectiles and heavier out further. Otherwise it's a superb cartridge/rifle combination (exactly the same case as the 6.5 PRC except for the neck).

It seems like to me with a couple tweaks there would be a huge market

I'm even thinking of tweaking mine by putting a 22" barrel (up from 20") on it with a slightly lighter contour barrel so it comes in at the same weight. I think that would make it more versatile for the longer shots but still be good in the thick stuff. Also, getting it bead blasted with a coarser grit to give it a darker shade of gray color.

I have two 338RCM M77 rifles. One is the 20" RCM rifle now in a McMillian classic stock. I also built a 22" version with Rock Creek #3, also in a McMillian classic. While carrying the 20" is really nice, I find the extra weight out from of the 22" makes for a steadier hold.

I have shot one moose with the short one and three with the longer one ( the last just two weeks in Newfoundland) and have to say its about my idea of a perfect moose cartridge. I hunt the east so we don't have mean bears, so I haven't felt the need to shoot heavies. Instead I have used 185TTSX, 210NP and 210TTSX. I did catch one of the 185s so have settled on the 210's although at 338RCM velocities a lot of bullets would undoubtedly do fine.

I am mostly a carry hot kind of guy, but my NF guide had me carry cold and It was the first time that three down felt a little light. Maybe the fact that the other guy in camp used a magazine full of ammo to put his moose down helped with that perception. In the end it only took one shot for my moose.

In any case I am happy Mainer mentioned turning the follower around to get 4 down in the Ruger I am going to test that out as soon as I make a few dummy rounds. I also have a M77 in 300WSM that might also benefit from the follower trick.

On the Hawkeye, you can put a bend in the floor-plate and then silver-solder some metal in to fill up the gap so that it holds 4 in the mag. That is what I did (gunsmith did the soldering) - I want 4 in the mag because sometimes you do need it. With a Remington 700 short action, you can buy a canoe floor-plate so it will hold 4 .338 RCM's in the mag. But try as I may, I can't get 4 .270 WSM's in the mag with this set up and have them feed reliably...because of the stupid rebated rim.

John,

Always wondered about bullet performance in the Federal.
338, like 270, is kind of a specific use bullet.
A manufacturer can guess exactly what cartridge and velocity the vast majority of those caliber bullets are going to see.

Being that the standard for 338 is quite a bit faster than the Federal,
are even the normally softer bullets designed for the magnum?
And since most 338 use is for bigger animals, my concerns were
adequate expansion at what wouldn't be very long range.

Tikka must have built a pile of them. Remember them selling cheap
around here. Then, for the next several years, even cheaper on the used market.

I'm shooting a factory 22" Ruger in the RCM, it replaced both the Federal and Winchester 338s I had.

Wonderful cartridge and has become my favorite rife/cartridge combination.

225 ABs at 2,750, with a .550 bc easily takes me to 750 yds on larger game.

The 250 Partion leaves the barrel at 2,600 with RL16

.

Dillonbuck,

Back when I started fooling with the .338 Winchester Magnum around 35 years ago, one of the bullets that proved to be a little tender at magnum velocity was the 200-grain Speer Hot-Core--but also found it worked very well at 2700 fps or so in are reduced load, which I used on whitetails in the local riverbottom cover. Expanded just right, usually leaving an inch-wide exit with a good blood trail (which generally wasn't needed) and little meat damage.

When I started using the .338 Federal, found the 200 Speer was very accurate in my Kimber--with a handload that got just about the same muzzle velocity. It worked just as well as the reduced .338 Winchester load.

This mirrors my experience using the 200 Speer in the .338-06, when loaded between 2600-2700fps.

Will also add:
For a time, my only hunting rifle was a 358 winchester. Later on, my only hunting rifle was a 9.3x62 Mauser.

I don't see any difference in killing power on very large bull moose from 358 win to 9.3x62.

Therefore, the lightweight, compact 338 rcm has replaced both. 60+ grain powder capacity and 40 inch overall length.

Elmer Keith was spot-on about the versatility of the .333 OKH in Alaska.

Elmer had glowing things to say about the 350 rem-mag carbine when it first came out. He thought it ideal for Alaska and steep, alder-choked terrain.

I wonder what he'd think about the 338 RCM in an open-sighted ruger 77 carbine?

Where I see a major difference in anchoring power, is .400 Whelen-level/350 grain and up.

Thanks MD!


Had issues with a Swede, the bullets so many tout for it were
leaving me disappointed with it. Lost deer, long trails...

Faster, softer bullets changed that.

Was just about to ditch the thing.

An old Writer said something to the point of,
"I like to do my hunting before the shooting.

Good to know about the 200gr Speer Hot Cor. When Hornady quit making my 200gr Interlock I was lost for a new bullet. Temporarily I am going to use the 185gr Fusion. The Speer may be my next one to test.

The Fusions will be plenty soft for the 338 Federal. I’m hunt with 200 grain ballistic tips out of my 338 Federal this year at 2600 muzzle velocity.

I am a big 338-06 fan, but since this thread is about SA 338 cartridges....

A 338 RCM is an easy button, 338-06 performance in a SA. Had I not already been well stocked for the 338-06, I am sure I would have been all in on the RCM.

A 338 Federal is even easier. Had a Kimber Montana in 338 Federal, but it is too light for me. Have a Savage hog hunter that I have not had any time to play with. Want to set it up with a subsonic load for suppressor use.

You can certainly do the wildcat route, but I am over that phase of looneyism.

I like the .338 Federal but the RCM will give more velocity, about the same as the time-tested .338-06.

I just grabbed 338 RCM reamer and guages from Mr. Sisk. My plan is to build one on a Tikka, so I can load as long as I care to. Getting kinda jazzed about this project.

I've got one of the Ruger 77 Hawkeyes in .338 RCM with the 22" barrel. Light, handy, powerful. With the softer Speer 200 gr Hot Cor's loaded to 2700 to 2800 fps, they put down the big 300+ pound northern Missouri whitetails quickly. It'll be my primary rifle on my next elk hunt, loaded with Accubonds, Fusions, or Weldcores.

Like others have said, I don't know why the .338 RCM isn't more popular. To me, it's just about perfect for elk, moose, larger deer, and most bear and noticeably lighter and handier than any .338 Win Mag rifle I've handled.

I'm glad I got one while the gettin' was good.

I looked at the 338 RCM and went 338 Fed. I rebarreled a Kimber Montana with a heavier contour Lilja at 23". It balances well and with the heavier contour doesn't have all the muzzle rise the 22" factory barrel had. I get an honest 2700 with the 185 TTSX, 2600 with the 210 Part. The RCM seems to get about 150 ft/sec more than those loads - but who cares about 150 ft/sec at 50-100 yards, which is the primary reason I built it. Shortish range elk, Moose, bear. Plus it weighs 6.75 lbs and doesn't beat the crap out of you. I dig it alot. And I may have 6-7-800 308 brass.

I have mentioned this before. When the 338 RCM first came out I purchased a reamer and made one. Used a SA Ruger tanger in a McMillan Ultralight stock. Rick Bin sold me that stock and painted it ASAT camo. The box magazine was lengthened to 3.050". It has a #2 profile 22" SS 1 in 10 twist Lijla. Friend cerrakoted the barrel. Current scope is a 3-9 x 40 Trijicon Accupoint. Weight 7 1/4 lbs.

Have used it for a three cow elk using 225 gr accubond @ 2730 fps using 54 gr of Varget. OAL with 225 accubond is 2.980" Distances were 250 yd or less. Very lethal, never found a bullet.


I tried other bullets but the ones listed below are worth mentioning:


As a lark I tried 300 gr sierras seated kissing the rifling, OAL was too long for magazine.
Much to my surprise during testing two touched at 200 yds with RL-17/ 2350 fps.I also tried the Berger 300 OTMs with same accuracy.

This fired up an idea I had often thought about. I always thought a high BC bullet with that much weight from a smaller case using a small amount of powder would be able to fired repeatedly without excessive barrel wear and shouldn't heat up quickly yet perform down range with plenty of energy and minimal wind drift. Ended up making a second 338 RCM but had it long throated so the Sierra boattail/body junction was even with the case's shoulder/body junction and kiss the rifling. It is in a Joel Russo stocked Interarms Mark X. The barrel is a #5 lilja profile 30", 1 in 9 twist. I had Dan Pederson rebore/re-rifle this barrel which was originally an ill fated 1 in 7 twist 7mm lilja. This package shoots the 300 gr sierra at 2520 fps with 57.5 gr of RL-17. To date it has taken 2 coues wt at around 500 yds.


There was a great deal on the 185 fusion bullet a while back. I bought several hundred and put together a load using 54.5 gr of IMR 8208 XBR for 2785 fps. It ended up with the same POI at 100 yds as the 225 accubonds. It will be used on this year's javelina hunt.

A sidenote: Both rifles had mild clicker issues with once fired brass. After reading several threads on the subject, I pulled each barrel and sanded the web area a bit larger. Clickers are gone!

My .338 WSM (circa 2002) is the tits.250 gr A Frames on African Plains Game gave outstanding performance. Could also consider the >358 WSM (.358 Sambar), I hear good things.

Mpwolf: I sure like my Tikka T-3 Rifle in caliber 338 Federal.
I think the action on this Tikka is compact (short?) enough for your liking.
Best of luck with whichever you choose.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I think mature riflemen also add percieved recoil to the equasion when new cartridges are introduced as well as the potential availability or lack thereof, for reloading components. It can add or subtract from any new release.

Probably why most opt for the .338/06 as the better option for those not favoring a magnum in .338 but wanting the bullets available in that caliber.

My little brother is having a 338 WSM made up on a Kimber Classic.

I assume it’ll work pretty well and scratch the itch of different.

Winchester did some testing with the 338WSM, and did not bring it out because it was a flop. Instead they brought out the 325. Go figure..

I'd love to know what was a flop with it but whatever. Dober seemed to like it so it's worth a shot.

The proposed .338 WSM didn't eventuate because it was too close in performance to the .338 Win Mag, and would take away sales from it. By making it 8mm instead, it wouldn't detract too much from .338 Win Mag. sales.

My recollection of what the magazine articles said years ago was Winchester couldn’t duplicate 338 Win mag velocity and thus chose 325.

I like 338’s and at the time had 338-06 and 338 Win mag but wanted to try 338 WSM so had an 8400 Montana bored out. This was a year or two after 325 WSM introduced.

It shoots well and is sooo close to 338 Win mag velocity I am soon to sell my last 338 win mag. It is definitely a pretty big step up from 338-06. I don’t have my load book close so can’t quote velocity this evening.

I’ve got a 325 WSM and if the 338 does the same or a hair better, it’ll be a winner for us.

If it were true that the .338 WSM didn't go ahead because it couldn't duplicate .338 Win Mag velocity, then if it did duplicate the .338 Win Mag velocity, it wouldn't go ahead either as sales of .338 Win Mag would significantly decline and over-all profit would be affected. More profit would be made by making it a .325 WSM...but of course they couldn't say that.

The 325 ain’t a bad round for a hunter in my opinion but like the 25 and 270’s, it’s been left behind in bullets.

But for a 0-500 yard guy, it’s really not all that bad.

This is exactly what happened. I know because Winchester was talking to a LOT of gun writers about where to go next with the WSM rounds, and I was one they talked to.

It was impossible for the .300 WSM to match .300 Winchester Magnum velocities AT THE SAME PRESSURE--which is exactly what happened with the testing of the ".338 WSM". This is because the WSM case doesn't hold as much powder--and despite some of BS handed out by Winchester back then case shape does NOT affect that. It can affect how consistently powder burns, but not potential velocity. (That was confirmed by independent testing by various pressure labs, both those of bullet and powder companies.

The only reason the .300 WSM matched factory velocities of the the .300 Winchester Magnum was .300 Winchester ammo was "underloaded" back then--for what reason I don't know. But present SAAMI velocities are much faster today.

John,
What about OAL?
I was never interested in the WSM range but did read somewhere that because many of the .338 bullets had cannelures, particularly the Hornady's, seating bulletss to that point would not function in many short actions.

Any truth to that?
John

Hornady on the 338 rcm (and parent case):

John,

That was true as well. But have never found crimping bullets necessary with a lightweight .338 Winchester Magnum, so dunno why it would matter on a round with less velocity and hence recoil.

Also have never found a noticeable difference in "killing power" between .338s and .30-calibers of the same case capacity, despite the difference in bullet diameter. This puzzled me until a few years ago, when I measured the expanded diameter of the various .308 and .338 bullets recovered over the decades from various animals. It turned out there wasn't any real difference, and the diameter of the "mushroom" is what makes a hole in vital tissue. (Wrote this up in an article titled "Theories of Killing Power," which also eventually appeared as a chapter in The Big Book of Gun Gack II.)

This doesn't mean the .338s don't have an advantage in penetration over .30s with heavier, longer bullets--but haven't seen any significant difference in how quickly various rounds put animals down with typical chest shots until the caliber is .35 or larger--which in my collection do have a consistently wider mushroom.

Might also mention that my experience with the .338 Winchester in various places from Alaska to Africa showed quicker kills with lighter bullets of 200-210 grains than heavier bullets. Which might--or might not--indicate that impact velocity has more effect than bullet weight.

John, so your only fkn moose in Alaska, you popped it in the lungs with a .338 win mag. It stayed upright , ran and died in the fkn River. Then you have the audacity to blame the situation on the guide.

You really aren't the proper judge, of whats possible with a 338 caliber on Alaskan game.

The .338's really are the most versatile cartridges for Alaska. A nice heavy .338 penetrates just as well through the front end of a large bull, as any other medium bore. Really no difference. My .338 275 grain swift a-frame handloads, are right there with my 300 grain 9.3x62 handloads.

Where I see the biggest difference on really large bull moose, is at 41 cal. Fk, even Craig Boddington agreed with me in what he's seen on cape Buffalo, in an email exchange.

Though you've sht on Elmer Keith repeatedly, his experiences are very similar to what guys see today using .338's up here.

One fella from Homer, Alaska, even had exits, breaking out the front ends of large bulls, using the old 300 grain .338' woodlieghs in his .338-06. The bulls were anchored just as quickly, as any bull moose I've shot with a 9.3x62.

If a guy needed advice on how to get a deferment from the Vietnam draft, you'd probably have the right advice though......

Ever wonder why people quit showing up here? I read nothing in MDs post that would elicit such a ignorant response. He's sharing his experience - which is broad and varied in case you failed to notice - and you isolate it to a single moose?

You like big heavy bullets - we get it. Momentum is something that happens with big heavy things. There may be other things to consider than momentum when discussing tissue damage.

Also ever consider the impact of your words on whether peole put any faith in what you say/write? You've posted alot of threads on heavy for caliber bullets. Given your diatribe on MD for sharing his experiences, think people are more or less likely to beleive what you say/write? I tend to avoid pure black and whiters because they tend to "know" the answer and cease considering other data, anecdotal or otherwise.

You should wander over to the Optics forum - you'd fit right in.

Sure do like the looks of that 220 in the .308!

How does that work on big stuff?

What velocities are you getting? Nevermind, I found your old thread about it.

I had a close encounter with a big bear on my first elk hunt. I was carrying a 600 Remington 308.
For many years after that I carried a 338 WM and 250 NPT. I never came close to a big bear again. I carried a 338 WM on a moose hunt in Alberta. The guide said that I was way over gunned. He considered a 30-06 as the perfect moose cartridge. After re-reading Gun Gack articles I thought that I might be able to eliminate one caliber of bullets in inventory. I bought a 300 Weatherby and loved the way it shot with 200 grain NPT, so I bought another. I have only shot paper with it.
Since then, I’ve not carried a belted magnum elk hunting - full circle. Though I was considering on carrying the 300 last fall in Wyoming on a cow hunt. My doctor said nope, no way. I got my money back and didn’t go, damn it.

There’s been several articles comparing 338 vs 358 caliber cartridges. It seems that the 338 caliber wins. It seems to me that the comparison is on paper, not on game.
At any rate I have 35 caliber cartridges and no 338’s. I don’t suppose that I’ll ever have enough experience to know that the 35 is “better”.

Limited sunlight and access to booze makes for especially cranky Alaskans this time of year.

Lets get back to basics here.........
The reason there is an "Ask the Gunwriters" segment is that writers over a period of time tend to have more experience than the average hunter, enough to offer some considerations deduced from same. We can often average out results as findings which will both align and disalign with the experiences of others.

I am, or was, a writer who probably killed more animals than any 10 or more members on here having lived a life with no game laws, or regulations resulting in many dozens or even hundreds of kills some years. The most being a cull of 100 in 3 hours. That does not make me expert and I will still have holes and gaps in knowledge and experience which is why I enjoy the opinions and findings of others on this, the only firearms related site I visit.

Yet at the same time, I have a lot of books bought over decades and never read because once recieved and flicked through, they are too similar, predictable and my own background already taught me what I wanted to know.

I never heard of JB before I came here. We have never met, but he is always generous with time, provides interesring findings and has terrific communication and writing skills. A friend I never met.

My point is that it is worthless to others, the readership, to throw mud and someone and just plain tacky to nominate a particular animal in the diatribe. All animals are a hunt, a challenge, a life's experience, not somthing to be judged by others as an inferior argument.

There will always be internet big mouths, we know that, but among people, mostly getting on in years, it is those who listen, digest and compare experiences and opinions with their own that benefit from this web site.

There will also be people we would never want to share a table with, give time or offer an open ear. They too, have a right to be here, but they owe it to themselves to understand that their image and standing among others, is both their responsibility and choosing.

I met an editor of a magazine I was invited to write for once. His instruction to me was simply, "No-one cares how long you were held up in an airport or how many flats you got out in the scrub, they want to know what you used, what cartridge and load, and what happened after the shot".

If people followed that simple advice unless asked otherwise, this website would flow a lot more smoothly. It is not necessessary to throw mud, think of what you can offer and even a counter experience can offer value without the need to prove how tough you are on the internet.

It used to be called decency, some tend to forget.

Very well written! I have met John and have a ton of respect for his experience and knowledge! Besides that, he is a hell of a nice guy! I hope he was not too offended and he continues to contribute here. It is one of the best parts of the Fire!

Dean

JB is a great guy, with lots of experience in all sorts of different hunting situations. Mainer comes off as a drunk prick with an ax to grind, holding a good amount of experience in a very specific hunting situation.

Al
I have done that as well. But my favorite is the 300 WSM necked up to 9.3 !

The "plain old" .300 WSM works on elk pretty well too....

There are Aussies that necked it up to .35 cal and called it the 35 Sambar for obvious reasons. They will all work but favourites are a must........

I would be a lot more fond of the WSM's if I could get 4 in the magazine. Bought a PTG canoe floor plate for a Remington 700 short action and it still doesn't hold 4 in a way that they can feed reliably. Can't modify the canoe floor plate because it is made of aluminum. With the .338 RCMs it doesn't take much modification to hold 4 in the mag and feed reliably.

Yep, I was the one that came up with the modification. A simple follower flip, and a slight re-profile of the bottom of the ejector, so it won't bind on a case head. The rifle is named Elmer, it's short, light, simple, superior and feisty as all git-out:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...62583/re-ruger-338-rcm-4-rounds-down-mod

You may have come up with a 4 round modification, but my 4 round modification is completely different and was independently arrived at. You can't call it Elmer if you use 225's. It must only be loaded with 250's and above to be correctly called Elmer.

Geeezus, yall are sassy today, haha!


55 gains RL 16, 275 grain A-frames:

Aussie.....we all know that .008 of an inch advantage the 9.3 has makes all the difference in the world !
and its waaaaaayyyy more cool !
Charlie

P.S. Is there are sarcasm button on here to use ? Where ?

I have a Win 70 Extreme Weather in 7wsm, wonder how much it would cost to make it a .358wsm / .35 sambar

Charlie,
I getcha. Personally like the 9.3's. We had them hit the market late 80's or so and I worked on a couple myself, a Steyer Mannlicher and a Tikka Mod 62 I believe. Several friends used them and I saw how they worked on Sambar, our biggest deer, so lots of respect for the 9.3. (Even if its only .008" better.)

Mainer,
That's a good looking round.
What does it chronograph with that load?

It's a very handsome round. I think Mainer should get another of the same rifle and neck up the 6.5 PRC case to .270 and call it "Jack" so he would have a twin pair of rifles "Elmer" for the moose and bears and "Jack" for the Dall sheep and anything up to and including caribou. They could peacefully co-exist...hopefully.

338 is my favorite caliber and the 338 RCM is my favorite cartridge.

The Winchester version doesn't get tested till the game weight goes up.

Or keep the short barrel .338 RCM with low-powered variable for close-range and the Winchester with longer barrel, higher bc projectiles and more magnification for longer shots.

Now you are stepping on .340 Weatherby turf. After using it and the .338 Win Mag and .338/378 on either side of it, sending 250's out at over 2900fps has a lot.of uses.

2300 fps.

That’d be a solid hitter!

Anyone here have any experience with the 8.5x55 Blaser?