Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer: 200gr .338BT

FWIW, as an addendum to the discussion of Nosler BT and Accubond, my experience with several calibers (not enough for statistical validity) indicates a bit less accuracy the the BTs. Not always, but with some. BTs are consistently better shooters than the ABs in most of my rifles. Not a huge difference, but noticeable. As to .338, have never had any in BT, so can't speak to that. I do know that the 210 gr Partition outshoots the ABs of 180, 200, 225 in .338 WM.

In my 338 the 225 AB is the most accurate, but I use the 210 Partition for hunting.

FWIW, Hornady appears to have a .338 cal 200 gr SST in the works if you check the Midway web site.

I agree with Dober. Rather than reinvent the wheel, just use the 200 Hornady--with Ramshot TAC. Ramshot's own data lists this bullet at 2645 with 48.3 grains of TAC.

In my own Kimber .338 Federal, 48.5 grains of of TAC gets right at 2700 fps with the 200 Spire Point. I even went up to 49.0 grains (gasp!) and 2750 fps. At first I thought this load might be a little warm, because of that old (and often unreliable) symptom of a slightly stiff bolt lift. But Federal factories with the 200-grain Fusion also clocked about 2750 in this rifle, and bolt-lift was so similar I couldn't tell the difference.

Another load to think about: Ramshot also a maximum load of 44.1 grains of TAC with the 225 AccuBond in the .338 Federal. Of course, according to all the old myths, this bullet should be WAY too long for this stumpy little cartridge.

But I have often found such myths, well, mythical. So I tried the load, and got over 2400 fps, a little more than Ramshot lists. Due to the extremely high BC of this bullet, retained velocity at 400 yards is about as good as with any of the lighter, stumpy bullets--around 1900 fps, which is plenty to ensure expansion of the AccuBond.

Still, 2650 (or maybe a little more) with the Hornady Spire Point would seem to do most things asked of the smallest .338.

This is precisely my issue with the Accubond. In my limited experience they don't shoot as well as the BT or the Partition in the rifles I have tried them in.

The .25 caliber 110 Accubond does not shoot well in either of my Bobs, and the .270/130, .30/150 and .338/200 are all slightly less accurate then the comparable BTs. Only the .375/260 matches the accuracy I have gotten with the BT but I have to ask why do I need a bonded bullet for a light game bullet in that rifle.

I wonder if this (lack of) perfomance that GF1 and I have observed matches the experience of others here.

Could you say the same for the 358 Win. concerning the 225 Accubond? Have the Ruger Hawkeye.

Yeepers Burro Venado, a 200 @ 2700 out of the lil Runt 338, that makes is seem nicer and nicer all the time.

I've always been a 33 dia nut case, so....stop getting me thinking (very tough to do) and spending my cheddar.

Guess I could always just stop over and free load your Runt 33 and get it out of my system that a way...

Dober

Gotta buy me some of this fancy-pants TAC. Should give 2750 in the more efficient .358.... With 200's...

bullethole,

For some reason the 225 .35 AccuBond doesn't have any better listed BC than the 225 .35 Partition. But either at 2500+ is a fine .358 load. It won't hold up at 400 yards like the .338 225 AB will, but will still work out to 300 yards as long as you aim right.

Unfortunately that is one of the downsides to the 35's: with bullets of the same weight, the .33's are normally flatter shooting at longer range. Which is why Elmer Keith went from being a .35 Whelen man in the 1930's to an advocate of the .33's....

Mark,

You would be welcomt to it! Not bad for a stumpy little round, huh? With TAC you can come very close to factory muzzle velocities in the .338 F.

JB,

In your experience is there much difference between the NBT and SST?

Well JB, I don't know what to tell you. In my experience Ramshot data is a little ballsey. I've had more than one instance where their data produced, what was in my estimation, excessive pressure. If you look at other manufacturers data (Nosler and Speer) they top out at around 44 grains of TAC with a 200, only Ramshot says to go up to 48. At 44 grains, its a nice safe load in my guns, if I go over that I get sticky bolt lift and flat primers (and loose primer pockets) and usually velocities that are a bit high compared to other representitive loads. I chronographed a lot of the factory loads in freeing up brass. The Fusion load in my Kimber went 2620 (no stiff bolt lift, everything worked just fine.) The 210 Partition load goes around 2495 (as does my Partition handload) I got up to 45.5 grains of TAC and it gave me about 2550 FPS and all the other symptoms I already mentioned. Early on, I was pretty sure I had some problems with the chamber in that Kimber, and I did (excessive headspace and a rough chamber) but after a trusted gunsmith friend of mine pulled the barrel and chambered it correctly, I still had pressure issues with the Kimber with Ramshot data.

The first time I called Ramshot about a possible pressure problem, I spoke to Yohan (I think that was his name, he's obviously not born in the US) he told me he was having some trouble on his computer... I said "They can be that way." Then he said, no its not actually the computer, I blew up a rifle yesterday... Then he want on to explain how in their last manual they had some "goofy" 308 data. I love their powders, but I take their data with a grain of salt...

So yes, My Mileage Varried. If you see any flaws in my way of thinking, don't be shy. I try and learn from my mistakes. I feel that 44 is a good max load for TAC under a 200 grain bullet in a 338 Fed. That listed max load provides velocities right in line with other published max loads, and other factory loads of similar weight in both my 338 Feds, and as I stated, warmer loads gave several symptoms of too much pressure in two rifles.

Oh...


I still want to see a cheap 180 on the shelves...

Even if my logic is flawed on the 200's and TAC, a 180 just gives a guy more options.

I want one too...even if I am getting slightly better than factory velocities and one-hole accuracy with 200 gr Hornadies. No one said this had to make sense .

Dennis

Dan,

Which 200-grain bullets have you used in the .338F?

RE: the .358, Nosler Partitions, and shooting longer range...

I shot my .358 extensively out to 400 yards with the 200-gn Hornady SP, which has a very poor BC, at a muzzle velocity of 2625 fps. I use RL7 to get that speed BTW.

Anyway, that bullet didn't work out that far; it moves around too much in the wind.

So I switched to the 225-gn Partition at 2500 fps. The BC for that bullet is quite good, in the low 4's. With that bullet, I get reliable hits on my 390-yard steel plate. It's also carrying enough speed at that range to be above Noslers minimum for the Partition.

I am set up with the B&C reticle for my .358. With a 100-yard zero, the next crosshair down gives me hits at 250, the one below that hits at 325, and the little nub hits at 390. I've been thinking of maybe pulling that scope off, and replacing it with a different 2.5x8 with a turret instead, because obviously those ranges are sort of non-intuitive.

My only real reason for taking a .358 to this place is that there are a few spots I hunt blacktail where there could b a longer shot.

I have not yet used the 200's but can say there is a difference in group size when I used 180 Nosler BT's in my 338-06 in comparison to the Accubonds. Not so much that I would not use them but a difference none the less plus the BT's were cheaper and performed well on deer. I also use the 210 Partition which shoot well but again not as good as the BT's. I also tried a box of the CT ST's in 200 gr. Could not get the rifle to give me a decent group at all. Would love to find about 10 boxes of the 180 BT's to hord away. I do hope Hornady does come out with the 200 SST's as I would give them a try too.

By the way the 180's shot a legimate sub moa group at 100 yds for 3 shots out of the gun(Weatherby SBGM). This with a load of 54 gr of 4895, not the hottest load at 2855 but deadly accurate.

My 338 ate those 200-gn BT's like candy. I loved that bullet. I can't see a reason to even try the 200 AB's; the 225 Accubond is such a perfect bullet for my particular use in the 338 that I just buck up and buy 'em, even for practice.

I too would be all over the 200BT if they brought it out again.

Hornady Interlocks and Speer Hot-Cors. I've also shot a couple boxes of 200 ABs, but not over any TAC.

I've also shot 180 AB's, 210 Partitions, and 215 Sierra Gamekings.

I keep TAC on hand in 8 Lb jugs (I have one and a half of them) to feed the AR15s with 69 Sierras. In that application, it works great, but it doesn't deliver any spectacular improvement in velocity over anything else available and suitable for the application. I use it over other powders becuase I load that ammo on a RL550B in massive quantities (usually 1000 at a time) and it just meters so damn nice. Thats why I was hoping it'd work out in the 338 Federal.

In the Federal I'd used Fed 210's in the Tikka T3, then when your article came out on TAC in the 338 Fed and 358 Winny (I had just bought the Kimber Montana) I also tried the Federal 215's and CCI 250's.

I'd really be interested in what an independent labratory (besides Ramshot) would come up with for pressure on that load your running. Because either I've got two rifles with issues, or you got a free lunch Not saying anyones right or wrong here, just expressing the way I feel about it.

Dan,

It might just be the difference in powder lots, or the chamber/throat/barrel on my Kimber, or a combination of both.
But I definitely do not get any signs of excessive pressures in my rifle with any of the Ramshot loads.

The 200 Hornady produces substantially less pressure than the 200 Speer, due to far shorter bearing surface. I wouldn't try to same loads with the Speer.

Also, Nosler's data for TAC is worked up with the 210 Partition, which produces SUBSTANTIALLY more pressure than the 200 Hornady, not just because of the extra 10 grains but because of a longer bearing surface and engraving the area over the partition. They include the 200-grain bullets in their data because both produce a little less pressure than the 210, so the same loads are safe to use.

But Nosler listing a max of 44.0 grains of TAC with the 210 Partition doesn't have much to do with the pressures produced with the 200 Hornady. I have gone up to 46.0 grains of TAC with the 210 Partition and gotten good results, partly because Ramshot lists 46.7 grains as max with the 215 Sierra, and other sources (such as Hodgdon) list very similar loads for the 210 Partition and 215 Sierra.

By the way, Hodgdon also lists over 2600 fps with the 200 Hornady with H335, and at only 56,400 psi. I have found TAC and 335 to be very similar in loading applications and burning rate. Their top load is 47.0 H335. You might give it a try.

There is nothing suspect about the Ramshot/Western ballistic lab. In fact they do a lot of pressure testing for various well-known companies, the reason the lab had grown substantially over the past few years. What I suspect is, again, that the differences between your results and mine are due to differences in powder lot and our individual rifles.