Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Jim Carmichael, Explain Yourself

In the May issue of October Life, Jim Carmichael answers a letter from a fellow asking for advice on selecting and elk gun. The fellow wants something lighter than his 10.5 pound 300 WinMag, and is torn between a .280 AI and a .338/06.

Jim writes back, starting with, "My first suggestion is to forget the so-called .338/06 caliber. If I were to list the all-time dumbest calibers, this one would make the top ten."

He doesn't give any reasons for his negative summary of the .338/06; he simply goes on to point out the merits of the .280 AI.

I fail to see any reasoning behind his statement. I don't own a .338/06, but I can't see that it has any less merit or usefulness than a host of other cartridges (not "calibers," Jimbo!). It pushes a good-sized bullet at a velocity that seems pretty practical at standard hunting ranges, the recoil is very manageable for most shooters in standard weight rifles, .30-06 "parent" brass for handloaders couldn't be more easily acquired, so what's the problem? In fact, the .338-06 duplicates the ballistics of the .318 Westley Richards, which was a tremendously popular "Medium" round used in Africa for many years.

I know Jim isn't a regular on this forum, and he probably isn't even an occasional visitor. Anyone want to venture a guess as to what's stuck in his craw?

Well, Johnbo, perhaps, unlike yourself, he does believe that the 338/06 does have less merit or usefulness than a host of other cartridges/calibers. As the article does not explore his reasons for disliking the 338/06 and as I have not spoken to Mr. Carmichael, I can't venture a guess as to what is "stuck in his craw". The only way to do so would be to ask him.

Since you are already aware that he probably won't get the opportunity to read about your concerns over his faulty reasoning on this forum, I would suggest that you drop him a line in care of Outdoor Life. As he appears to feel strongly about the 338/06, he may well be willing to elaborate either directly or in an upcoming issue.

Maybe we can all learn something.

Jim

IIRC, Jim C. thinks very highly of the std. 338 WM. Seems unusal for him to knock the 338-06. As mentioned previously, it's a WAG at best (and therefore pretty silly) for us to speculate on his reasoning. Ya oughter just axe Mr. C hisself.

JimF

Thanks for the advice, guys, but I'd rather see Mohammed come to the mountain.

I would Pay no mind to what ever Carmichael says or writes. Of all of the wildcat cartridges that are around, the 338-06 is about as good as it gets. If you want one, go build one. Shoot it, hunt with and kill just about every thing that walks with out to much trouble. The only fly is that if your ammo dose not get were you are going to be, then resupply would pose a problem. While if you are not a handloader and just a plane rifle loon, a 338 Winne would be a better choice, just because ammo is every were. But you could spend the next 50 years shooting game with both and you would not be able to tell the difference in the field. As for what he said, it was just a quick answer, to save time for himself. Ie lazy way to answer a readers question. Why bother to answer a fellow's note when you really don't want to? Tells a lot about who Carmichael really is rather than what he would like for his readers to think he is.

Regardless of whether they have any actual experience with the subject at hand, some writers believe that any opinion they hold is the absolute truth. And that's a shame.



I shot the .338-'06 on elk for many years and have killed a bunch with the cartridge. It would be rather difficult for anyone, even JC, to convince me that the .338-'06 is anything short of perfect for elk-sized critters.



Steve

I don't know Jim Carmichael, but, I have read his writings since he took over from the legendary Jack O'Connor, the hero of my teenage years. I have seen him make other statements of this type, such as a questionable comment about the .375H&H in darkest A' and the characterization of the .270Win. as ...a peculiar thing... This, IMO, is done "tongue in cheek" in order to provoke readers into thinking about what he is saying and thus create discussion; this will bring about more magazine sales and increase his income. Carmichael, a gun writer whom I enjoy and respect is after all, IN BUSINESS, to sell articles and controversy does exactly that.

As to the .338-06, it will not match my revered .338 Mag. s, but, I will probably have one built to save weight in a mountain rifle as I get older. I cannot conceive of an animal here in B.C. that I cannot kill quickly with this cartridge and a Nossie PT.

Gentlemen:

Let us not forget the heavy hand of the Editor.

JC may have written that once the 35 Whelen was made into a factory chambering, the construction of a wildcat 338-06 struck him as unnecessary.

The editor then saved a line or two by stating the the 338-06 is stupid.

It has happened to almost everyone who has ever been published.

Just my 2 cents . . . .

BMT

I can understand why he might say the 338/06 was an unnecesary introduction with the 30 06, 35 whelen, and the 338 WM already around. But not to then go and make a case for the 280 AI.

By the way. How is the 338/06 fairing as a factory round?

While from what I hear Jimbo has been getting crocthety in his late years he has had alot of influence on me in my youth. I almost wore out the book "The Modern Rifle". I can't hate him now. Gotta cut old geezers some slack as hopefully we'll be one ourselves someday .

I read it yesterday and was suprised. Initially i too thought maybe he had that opinion of the 338-06 because of the ability to just download the 338 win mag. But he is a fan of the 280AI? Why, if a standard 280 is to a 7 rem mag the same as a 338-06 is to the 338 win mag as they share the same basic cases? Guess the AI version makes it really special.

The 280 AI is supposed to be very close to the 7 rem mag with the benefit of less powder and less recoil. If that is a good thing, then so is the 338-06. Especially when you consider the substantial recoil increase with the heavy 33 cal bullets. Maybe if the 338-06 in question was of the ackley variety he would like it more? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Well my ex-mother-in-law once said.................never mind who cares what she says, ditto with the letter. Who gives a gnat's ass what he likes or doesn't, he sure doesn't with me.

I know Jim pretty well, and would suspect it's mostly another case of him stirring the pot, hoping to get it to boil a little harder.

As pointed out on this thread, Jim has also taken potshots at the .270 Winchester, while extolling the the .280 Remington a lot (which he has used quite successfully on many, many animals, including elk). You probably won't find him endorsing many cartridges that were advocated or invented by previous gun writers (.270: Jack O'Oconnor; .338-06: Elmer Keith). Again, such may be tongue in cheek.

I also suspect that Jim would be pretty happy hunting big game the rest of his life with the .280 Remington, .338 Winchester Magnum, and .458 Winchester Magnum. He has a wealth of experience to back that opinion up, too.

I also sincerely doubt you'll ever see Jim on this forum. To those who may have logged on recently, the Ask The Gun Writers slot was formed because a very few gun writers log on to the Campfire. There may be a half dozen of us all together, and Jim ain't one.

JB

Yup, that's what I suspected and Jim belongs to the earlier generation of gunwriters who tended to advocate a certain cartridge(s) to the exclusion of other, nearly identical rounds. This is not so prevalent now in the musings of younger writers such as Mule Deer, who seem to take a more balanced approach to cartridge selection than did the great masters such as JOC and EK, who we all grew up on.

Jim Carmichael is a very good writer, I wish he and Ross Seyfried would participate in this forum as the exchange of experiences and thoughts here is very enjoyable. I learn a lot here, even if certain characters will not recognize that the .264 has it all over the .270 WBY!

I have great respect for Mr. Carmichael, and I agree with him as far as the 280vs270 as all around cartridge. I disagree about the 338-06 statement, believing this is the best all around Big Game cartridge especially if the 275 gr. semipointed bullet was still available. I am sure the Mag. will get lots of comments about this statement and hopefully the author will explain his reasoning in a later issue. In the meantime I am comfortable with, he has the right to his opinion even if it does differ from mine. I don't have a 338-06, but that is only because of economics. And drat the land of the left lane does not have a lottery.
Snuffy

My favorite cartridge is the .338WM, but there is not denying that a heavy and not too tough .338-caliber bullet such as the 250-Grain Speer GS, or even a 300-grain Woodleigh would provide great penetration when shot with a .338-06 or a .35 Whelen. In fat, another .338-06, the .338 Sabi, is known for its excellent performance in Africa.

Those heavy and a little softer bullets penetrate even more when fired a reduced speeds, because expansion during impact is not as great as if fired from a much faster cartridge. The .338 Sabi has been developed on that same principle.

Cartridges such as the 9.3x62 work just as well with heavy bullets, and if one would look at its ballisitcs and reloading data, one would immadiately notice that the speeds attained are not really that high.

Kutenay--

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for other gun writers to post here. Gun writers make their living selling their thoughts, whether they're worth anything or not, and posting on this forum doesn't pay anything.

JB

To my way of thinking, the 338-06 is a better design than the 35 whelen that so many love. The 338 has a better BC and the cartridge has a bit more shoulder to work with. I would really like to see this one go commercial, and stick. It appears that weatherby has abandoned the round.

Mule Deer,

Afraid your right of course, posting here pays nothing, except of course, it does help keep one in touch with the "lunatic fringe" (err... readership), that should in turn help keep the bank account, and one presumes the editor, jolly.

And of course, the accumulated knownledge demonstrated digtally, between the ranters and ravers, is of course priceless.

I think your writting is richer for it, and constantly plucking cyber arrows out of your back, has ensured that the points you make in your articles and books, have displayed a full depth of understanding.

That understanding does not come for cheap, and beats "writting on high" looking down at the "little people".

Wallowing at times has virtue beyond easy measure.

Regards,

Bob

That is a very good point, I think that the majority of we "lunatics" are actually more likely to spend our shekels on the magazines that publish writers that do post here. I suscribe to the Wolfe Publications and do not buy any others; my decision to continue these subscriptions is influenced by JB's non-pretentious attitude on this forum.

To me, here in Canada, it is of considerable value to have someone here who will reply to questions about new items of equipment, for example, as we never get to see this stuff until a year after it is introduced in the US. So, I'm sorry that more writers do not participate and I respect John for doing so.

BTW, John, I am going to be purchasing a new binocular fairly soon. I am a former "towerman" for both the B.C. and Alberta Forest Service(s) and a Canadian Coast Guard Lightkeeper, I have a lot of experience with binos. Have you used the Leica Duovid in the 10-15x50 size, if so, what did you think? Also, have you used the Leica Ultravid in the 8x42 size, if so, what are your impressions-if you are planning an article on this, just ignore this question, but, if it's no trouble, I am interested in your opinion.

Jim is a good friend of mine. I've hunted with him in New Mexico and Sonora, worked on a couple projects for 'Outdoor Life' with him, visted with him at his home in Tennessee, etc.

I'll just say that Jim is probably one of the the most knowlegable and accomplished riflemen in the world, an incredibly accomplished hunter, as well as a keen intellect, and a very great gentleman. He's hunted far animals in far mored places than he's ever written about in ODL, and he's also probably taken more game around the world with the .338 Win. Mag. alone than most experienced hunters have taken with ANYTHING.

I surely can't answer for Jim, but I suspect his feeling about he .338-06 is about the same as mine: There's nothing that the .338-06 will accomplish that the .338 Win. Mag. (or the bigger .33s for that matter) won't do better, especially with those heavy 250 gr. bullets that make the .338 Win. Mag. perform best on the type of animals it was originally designed to handle.

AD