Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Is Ruger killing the 300 & 338 RCM's?

So there still is no short action .338 that is even a little popular.

I really like my stainless 338 rcm. I have a 2.5-8 vx-III on it and carry it a lot in island Park because of the number of bears there. I run a 225 interbond at 2675 ish and it carrys nice and comes up quick. It shoots several loads well and feeds well. I had one load with a 200 Speer over BL-c2 that clocked 2800 + and grouped into cloverleafs. Only downside is that mine didn't like 210 partitions but I have some 225 partitions to try soon.

Bb

They thought that they'd cut in on Remington's long-standing dominance of that position.

If Ruger wanted to sell rifles, they should have necked down the 375 brass to 25,6.5, 27, 7, 30, 33, and 35. Outrun Weatherby in all under 30, equil/surpass the rest, all in a standard '06(3.34) case. Plenty of short/fats when they got off their asses and built the compacts.

Would there have been losers? Sure, but not what they already have.

I think there is a lot to like about the 338 RCM. 338-06 (which is a wildcat anyway) performance in a 308 length action.

What's not to like about that?

If they made a decent rifle chambered in it with a 22 inch barrel rather than that horrid guide gun I would be all over it. Plenty of gun for anything in Australia (even buffalo with good bullets) and most of the rest of the world.

The fact that it hasn't succeeded despite having no real competitors to me indicates the average man doesn't feel there's any need for bullets bigger than 308 cal, unless you are driving them a lot harder than the modest 338 RCM can.

RCM were created to get around the the royalty to Jamison for the WSM. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter the benefits of the RCM, sometimes people don't buy the flimflam.

Rifles may have had something to do with it also. Why reduce your market by offering a performance round in only a carbine with iron sights blued/wood. They lost me. I want no sights with 22-24 inch barel with stainless/synthetic. Just my preference. Don't offer it, I ain't buying. Plus I already had a 300WSM by 2010.

the VP at Ruger that thought this was a good idea must have been pretty high up to last that long with a goofy "hey lets do a one off" idea

I like the 338 RCM. Lots of folks howled like scalded dogs when the 325WSM came out and wasn't a 338. Go figure. Never had a WSM, never likely will.

And not only have I loaded and chronoed loads... I've actually hunted one. A 338RCM slapped into a skeleton stock and with a 2.5-8 is hard to beat, and you simply can't ruin the [bleep]. 490 wasn't quite far enough for this cow to be out of range of a 225NAB launched at a whopping 2600 from that 20" carbine.



Marketing and advertised velocity be damned, it's a handy elk package, and I'd never carry a long action 24-26" barrel into elk woods again.

I have never understood the rational behind the whole short fat thing. More efficient? Fits a short action? What do they do that others do not do that have been around for many many years? An answer to a question that was never really asked? My one venture into this area is a 338 Federal, I at least know that I can make brass until the 308 goes away.

If they bring out a 25 RCM in the right model, and marketed them correctly, I suspect they could sell a bunch. That ground has not been tread upon.

My crackpot theory, which I've never heard anyone even mention, is that a shorter, fatter cartridge with the same case capacity will be ever so slightly more efficient than the longer one, simply due to a longer effective barrel length, if they both have the same finished barrel length. The expanding gasses get to push on the bullet for a very slightly longer amount of time.

In the comparison of a 338RCM and 338-06, that's the difference of 2.840 and 3.340, if both are seated to max OAL, 1/2". Literally jackschitt.

Well your crack pot theory ain't jackschitt. Among other things to consider is short action, lighter weight, more efficient burning of powder column, greater accuracy potential.

Lighter, shorter, handier, etc. is certainly where the true magic is.

I've done it both ways, short action medium short tube is where it's at for me. Can't for the life of me figure how a heavier 4" longer barrel, a longer action, and more recoil is "better". I've done it both ways so I'm certainly not forced to guess a comparison of a 20" carbine and it's resultant virtues as compared to a 24/26" magnum and it's "attributes". LOL

Well I'm an old school type I guess. I have always thought my pre-64 300H&H was an efficient well feeding round.

They did...

Accuracy in the old gal ain't to bad either.

I can't address the short fat vs long skinny, but ...

A Winchester/Mauser action and 3 position safety in a 20" SS/SYN rifle with iron sites and 338-06 ballistics for <$600 guts feathers and all is why I bought it.

Let's see cheapest I could get into a 338-06 is $200 Savage plus $300 for a rebore or new barrel or a $500 Armslist gun plus shipping...

No contest. The biggest issue is the proprietary cartridge. I've made 338RCM brass from 375Ruger and 300RCM. As long as one of the 3 are made the gun will have life before needing re-chamber.

With the 338 Federal flagging maybe it's time Ruger cleaned this cartridge up and marketed it for what it is a smart all around cartridge, instead of a short fat 338WM which it ain't.

Steve
Oregon

The 1/2" in COAL is the difference between SA and LA often much less than that. I have a 338 Federal and do like the round. Not a real long distance number, but I don't hunt where I need long distance. In the woods at 50 yards or so it works quite well. It is not that popular either, few new rifles if any are chambered for it now. I do not think it is a short magnum, not really anywhere close to the 338WM. It does not have the recoil either especially in a light weight woods rifle. Like the short fat ones it is a "niche" rifle.

As does mine.

Too many magnums. Compacts, Supers, Ultras. Time to clear the shelves. Time to get back to basics. Time to hunt for real again.