Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game What's Your Favorite 338 Winnie Bullet?

I had two .338 s that both liked 225 gr horn. interlock and Reloder 19. Killed a handful of white tails and three antelope doe with them and all were plenty dead. Never shot anything bigger with them but am sure it would have been just fine for elk as well. The model 70 I had would shot .75" and was doing 2900 fps. the Ruger 77 I had would stay near an inch and was slower at around 2800 or so.

4th P,
Didn't mean anything derogatory, just that another persons loads cannot be relied upon in another rifle. Brian is a very experienced handloader so I don't doubt his quotes.

I have loaded up to 76 grains but fell short of that velocity which is a common experience and a reason why I build my own loads caring very little for published data.

Incidently, the only published data I ever experienced that was common to my own chrono readings came from the long obsolete Hornady Vol 2 which used factory rifles to accrue.

John

Understood John.

Jason

225gr Swift

I have found published loads by Brian Pearce and Phil Shoemaker, to be exactly what they said they were and in many different rifles.

I had been loading the RE-22 load since 1990 and it does exactly what Brian published and these have been checked by four chronographs, an Oehler among them.

I worked out 45-70 loads for both the Marlin "pre-safety" 1895 and Miroku 1886 SRC I had for some years and, later, read Phil's articles giving the same loads.

As it happens, I could NEVER get anywhere near the velocities with H-4831 that Nosler No. 2 gives and quit using it in the '90s.

No offence intended to any poster here, just what I found in 47 years of far too many rifles and time spent loading and shooting.

My 338's (5 of them) had, from the factory, 24 and 26" barrels. I cut 3 or 4 of them to 22".

Only my 24" rifles could get to 2,750 (2,735 actually) with ANY powder and a 250, including RL22. The 26" one's would tickle 2,800. And all of them got 250's run in them.

None of the 22" barrels would comfortably get past 2,700 with a 250 (they typically went 2,680) and any powder I used (H4350, H4831, RL19, RL22).

But maybe I didn't push hard enough past pressure tested velocities

2,850 with a 250 from a 24" barrel is pure hot-rodding fantasy and well outside the limits of RL22 and the 338 WM's SAAMI pressures.

You want more juice than the 338 WM, a 340 Wby or bigger is in order.

A 338 WM is just a 30-06 on steroids, and performs about the same velocity-wise with bullets of equal BC/SD.

What brass and primers Brad?

Pearce has stated that 2852 fps with the 250gr Partition is under SAAMI limits.

I can kill anything I want with a 250 at 2700.
I save the 210s for my 338-06s which are pretty fair Elk rifles, been trying 200 gr Federal fusions in my 338-08AI. They look to have some promise.

I dunno, I have never seen Pearce publish anything that struck me as excessive or just BS, he is among the VERY few gun writers who does impress me as being both highly experienced and very honest.

I know that a considerable difference in burn rate in different lots of RE-22 happens, my lot was 30 lbs. in six 5 lb. canisters I bought in 1990 from Kesselring Gun Shop, of Alger, WA. We Lower Mainland guys would often drive down there and buy components we could not get here and in large lots....they were closed by BATF, sad to hear.

Now, the tubes on my four P-64 Alaskan .338s are factory 25" and 76-RE-22, my load since 1990, chromos, at sea level, at a hair over 2800 and is NOT "max" as I have loaded the 77 grains and had no "pressure" signs.

I am well aware of all of the divers issues surrounding "max" loads and am cautious and weigh EVERY load. I also note that Ken Waters published a 250 load that went 2840 with a 250 and he hs always seemed quite conservative to me.

I would not expect even close to this with shorter barrels and have never had a .338WM under 22.5", even that one was done by Greydog here for a friend, as a stainless truck gun in his bush business in BC and Canada's Yukon. I would not go under 23", but, each to his own.

I may well re-chrono my 7 different .338s with Brian's load later this year when this never-ending, pounding deluge of cold rain ceases. I will post my results as I love the .338 and enjoy working with it.

The .340 "Bee", well, after shooting two rifles in this, it is not for me. I find my .375 H&H rifles nicer to shoot and the sharp kick is nasty, again, ETHO.

250 gr Nosler Partition and killed nothing yet with it. Do know that it'll work though.

Snap,

I agree that Pearce's loads seem reasonable in general. I've saved many of his handgun articles and he always seems conservative with different pressure categories, depending on exact model of revolver. I haven't used his rifle data, but have used his data for the 45 Colt, 44 Spl, and 44 Mag.

He hasn't gone into detail with the pressure testing but I was just reading his article on primers and their affect on pressure and velocity. So he apparently has access to pressure testing equipment. I know he's a big fan of the 338 Win too, so I'd assume he's done more than a little work with it.

Jason

Wonder how he arrived at that? I assume he's pressure tested his loads?

I doubt it...

SAAMI lists Max Pressure with the 338 WM as 64,000 PSI. While there is no direct way to translate that to CUP, it's roughly 53000 CUP.

Here's some actual pressure tested data to chew on...

FROM HODGDON NO.26 1992 (24" BARREL"):







THE "NOTORIOUS" BARNES N0.1 1992 (notorious as it's some of the hottest data ever put in print) 26" BARREL:



SPEER NO.11 1987 (24" BARREL):



SPEER NO.12 1994 (24" BARREL):



NOSLER NO.5 2002 (24" BARREL):

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/Nosler-no5-24in_zpsmhcglylp.jpg[/img]

CURRENT ONLINE ALLIANT DATA (24" BARREL):
*Alliant RL17 Data gives a 250 2,664 fps w/ 66 grs MAX load*

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/current%20alliant_zpsrkqvd4hh.jpg[/img]

CURRENT ONLINE HODGDON DATA (24" BARREL):

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/currnet%20hodgdon_zpsecwvcw77.jpg[/img]

As you can see, nothing comes close to 2,850 with a 250 grain bullet from a 24" or 26" barrel.

Again, these are pressure tested loads. You can go to Western Powders (Ramshot) website and look at their data... you'll find the same.

I especially like the Hodgdon data because they list actual pressure.

My experience with the 338 WM is it's one of those rounds that gets routinely hotrodded. Guys think it should be faster, and therefore run it to meet their expectations, not its reality.

I struggle to fathom how a 250 grainer at 2,650 to 2,750 is a bad thing, but I'm conservative by nature.

Again, I've loaded for 5 338 WM's... my findings pretty well are mirrored by the published data shown here. I started loading for the 338 WM around 1990, which correlates with the same time I got a chronograph.

Brad,

Pearce clearly states that his charge is over published data, but is under SAAMI limits, and has worked in several rifles. What more can be said?

Unless I missed it, none of your RL22 data in your post includes pressures. Who's to say that the loads were run up to 64k psi?

What I don't understand is how he gets that much powder in the case with RL22. That is why I asked what cases you were using. And primers.

Jason

Pierce has no way of knowing his loads are under SAAMI... like I said, BS.

So his articles with pressure data in Handloader and the Hodgdon magazine are bogus?

Brad, you can shoot the messenger but claiming that Brian Pearce is a liar is little extreme don't you think? Unless you know something about him that we don't.

I tried to get load data for a Taurus Ti in 44 Spl from Brian but he wouldn't comment since he wasn't confident in the revolver or metallurgy. I don't think he's reckless or careless in his info.

Jason

I started handloading in January, 1968, with the .338WM, I still have this rifle and it is the slowest of the five P-64 Alaskans I have owned, still have four of these.

RE-22 at 76 grains averages 2800+ (about 10-12 fps) from these 25" tubes, all factory. With, 77 grs. I did get more and chose to back off a grain as I am also very conservative.

H-4350, gave me about 20 fps less and, oddly IME, the Sierra GK was slower over my former club's Oehler, than the 250NP I prefer. This, is in direct contradiction to the results in many other rifles/cartridges I own and have owned over 50 years.+

A former shooting/hunting buddy of mine, now retired in his mid-70s, was a professor at UBC, very well off and with rifles/guns that most can only fantasize about, George Caswell's personal Champlin sheeo rifle in .270 was only one such piece.

This chap, a most meticulous and highly experienced guy, also told me he got 2840 with RE-22, 250 NP and in his 24" tubed .338WM....and I never knew him to BS.

So, again, while I do no longer have my old notes and these results come from the 1990s, I tend to accept Pearce's claims, although, he very probably has a relatively "fast" bbl. and some are faster than others.

I am not seeking argument here, I just am interested in this above all other cartridges and find the thread very absorbing.

I'd like to see proof his loads are pressure tested. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

Good grief dude, you're a little emotional. Not calling him a liar, but if you think all the reloading data in Handloader or Rifle Magazine is pressure tested, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.

Brian is a gunwriter. What he writes is not on tablets brought down the mountain from the hand of God, good man he undoubtedly is.

Everyone, gunwriters included, have subjective little prejudices that influence what they do, think, and write. The mind is a slippery slope. Lying doesn't enter into it so just leave that accusation at the door. Life is a bit more complex than that.

Sounds to me like his article, which I haven't read (going on what you say), was leaning heavily on "traditional pressure indications" most of which don't add up to reality (ie, flattened primers, expansion ring measurement, easy extraction,. blah, blah, blah).

It's been pretty well established those sort of indicators don't add up to actual pressures, a gunwirter or anyone's wishes aside.

A chronograph comparing your loads with pressure tested factory data is what equals reality.

The manuals are pressure tested data, even if they don't give you the pressure data.

Granted, there are rounds that are held to low pressures in deference to older actions, but the 338 WM ain't one of them. 64000 PSI is an indication of that!

Not sure why the hell you want to know what cases and primers I used? What does that have to do with anything. Velocity is Velocity and Velocity always = pressure and vice-versa.

"Fast Barrels, Slow Barrels", that's all meaningless .

There are so many variables from the bore to chamber, brass to primers... but the constant is pressure. You can't hit a certain velocity without an identical pressure, no matter how that pressure is achieved.

If a load in a manual shows 2,750 velocity at 64000 psi, you're not going to get 2,850 with 64,000 psi.

So while using the term BS may be a bit abrupt, and wishful thinking may be a more politically correct term, it's the same thing at the end of the day.

Thanks for the pic Brad. That load is 3000 CUP lower than the SAAMI limit you mentioned. And don't we need to know case brand (due to variances in capacity) and primer?

I'm not looking to argue. I just found Pearce's load interesting since I might play with the 250gr Scenar and 250gr Horny in the future. But I don't even own a 338 anymore.

I've tried contacting Brian in the past and he's hard to get a hold of, and I can't blame him. Otherwise it'd be interesting to get his comments on his load.

Jason