How much felt recoil and is this a good one gun for every thing from deer to grizz round? Also cost of ammo and what other caliber would you compare it to? Have a oppertunity to get one and was woundering if its worth the effort dont want a safe queen.

I don't recall the recoil figures(which vary with the rifle weight) but my Weatherby accumark has a healthy kick to it.
Ammo. is expensive, but reloading is the way to go with these guys, IMO.
It is comparible to the 338 Remington Ultra Magnum and to a lesser degree, the 338 Winchester magnum.

A lot of people claim the .340 kicks a LOT more than the .338, and of course it would have to kick somewhat more. It does kick enough to put some people off, but I would think that anybody who's shot a .300 Winchester Magnum much could learn to handle it.

Also, recoil increases with bullet weight. There is no real reason to se 250's on most big game, and the lighter ones do kick less--and shooter flatter as well.

JB

I like mine but felt recoil is a very subjective thing depending on a lot of factors. However, in ft-lbs, for a rifle in the 8.5-9 lb range, it's in the 40s-50s IIRC but that's not the whole story because it's also "a quite fast kick" which in my mind and with my rifles makes it feel more than a 375 H&H. But with a good stock, Decelerator pad, little or no drop at the comb it's certainly tolerable.

Recoil aside, it is flat shooting often compared with a 7mmRM for instance but with the energy (ft-lbs) of a 375 at the target, quite a combination. It's not needed for certain in the lower 48 but for elk where a light mountain rifle is not needed it is quite spectacular...if the bullet goes in the right place.

Gdv

Don't expect to get a handwritten invitation to Elmer Keith's Museum anytime soon.

Unless you're really advocating the 300-grain bullets that used to be commonly available for the 338 bore.


.

Yeah, poor old Elmer. He never did graduate from the 1925 school of bullet design.

JB

Now, now, Elmer Keith continued to experiment throughout his active life.

Not many folks in any field totally change their life model after they're in their sixties and this includes the highest educated PhDs too.

Elmer Keith would have been in his sixties in the 1960s, way before any of today's super and premium bullets were even dreamed of.

Can't really hold that against him.

But his recipe of tough 250+ grain bullets from a 338 still kills elk.


.

I wrote an article about 20 years back called The Cartridge Debate, Who won? comparing Elmer Keith with Roy Weatherby as they wared just as much as the popularized JO'C Vs EK.

In the end I concluded that they had graduated to the same thought, as Weatherby was into bigger cases and higher velocities and Elmer finshed his career with the .338/378 KT.

The only real difference between these two men and their hypotheses was the bullet weight they chose. Roy dropped the .338/378 prototype which he experimented with way before anyone else and stayed with the 300 case necked up forming the .340 and Elmer shortened the .338/378 case, as the powders of the day were not up to a full length case.

Elmer used a 275 grain Speer bullet in order to get the penetration he desired whereas Weatherby used a lighter weight Partition. In the .300 Weatherby, he used the 150 Parition which is light by common opinion, though I never knew what weight he chose in the .338 bore.

As to the viability of the .340 Weatherby for deer to grizzly, absolutely. I had my MArk V magnaported for an article I wrote once on muzzle breaks and it appears to reduce the recoil of this round very substantially, certainly down to a .300 Winchester level with very little muzzle rise.

As a proposition for a handloader, it is among the very best cartridges for the travelling hunter. 185's - 210's for deer to elk and 225's for anything larger. The 250's, 275's and 300's are there, but not needed as there are no animals that cannot be killed with a 225 grainer, that would be killed with a few extra grains in the same caliber. There are very few animals in this world that cannot be taken with a .340 Weatherby at any range in which you can direct a bullet.

AGW

I've been a 340 looney since the late 80's, I belive I am on my 4th tube.

I believe that the round is not for all but it also is not that tough for people to get used to either. IMO it is a round that if one is to shoot it well then they should plan to get it out and shoot it fairly often, as it do have a bit of bump to it.

For the most part those that have shot and used mine have always remarked about how user friendly they are compared to what they thought was coming.

Barrel weight and contour is IMO very important. If you have a tube that mics between .65 at the mzl to .7 at the mzl it is gonna be very nice to work with.

Now if you stick a tube on it that is less than .65 it may well be a bit caustic!

I will not have a brake on a rifle as I believe that brakes are for cars.

I do however like magnaporting as I hold a rifle very lightly and as such the mzl jump can get me between the running lights from time to time. And no doubt about it the maganaport process will help with this!

My present one is on an old M70 with a Schneider tube on it, in a piece of African Walnut via Brown.

As bullets goes there is a pile of very good bullets for it. Presently I am using the 200 NBT and the 210 TSX.

I would add that the lion share of the game I've taken with the 340 has been with the 250's. That is because my rigs tend to shoot the heavier 33 bullets a fair bit better.

For the lighter slugs the 180's Accu's, NBT's and the 200's Horns, NBT's and the 210 TSX's have all been extremely accurate.

I can't imagine a thing in this world that I wouldn't take on with the 210 TSX.

I'd say get after it, the world of big 33's is a fun one to me.

Good luck to ya

Dober

Have been using a 340 Wby for close to thirty years.

Occasionally using Bob Hagel's load for the 210 Nosler Partition on pronghorn antelope, but mostly loading the 250 Nosler Partition.

Haven't lost any game with it.

Why buy a large .338 caliber rifle and not shoot 250's?

In my view the combo was made for each other. I don't think the
caliber is fully utilized by going light.

What if any benefit is there by dropping bullet weight in the
.338 caliber? Outside of less recoil.

I have one in a standard MkV synthetic, a lightweight rifle by no means. Mine does have a muzzle brake, but it now has a threaded collar where the brake used to be...I shot it once with just earplugs in. It feels a bit sharper than the .375 off the bench when both are using the heavier bullets, at least it does to me. A 210gr XLC, have not tried the TSX in this one yet, at 3200+ would probably kill most anything unfortunate enough to step in front of it.

This may not be important to you, but ammo does appear to be a bit costly. I don't have any Weatherby calibers, so take this with a grain of salt. I just see the prices in Cabelas. Perhaps those that use the round a lot have some advice here.

Of course, handloading does go a long way toward solving this problem, but I still think that Weatherby cases will cost substantially more than say, the comparable .338 WM. And if you shoot a lot, the .340 Weatherby may give you a stabbing pain in the wallet.

Cost of components didn't matter to me when I only had two rifles. Now that I have more calibers to load for, I notice it a lot more.

Good luck with your decision!

Bob-I've been a 340 user for quite some time now, I've seen a fair array and quite a # of game taken with it. Bottom line is I've to date found no difference in killing power from one end of bullet weight to the others.

I did graviate to the 250's mainly cause they were so darn easy to get to perk. In the days gone past the only stout lightweight was the 210 NPT and while it killed very well I just couldn't quite get the accuracy I could with the 225's and 250's.

So, being the accuracy nut that I am I went to the 250's.

In this day and age and with the bullets that we have I have no problemo using the 210 TSX on anything that I would use the 250's on and with a bit less recoil. So I guess I could also look at it in the light of besides more recoil what is to be gained by going with the 250's over the 210's.

And honestly I am still a heavy for cal man, I just don't feel it is in the real world all that big of deal.

I use the 340 and other big guns (anything above something off a 06 case) cause I want to not cause I feel a need to.

I see your point about the lighter bullets and against the big 30's but to me most all of this is just ballistic gack 101.

Take a good bullet, put it in a good place and good things happen.

The more I am around this killing stuff the less I worry about what round and or bullet I use.

Dober

SU35

Because you don't need it? I've taken elk with the 250-gr Nosler and I'd use a 250 Nos or TSX or the 275-gr A-frame for brown bear but "down here" in the lower 48 there is no benefit that I can see and the down side is more recoil. I've shot from a hip to the opposite shoulder on a departing elk with the 225-gr Nos Part.

Right now my 340 has a .72" diameter Shilen (I don't know what contour) barrel as measured just in back of the front site band, balances at the front of the magazine well with a lttle weight forward and weighs 8 lb 9 oz. going out of the door. I wouldn't go heavier nor lighter. Mine has a Brown Prec classic stock on its third paint job with a 2.5x8 Leup in QR rngs. Nothing magic but it works and I have confidence in it and like it. The only thing I don't like as I get older is the weight; even 8.5 lbs seems a lot by the end of the day in the mountains.

To reiterate you need to handload unless you like spending $50 per box with premium bullets.

Gdv

Interesting thread this is...
In my shooting with my 340wby, I have never used anything lighter than 225grains.
That 210TSX or partition does sound tempting.
If memory serves, it was Hagel that had such good luck with 210gr partitions out of his 340's on elk??

340boy,
After trying about everything out there my 340 is finally perking at well under an 1" with the 210 TSX over R22 and Fed 215s at 3100+ fps. Previously, it's best loads were in the 1.25" area. Of all the premiums, the TSXs are doing the best but then 1.5" at 100yds. is plenty for the work it does.

Gdv

I fully agree with you guys. I've hammered mule deer and elk with the 338 with one shot kills. Hardly any meat damage to either and dead before they hit the ground. Believe it or not I
saw the life leave their eyes through the scope when I hit them.
180s on deer and 250's on elk. So I know how the 338's can kill.

Just seems that if we pick a particular caliber of rifle we
want would want to take advantage of the best possible bullet weight to fully utilize it.

Have the new bullets made this caliber obsolete?

If I just go 210's I might as well just shoot 30 cal. 200's.
All I'm doing is duplicating a 300 with a 338. Not a bad thing if that's your only rifle.

And now I'm hearing on this site that 200's are not even
necessary any longer that even lighter than 180's are all that's needed.
140 to 165 class of bullets for the largest of non dangerous game. (I'm still hesitant to send a light bullet up the six of an elk though and that's one of the main reasons I use a 338 in the timber.)

If this be the case, why waste our time and money on larger calibers and just go 30/165, or 28/140 or 160, ect, ect.

ramble over...

SU-you ask have the new bullets made this cal obsolete? I don't think anymore so than any other cal out there.

When I was using a 300 I did like the 200's but in all honesty aside from Greenhorn I don't know of anyone out there in looney land using them.

Your last point about the 30/165 (except I would use a 180)etc is still very spot on.

I've long said that once we get past a 270/280/.06 everything else is just wants and not needs (for the most part)

Dober

It has been reported that a whitetail deer has been taken with a 14-221 Walker using the lighter weight 13 grain bullets instead of the heavy-for-caliber 15-grainers.

If we're going to use lightweight bullets we should stick with the 243 Winchester or 223 Remington.

We should honor our forefathers.

Tradition, man, tradition !



Next thing you know ya'll will be advocating 200-grain bullets in a 44 Special and a 185 JHP in the 45 ACP.


.

Mark, you make too much sense and one of the reasons I bought a Ti
in 300 saum. I plan on using 165/168's in it.

The older I get the lighter the rifle for me. I don't have 20 year old knee's anymore that skip the hills like a roe.

When I had my 300 Win, 200's were thee only bullet I used in it, if that put's me in Greenhorns company that's a good thing.

btw, I have another one on the back burner I'm putting together....just for the heck of it.

Goodnews,
I appreciate the info!
My 340 does quite well accuracy wise with the 225gr TSX, sounds like the 210 TSX would be very interesting to try out.


Dober has probably killed some yotes with it!
~grin~

That Ti in 300 is a nice sounding rig, my bud took one and turned down the tube, and had it punched to WSM. His shoots great and feeds like generic dog poop.

But, I certainly do underforstand the idea of going lighter. Otherwise why would I be on the phone with McMillan/Brown and Basner today. I've got a winter project for my G33/40 going on.

New lighter tube, Talleys and such.

For giggles I also just stuck a 700 youth in 308 with the 20" tube in a Ti take off. It sure does handle like a dream.

Also sent my 2-8 for it off to Leo land today for a M1 for the top.

Later

Dober

M1 turret! You?

I was also thinking of turning down the tube of mine as well.

Where did he turn the muzzle dia. to?

I'm not sure what he turned it to, but I'd guess it is darn close to .55?

Dober

The first 340 Wby I had made was by Fred Sinclair, the benchrest gunsmith and shooter. It was on a left-hand Remington 700 action with a McMillan stock similar to the Marine sniper stock.

It weighed 11+ pounds without scope, sling, or ammo.

Shot little bitty groups.

Carried over the Idaho-Montana divide for elk.


Have since built the others on Weatherby Mark V actions, again using McMillan stocks but adding lead to the pour to make weight.


Will admit to having one lightweight Wby, but haven't used it yet.



No harm done.



.

My first one was my old 700 with a 23" 4.5 weight Schneider on it. It rode in a fine piece of African Walnut from Brown, had Conetrols on it and a 3-10 Leo.

Without rounds and sling it weighed in at 8.25 lbs.

My practice and chuck load was a 250 Horn and it would stick 5 of these muthas consistently into .75" or less.

Dober

Mark, you're a better man than me!

In my 8 1/4 pound Norma, I've switched to the 225 TSX over 75 grains of powder for 2950 fps. I was using the 250 NF with 75 grains of a different powder for 2810 fps.

I'm not really sure why but the 225 TSX kicks a lot less. With the 250 NF I used to think twice about rifle position when I shot it prone, with the 225 that's not a concern, I just hold to hit.

Rick with that rig there was a decided diff between dropping the hammer with the 210's and the 250's.

And the 300 SMK's that is another story...grins

Hell of a yote rifle I tell ya.

Dober

Sadist...

BTW, it presently wears a Brown, but I can't help myself. I've got a Echols Legend on the way for it.

what action?

Dober

I think im going to try the 210 tsx see where that falls then go up thanks everybody this was a very informative thread really learn alot.

Try R22 and 4350 and one or the other should perk like a big dawg!

Work up a load with the 200 Horn for practice would be an idea as well. This is one big time accurate slug for me also.

Good luck to ya and welcome to the world of .340's.

Dober

A trued M70 classic stainless with Wisner extractor, Pac Nor 23" 12-twist that Greydog turned to 0.635" at the muzzle. With a 1.75-6X32 in low QR's, it weighs 8# 5oz and balances on the rear edge of the guard screw. It's a keeper.

Hammer,

The Nosler Partition appeared commercially in 1948, the year Elmer Keith turned 49. He used it some, but steadfastly insisted it was for "fast, blow-up calibers" and that a heavier bullet was the real deal, almost regardless of construction.

Now, there are those who say the Partition does not compare to some of the hotshot bullets we have today, but I have killed several tons of big game with Partitions, I have also used most of the new super-bullets on enough game to know that if you cannot kill it with a Partition of a certain size and weight, it is highly unlikely that any other bullet is going to make a difference.

In short, Elmer refused to acknowledge the superior design of the first "premium" bullet long before his 60's. If I did the same thing, I would have quit trying new bullets 5 years ago, when I was 49. Yet in the past year I have tried at least 3 that I can think of offhand, all of dramatically different design from each other.

Don't get me wrong. I am a great admirer of Elmer Keith for a variety of reasons, but even 20-odd years ago, when I got my first .338, I soon found that the 275 Speer was not in the same league as the 250 or even 210 Partition. And I eventually found that even supposedly inadequate .338 bullets like the 200-grain Nosler Ballistic Tip killed 500-pound game a lot quicker than the 250 Partition, yet penetrated deep enough to rarely be recovered from such game (and that on quartering shots).

Elmer made his mind up about bullet weight and bore diameter in the 1930's. Though he continued to experiment with cartridges, he never really deviated from the 250-300 grain .33 bullet once he latched onto it, even when the bullets were terrible. On his first trip to Africa he would have been a LOT better off with a .30-06 and 180 Partitions (technology that had been available for a decade) than the .333 OKH and 300-grain Kynochs that he took for plains game.

JB

With greatest respect to you Mule Deer and as a student and enjoyer of your writings...

Respecting my elders is a habit that my family taught me to take to a further level than most. It's a habit I cannot seem to break or moderate.

When Dr. Deming taught me to look at the data, and other folks tell me the advantages of computer modeling, Dr. Deming gets the nod. When Colonel Cooper taught me to "front sight, press" and someone else tells me about instinctive shooting from the hip, Cooper gets the benefit of the doubt. When my flight instructor taught me to fly by the numbers and someone else told me about a new way, fly by the numbers carried me through the storms.

It's just a bad habit that I cannot break.


I exclusively used Nosler Partitions for umpteen years on game based on the written advice of Bob Hagel's books followed by personal conversations for years. Used the 210 Nosler some and the 250 Nosler more. Used the 175 in my 7mm's and the 200 in the 30's. Never had a failure with these or any other Nosler Partition here or abroad.

On a trip to Botswana many years ago, got a wild hair and carried Swift A-frames in my 375 H&H (300) and 460 Wby (500) for a change of pace. They worked well too without a failure. Used 570 Woodleighs in my 500 Nitro Express, again without failure.

Later in Africa tried Trophy Bonded Bearclaws and Hornady Interlocks, again without failures.

My African calibers have included but have not been limited to the 243 Win, 7 x 57 Mauser, 280 Rem, 308 Win, 30-06, 375 H&H, 378 Wby, 460 Wby, 500 Nitro Express, etc, etc. Have never had any problem with any of them when the bullet was well placed. But I can't claim a 100% track record in placing bullets well. Have hit a little off the mark on a few occasions.

But in respect for my elders and my forefathers, I will continue to use 250-grain or heavier bullets in the 338 bore (Keith), use the 429421 in my 44s (Keith), carry my 1911 cocked-and-locked with hardball (Cooper), convert 3-screw 357 Flattop Blackhawks to 44 Special (Skelton), use fixed-power Leupolds (Hagel), test bullets in sawdust/silt (Hagel), follow youngster Venturino's advice on black-powder cartridge rifles, etc.

And though I might have you beat a little in age, I do follow your advice on most issues of binoculars, spotting scopes, etc (from your well written book). Even follow your thoughts on scopes as long as they don't include sacrilege to the 338/250.

It's fun to exchange ideas on this forum. Glad that we can all discuss things in harmony. Think even Elmer would have enjoyed it.


Wish everyone a great Autumn.


.

At the time of singer Johnny Cash's death and many tributes were being made concerning his life and career...

One famous musical artist complained that Johnny Cash only knew three notes. Believe it was Bob Dylan who responded that, "Johnny Cash found his three notes. The rest of us are still looking for ours."

Elmer found his three notes too. The 338/250, the hot loaded 44 Special with the 429421, and the introduction of the 44 Magnum.

I haven't found mine yet.


.

Thanks for the reply. We are together on many things. Do not think that I don't respect Elmer. I do, immensely, not least because he wrote a lot about eating the game he killed, something that I know for certain not many modern gun and hunting writers do. He also appeared to have a happy marriage, and was very helpful and friendly to younger shooters (including me, who wrote him a letter about the .338-06/OKH in 1976 and got a detailed personal reply).

I still tend to use 200 Partitions in .300 magnums, but have tried others now and then. I also tend toward fixed-power Leupold scopes; took two rifles to Africa in May and both wore 4x L's. At first this was thought somewhat peculiar by a few of my companions, but then I shot a few animals and it wasn't.
I also shot a few animals with a bullet considered even "less premium" than a Hornady IL, the Sierra Gameking, and it worked fine.

I tend to the .45 "Long" Colt rather than either of the .44's, and carry a Smith 66 .357 rather than a 1911 due to undue influence from Bill Jordan, an influence even "elder" than Jeff Cooper. (I knew both Jordan and Cooper personally, though Cooper better than Jordan.) I never got what seemed to be meaningful results testing bullets in sand-and-sawdust, but did try it for a while, before going on to other media. I completely wore out the first edition of Hagel's GAME LOADS... book, and now am on the revised and updated edition.

I also don't really see the sense in using a .33 with bullets under 250 grains, but being a gun writer who was told (by one of his respected elders) that he had an obligation to try everything possible, I have used the .338 with a wide variety of bullet weights, and will do the same with the .340.

Good hunting,
JB

Though my daughters poked fun at me for the inauspicious and intellectual title, "Hell I Was There", I found the book interesting especially his early, formative years. I think he was a tough cookie.

Gdv

JB,
Do you have a 340 at present?

Gdv

JB,

Right about now you'll start with some "urban legend" on it matters more on how you hit an animal versus what you hit them with, or some such thing (grinning big).

goodnews,

Yeah, I just bought one on Saturday at a local gun show, a rechambered Rem. 700 that was originally a .338. Hadn't fooled with the .340 in some years so decided to. Plus, am converting my old .338 to a .458, and the only other .33 around here was a Kimber 84 in .338 Federal. Needed one that would push me back some.

JB

Oh no, not THE .338! Bad Karma.
Are you guiding Brown bear with Shoemaker, or trying to hurt yourself for our benefit? C'mon JB, not every artist had to sacrifice like Van Gogh! (If you want or need some 500gr. lead bullets I have a mould ordered for a "test".)

Actually I am turning it into a "slow switch-barrel rifle." So the .338 will not be lost to eternity.

Hey, I have shot several .458's before, including the .458 Lott. After shooting a .600 NE, they are all medium bores.

JB

Talking about Ole Elmer got your dander up 'eh.
Glad to hear THE 338 is still with you. I have read so many of your excellent works over the years and still have them; regarding your wet work with that particular .338.
I do think that guy is pretty light though. Did you by chance shoot a 7.5 lb. 458 or 458 Lott? I guess you WILL!
Thanks John!

Didn't weigh it, but probably the lightest .458 I've shot was around 8.5 pounds. It belonged to a PH I hunted with in Botswana, and he load was some South African 475-grain bullet at around 2200 fps. It came back right smart.

The .458 Lott I fired weighed 10 pounds; not bad at all.

JB

You know (or your PH should) that 475 grainer should be going faster to kill any buff . I assume you are staying at 22 in. on your 458 bbl? Please don't leave home without your PAST!
Back to the 340, Elmer felt Nosler needed a 275gr. Partition "to withstand the velocity." I believe Ross Seyfried hunted with him using 250 NP's, Elmer using the 275 Speer. I would have thought he would have noticed them working well in the 338/378 KT's they used. Jordan used the 250 NP for Cape Buff no less, and Elmer knew of this as well. I think he didn't want to open the floodgates of Jack knowing a thing or two, or the adequacy of any caliber smaller than .338!

Many very interesting comments here and due respect for EK is always appropriate among all of us, IMO. John is right on his accessment of Elmer's lack of enthusiasm for change in his later years as Ross Seyfreid, who was mentored by him and knew him well has said much the same thing in one of his excellent articles.

I decided many years ago that packing a .338 WM loaded with 250 NPs was a sound practice here in BC, where frequent Grizzly episodes with hunters and my work in silviculture and fire detection made such a combo practical.

I have seen no reason to alter this and since I will only kill animals for defence (never had to but close a few times), a few pests as in Porcupines damaging our L/O buildings and, of course, to eat, this has served me very well. I've used 250 NPs over 69-71 IMR-4350, in various rifles, then 76-77 RE-22 and am now trying 70-H-4350, ALL of which worked/work VERY well.

I have shot two .340s, prefer the .338 WM and will never be without at least two matched CRF rifles so chambered until I can no longer walk...at 61, I figure that this is roughly another 40 years or so. My latest 250 NP loads as given above chrono'ed 2800 fps-mv out of one of my minty P-64 Alaskans recently, can't ask for more as the groups hovered around .7 all day.

The big .33s really DO offer something special for big animals and Elmer was as right about this as about most other gun-related issues, INCLUDING eating your kills.

Spent my life trying to improve business processes using data.

With well designed, executed, and presented tests, and repeated tests, the majority of folks won't change the opinion that they started with (at any age). Even if there is big dollars in their immediate personal pocket for doing so. One reason business turnaround strategists replace so many people at the beginning of their effort.

So I am not too hard on folks who are offered less scientific evidence to change their minds when their life's experiences support a different conclusion.


.

Another note: I am also still under the influence of one of my other "elder" mentors, the late Finn Aagaard. He more than once wrote of asking somebody who put forth an opinion on rifles, bullets, scopes, etc: "And how do you know that to be true?"

We had some interesting discussions, both in person and correspondence, along those lines--which if course fit right in with my other mentor's rule that I had to try everything, or at least as much as possible within one lifetime.

Gun writers are not (or should not be) in the same place as their readers. They cannot just take somebody's word that something works, and then write about it. Thus while I have shot a number of animals with 250-grain bullets from the .338 (and probably will with the .340), I will also try the lighter bullets, just as I did in the .338, and see what happens. Partly this will be because many people insist that a .340 with 210's (whether Partition or TSX) is noticeably more rifle than a .300 magnum (whether Win. or Wby. or whatever) with 200's.

All of this is why I have killed moose with cartridges from the .270 and 7x57 to the .338 and 9.3x62; used cartridges from the .22-250 to the .416 in Africa; tried both lighter-than-standard and heavier-than-standard bullets in many cartridges; tried new bullets every year for at least the last 10; etc. etc. etc.

Back when I was a youth of 35 I wrote that all anybody needs to hunt big game anywhere is a .257 Roberts, a .30-06 and a .375 H&H. Nothing I've done in the 20 years since has really changed that--though I might eliminate the .257 and just go with the '06, or split the difference and go with a 7x57 or .270. In some ways life would be much simpler if I could--but not as much fun.

So you see, I cannot just take Elmer's word for it.

JB

Well said, gunwriters who simply try to force their opinions on we serious gunnuts usually are a topic of jokes here in BC. I can think of several who were NOT what they tried to make their readers believe they were and those who advocate ONE single approach to this obviously have little real field experience.

That was a dammed good post, JB, very true.

Kute,

Thanks, and that means a lot coming from you.

I have always wondered at what I called "God gun writing" myself, the stuff that says DO IT THIS WAY, without any evidence presented as to why, or what alternatives were tried.

Which is why I go out and do things and present what happened as accurately as possible, leaving the readers to make their own choices.

JB

Question Elmer Keith ?

Next you'll tell me that you'd challenge John Wayne.

Nope, not even Rooster Cogburn, that bold-talking one-eyed fat man.

JB

Hawk1-

A lot has changed since EK used those 275s in his 338; even since Seyfried wrote about the .340 (I believe he had a 340 in a Champlin) in about '89 or '90 calling it the creme' de le creme' (my words) in Guns 'n Ammo IIRC. And his choice (and in one of the Nosler reloading books too) was the 250-gr Nos Part and H4831. Since then we've had a boat load of premium 338 bullets hit the market and while H4831 still works well there are others like R22 that will give better vel and in my rifle better accuracy.

Of course all of this is true for other cartridges too.

Gdv

goodnews,
I agree wholeheartedly. I use RL-22 in my 338, along with the 250 Partition, for everything! Even antelope and deer. It will nip at the heels of the 340 with that bullet weight. It shoots flat enough for my range limitations, expands well, penetrates well and it can be used on really big stuff should I get the opportunity.
The "all around" title could probably be shared with the 375 Ruger. I have a 375 H&H, but before the Ruger I have never seen a factory 375 that wasn't HUGE! I didn't have coin for a light 375, so the 338 Win. fit the bill.
I just think Elmer was stuck in his principles, another reason we enjoyed him. He learned and taught so much by his observations, which is why its hard to understand how he did not observe a better bullet/lighter weight/improved trjectory. Elmer basically pushed things that worked for his needs, not say a deer hunter in Iowa's needs. Just my opinion. Another reason we are so well served by John and other writers as well.
Yes, Ross had a 340 Champlin, Elmer a 458 and a 338/378 KT I believe.

Ross was a major influence in my purchase of a 340Wby as well.
Also, the writings of Hagel, also steered me that way!