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

So in other words;
We don't need a.308 or 30-06 because we have the .300 mags, don't need the 7mm-08, 7X57, 280 because we have the 7 mags. Don't need that little 260 (6.5 Panther?) because we have the .264 mag.
Horse Crap!

I have to agree with allenday, For general 33 cal. purposes in that bullet weight class I can see no reason to own a 338-06 when I can just load down a 338 Win Mag if need be. As he stated the 250 g. bullet in the 338 is really the horse to go to see this the 338s full potintial.
Sure the 338-06 is a good one, but the 338 Winnie can just do more and Jim Carmichael knows it. His vast field experience with the 338 has proven it to Jim himself.
Besides, his name isnt on it (338-06).

On the 338-06 side,the 06 case is a better fit in the Mauser box,than the 458 case.A M-70 or a Sako would be a different story.

Of course, by that logic there is nothing that the 338 Win Mag can do that the 338 Ultra can't do and better. And of course, you can always load the 338 ultra down <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

Anyway, I agree with Teeder.

I can see that you're all upset, but if you follow that line of reasoning, you could also then say that a .300 Savage also outperforms the .30-06.

Everyone shoots better with a lighter-recoiling rifles, no question about it. I shoot a .223 Remington better than I do a .458 Lott, for example. But there's a fork in the road at some point where a ballistic increase of 200-300 fps. across the board for a given caliber begins to count, and the .338 Win. Mag. is at that fork in the road for a .338 caliber cartridge, at least in my opinion. The .338 Win. Mag. and its ilk are only too big if you can't shoot, 'em, and with practice, most people can, at least if they THINK they can!

And yeah, I also very strongly believe that the .300s do indeed out-perform the .30-06, and that cleverly-worded phrase of yours "horseshit!" won't do a thing to change my opinion on that one, either..........

AD

I've read some of J.C.s work and was not impressed. He came on strong when attempting to emulate Jack O'Connor and even latched onto the 280 Rem.as "his" cartridge. Of course a lot of gun writers of those days did that in order to drum up a following
J.C might have been more succesful if he had hooked up with a different mag or two. There were damn few in those days, but O.L. was one of the better ones.
As someone mentioned he could have been the victim of an ignorant editor who would save space at the expense of the article.
The last O.L.I checked out had articles a whole paragragh long ,squeezed in between adds.
I'm getting much more discriminate now in selecting what magazine I will buy. If they mention Mt.Bikes, kayaks, or Lama's or if they show a picture of a grown man wearing short shorts with cuffs on the legs, his shirt tails tied at the waist, and no socks in his loafers I'll pass.

AD,

I didn't say the smaller cartridges outperformed the larger ones. I was just pointing out that just because some cartridge outperforms another doesn't mean the smaller one is useless. I'm sure the .338 mag is very usefull, and would probably own one if I lived in Alaska. However the .338-06 is an extremely balanced cartridge. It's got the diameter, bullet weight, and enough speed to cover most hunting situations without beating the shooter as much as the mag.
Dismissing it because it's not as fast as the mag is idiotic. It's like saying, why would anyone buy a .308 or 30-06 when the 300 RUM is available, even though the smaller two would be more appropriate to most hunting situations.
I'll stick to my first comment - Horse Crap!

Doesn't it boil down to what you want to accomplish and what weight rifle you want? If only the fastest round in a given caliber makes sense or is useful, then we need to get rid of hundreds of rounds that serve no purpose. If the .338 Win. (which I use and like very much) is good, isn't the .340 Weatherby automatically better, and the necked down .378/.338 better yet. Afte all you can load them down to duplicate any smaller cartridge. Well, actually, no. If .338/06 performance is all you need, why carry more hardware, and burn more powder to get the performance level you're after.

Hey, now! Don't go and start making logical sense about this whole thing! That's considered below-the-belt in discussions such as this. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

RSY

Steve_No, all,

Steve you have hit the nail squarely on the head and I agree completely with you. If we based our rifle buying decisions based upon need, all of us could get by quite nicely anywhere in the world with a 30-06 and a 375 H&H. Performance, it seems to me, is a relative thing. There can be no question that a Porsche will outperform a Volkswagen. However, with speed limits everywhere and of course none of us would even consider speeding, the exceptional performance of the Porsche is really wasted.

Besides, there is only one real reason for buying a new rifle and that is because you want it. No other reason is necessary.

Tom

I am about as big a .338 Win. Mag. fan as could be found, I have shot, hunted with and reloaded for this cartridge for over 36 yrs, have owned 12 rifles so chambered and own 5 now. Allen is, as he usually is, right on about this round and it's performance.

My interest in using a .338-06 is based on being able to build a rifle on a Husqvarna 4100 or Brno 21-22 series action; this will give me the lightest CRF rifle available and the power of factory .338 Mag. cartridges. A number of very serious mountain hunters I know here in B.C. have done this and our chronograph results bear this out.

I know that one can find a Husqvarna action in 7Mag, re-barrel it and have an extremely light .338 mag, but, the recoil level of this-I've tried it-is just too much for precise shooting. So, the very light CRF .338-06 is, to me, a niche rifle for my backpack hunting, I consider it to be superior to a .30-06 for this purpose, especially in Grizzly country.

I am interested in cutting equipment weight wherever possible as I am close to 58 and find backpack hunting somewhat more difficult than I formerly did. The problem is that I much prefer this to outfitter's camps and having a guide find my game, so, I have a real use for the .338-06.

Kutenay--

The 10+15x50 Duovid is a very fine piece of equipment. It is a little heavy for general hunting, however--in short, a big honking binocular. I am also of the mind that 15x hand-held is not nearly as efficient as some folks might imagine. It probably needs a tripod to really take advantage of the high X's. At least that's my opinion, after having used several 15x (and owning one, a Minox 15x56). They work great from a vehicle or tripod, but in the field the slightes vibration tends to nullify the extra X's.

This is the reason I have the 8+12x42, which I've found to be a great all-arounder. It weighs 34 ounces, somewhat heavier than many 8x and 10x glasses these days, but when you want to glass EVERYTHING it cannot be beat.

The 8x42 Ultravid is also a nifty piece of glass, lighter than the older Leicas but still with that solid feel. I have gotten a look inside, thanks to my friends at Leica, and believe the solid feel will translate into the hunting field. The optics, of course, are second to none. For straight 8x it cannot be beat.

JB

In my experience the VW outperforms the Porshe at the Drive-In, but not at the Nightclub.

JMO, discussions like this are similar to debates about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Neither are worth great thought, and certainly no heat. I would like to say however, that the 7.62x39 is a cartridge that only the unwashed masses of the 3rd world should love, but alas, it is not so.

www.ContemplatingMy.Navel

Thanks JB, I was thinking tripod-the Leupy compact that I have with my current Leupy Compact 25x spotter and the 10x15 Leica, but, your comment is making me think that the 8x12 is probably a better choice. We have these pesky antler restrictions here in B.C. and I find 8x not quite enough to discern the correct number of points in some circumstances.

You have hunted here, so, you have an idea how rugged the terrain is, I like to know something is kosher before spending three hours going half a mile to shoot. I am not interested in trophy hunting, per se, so I hate packing the extra weight of the spotter.

I also find, that a 10x bino is more tiring to use for hours than an 8x, probably just gettin' old!

Kutenay,I had my 30-06 Husqvarna-FN '51 made in to a 338-06 instead of 338WM because four in the box seemed a better fit than the three magnums.The bolt face is easy to open up,and a touch with a Dremel fixs the extractor.But you lose the fitted Mauser box.Yes, I know the box will work with magnums,I have a 264WM FN with the same box,but it's not the same perfection.A thin 22 barrel will get you a honest 2650 with 225 accubonds.And the rifle will be so much better looking than those pre'64 M-70 you Lug <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> around.

Yeah, I know....ugly old junk and that p.o.s. Dakota, plus that junker Mannlicer-Schoenauer, gawd, my rifles are just such crap!

Of course, the F.N action weighs more than the Mod. 70, so, there is not much point in doing this if you want a light rifle, but, at least you won't be saddled with those terrible, tinny, OLD Mod. 70s......!!!!!

Having owned both the 338-06 and 338 WM I agree with Allen's comment's. That's not to say the 338-06 isn't a neat round... it is. It's just that dang "fork in the road" is, for me, right where the 338 WM sits. Kutenay's light-338-06 idea has merit as the tube can be made thinner and the barrel can go as short as 20". I used to want a sub-8lb 338 WM but as I've gotten older I really find a moderately barrel-heavy 338 WM that goes 8.5 lbs "all-up" much easier to handle.



Still, I really don't think of the 338 WM as a "Magnum"... it's a very balanced and shootable round for its power. Its bore-volume/case-capacity ratio is nearly identical to the very non-magnum 30-06. The comparison doesn't stop there either as the 338 launches bullets of similar SD's/BC's (albeit heavier) at similar velocities for similar trajectories... I've always thought of the 338 as a big 30-06 and a very worthwhile round to master!



Lastly, a relatively mild load of H4895 wil turn a 338 WM into a 338-06 for looong brass life and easy practice... the reverse can never be the case except with a 30" barrel!

I don't think anyone is disputing that the .338Mag is a great cartridge. It is. What I want to know is what qualifies the .338-06 as one of the dumbest "calibers" ever. Then Mr. Carmicheal goes on to say how great the .280 AI is for elk. I'm not bashing the .280AI, but why is such a great elk killer and the .338-06 is so dumb for elk. It just doesn't add up.
Also, is there really that much difference in effectiveness between a 225 grain at 2700fps (.338-06) and a 250 grainer at 2700fps (.338Mag) on elk? Large bears and moose maybe, but elk? Come on! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Teeder, I think your question's have already been answered and the conversation's drifted to another vein.

Some 338-06's will get 2,700 with a 225, most go 2,650 with a 22" tube. The 250's will go 2,500-2,550. Not bad but it still lags 150-200 (+) fps behind a 22" bbl'd 338 WM. End of all life as we know it? No. Bounce off elk? No. The 338-06 is to the 338 WM what the 308 is to the 30-06. Most of us, for a genuine, all-purpose hunting round draw the bottom line somewhere around the 30-06, not the 308... and I dearly love the 308!

Don't sweat people's opinion's cause you have and like the 338-06! Go forth and use the 338-06 and slay all manner of beast's for the rest of your life because, practically speaking, you're more than right that there's not a lot of diference... BUT, a guy's gotta draw a line somewhere and that's a very individual thing! Me, I'd always choose the plain-jane 30-06 over the 338-06.

Brad,

No, my question of why it's so dumb hasn't been answered, but I'm going to let this dead horse lie in peace. I think only Mr. C. could quantify why he made that statement.
I'll continue to use and love the .338-06.
I'm done ranting now! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

When a fellow lays out the cash to have a rifle built, the ONLY opinion that counts is his own.
I love the .338 but I'm having a 338/06 built. I even sometimes hunt Elk with a .308
Which is the right rifle? Which ever I want it to be.
My money, my hunt, my choice.

Teeder made some good points. If Jim C ever did read this thread, I can vision him grinning ear to ear. He would probably give it some more thought at bedtime, grin, roll over and go to sleep!



Since some of the engineers here think bringing up big names means something, I'll just add it was Elmer Keith (333OKH) who was impressed with its performance in a period of not so great bullets. Dogzapper and Chub Eastman are also fond of the 338-06 and are well qualified to recommend it.



As for the critters, I doubt many would know the difference between getting whacked with a 338-06 or a 338WM within reasonable shooting distances.



MtnHtr

Right! I will add that it is the animals life! We all owe the critter a duty to use our weaponry well and weaponry that is adequate under the circumstances.

BMT

As a matter of fact, Elmer and I corresponded quite a bit when I was planning to build my first .338-'06 (article in Handloader #109, May-June 1984). Elmer thought the idea of taking his original .333 OKH and adapting it to modern .338" bullets was a terrific one.

He, of course, was all in favor of using the 300-grain Winchester Power Point or the 275-grain Speer. I tried them and eventually settled on much lighter bullets. Believe it or not, I actually had a 210 Partition totally penetrate a large cow elk - from the chest to the butt (the exit was right beside the bunghole). I grew to love the 200-grain Winchester Power Point @2770 fps; never shot twice and all bear, deer and elk went down pronto.

When I told Elmer Keith about the kills, he said confided to me that "Bullets had advanced a bit since his guiding days and that I might be on the right track." I took this as a great admission from this fine, fine man.

When I sent Elmer a photo and running account of a large black bear I killed near the Middle Fork of the John Day, he was impressed. The bear squared just seven feet, weighed 397 pounds (hanging carcass) and was twenty-six years old. He wrote back that the bear was "as good a black as he'd seen and that I was on the right track."

After I had a lot of meat on the ground with the .338-'06, I decided to share the experience with others. I'd never written an article before, but I thought I'd give it a try. I sent the article to Handloader and soon had a call from Ken Howell. Ken thought it was great and wanted more. That was the start of my writing efforts that continue to this day (and will end soon).

When the .338-'06 article was being edited by Ken Howell at Wolfe Publishing, Howell mentioned it to Chub Eastman. Chub, who was at the time the Sales Manager at Leupold, had been a student of Ken's at Montana State University (I think).

Anyway, one day in early 1984, I got a call at my jewelry store from a guy who identified himself as Chub Eastman from Leupold. We met for lunch the following day, for the express reason of discussing the .338-'06. I gave Chub a copy of the article manuscript and he became enchanted with the cartridge. Over the next decade or so, I suppose that Chub has had a dozen or more custom rifles built in .338-'06. And I'd be willing to bet that he's probably killed more critters with the cartridge than any man.

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the .338-'06. It doesn't recoil as much as the .338 WinMag, shoots nearly as flat and fully the .338 equivelent when it comes to killing elk-sized critters.

Even better, it was because of the .338-'06 that I met my life-long brother Chub Eastman.

Some would find it interesting that I don't hunt with the .338-'06 any more. I switched to the .280 Ackley about 1991 and find it to be all the cartridge I need for just about anything I'm likely to kill. Hey, it works on deer, elk, mooses and, by golly, Asian water buffalo.

I find it strange that JC would champion the .280 Ackley. I guess it shows that he has been paying attention. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Steve

Very interesting and enjoyable post, thnx. K

dogzapper comes through again with a great read. Thanks

But, what is this bugwash talk of....

" That was the start of my writing [i]efforts that continue to this day (and will end soon)
?

Come to your senses Tim!

DZ,



I have that early article of yours (along with others) and have read it several times over the years. It is one of my favorite articles by you even though I have never messed with the 338/06 (I do have a 338WM) and I have always liked what Chub had to say (he's a big 7-08 fan too). Good reads for sure! Thanks!



MtnHtr

MtnHtr,

It's an amazing thing, the written word. The .338-'06 article was published fully twenty years ago, yet I still get letters, phone calls and e-mails from it.

Chub is a wonderful man. We are brothers who have shared many campfires and many frigid nights in the bush. A friend that special comes along only once in a lifetime, if you're lucky. I've been lucky.

Chub is perhaps the finest rifle-shot I've ever seen in the field. Marine sniper and Corps to the core. Currently, he is fooling with 6.5s and 9.3s. God knows why, because any rifle is magic in his hands.

Yeah, Chub's my buddy and I'm glad he had a blast from my inspiration with the .338-'06. He still uses the cartridge some. He used it with the 200-grain Ballistic to zap a bunch of Afrikan critters a couple of years ago. Killed something like twenty beasties, obviously one-shot kills, and about the only thing that would "capture the bullet" was a hard double-shoulder hit on large zebra stallions. He is still in love with the .338-'06. And so am I.

Glad you liked my words, my friend. Believe it or not, that meands a lot to me.

Steve

Since I don't give a sick gnat's fart for why my friend Jim Carmichel doesn't like the .338-06, I didn't unwind this thread until I saw that my young friend Dogzapper had posted comments. I knew that whatever he said here about the .338-06 would be worth taking to the bank -- and having designed two improved versions of the .338-06, I wanted to see what he said here about the plain-vanilla version.

He did make one tiny error that honesty compels me to correct. Old friend Chub Eastman was never my student, and I never taught at the University. When I taught writing at Mission Mountain College (which no longer exists) in Polson, Montana (1968-1969), Chub owned the local gun store, and our friendship began then.

(Just setting the record straight, FWIW. Carry on!)

DZ,

Thanks for the great post! Where could I get a copy of that article?

Thanks again to all the gunwriters that share their knowledge here.

All that's great, but the truth remains that there is absolutely nothing that the .338-06 will do (or improved versions of same), that cannot be accomplished more effectively with a .338 Win. Mag., and it's simply not as versatile, nor is it as practical logistically.

Yeah, the ol' .338 Winchester uses more powder, so it's theoretically less efficient, and it kicks a bit more, but so what? Powder consumption is a nickle & dime consideration anyway (if you can afford to hunt, you can afford the powder!), and I don't see anything "efficient" about burning powder to blow-out cases, as with improved versions of ANYTHING.

As far as the .338 Win. Mag.'s greater recoil, well I guess that's a judgement call on the part of the individual shooter. I have found that a well-designed stock, a can-do attitude, and plenty of practice allows most cartridges based on the .375 H&H case to be quite shootable, and in the real world the disadvantages of the belted case are more theoretical than practical.

Besides, the .338 Win. Mag. is AVAILABLE in terms of ammunition, and this is a very solid point in its favor, especially if you hunt far from home, and I speak from experience on this point. Never underestimate the value of standard factory cartridges in terms of logistics, and as far as I'm concerned the worst kind of foolishness is to create your own logistical fiasco for the sake of a theory--and that goes for cartridges or anything else.

I load my own .338 Win. Mag. (24" Kreiger bbl.) with 250 gr. Nosler Partitions to 2735 fps. in Winchester cases with Reloader 19 plus Federal 215M primers, and there is nothing you can do to create a .338 cartridge on the .30-06 case that will match that level of performance. And that load is good for just about anything, and is much like an enlarged version of the .30-06 loaded nearly to the top with 180s. I'll take it to RSA this year, Tanzania next year, and Alaska and Zambia the year after that, plus elk and moose hunts in between. Versatile load? Yes. More so than the .338-06...........

AD

Friend Ken,

Thanks for correcting the timeline and relationship. Chub has mentioned (many times) that you were his mentor, his rabbi, in writing and a very cherished friend. He also said that you taught college at the time. I assumed (a writer should NEVER do that) that he was your student and that the teacher/student relationship launched your friendship. Thanks Ken.

Also, thanks for your gentle editorship at Wolfe.

Your buddy Steve

Teeder,

Please send me a PM or contact me directly at dogzapper@msn.com with your snail-mail address. I'll copy the original article and mail a copy to you.

Steve

DZ,

PM sent.

Thanks

Steve,



PM sent for another copy if possible.



Thanks,

Scott

You're more'n welcome, Steve.

As I've been sitting here, virtually bound to my *&^%$#@! wheel chair, I've been alternately titillated and tormented by the impossible prospect of hunting elk or bear with you and Chub someday -- and my new super, double-improved ".338-06," the .340 Howell.

Oh, how sweet that'd be! So the next time you two are out together, pop a cork for me and enjoy the hunt enough for all three of us. (Don't bother to ask -- of course I want to see photos from your "Ken Howell" hunt!)

Friend Ken,

You got it!

Steve

Is this something you can discuss?

I am about to build a 338-06 and my interest is piqued!


Thank you,

Bill

Sure I can! (a) It's mine, and (b) I know all there is to know about it (which ain't much, yet <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />).



I'll attach the dimensioned case drawing and (with a second post, right away) a split-image drawing comparing my .340 with the excellent "plain vanilla".338-06.



Your 'smith can get the reamers from Dave Kiff at Pacific Tool & Gauge (1-541-826-5808). Have him specify the authentic Ken Howell dimensions. I plan to donate my rougher, finisher, and size-die reamers and the go and no-go gauges to Redding's custom-die shop when Charlie Sisk has chambered and fitted my barrel.



I plan to use only one bullet in mine -- the new Nosler 225-grain AccuBond. Tuning the load will consist of tests with different primers, powders, and charge weights -- not with every maybe-good .338 bullet under the sun. This rifle will be one of two that I'll describe in detail in a book that I'm tentatively calling One-Bullet Rifles.



You can get an idea of the performance to expect by looking at the (unauthorized) modified form of my .340 at AHR's web site. (That version has less case capacity than my original design, and only AHR has the brass and the dies for that smaller version. I'm buying 200 of the cases and will have to fire-form 'em with inert filler to bring 'em up to full capacity.)



You can form cases from .30-06 or .35 Whelen brass if you don't mind having a neck shorter than the specified 0.375 inch. (The '06 and Whelen are 2.494 inches long. My .340 is 2.600 inches long, so the neck on a .340 Howell case formed from an '06 or Whelen would be 0.269 inch long.)

Here (attachment) is how my .340 Howell compares dimensionally to the .338-06.

how about asking the person requesting jims opinion.

someone out there is dragging around a 10lb 300 win and wants to know which is a better elk round. the 280AI or the 338/06? come on now. i think someone is blowing a little smoke up the "other" wind pipe.

i find it a bit hard to believe that someone can be remotely informed about two wildcats, which require handloading, and need JCs opinion on the two. how about a lighter 300? 06'?

i think jim was just blowong a little smoke of his own <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

woofer

Ken,



Thanks a ton!







I like that it still employs the standard action with it's .473 bolt face.



Maybe this is an uninformed question (politicaly correct term<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />), but what do yuo see as the attributes when comparing to both the 338-06 and the Win mag?



Thanks again!



Bill



Edited due to finding that page on AHR's site <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

For some inexplicable reason, AHR's reamers, etc, were made with 0.037 inch more neck and correspondingly shorter body. I can not predict how much more I'll get from my on-spec body's greater capacity.

AHR's web site lists the gross case capacity of their version as 78.3 grains of water (body, shoulder, and neck) versus only 71.2 grains for the .338-06 -- about 10% more. My original version, with its slightly longer body, may hold as much as 80 to 85 grains -- 12% to 19% more.

The .338 Winchester Magnum case holds about 85 to 86 grains, full to the mouth, so my full-spec .340 Howell has about the same gross case capacity as the .338 Winchester Magnum, in a slightly longer ".30-06" case instead of the fatter H&H-type case. That can't hurt.

I don't have velocity figures right handy, right now, for either the original .340 Howell or the .338 Winchester Magnum. AHR's chronographed loads with 225- and 250-grain bullets recorded velocities of 2,950 and 2,600 ft/sec, respectively, from their ersatz version. I'll probably load my slightly roomier version to lower pressures and probably get about the same velocities.

I'll be pleased, I'm sure, with even less -- maybe no more than 2,700 ft/sec from the 225-grain AccuBond -- if I ever get the chance to get close enough to an elk or whatever other big beastie that God will let me see through the scope long enough to get a shot off.

Allan, you make a good point, but... There is nothing the 280 can do that the 7mm rem mag can't. All the advantages the 338 win has over the 338-06 the 7 mag also has over the 280. Jim likes the 280, but lists the 338-06 is on the top ten list of all time worst cartridges. But based on this argument, it makes no sense why he would like one and not the other.

allenday:



Sir you are absolutely correct. The Win mag version will most certainly knock you on your azz much more effectively in a 6 1/2 lb (scoped) rifle. I've got a 338-06 rig in the aforementioned weight and cant imagine taming the Win mag version in such a set up.....



Roads

I believe I already mentioned the flaw in the "338 WM is better" logic. That would make the 338 ultra vastly superior to the 338 WM. And, while I don't disagree entirely with that, there is a reasonable limit to the recoil someone can/wants to live with.

I have no doubt that at reasonable hunting ranges, the -06 variety can do everything its big brothers can do. Maybe not with quite the authority, but equally dead.

The laws of physics and thermodynamics explain very simply why the elephant is more efficient at storing and exuding heat than a banty hen. But the banty's by far the better choice for sitting on her eggs. Bigger and "more efficient" aren't always the best criteria for making a practical choice. If they were, the .340 Weatherby or the .338-.378 would be the only current .338 worth talking about.

I think that the quest for efficency can be a rather misguided endeavor, especially if you're hunting on the other side of the world where the only additional source of ammunition is at your loading bench back home. The problem is compounded when the guys doing the paperwork are looking over your rifle, counting your cartridges, then wondering why the headstamp on your case dosen't match the caliber designation on your barrel. At that point, the issue becomes not a matter of "efficiency" but of common sense versus stupidity. And in today's world, the situation is getting much, much worse--not better. I won't create my own set of nearly insurmountable problems for the sake of theoretically more "efficient" cartridge. Going down in flames for the sake of a theory is absolutely ridiculous. There's no "efficiency" in that.......

Nine years ago, I went on a 21-day Tanzanian safari. I took a .300 Win. Mag. and a .458 Win. Mag. for armament. Due to airline problems, my duffle containing my ammunition arrived, but my rifles did not. The owner of the safari company I was hunting with offered to loan me his own .300 Win. Mag. Sako, plus a .458 M70. He didn't have much ammo available, but I had a plentiful supply of each. Problem solved, and it could have worked in reverse just as easily. Luckily my rifles DID show up the next day, but if they had not, and if I had a duffle full of off-beat wildcat or factory ammo, I'd have had a serious problem, and would likely have had to start and finish out the safari with the camp .375 H&H.

It's easy to jump to the conclusion that if a .338 Win. Mag. does more than a .338-06, then why not forget about the .338 Win. and focus on the .340 WBY. or .338-378. Lots of good reasons not to! First of all, ammunition for those two cartridges isn't exactly common anywhere, whereas the .338 Win. Mag. has made big inroads, even in Africa, and I've hunted with two safari companies in two countries that kept a limited supply in-stock, in-camp.

For another thing, most shooters can learn to shoot a .338 Win. Mag. very well, whereas a lot of guys simply can't get to the point of being really friendly with a .340 WBY. or something even bigger.

AD

A German writer friend has just pointed-out that my .340 Howell can be formed from Sako 9.3�66mm cases -- brass that I was not aware of. Its gross (overflow) capacity, according to QuickLOAD, is 81 grains of water.



Nice to know!



Thanks, W R!

now this, my cyber friends, is the kind if thread that keeps me coming to the 24hr.
probably won't ever get a medium bore like you guys are compsing about here, and probably won't ever get to hunt anything bigger than a whitetail, but i like reading this practical, useable stuff.
getting such efficiency from a .473 case always is interesting to me.
keep it up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Like allenday, I have traveled here and there. This ammo problem can be very real, and not just in Africa. A friend and I once hunted black bears in Saskatchewan. I took a .358 Winchester, while he took a wildcat .338, the 8mm Remington Magnum necked up. (Just why he couldn't have used a .340 Wby. is a mystery, but then much of what we do is.)

You got it. His rifle showed up but not his duffle with the ammo--and even with a .340 I doubt he'd have had much luck in Saskatoon. Even my .358 was a little risky, but I suspect a box or two could have been found somewhere local.

The .338-06 is a good round. I have owned three--yet now don't own one. I still do have my old FN Mauser .338 Winchester Magnum, however, complete with a U.S. Customs Form 4457 that has allowed me to take it to three continents. It has killed everything I've ever shot it at, at any distance, the main reason a .340 or .338 RUM has never entered the picture.

JB

I said I was done, but I guess I'm not <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It seems this thread has gone from:
Why is the .280AI appropriate for elk and the .338-06 is in the top ten dumbest calibers (cartridges), to efficient cases and cooresponding head stamps and barrel stamps.

allenday,

If you use the head stamp and available ammo argument to justify why the .338-06 is dumb, then why is the .280AI a better choice? At least there has been ammo made for the .338-06 A-Square.
I keep hearing why the .338Win is great. It is, but why is the .338-06 dumb?

Yes, the .338 Win pushes a 250grain bullet faster, but so what, for elk.

I also heard the comment that the Mag works better for it's intended purpose, which I believe Winchester brought it out as the Alaskan (or at least the rifle it was chambered in). "Alaskan" to me screams Big Bears and Moose. Yes, pushing the 250 grain slug faster than a .338-06 can, means something there, but the letter was asking about Elk between the .338-06 and .280AI.

Ken,

What's the guess-timated completion date for your book on one bullet rifles? I would like to check that one out! I like the idea of only shooting one bullet type in each gun. That way you need alot more rifles! Just think how many you would need just to cover all the 7mm and .30 caliber choices we have! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I hope the guy that wrote the letter to ODL could see this thread! This is fun! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

It goes without saying (or should) that your ammo has to be in your rifle, not in your luggage, when your trigger releases your sear. There's plenty of sad history solidly undergirding the wry old characterization of air travel as "breakfast in London, dinner in Paris, luggage in Cairo."

I too have hunted in exotic places that we reached by air -- but for the vast majority of my life, I've hunted locally, right from my house or my vehicle or my backpack. All of us hanker to hunt Alaska and Africa. I hunted in Alaska when I lived there. I've dreamed of hunting in Africa since the 1940s, but every time I got a dollar closer, Africa got ten dollars farther away. I'm sure, now and for some time, that I'll never hunt Alaska again or Africa ever. Acceptance of that probability as a fact does wonders for broadening the field of my practical cartridge possibilities. My menu is mouth-watering and huge.

So -- like (I bet) ninety-several percent of the rest of us -- what I can load at one of my benches and haul in my old F-150 will do me just fine. I'd go into an entirely different mode of mind, of course, if I had to plan for any other kind of hunting.

When I travel, I try to stay in the habit of seeing what big game ammo is available locally in gas stations, etc.

Usually it's pretty predictable -- .243, .30-30, .270, .30-06, maybe .300 Win. Mag., in your choice of the green & yellow box or the red & white box. One place in NE Montana had .280 and .338 Win. Mag.

The real surprise was a little place truly at the end of the road in Allagash, ME that had both .257 Roberts AND 7x57 gathering dust.

John

Ken,


Thank you very much for providing the info on your design.

I will consider it carefully when I get to this project.


Bill

Allen

I can accept your thoughts on the 338 Win Mag with few reservations. I have also had a 338-06 in the past and presently a 338 Win Mag. I think there is reason enough for both, unless the 35 Whelen would make the 338-06 un-needed in a practical argument. Be that it may practically no one in their right mind should debate the fact that the 338 Win Mag is not more versatile than the 338-06.

I myself can see little reason in a practical sense of the word to own a 300 Win Mag if you already own a 338 Win Mag. I myself would much rather own a good 30-06. I have a 30-06 with a 24 inch barrel that will push a 200 grain Nosler right near 2700 fps most any day of the week. It will push 180s considerably more. If more than that is needed I will use the 338 Win Mag. This is the reason I no longer have a 300 Win Mag. However, if you think you need a 300 Win Mag instead of a lesser 308 caliber round I can even live with that. I agree it is a very accurate round in most rifles and does out perform the 30-06 to some degree in ballistics if not practical killing ability in most situations.

However the thing I can't quite see, which you have danced around quite conviently, is why your friend Jim has such a high regard for the 280 Ackley while saying other rounds are some of the most worthless ones ever created. Do you share this line of thought. I know from past posts of yours you are a great fan, as am I, which Jim has also went on written record saying that it is the LAST rifle he would ever own, of the 270 Winchester. With this in mind what are your thoughts on the practicality of the 280AI? Can't many of the same criteria being given for not having a 338-06 be used for the 280 AI? It is no secret that two of Jim's favorite cartridges are the 280 Remington and the 338 Win Mag. One wonders why this came about, as it is almost a split personality of sorts. By this I mean, one standard and one magnum round, much like my 30-06 and 338 Win Mag. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

One further question, since Jack O'Connor championed the 270 and Warren Page likewise the 7mm Mashburn Mag, which is quite like the 7mm Rem Mag, do you feel that this may have forced Jim to back the 280 and ultimately the 280AI? After all it would seem natural use the 280 vs 7mm mag just like the 338-06 vs 338 mag argument is used. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

To sum things up I am not trying to pick on Jim as much as wondering if you think both lines of this thinking on the 280 AI and the 338-06 are constant with each other? I can't say that I do. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Ken--

Yeah, I do most of my hunting via F150 too--which is normally how I travel with the truly exotic rounds, taking ammo that can't be replaced at the general corner store. Though I did fly with a 9.3x62mm to Alaska recently! I hear it's making some inroads in the Great Land, though I doubt it will ever replace .375 H&H on the store shelves.

In Montana I have seen some odd choices on the shelves of TINY stores, probably because some local odered them and bought each box as needed. Bob's Store in Virginia City, for instance, used to have a few dusty, ancient boxes of .22 Savage Hi-Power and .348 Winchester among the new boxes of .243's and .30-06's. I have a few old boxes of WW .32 Specials in my collection that, along with a box price, have a sticker stating a per-round price of 5 cents each. Which makes sense. Probably the guys who shot .32 Specials didn't need to "check their scopes" with 10-15 rounds before each hunting season. They'd just buy a magazine full (or maybe even less) and go hunting.

One of the weirdest things I've ever seen in my travels was the first box of Swift A-Frame bullets I ever saw stocked on any store shelf. It was a box of 400-grain .416's--in a shooting store in Bergen, Norway. Some local rifle nut probably ordered them for a polar bear hunt, but they stuck out like a Cape buffalo in the corn patch.

I've seen ammunition sold in 5-rd. baggies in Old Town, Maine as recently as 2002. Not only were there a bunch of the baggies in the sale bin, a guy came in and asked for some while I was checking out the used gun rack.

Dern you, John! You've just rattled a nostalgic memory loose from the ooze!

When I was a wee tad "too young" to shoot anything bigger than a .22 Long Rifle, the local five-and-dime and general stores had counters covered with loose rounds in little glass-fenced "corrals," for sale by the round, like pen nibs and art gums or clevises and cold chisels. There was quite a variety there, too -- .25-20, .32-20, .38-40, .44-40, .38-55, .30-30, .30-40, .32 Special, ...

Some of us more-daring kids managed to buy a particularly sexy-looking "ca't'idge" just to carry about in an "overhaul" pocket to fondle and feast our eyes and imaginations on.

And nobody knew how "deprived" we were with no TV anywhere in town, the county, the state, ...

... let alone what deep moral and cultural perils surrounded us. I don't recall that anybody was terribly bothered by the definite odors from Rube Millsap's livery stable, right there on Front Street.

I remember seeing .30-'06 cartridges in a sporting goods store in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. It was shortly after the Rhodesian war was over and the store owner proudly showed me his display of seventeen .30-'06 shells.



The brands were mixed and heaven only knows what the bullet weights were. The price was $10.00 American EACH.



I took one-hundred rounds of ammo with me and I killed twenty-seven animals on the hunt, using twenty-eight rounds of .30-'06 (one for zero-check and 27 one-shot kills). My professional hunter told me that he would rather have the remaining seventy-three rounds of .30-06 ammunition than a monetary tip. Sooooo, I tipped him with ammo and we were both happy with the deal. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Allen Day is a friend of mine, by the way. At times (not often) we don't see eye-to-eye on gunny subjects, but as long as the opinion is backed by field experience, we totally respect each others views.



Having said that, Allen is absolutely correct about the risks of air travel and taking a wildcat or a rifle chambered for a weird round. Man, it really sets the traveling hunter up for disaster.



For this reason, I have always used a .30-'06 in Africa. If I hunted animals heavier than eland, I'd take a .375 H&H (yes, I've killed eland with the .30-'06 - one carefully-placed shot and they fall like a ton of bricks).



I've used the .280 Ackley a lot in Alberta, but Chub took my ammunition in his Suburban the first time. After that, I always left ammunition with the outfitter when I left; just so that it would be there the next year (and I took my old supply home). It always makes you feel good when you know that you have fifty or so rounds waiting for you on the other end of the plane ride.



Of course, when we use "Barky," our Z-71 Chevy pickemup truck, using a wildcat is not a problem. All I have to do is actually remember the ammunition <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />.



Steve

THAT is an affordable tip! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Hey, it works for me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Steve

Tweeder, I'm not personally saying that I think the .338-06 dumb, because I don't. If it's good enough for Steve and Chub (those men truly have written the book on the .338-06, no question about it), and several of my other friends, then that's plenty good enough for me. I can see the appeal of the .338-06 in that you can have a reasonably lightweight rifle with a 22" barrel and employ a .30-06-size action, use the same magazine box & follower (and still maintain an acceptable stack-angle) plus a five-round capacity, lighter recoil, good killing power, etc. All of those things are solid points in its favor, plus ammo fabrication is as simple as it gets for a cartridge born as a wildcat. I do believe, though, that it especially shines for N. American hunting for stuff mule-deer-size and bigger.



For my purposes, I still believe that a more standardized standard factory cartridge is a more practical alternative, and that the .338 Win. Mag. still offers greater versatility. I tend to run up a great many animals with a handful of rifles that I use year after year, and my favorite .338 Win. Mag. (currently running 250 gr. Noslers) that's been used on stuff as "regular" as Texas whitetails and hogs will also be used on stuff as small as suni and as big as eland this year, plus I might just have it in hand (instead of my .416) if we bump into a good lion next year, and maybe the year after, plus this doesn't include elk, moose, and bear hunts in between.



Just enough more whammy and availability to make me feel better about everything, and my attitude has been forever tempered in that I've had some nightmare showdowns with lions before (plus grizzly) that were enough to make me want to carry just that much more punch as an "all-around", plainsgame-type African gun, as well as general-bag Alaskan/Canadian use.



And I despise shooting .340 WBYs, .338 RUMs, etc. Too much sharp, fast, hard recoil for this Oregon kid, yet I can shoot the .338 Win. Mag. (I have for over twenty years) about as well as I can shoot anything bigger than a .270 or .30-06. Again, it's all a personal judgement call....



At least with the .280 Ackley you can shoot regular .280 Remington ammo in a pinch and get by, which is a mark in its favor.



In that regard, the newly standardized .458 Lott is also a good alternative as a real stopper in that you can at least shoot .458 Win. Mag. ammo in a pinch and get by.......



AD

To add a bit more, I think that a .338-06 with GOOD bullets has one very definite advantage and only one. It is that here in North America where you can carry your own ammo and especially if you backpack, it gives you a light, powerful cartridge that you can put into a smallring crf action w/o extensive gunsmithing. Consequently, you can build a light mountain rifle which is Grizzly capable and yet has a fairly flat trajectory.

I just located a factory magnum HVA 4100 action about two hours after writing my last post on this thread and this would give me another .338 Mag (#6) which would be as light as any .338-06 I can build, BUT, the recoil is much worse-to me-and I cannot see that the additional power is worth it, for my general meat hunting type of big game hunting.

I have never been to Africa or even seen a Lion, except in zoos, but I have dealt with a lot of Grizzlies during my years of working in the bush. You actually very seldom need ANY gun in Grizzly country, but, when you need one, you REALLY need it. Based on my eyeball experiences, I would feel just as safe with a .338-06-250 Nosler as with my .338 Mag as any shooting you must do will be within 50 yds. and the velocity difference is meaningless there. You might actually be better off with the .338-06 as you could probably get a second or third shot in a bit quicker and, believe me, you will want to!

I have done quite a bit of shooting with the .340WBY and tried the .338 Imperial Magnum, alleesamee as the RUM; I agree with Allen, the recoil is much nastier and although I can shoot them fairly well, I don't see any advantage to it. For the international hunter, the .338Mag. is superior, but, for the addicted bushwhacker and backpacker, a .338-06 has some serious virtues. I think that we will all agree that a serious rifle looney NEEDS both of them.......

Steve--

I have taken advantage of generous African hunters like you. Unfortunately, it was with shotgun ammo rather than rifle. If anybody has the desire to shoot little birdies when over there, rather than just big stuff, ANY sort of reasonable shotgun ammo is just too heavy to pack on the airlines, except for a box or two.

So when Eileen and I went to Namibia in 1999, we took one box of 12-gauge, assured by the PH that there was plenty of 12 shotgun ammo on camp for use on sand grouse, francolin and guinea fowl. There was--mostly paper-bodied South African stuff so old you couldn't tell what size shot it held. It also split every shot, all the way up the side of the case from the brass to the crimp. Luckily we had a good, stoud Beretta O/U and had no problems. I was also glad for the box of premium 5's we brought when after guinea fowl....

Though the old stuff killed everything we shot it at!

JB

allenday,

You're dead on with your last post. Much more reasonable approach. The whole time I knew that the 338 Win Mag fit YOUR needs the most, you just failed to mention that there was a spot for a 338-06.

So, in conclusion:

Jim was simply stirring the pot.
If I go to Africa for plains game someday, I'll take a .30-06.
Where ever I drive to, I'll take whatever wildcat that happens to be tickling my fancy at the moment, just be sure to bring ammo <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.
If I fly anywhere to hunt with anyone here it's a non-issue if I show up rifle or ammo-less, because they have all the bases covered about 50x over anyway! (grin).

Did I miss anything? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

allenday,

Your first paragraph sums up my feeling toward the .338-06.

I agree with the rest also. If I was blessed with the capability to travel and hunt as much as you I would have a .338 Win and /or .375H&H also.

I forgot about the ability to use the .280 factory ammo in the AI though. My bad!

Have a nice day sir!
Tweeder <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

There it is, summed up in two sentences. Thanks, kut.

RSY