Lee, that same Seyfried article in G&A started me out on the 340 which lasted some twenty years and resulted in some 9 or ten bulls and some other game. Mine was based off a Rem 700 which I modified here and there but probably the best thing I did was put it in a Brown Prec Classic stock with a good Pachmayr Decelerator pad. I really liked the set-up and loved the cartridge.
This “elk-rifle-can’t-be-beat” stuff is always interesting but is the conclusion of experiences highly subjective to the shooter. From cocktail-time cartridges on either end of the spectrum to a pile of them in between, with the right projectiles, there are many right answers as I see it.
"The 340 can be sluggish and difficult".....I remember that in Handloader, in response to "G.D.V."
I always thought the 340 would be the ticket; never loaded for one, but it seemed like Ross said, the 338/RL-22 could "rub shoulders" with big brother, at least with most published data at the time. Pretty much loaded two 338's to within 100-150 fps. of the 340 with 225-250g. bullets
It really ain't no slouch with RL-25 either and 250's.
Yeah, “G.D.V.” was me. 🙂 I don’t remember the exact chronology of events or time but RS wrote a nice article about the 340 and his Champlain rifle in G&A, as mentioned above by Lee W, which lit a fire under me also. That was circa early ‘90’s. A bit later (?), again in G&A he now downplayed the cartridge a bit. I don’t quite remember now if he meant the then-new mono’s elevated everything in effectiveness or it was just his, sort of, revised observation of the cartridge from a handloaders perspective.
At any rate, curious, I wrote a letter to the editor/RS and he responded with a fairly lengthy opinion in the next issue or so.
My own 340 was simply a rechambered 338 and so hand loads were interesting to compare coming from the same tube. There was definitely enough difference for any loon to glom onto; think 308 vs the 30-06 as a more common example. A ~ 15 grains case capacity difference when both cases are loaded to the same pressures means roughly a 4% velocity differential with equal weight bullets. Mine showed that with the 250’s hitting ~ 2950; the 225’s, in the neighborhood of 3100 and the 210’s about 3200 fps. This was with only a 24” tube but with the “Wby throat”.
As a 338, this same tube gave velocities in the 100-150 fps range slower. However, the time spent with it as a 338 was much shorter and I tried fewer loads than with it than as a 340.
Caribou and a few bull elk were taken in the 100-150 yd range, but unlike many have stated on this site, most of my bulls came between 400 and 500 yards for one reason or another, hillside to hillside or big open clear-cut scenarios, etc. I eventually after much experimenting with bullet weight settled on the 210-gr weight and finally the TSX at that weight pushed at around 3200 fps.
I realize ME is a rather dubious figure aside from other considerations and correct bullet placement but when you can lay over a ton of ME on an animal’s chest-shoulder area at five hundred yards, in my experience, the effect was dramatic in the eight or so bulls I took at about that range. Hyperbole aside, all were legs-up, crushed, or legs-folded, down like an elevator.
It’s a great cartridge, as are many others in the right application, and IMO, it shines in elk, moose or bear country if it can be handled proficiently and one doesn’t mind a little heavier rifle. Necessary? Of course not.
ETA: the 338 is of course a classic cartridge in its own right. Funny, but in my rifle, going from the 338 to the 340, I really couldn’t discern a real difference in recoil. Subjective I know.
