Originally Posted by longbarrel
[quote=WhelenAway][quote=Dirtfarmer]Just read and downloaded from the CD, Steve Timms .338-06 article in Handloader #109. Very good article.

Bottom line, he considers 200, 210, and 225 gr. bullets the most practical. IMR-4320 seemed his best powder. In June '84, he didn't have some of the newer powders, like RL-17, etc. So, not too unlike Ken Water's Pet Loads, excellent but somewhat dated info.

Steve quoted Ken Waters' note from his Handloader #87, .35 Whelen article. "I suspect the best way to improve on the .35 Whelen is to neck it down to .338... taking advantage of the better sectional density of the .338 bullets, as compared to .358 bullets, as well as the larger and better selection of available .338 bullets".

I think ole Ken was right, not to insult Whelen fans. But it is what it is... wink

In Ken Waters' article on the .338-08 (now .338 Federal). he concluded that it was a "Wildcat of Merit" [Handloader 177] that "betters a .358 Winchester while simultaneously offering an increase in power over the .308 Winchester from a short action rifle."

Hence we have what Ken actually said about two different .338s.

I ponder sometimes what those guys could have done with the selection of high performance powders we have today.

I love reading their stuff, but as you note, it's dated, limited to vintage powders.

Steve did a great job with that article, as he typically does.

Some Whelen advocates did get fuzzed up a bit at Ken's assessment of the 338-06 vs the 35W.... blush

Finn Aagaard also wrote a good piece on the 338-06. Finn and Ken were both great writers, down to earth, not a lot of fluff and filler with either of them.

DF