Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Thinking of a .338-06

What I've discovered in 30+ years of gun writing is many (if not most) readers want to read about stuff they use, and if the author writes about their favorite stuff then they feel justified--and a kinship with the writer. If the author praises their choice, then he's a blood-brother. Which is why gun writers who try a lot of stuff and report it all works on some level, for some purposes, are often considered blood-brothers.

In the past couple years I've done articles on rifles and cartridges from the .33 WCF to 6.5 PRC, after considerable dinking with rifles made more than a century ago and modern "customs" made a couple months ago. Have also shot a bunch of big game animals over 52 years, and been standing beside hunting companions as they shot at least as many. Have performed and observed a bunch of big game autopsies, and tested a lot of bullets in various media.

I'm still a rifle loony, but have yet to see major differences in how widely similar cartridges kill stuff, given bullets that penetrate and expand sufficiently, within certain broad parameters. Am still learning stuff every month (or week), but would be very surprised if somebody develops a bullet or cartridge that kills big game noticeably "better" (whatever that means) than similar rounds/bullets. Have seen 700-pound animals dropped on impact with 100-grain .25-caliber bullets, and go 200 yards with 300-grain .375 bullets put in just about exactly the same place--with both bullets recovered under the hide on the far size. As a result, am not convinced of the magic in any cartridge/bullet.

But we all love to bat such stuff around endlessly. In the past week have seen posts asking about whether the Nosler AccuBond is adequate for "big deer", or the performance difference between the Barnes TSX and Tipped TSX, despite all those bullets being around for more than a decade.

Yeah, there are differences in cartridges and bullets, but the biggie is shot placement by a considerable margin, not 1/2" smaller groups, 20% more bullet weight retention, a few 100ths of an inch in bullet diameter, or even twice as much initial bullet weight. If the bullet expands and penetrates sufficiently through the vitals, the animal will die quickly. If the bullet doesn't penetrate the vitals, the initial diameter or weight doesn't make much difference, despite the belief in magnum magic. Have seen this over and over again, as have others including Finn Aaagard, who I knew pretty well.

That doesn't mean I've quit "experimenting." But it does mean I no longer believe in magic.

Yeah, I've had three .338-06's over the years. It's a good round, especially for those who want something different on a .30-06 case. But eventually I decided either the .30-06 itself (especially with 200 Partitions) or the .338 Winchester downloaded a little covered the same ground. Also found the 9.3x62 more effective with heavier bullets than the .338-06 or .338 Winchester. This may not sound like a real rifle loony decision, but there it is.

But, but, but, stop using logic...…

Let's muddy the waters. What if a rifle will not shoot the 200gr NPT, like my 300 H&H? I have to slum a 180gr.

With the 338-06 you have more 200-210gr choices. Plus you can slum 180's or bullets heavier than 210gr.

Also found the 9.3x62 more effective with heavier bullets than the .338-06 or .338 Winchester.

Please elaborate on the "more effective" part.

If the bullets expand to the same average diameter, what would explain a difference in penetration?

Intuitively, it would seem that SD would matter with bullets that didn't expand, Or to put it another way, wouldn't the diameter of the expanded bullet have more of an effect on penetration than SD?

I haven't read the article yet, it's on my list though. I wonder if the bullets available back then had any influence on the results, compared to what we have today.

All would result in an equally dead critter. IMO