Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 338/06

Hey BMT,

Karen and I surely enjoyed our visit. The "boys" in the Dead Petting Zoo say "HI"

I'm really enjoying the thrashing of the .338-'06. It's fun sitting on the sidelines, having killed well over 100 head of big game with the cartridge. Just sittin' here eating popcorn, watching the show.

Trust me, it is a GREAT cartridge.

Steve

Steve,

I always thought the same. And I am so glad that I had Mickey Coleman build me my 338/06 prior to reading this thread!

Chris

I had a good time too.

I always liked the 338-06. I just figger that it would really sing with the 185 TSX.

Myself, I got my heart set on the 375 H&H. Mostly because of the age and history of the cartridge. I figger, if you are gonna go big, go BIG.

BMT

270?

270??????

You mean 30-06, right?

BMT

I would guess that had the 25-06 been invented first, many would be claiming that expanding it to 30 caliber really added very little of any use

Allen, you need to get you a "real .338 cartridge, the .338/8mag or the .340 Weatherby. Then you could always download it to .338 Winnie levels, or even to the .338-06, which everyone knows is an idea that never should have happened. You are fond of posting the idea of getting the .338 Winnie instead of the .338-06, knowing it can always be downloaded to .338-06 levels. I guess no one ever explained to Elmer Keith what insufficient cartridges the .333OKH and .35 Whelen were....

Not in the case of the 30-06, 280, or 270 but certainly in the case of the 338-06, you've run out of case-capacity for optimum results with the heavy .338 bullets that are what this bore diameter is really all about. I've explained this at length before, but I guess I haven't explained it well enough for it to make any sense.

For purposes of home entertainment value, today I took a few minutes and looked up some numbers comparing that fabulous new wunder cartridge, the 338 Federal (already known as "Federal's Big Winner"!) firing a 180 gr. Nosler BTs (BC .372, SD .225) to the 30-06 firing 180 Nosler BTs (BC .507, SD .271) at the exact-same MV, and from every standpoint of consideration, the 30-06 outperforms it completely, shooting flatter and hitting harder at all ranges.

Today, for sales and feel-good purposes "less" of everything follows a rather convoluted path into being somehow just as much as "more" is, ballistically. Tomorrow, (depending on what new cartridge gets introduced), there might just be a new slant on this subject, proving beyond any shadow of any doubt that "more" really is "MORE" after all, like when the Ultra-Gags got introduced a few years ago. Don't ya just love the science of bullistics????????

That's why I don't worry about this stuff too much for my own purposes, and I readily admit that I despise off-beat cartridges, and lack imagination when it comes to some of these new introductions. When I want to hunt with a 338, I just grab a 338 Win. Mag. and go hunting. It's the most efficient 338 of the whole bunch, plus it's AVAILABLE, and I learned to really shoot it many years ago..............

AD

No, but they should have told him so right up front and gotten it over with! Actually, his 334 OKH only became obsolete from a practical standpoint when the 338 Win. Mag. was introduced, which obviously owes it's life to Elmer Keith in a very big way.

AD

All joking aside, the .338 Winnie is one fine cartridge and very balanced. I like it much more than the .300 mags.

Couldn't agree more!! Very well said!

Now I am wondering where I said the .338-06 was bad. Went back to the beginning and found what I originally said, which was "a good round."

I believe Barnes made a 160 X for a while in .338. I know they made a 175, which is what Connie Brooks has used on more stuff with her .338 Win. Mag for a great deal of the game she has shot with it. Why not--though I do know an experienced elk hunter who tried it on an angling shot on a moose and was dissatisfied ewith the penetration. Which may be why the lightest .338 TSX is a 185.

JB

This is true, but it is much easier to carry 33,35 or 36 on an 06 case than a typically heavy 375 HH. This gives protability pluss the extra power to get things done, all the time.

John-you're sure right about them making a 160 X, it is actually one of the few X's that shot for me. I should say that it worked in my 338/06 but not in my 340's or 338's.

In my 23" tube the 160 X with R15 would go @ 3037 fps. I never used it on a head of big game but I did beat up on a yote and a porky with it. It gave adequate penetration.

The short stubby lil thing shot real good.

Mark D

JB,

I'm confused! How is it that when we neck up the '06 case to 338 it pales in comparison to the same weight in the parent case, yet by necking up to 366 it is nearly the equal of the 338 mag. All of this from the same physics book?

I'm having trouble seeing how the 20% only allows a useful 5%. I've spent most of the afternoon calculating bore volume and expansion rates of different powders, calculating surface area of different bullets, re-hashing pressure vs velocity curves, calculating expansion ratios and sectional density and...I've come up with a net increase of 8.385% in velocity of the 338-06 vs 30-06 when using the same bullet weight, but recoil is only 3.4% more. That makes the 338-06 an even better rifle than I originally thought.

Murphy,

You're confused? Where did anybody say the .338-06 "pales in comparison to the same weight in the parent case"? I carefully pointed out that the .338-06 gains 5% in velocity with the same bullet weights over the .30-06.

Since I do not know your calculations, I don't know how to respond to the 8.385% increase.

The 1/4 ratio was not "calculated," but came about by (and I'll state it again, slowly) computer-crunching the actual pressure-teated results from LOTS of various cartridges in modern loading manuals. This is known as "empirical data."

This is why, when we calculate the potential for the .338-06 using the formulas I stated, starting from published data for the 200-grain load in the .30-06, we come using up with a potential muzzle velocity of 2750 fps with a 210-grain bullet--WHICH HAPPENS TO BE JUST ABOUT EXACTLY THE TOP MUZZLE VELOCITY STATED FOR THE 210 IN THE .338-06 IN HODGDON'S ANNUAL MANUAL, probably the most extensive (and updated) data source around.

When we open up the neck of the same basic case even further, as in the 9.3x62, we again gain potential velocity with the same bullet weight, at the same pressure. This is the reason the 9.3x62 can obtain around 2650 fps with a 250-grain bullet, very close to what's possible with the .338 Winchester, which has more powder capacity but a smaller bore.

Want to try another example? Let's compare the 7mm Remington Magnum and the .338 Winchester Magnum. Both use the same case, but the difference in bore is even more than that between the .30-06 and .338-06. Here the closest we can come to the same bullet weight, using the same Nosler manual, is 175 in the 7mm and 180 in the .338.

First we calculate the bore areas (.0633" and .0897"), then divide the second by the first, arriving at 1.417, or a 41.7% advantage for the .338. Divide this by 4 and we get 1.104. Multiply this by 2970 and we get 3278.

Now we look up data for the 180-grain Ballistic Tip in the .338 Winchester Magnum section and find a top velocity of 3281 fps.

Want to try again? Let's calculate what me might get from a 120-grain bullet in the .280 Remington by using .25-06 data. Here we divide .0633" by .519", and get an increase in 21.96% in bore area when going from .257 to .284. Use the 1/4 ratio, and this means a potential increase of 5.49% in muzzle velocity.

Nosler lists a top muzzle velocity of 3090 fps with a 120-grain bullet in the .25-06. Another 5.49% in velocity results in 3260 fps. Look up tghe 120-grain in .280 and we find a top muzzle velocity of 3286 fps.

(Somebody is sure to point out that the .280 case has slightly more powder capacity than the .25-06 (or .270 or .30-06), due to the shoulder being moved slightly forward. This is true, but any difference is pretty much unmeasurable; in fact it's often reversed when using bras of different brands.)

By the way, somebody here brought up the fact that Nosler does not list their pressures in the manual. Nosler is a member of SAAMI, which means they load to SAAMI maximums for any SAAMI cartridge. This can be assumed about any American loading manual these days, whether the pressures obtained are listed or not.

JB

Wow John, that's a lot of math in the Morning. . . .

The alarming part is that you did that work -- correctly, I might add -- before 7 AM. . . .

By the way, have I said "Thanx" lately? I really love learning this kind of stuff.

BMT

Mule Deer!!!
Now you have hit on something I find of great interest!
The other day, you mentioned in a thread something about trying to remove bras from young ladies on the back roads around Bozeman.
Now, in this post at 6:53 you mention bras of different brands ( Next to last paragraph) having varying capacities. I assume the first comment was related to research for info in this post.
Could you please do an article on your research for THIS article. ( Don't assign it to Stan T. please, he'd just have a bunch of photos of the damn hooks, Spomer would see which bra would hold the most freeze dried food for back packing). Lots and lots of pictures please-
What units is bra capacity measured in? Metric units? Are they all measured at the same barometric pressure? Are some more temperature sensitive than others? Is it a weight or volume measure? What instruments are required?
Is there any chance of a monthly column on this subject???

TIC

Fred Royce

Mule Deer had a little freudian slip.. let him be.

Slip, hell, it was a BRA!!! LOL

Mr Allenday,

In comparing the 338 Fed using 185 TSX comparing it to the 30-06 shooting a 180 TSX at 2,750 fps with a 200 yard zero.

There is a big whopping 2.5" of difference between the two at 400 yards! At 300 yards there is a huge difference of 0.8.

The next thing I'll hear is the 338 Fed using a 185 TSX does not have enough SD to be as effective as an '06. Ha!