Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 338 Wby RPM

It doesn't seem logical to continually argue that diameter doesn't make much difference and then argue that a .358 or a 9.3 is going to perform better with 250's (because of their diameter) than a .338 with 250's when the .338 has far better sectional density with the same weight bullet and presumably, better penetration, all other things being equal. Now that's at close range, at long range, the .338 with way better b.c. does better than .358 and 9.3 with the same bullet weight. Now if you're going to run 275's in the .358 or 286's in the 9.3, that may be better at close range, but then the higher recoil starts to be a factor, as well as the poorer trajectory at longer range. And of course, a 300 grain .338 still has far better sectional density than a 275 .358 or 286 9.3.

The 225 TSX in 35 caliber is very long, no way would I want a 250 grain. The 200 TTSX at 3000 FPS will handle any chore IMHO. The 250 grain Noseler at 2700 hits very hard also. Elmer Keith killed a lot of big bears with the 35 Whelen as did Pondero Taylor who thought it was great on lions

But Elmer Keith clearly stated that he thought the .333-06 and .338-06 to be superior to the .35 Whelen because of the better sectional density of the .33 caliber with same weight bullets.

Sectional Density is a BS number, I can demonstrate lower SD bullets put penetrating higher SD bullets. Frontal area, nose shape both play a bigger part in solid bullet penetration than SD. Bullet material and construction means more with expanding bullets.

The counter to that argument is the ceterus parabus qualification or "all other things being equal" meaning, like nose shape, like construction etc.

A round nose solid of mono metal construction I've seen them out penetrated by lower SD flat point solids with a proper nose shape

When anyone stakes their argument on SD they are very experienced

Riflehunter,

Bullet diameter does matter--but a .338 bullet is only .03 larger in diameter than a .308 bullet, about the same as a slightly thicker than average human fingernail.

What really matters is expanded diameter, since it creates a larger wound channel, whether temporary or permanent.
This is why a few years ago I measured the diameter of a bunch of expanded bullets recovered from big game in different calibers. As it turned out, there was basically ZERO measurable difference between the expanded diameters of .308 and .338 bullets, regardless of weight and make. There was a difference starting with .358 diameter bullets, and somewhat more with 9.3mm and .375 bullets.

Yeah, the high sectional density of heavier .338 bullets can result in deeper penetration. But I used a .338 Winchester Magnum from 1988 to 1999 on a pile of big game animals from Alaska to Africa, ranging up to around 1500 pounds in weight. The big thing I noticed after all that was that lighter bullets from 200-225 grains tended to kill quicker than bullets over 225 grains, no matter the brand. Velocity plays a role as well.

You'll find more of the details of my bullet-diameter investigation in Chapter 41 of my Big Book of Gun Gack II, "Opinions of Killing Power." Oh, and the trajectory of a 250-grain spitzer from the 9.3x62 at 2650-2700 fps (just about the same as 250's in the .338 Winchester Magnum) is basically the same as the .30-06 with 180's--and it's no big trick to shoot big game out to 400+ yards.

Assuming you mean "inexperienced" then Elmer Keith, whom you quote, argued sectional density...and yet I can't see anyone at all saying he was not experienced.

Elmer Keith never really"got" that bullet construction often matters more than sectional density. An excellent example of this is in his book Safari, about his first African trip in 1958. As his "light" rifle he brought a .333 OKH, with 300-grain Kynoch softs and solids, at around 2400 fps.

He evidently didn't test either before the trip, because the softs consistently came apart, sometimes failing to exit Thompson's gazelles, about the size of big coyotes. So he switched to the round-nosed solids--which do NOT kill very well, especially in smaller diameters--and .333 with solids is a smaller diameter. He lung-shot a zebra stallion with one, which went half a mile before it finally started to slow down, and could be shot some more so finally died. (From this he deduced that "all African game is as tough as an old gum boot," which I have concluded is part of the "origin myth" about the toughness of even plains game.)

He would have been much better off with a .30-06 and 180 Partitions, which had already been around for a decade. And I know John Nosler would have supplied some, because he'd already supplied plenty to Keith--who wrote elsewhere that the 250-grain .338 Partition should have weighed 300 grains.

But whatever....

And Elmer was flat out wrong just like you are

Mule Deer, if .338 is 10% bigger than .308 and .358 and 9.3 is 10% bigger than .338, then it wouldn't be diameter that makes a difference. If using mono's then construction would be same. The shape of mono's would be similar. What would be the factor that would make .358 superior to .338 in these circumstances when .338 has better SD with same weight bullets?

Better to use logical argument, as Mule Deer does, rather than respond like you have.

So facts are meaningless to you? Elmer was flat out wrong.

Go into the Terminal Bullet Performance thread here and learn


https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/4711043

You are the one who quoted Elmer Keith, I responded that he clearly stated that .333-06 and .338-06 was better than .35 Whelen because of sectional density. Then you mean to say anyone with experience doesn't quote sectional density. I responded that Elmer Keith had considerable experience. Don't blame me if you are unable to discuss something logically without getting upset when someone points out flaws in your logic.

[/quote] Mule Deer, if .338 is 10% bigger than .308 and .358 and 9.3 is 10% bigger than .338, then it wouldn't be diameter that makes a difference. If using mono's then construction would be same. The shape of mono's would be similar. What would be the factor that would make .358 superior to .338 in these circumstances when .338 has better SD with same weight bullets?[/quote]

You might want to read my post again, slower.

You also might want to read the chapter in GG2.

You can't follow a trail of logic, I said Elmer was wrong and that is a fact. If you read through the thread that I linked the proof is there with penetration testing proving it

You might want to read my post again, slower.

You also might want to read the chapter in GG2.[/quote] I did re-read what you wrote slowly as suggested. You said that it is expanded diameter that matters rather than the slightly bigger than fingernail unexpanded diameter. But my question was if you used a mono bullet (perhaps a Barnes TSX) of the same weight in both a .338 and .358, that was of similar shape, what would be the factor which would make the expanded diameter of the .358 considerably larger than that of the .338 bullet so as to make the .358 bullet kill better (when the .338 bullet has much better sectional density)? I would have thought that because both bullets were of the same construction (all copper), same shaped nose, that the longer .338 bullet with better sectional density would expand nearly as much (especially being longer),but penetrate deeper because of sectional density being better. Assume same velocity of perhaps 2750 fps.

It doesn't effing matter. What you kill with one you'll kill with the other.

Exactly.

Those who argue that Elmer Keith was wrong about most things are not stating fact, they are giving their opinion. High sectional density of heavier bullets can result in deeper penetration. I don't know why you would disagree with this. The more you say such things as "Elmer Keith was wrong and so are you" and "go xxx and learn" the dumber you sound, especially when you have demonstrated that you have an inability to logically argue something.