Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 338 Wby RPM

I have fiddled with the 338-06 std and AI. Just got a box of once fired Wby cases. Significantly more case capacity than either. Nearly same as 7 RM. What the 06 based cartridges always wanted to be!

If I didn't already have a lightweight .338 Win. Mag., I'd spring for the RPM. Very similar velocities to the Win. Mag., just a shorter, lighter rifle. I have a 6.5 RPM that I love.

Right down the rabbit hole you go

Scotty
I am an addict
Rick

Neck it up to .358 and you would have something

I've got a Ruger Hawkeye Compact Stainless All Weather in 338 RCM and it's nigh on to perfect. Exactly the power level I wanted in a .338, but very noticeably lighter weight and much easier to maneuver in the thick stuff.

Neck to 358?
then I would severely limit bullet choices…truly terrible idea

You've never used a .358 have you

180, 200, 220, 225, 250, 280, 310 this is a pretty good selection

Why? I have killed elk with both the 35 Whelen and the 338-06 and observed zero difference. Of course the same can be said for my last bull taken with a Kimber Montana 270 Win.

Knowing RinB well, I suspect he's tweaking the Campfire's "medium-bore" advocates--or maybe actually trolling....

Yes, yes, yes. And no rebated rim or stupid belt!

I will stick with my 338-06's. Thank you very much.

Didn't you post one time that you thought increased effectiveness started at .358 bullet diameter?

Yeah--and Phil Shoemaker's experience is similar. We've discussed it some....

I've used the 35 Whelen on the last 12 animals that I've taken and it flat out puts them on the ground. It is a killer for sure. In fact until one has used it, it is impossible to realize the 35's effectiveness

The Wby RPM in 6.5mm and .338 does nothing different on game animals that the 6.5 PRC and the old 338 Win Mag does. The 338 Win Mag as I have done many times can be loaded down or up depending on your needs. Recoil can be controlled with rifle weight, stock fit and loadings. The RPM, while effective, offers nothing over the 338 Win Mag and a bit less in horsepower. The belt aspect is a non issue, at least for me, I’ve never had a problem feeding 338 Win Mag loadings, either mine or off the shelf. Wby is reinventing itself, as they’ve done several times in the past with many changes including their actions. They need a way to cut cost and induce profit all while offering the latest and so called greatest cartridges and rifles. They have undoubtedly played an instrumental part in big game hunting and big game rifles, especially when it comes to DG offerings. God bless them, however nothing they offer, especially at their price points are attractive to me. I could build a better custom rifle for $3K any day. Only one man’s opinion, to each his own.

the same can be said about Hornady and even more so, they "re-invent" their own bullets then proclaim how they are the greatest new projectile on the market while never having improved anything over the other mfgs bullets, take the CX bulet for example

and their interlock ring has never, ever worked as they claim, even after they renamed it the ELDX and put them in shiny new red boxes

every Interlock & ELDX bullet I shot into water jugs blew up into tiny pcs of jacket shrapnel

and none of their new cartridges offer any ballistic improvement over stuff that has existed for eons, BUT we have the wild eyed gundummies wagging tongues excitedly on how great they are

Just got my hands on a Peterson 7 PRC case. I used fine ball powder to compare the Weatherby 338RPM v 7PRC case volume. The RPM case capacity is slightly greater than the 7PRC!

I suspect the velocity capability of the Weatherby 338RPM v 338Win will be close to identical.

Also the Weatherby 6.5RPM capacity far exceeds the 6.5PRC which is closer to the 6.5-06

jwp

On heavy potentially dangerous animals I believe 9.3 diameter 250 grain monolithic bullets are where fully adequate starts.

There are no 35 250 monolithic bullets by Barnes. There are some outfits that make monos but they are designed to fragment which I wouldn’t want for DG.

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.

When you refuse to look at the thread that I linked which has penetration test that prove exactly what I am saying show your ignorance and dumbfucuktitude.

Well if it doesn't matter, and what you would kill with one you would kill with the other, then that supports the view that the .358 Whelen DOES NOT KILL better than the .338-06, which is exactly what I have been arguing!

Go steal Little Stick's terminology "dumbfucukitude" why don't you?

The term fits you perfectly. 👌

The term doesn't fit me perfectly. You are only saying that because you have to resort to being derogatory about me personally rather than being able to logically argue something. Once you fall into that trap, you lose credibility.

If you will go to the thread that I linked you will find the penetration testing that proves what I said
Apparently you are to stupid to do that.

I can’t imagine how many animals you’d have to take to see any difference using similar bullets.

"to stupid"? dumbo it's "too stupid"! Why don't you specifically state exactly what the tests prove and how they "prove" what you say?

Why don't you get someone to read it to you.

Because you're the one who is referring to "evidence" without specifying the particular which is supportive of your argument. That would be like me saying "look at that picture, there's proof" to which you might possibly say "proof of what?" This is a .338 thread and you had to be a troll with your .358 interjections.

I'm not going to hold your hand. Sorry

And I would appreciate it if you kept your disrespectful comments about Elmer Keith to yourself. He contributed and knew and did, far more, than do-nothing no-names such as yourself could ever hope to understand.

Gentleman this is RinB question of 338 RPM. let’s stay on point. But this cartridge has a rebated rim, what might it be in favor over 338 win mag? I am curious.

It's the rifle/cartridge package...much lighter rifle. But as one gentleman previously pointed out, 8lbs including scope is about the perfect weight for the .338 RCM or .338-06 for most people to be able to shoot accurately, so I for one wouldn't want more performance in a lighter package.

So you think he was never wrong. 🤔

OK Elmer was wrong SD doesn't accurately always predict penetration here is a case in point, a 550 grain 458 caliber bullet is put penetrates by a 325 grain 458 caliber bullet much less SD for the 325 grain bullet

My utterly unqualified view is this. It's the package. They make a version that is a short little carbine and I think it would be just the thing for an Alaskan bear guide. It might not be fun off the bench but shooting off your hind legs (as Mule Deer puts it) you'd hardly notice it. Pricey but a good investment.

Stop being a troll. Elmer was wrong far less times than just about anyone else.

To get the package which is very light, you also need the cartridge with the rebated rim because of the smaller bolt-face than the usual heavier Mark V's. Without the larger diameter case body, you're not going to get the high performance. That is why I said it's the rifle/cartridge package.

It IS the rifle that makes the package interesting - to SOME! Without the brake and a 1 lb scope with accessaries, it's NOT so interesting anymore with ~60 ft-lbs recoil! I wrote on this after it was made official by Weatherby, comparing it to my .35 Whelen. I'll keep my 7.5 lb Whelen (all-up), THANK YOU VERY MUCH which has similar ballistics (2840 fps from a 225 AB) from a 22" barrel using less powder. Like the .338 RPM, it too has a brake reducing recoil to ~ 32 -33 ft-lbs. Quite tolerable compared to a .338 Win without a brake, and especially the .338 RPM.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Almost regret initiating this thread.
Nastiness and vitriol thanks to a couple of fellows who don’t care for one another.
Take it elsewhere please.

Precisely why I participate less and less.
The "hunter's campfire" is basically, "you're stupid, no you're stupid" and I go there for the meme thread.
It sucks that the vitriol has bleed into the rest of this site.
Bullies and loudmouths have taken over the and its about time to leave. One will be along shortly to point at the door..... and prove my point.

OGB
Your motto succinctly states my thoughts. “Bore size is no substitute for shot placement and power is no substitute for bullet performance” quoting 458WIN

I have decided to abandon the acquisition of another 338 bore cartridge. I have had many between 338-06 thru 340 Wby. I have never observed on game performance that is better than my 270. Obviously the 338’s work but they either are harder kicking or have rounder trajectories.

I have a 375 H&H for buffalo and don’t plan on hunting anything else that requires that category of cartridge. If I didn’t have that rifle I would strongly consider a 9.3-62. Both are really great.

Muzzle brakes stuff your hearing up with long-term use, annoy everyone else such as when you are on a guided hunt or hunting with someone else, result in a longer less-handier rifle and add weight right at the end of the muzzle where it counts. I would much rather add on half a pound in weight than have a muzzle brake. But that's just me, if you like them, use them. A .338 Win Mag in a 9lb rifle is quite reasonable to shoot. In terms of trajectory, if you're going to have a .338 Win Mag., you'd be best using a .375 H & H length action and magazine, throating long and getting more velocity with mono projectiles. A 225 E-tip running close to 3000 fps has a similar trajectory to a .270 Win with 140's. Reloder 17 gets you there. I am sorry if I made anybody cry...I'm sure there's several people who love you and care for you. Hey OGB, toughen up you little softie.

Riflehunter,
I'm with you on the muzzle brake for sure. I find them obnoxiously distracting and I have enough hearing loss as it is!

RinB,
In the same boat (with far less experience than you) if I feel the need for more than my 30-06 I'll use my 375R or 9.3X62.

Incidentally, I value the EXPERIENCE of everyone here just choose to not participate when threads devolve.

No harm, no foul

Just for the record, I too hated brakes until I reached eighty and a serious bout of arthritis. To keep shooting what I like, I had to take some practical steps: including Mag-na- Porting on my .458 (it came with that), reduced loads and a bit of extra overall weight in the rifles. Protection of hearing is certainly a priority, but so is one's eyes, bones, ligiments and muscles.

And I'm not disagreeing with RinB - whom I genuinely appreciate.

And also for the record, the 9.3 x 62 is one of my all-time favourites.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

I seriously considered the 9.3 x 62, mainly because of the heavy 286, 300 grain projectiles. At close distances it would be great. But how many hunts do you go on and find that you have to shoot well beyond 300 yards, even though you thought the shots would be close-range? It's happened to me several times and I'm glad that I took the .338 Win Mag, because it's great for close range, medium range and the longer shots.

Riflehunter,

Have mentioned this in several places over the years, but the 9.3x62 loaded to "modern" pressures (60,000 psi) will push a high-BC 250-grain bullet to 2650-2700 fps, depending on barrel length. Dunno what your definition is of "longer shots, but this load has the same basic trajectory as the .30-06 with 180s at the "traditional" 2700 fps," which works very well out to at least 450 yards, even without a "dialing" scope. Did it for years even before laser rangefinders, by using the scope reticle as a rangefinder.

If you believe in lighter bullets at higher velocity, the 9.3 210-grain Cutting Edge Raptor can easily get 2850-2900 fps.

Mule Deer, 450 yards is a long shot for all but a small percentage of hunters to do with a medium bore, especially with a 180 grain - .30-06 - type - trajectory. I'm not saying that a hunter with a lot of experience who also shoots a lot can't do it, they can. But for the average hunter...it is difficult. With my .338 I'm loading at around 2975 fps with the 225's. That's a bit flatter than 180's in a .30-06 at 2700. Note: Jack O'Connor's hand-load was a 180 at 2700 fps from his 22" .30-06 and he said that the .270 Win shoots flatter and is easier to hit game with. At around 2975 fps with 225's, the .338 has the same trajectory as the .270 Win at 3000 fps with 140's, which is what he said the .270 achieved with 140's.

With this muzzle brake, recoil thing, it's often not the actual recoil that is the problem. It's usually your brain sending a message to you because of the "fear of recoil". And often it's not the recoil that causes the "fear of recoil", but the noise or muzzle blast that causes that fear. Now if you are getting near 80, then things may be a bit different and the actual recoil may be an issue, especially in a .45. But for many others, think about the blast causing much of the problem.

The .308 and .338 calibers are incredibly versatile. Both utilize a 1-10 twist with the .308 caliber pushing 110 gr - 230 gr loads. While the .338 caliber will push 165 gr - 275 gr loads. That’s a great deal of versatility. That’s why the .308s and .338s are still so popular in North America as well as Africa. Each caliber covers several hunting needs with one off-the-shelf rifle utilizing one twist rate on multiple projectile weights for use on big or small game up close and far away.

Yeh, and you can get more out of your .308 if your action can accommodate a 3" magazine box. For example, I'm getting over 2900 fps with the 150 E-tips and over 2700 fps with the 180's with a long throat, a bit more powder and a 3" long magazine box and seating long with a 22" tube.

I don't think you will ever get it, whether "killing power" or relatively small differences in trajectory--which don't matter much with LRFs. Even in the 22" barreled .338 I hunted with for a dozen years from Alaska to Africa my 225-grain handloads got around 2850 fps. So what? That amounts to maybe 1-2" difference in trajectory than your handloads at 400 yards--which makes zip difference on even deer-sized game.

One of the things I also noticed about the .338 (as other experienced hunters have) is that on average it didn't kill any quicker than smaller cartridges. The very first big game animal I killed with mine, using a 250-grain Partition at around 2700 fps, was an eating-sized mule deer buck shot at around 60 yards in a quaking aspen thicket during the last week of Montana's 1988 rifle season. There was about 6-8 inches of fresh snow on the ground, and I found the tracks of a small herd and could follow them pretty much silently.

Eventually got an angling-away shot at the buck, and aimed for the rear of the left ribs. At the shot he didn't even react, just kept walking along until he went behind another group of aspens. Found him there dead, 60 yards beyond where I'd shot him, and the bullet had opened nicely and exited through the right shoulder.

Also killed a 58" Alaskan moose with a 230-grain Fail Safe bullet in 1996 (The Fail Safe acted just about exactly like the Barnes TSX.) The bull was standing on the high bank of a mid-sized salmon river, angling toward me. Put the bullet inside the left shoulder, and the bull reared up on its hind legs, then rolled down in to the flat gravel bank along the river. But then he got up and staggered into the river before I could shoot again (while the guide was emphatically saying, "Don't shoot him in the river) where he died in the middle of the deepest water, only the two tines of one antler showing above the surface.

I managed to get a rope around the antler, and then we dragged him downriver with the guide's jet-boat to the shallower riffle below the pool. We then spent five hours butchering the bull from the top down, surrounded by a cloud of mosquitoes, and after removing every 50 pounds or so of meat heaved the bull's carcass a little closer to the bank. Recovered the Fail Safe, retaining 96% of its weight, lying against the front side of the bull's pelvis. Oh, and there was a hole through the top of the bull's heart.

Could go on at length with similar examples from North America and Africa. Eventually came to the conclusion that the .338 didn't kill any quicker, on average, than the .300 Winchester Magnum, or even the .30-06 using bullets of the same make and similar sectional density. Some other very experienced hunters have also suggested the same thing, including one well-known Alaskan brown bear guide. All of which is partly why I eventually decided even larger caliber, heavier bullets do better on larger game.

I would bet RinB has killed far more big game than you, especially dangerous. He grew up in Idaho when mule deer were very abundant, and killed a B&C buck when very young--along with a bunch of other game. He's also hunted in a lot of other places for since, including taking five Cape buffalo this year alone.

Mule Deer, while I appreciate your views on various aspects and do attach quite a bit of weight to them because of your experience and research, that doesn't mean that everything you state I accept. Your opinions of various things are opinions, which should be afforded a reasonable weighting, but are not the final word. Now I have been quite respectful and polite in response to your posts, but if you are going to be disrespectful to me, when I have been respectful to you...then that will all change. I do agree with you with the numbers game. Elmer Keith shot 50 elk in his lifetime, so anybody who has shot less than that isn't in a position to think they know more about shooting elk than him.

Yeah, however I was talking caliber not chamber. The 308 WCF is only one chamber of the many .308 calibers/chambers.

Ok, I accept that.

This thread took a turn for the worse. Been gone for a few days and the ugliness came out.

I have a different view on where diameter starts to make a visible difference. For me it starts with 338 caliber when bullet construction and shot placement are similar.

If Mule Deer and 458 think that 358 diameter is where it starts, no big deal. I know what I have experienced. It is my opinion and YMMV.

If I can not get my elk tag filled with my longbow this fall, I will not hesitate to grab one of the 338-06's shooting 200-210gr bullets. I have zero doubt that it will do the job, and put meat in the freezer.

Looking at numbers though, If the 0.02" difference between a 338 and 358 makes a difference. How can 0.03" difference between a 308 and 338 not make a difference?

What's going to be relevant is percentage differences in diameter as opposed to actual diameter differences. But it's not exactly percentage differences in diameter. It's the percentage change in the square of the radius (pi cancels out). For example, an increase from .308 to .338 is roughly 10 percentage increase in diameter, from .338 to .358 is roughly 5.9% (if my quick calculations are correct), but it's the percentage change in the square of half of the diameter that is really the correct analysis and that gives different figures.

Yes, the percentage increase is going to differ between diameter and frontal area.

Put the majority of hunting bullets, at normal velocities, in the right place and you will have the same result. A full freezer. No matter the diameter, within reason of course.

I like my 338-06's, but must admit that I shoot the majority of my stuff with a 270. Gasp! another 0.03" smaller in diameter vs a 308, or 0.06" smaller than a 338!

Yes, run a .270 for deer sized game and a .338 for anything bigger than deer sized game stopping at when you use a .458 for heavy dangerous game

Just to be a contrarian, what's the difference to the hunter between "heavy dangerous game" and just "dangerous game" if one is an elaphant and the other a brown bear or lion? For example: On safari, would a hunter be compelled to change weapons if both ele and lion were on his agenda? He might choose to carry two rifles, but does he need to? In Alaska, a solo resident hunter may have several licenses in brown bear country: Would a majority be toting a .270 or something bigger... how much "bigger" to make a difference?

Bob
www.bigbore.ca

I have to draw the line at 416 for heavy dangerous game. That is as big a cartridge I can shoot comfortably and accurately. After having shot a bunch of 375 H&H, 416 Rigby, 404 Jeffery (2nd favorite), 458 Winchester and Lott.

I have stated this before, I would comfortably take one of my 338-06's for anything huntable, with the exception of elephant or rhino. I do not see the extra 200 fps of the RPM as a huge advantage.

Heavy dangerous game in Africa are elephant, rhino, buffalo, hippo. In other places you would probably include any of the bovine species if they were huntable such as gaur, banteng, other buffalo, feral bulls etc. Dangerous game would include (if they were huntable) tiger, jaguar, lion leopard, crocodile, brown/grizzly/polar bears, not sure about gator, not sure about cougar. Now if I could hunt gaur in the jungles of Cambodia, that would be the ultimate for me.

A .416 that you can shoot well would be better than a .458 that you can't. And when I say a .458, I mean a .458 that can launch a 500 grain projectile at 2300 fps from a cold barrel using a non-compressed load of a temperature-stable powder.

The thread died without any load data being discussed for the Barnes 160 ttsx. Can't find anything with a search for this bullet in the RPM.

I plan to shoot that in a somewhat mild load for 90% of my hunting. I'll shoot a 200 Nosler Accubond for a "heavy" load, mostly in case I need to cross a canyon. Both loads will need to shoot same POI or something easy to extrapolate to make subconscious use a breeze. Here's mine ready to roll.

The conversation about the need for this cartridge or this vs a 338 Magnum leaves the rifle out of the discussion. The package is what makes this attractive. It's a mountain hunting setup. For me what makes this attractive is the ability to load it down to 338 Federal velocities for everyday use, and have backup heavy loads for longer shots or larger game in my pack or pocket. I'll less frequently need a 338 RPM per se than I will a 338 Federal proxy so I'll use it as a 338 Federal primarily.



Just a curiosity at this point, but the 338 RPM brass cycles perfectly through a Kimber 84L Classic Select currently barreled in 25-06. Might explore a rebarrel if the RPM turns out to be a winner.

I think readers prefer first hand experiences to absorb and digest rather than demanded acceptance of opinion.

Tends to remove the pomposity and make the time seem better spent.

Just looking at the Weathetby specs for a 24" barrel it records less velocity than my Weatherby Mark V in .338 Winchester in all bullet weights, so I guess the argumemt is down to rifle weight which doesn't exactly favor recoil.

Or increased muzzle blast if you prefer shorter barrels.

Interesting sugestion on the .458 at 2300fps? What load have you developed that achieves this and using which 500grain bullet?

Dat be a hell for stout load Kingfish!

Any .458 caliber cartridge that can launch a 500 grain projectile at 2300. I didn't say .458 Winchester. The load is the same load discussed on another thread, which I believe you contributed to. To refresh your memory, 105 grains H4350 in a Dakota or Rigby case, but a .404 case necked up to .458 would be better.

Will a .338 barrel result in the Kimber being too muzzle heavy? A reduced load in a 338 RPM might result in the need to adjust for both windage and elevation when switching loads in the field. Plus, you often won't have time in the field to switch loads when you see an animal, should you have full-power loads and prefer light loads or visa-versa. I'd just use the one load and get used to that one load. Grab something like a .270 in more open areas or .308 with 150's in tighter country for lighter game.

If you use a lighter bullet in .338 than you would for larger game at longer ranges, it may be possible to adjust powders and velocities so they have the same basic trajectory with less recoil. I have two goto loads for my .35 Whelen that I carry in the stock cartridge holder. They hit at the same POI at 100. My all-around hunting load is a 225 AB at 2840 fps, and a special bear load for close range over bait is the 300gr Barnes Original at 2355 fps without any changes to scope setting. Obviously, the 225gr is much flatter shooting beyond 100 yds than the "slow moving" 300gr. Different powders are used. I just published the results on yesterday's blog.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

I would prefer a little more weight up front on the Kimber, but you may be right. All depends on how it finishes out I suppose.

Elmer Keith was spot-on about the versatility of the .33 caliber cartridges for all of Alaska. To this day, I don't think a hunter could do any better.

Here are a few examples:

Scores of high BC 225 grain grain premium bullets to choose from. Whereas the 30 calibers have limited options in the 220 grain territory and are generally potato-shaped. They also don't expand very wide, not like the .338 225 grain offerings.

I stay at 200 grain bullets in my 30 caliber rifles, and more specifically, the oryx.

So where the 30 caliber cartridges end, the .338's are just getting warmed up.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, the .338 275 grain swift A-frame is a deep penetrating, wide expanding .338 bullet that hangs right along side the 300 grain Swifts and 325 grain oryx bullets in my 9.3x62.

My .338, the scope is sighted to 225 grain interbonds or 225 grain fusions. Both match up well to a ballistic reticle to 500 yds. Then the open sights are always sighted to a 275 grain a-frame handload. In a light rifle, they are at the limit of manageable recoil where a shooter can have a meaningful shooting session at extended range.

In treeless winter caribou hunting where the bag limits offer multiple caribou for rural Alaskan residents, the .338's with high bc 225 grain bullets, is an ideal choice. We're talking constant 20-30 mph gusts, and ranges of 300-400 yds are common. Though I've used my 9.3x62 in these conditions, I would've much preferred the 338-06.

The lone 250 grain 9.3 accubond never worked out: 4.5" groups from 2 of my 9.3x62 Mauser rifles. Greg(north61) got bad groups with the 250 accubond as well. Then, they're never in stock, probably discontinued.

Anyhow, here is a 225 grain fusion next to a 30 caliber 220 grain partition. It penetrated within 1/4" of the partition in spruce boards. Had massive expansion, and superb weight retention. With groups always well under an inch, a true sleeper of a bullet @ $18 a box of 50: