Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters SA .338's

My little brother is having a 338 WSM made up on a Kimber Classic.

I assume it’ll work pretty well and scratch the itch of different.

Winchester did some testing with the 338WSM, and did not bring it out because it was a flop. Instead they brought out the 325. Go figure..

I'd love to know what was a flop with it but whatever. Dober seemed to like it so it's worth a shot.

The proposed .338 WSM didn't eventuate because it was too close in performance to the .338 Win Mag, and would take away sales from it. By making it 8mm instead, it wouldn't detract too much from .338 Win Mag. sales.

My recollection of what the magazine articles said years ago was Winchester couldn’t duplicate 338 Win mag velocity and thus chose 325.

I like 338’s and at the time had 338-06 and 338 Win mag but wanted to try 338 WSM so had an 8400 Montana bored out. This was a year or two after 325 WSM introduced.

It shoots well and is sooo close to 338 Win mag velocity I am soon to sell my last 338 win mag. It is definitely a pretty big step up from 338-06. I don’t have my load book close so can’t quote velocity this evening.

I’ve got a 325 WSM and if the 338 does the same or a hair better, it’ll be a winner for us.

If it were true that the .338 WSM didn't go ahead because it couldn't duplicate .338 Win Mag velocity, then if it did duplicate the .338 Win Mag velocity, it wouldn't go ahead either as sales of .338 Win Mag would significantly decline and over-all profit would be affected. More profit would be made by making it a .325 WSM...but of course they couldn't say that.

The 325 ain’t a bad round for a hunter in my opinion but like the 25 and 270’s, it’s been left behind in bullets.

But for a 0-500 yard guy, it’s really not all that bad.

This is exactly what happened. I know because Winchester was talking to a LOT of gun writers about where to go next with the WSM rounds, and I was one they talked to.

It was impossible for the .300 WSM to match .300 Winchester Magnum velocities AT THE SAME PRESSURE--which is exactly what happened with the testing of the ".338 WSM". This is because the WSM case doesn't hold as much powder--and despite some of BS handed out by Winchester back then case shape does NOT affect that. It can affect how consistently powder burns, but not potential velocity. (That was confirmed by independent testing by various pressure labs, both those of bullet and powder companies.

The only reason the .300 WSM matched factory velocities of the the .300 Winchester Magnum was .300 Winchester ammo was "underloaded" back then--for what reason I don't know. But present SAAMI velocities are much faster today.

John,
What about OAL?
I was never interested in the WSM range but did read somewhere that because many of the .338 bullets had cannelures, particularly the Hornady's, seating bulletss to that point would not function in many short actions.

Any truth to that?
John

Hornady on the 338 rcm (and parent case):

John,

That was true as well. But have never found crimping bullets necessary with a lightweight .338 Winchester Magnum, so dunno why it would matter on a round with less velocity and hence recoil.

Also have never found a noticeable difference in "killing power" between .338s and .30-calibers of the same case capacity, despite the difference in bullet diameter. This puzzled me until a few years ago, when I measured the expanded diameter of the various .308 and .338 bullets recovered over the decades from various animals. It turned out there wasn't any real difference, and the diameter of the "mushroom" is what makes a hole in vital tissue. (Wrote this up in an article titled "Theories of Killing Power," which also eventually appeared as a chapter in The Big Book of Gun Gack II.)

This doesn't mean the .338s don't have an advantage in penetration over .30s with heavier, longer bullets--but haven't seen any significant difference in how quickly various rounds put animals down with typical chest shots until the caliber is .35 or larger--which in my collection do have a consistently wider mushroom.

Might also mention that my experience with the .338 Winchester in various places from Alaska to Africa showed quicker kills with lighter bullets of 200-210 grains than heavier bullets. Which might--or might not--indicate that impact velocity has more effect than bullet weight.

John, so your only fkn moose in Alaska, you popped it in the lungs with a .338 win mag. It stayed upright , ran and died in the fkn River. Then you have the audacity to blame the situation on the guide.

You really aren't the proper judge, of whats possible with a 338 caliber on Alaskan game.

The .338's really are the most versatile cartridges for Alaska. A nice heavy .338 penetrates just as well through the front end of a large bull, as any other medium bore. Really no difference. My .338 275 grain swift a-frame handloads, are right there with my 300 grain 9.3x62 handloads.

Where I see the biggest difference on really large bull moose, is at 41 cal. Fk, even Craig Boddington agreed with me in what he's seen on cape Buffalo, in an email exchange.

Though you've sht on Elmer Keith repeatedly, his experiences are very similar to what guys see today using .338's up here.

One fella from Homer, Alaska, even had exits, breaking out the front ends of large bulls, using the old 300 grain .338' woodlieghs in his .338-06. The bulls were anchored just as quickly, as any bull moose I've shot with a 9.3x62.

If a guy needed advice on how to get a deferment from the Vietnam draft, you'd probably have the right advice though......

Ever wonder why people quit showing up here? I read nothing in MDs post that would elicit such a ignorant response. He's sharing his experience - which is broad and varied in case you failed to notice - and you isolate it to a single moose?

You like big heavy bullets - we get it. Momentum is something that happens with big heavy things. There may be other things to consider than momentum when discussing tissue damage.

Also ever consider the impact of your words on whether peole put any faith in what you say/write? You've posted alot of threads on heavy for caliber bullets. Given your diatribe on MD for sharing his experiences, think people are more or less likely to beleive what you say/write? I tend to avoid pure black and whiters because they tend to "know" the answer and cease considering other data, anecdotal or otherwise.

You should wander over to the Optics forum - you'd fit right in.

Sure do like the looks of that 220 in the .308!

How does that work on big stuff?

What velocities are you getting? Nevermind, I found your old thread about it.

I had a close encounter with a big bear on my first elk hunt. I was carrying a 600 Remington 308.
For many years after that I carried a 338 WM and 250 NPT. I never came close to a big bear again. I carried a 338 WM on a moose hunt in Alberta. The guide said that I was way over gunned. He considered a 30-06 as the perfect moose cartridge. After re-reading Gun Gack articles I thought that I might be able to eliminate one caliber of bullets in inventory. I bought a 300 Weatherby and loved the way it shot with 200 grain NPT, so I bought another. I have only shot paper with it.
Since then, I’ve not carried a belted magnum elk hunting - full circle. Though I was considering on carrying the 300 last fall in Wyoming on a cow hunt. My doctor said nope, no way. I got my money back and didn’t go, damn it.

There’s been several articles comparing 338 vs 358 caliber cartridges. It seems that the 338 caliber wins. It seems to me that the comparison is on paper, not on game.
At any rate I have 35 caliber cartridges and no 338’s. I don’t suppose that I’ll ever have enough experience to know that the 35 is “better”.

Limited sunlight and access to booze makes for especially cranky Alaskans this time of year.

Lets get back to basics here.........
The reason there is an "Ask the Gunwriters" segment is that writers over a period of time tend to have more experience than the average hunter, enough to offer some considerations deduced from same. We can often average out results as findings which will both align and disalign with the experiences of others.

I am, or was, a writer who probably killed more animals than any 10 or more members on here having lived a life with no game laws, or regulations resulting in many dozens or even hundreds of kills some years. The most being a cull of 100 in 3 hours. That does not make me expert and I will still have holes and gaps in knowledge and experience which is why I enjoy the opinions and findings of others on this, the only firearms related site I visit.

Yet at the same time, I have a lot of books bought over decades and never read because once recieved and flicked through, they are too similar, predictable and my own background already taught me what I wanted to know.

I never heard of JB before I came here. We have never met, but he is always generous with time, provides interesring findings and has terrific communication and writing skills. A friend I never met.

My point is that it is worthless to others, the readership, to throw mud and someone and just plain tacky to nominate a particular animal in the diatribe. All animals are a hunt, a challenge, a life's experience, not somthing to be judged by others as an inferior argument.

There will always be internet big mouths, we know that, but among people, mostly getting on in years, it is those who listen, digest and compare experiences and opinions with their own that benefit from this web site.

There will also be people we would never want to share a table with, give time or offer an open ear. They too, have a right to be here, but they owe it to themselves to understand that their image and standing among others, is both their responsibility and choosing.

I met an editor of a magazine I was invited to write for once. His instruction to me was simply, "No-one cares how long you were held up in an airport or how many flats you got out in the scrub, they want to know what you used, what cartridge and load, and what happened after the shot".

If people followed that simple advice unless asked otherwise, this website would flow a lot more smoothly. It is not necessessary to throw mud, think of what you can offer and even a counter experience can offer value without the need to prove how tough you are on the internet.

It used to be called decency, some tend to forget.

Very well written! I have met John and have a ton of respect for his experience and knowledge! Besides that, he is a hell of a nice guy! I hope he was not too offended and he continues to contribute here. It is one of the best parts of the Fire!

Dean

JB is a great guy, with lots of experience in all sorts of different hunting situations. Mainer comes off as a drunk prick with an ax to grind, holding a good amount of experience in a very specific hunting situation.