Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Rechamber a 338 WIN to 330 Dakota?

Hello all I have a ? Can I rechamber my 338 win to a 330 dakota and still use my factory barrel? The rifle is a Beretta mato and it has a Dakota action on it. Thanks Randy...

Looking at the dimensions given in the Nosler #5 manual it looks like it could be done by simply reaming out the chamber. Now the big question is why? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Looking at the ballistics the gain is little or none at all so why bother? I don't know if Dakota is like other proprietary cartridges but many of them have a patent on the chamber reamer which means that they are the only ones that can do the work. Also then the dies and especially brass and ammo are harder to come by. All that for no ballistic gain? But hey, it's your rifle. If it's what you want to do go for it and have fun.

Oh yea, the bolt face would have to be opened just a tad but not much. The two rounds are close enough that I doubt that the feed rails would have to be altered but that's a possibility.

Thank you for the help!

Quite honestly, I don't think the paltry gains you'd realize are worth the fussy, bother, and expense.

If you can't cleanly kill all of the world's big game except for Cape buffalo, elephant, hippo, rhino, and Asiatic bovine with a 338 Win. Mag., you're not going to kill 'em with anything else. Adding, let's say, 100 fps. velocity to the 338 Winchester will gain you very, very little..........

AD

Gains are anything but "paltry," and you don't have that annoying belt on the Dakota, so you get smoother feeding.

According to a recognized authority on the matter, Frank Barnes, the .330 Dakota "offers .338 Winchester Magnum rifle owners a simple conversion to improve ballistics and cartridge feeding characteristics." He goes on to say, "This cartridge provides a significant case capacity advantage over the .338 Winchester Magnum (about 15 percent) and comes very close to duplicating capacity and performance of the much longer .340 Weatherby Mangum." He goes on to say that it is an "easy conversion" producing 10% greater energy than a .338 Win Mag loaded to the same pressure levels, and "with the heaviest bullets, the advantage is even more significant."

My partner and I were shooting our Dakota rifles last year, using 250 NPs from the same box and loaded to top/safe pressures. His rifle had a Kreiger barrel, installed by this gunsmith who lives in smalltown B.C., a certain Adolph Hagn, who may know what he is doing; mine had the original Shilen barrel and was an inch shorter than my buds.

In actual chronographing, there was less than 100 fps. "improvement" over the Win. by the Dakota, allowing for the 1" longer bbl. This, IMO, is not really important in the kind of hunting that these cartridges were intended for.

In 38 years of shooting the .338 Win., I have owned and used 12 different rifles so chambered, both pushfeeds and CRF as well as a No.1, I have five now. I have NEVER had a problem with the belted case and my rifles feed flawlessly. The Dakota case is larger in diameter and does not feed any better in a
Dakota 76 action than the belted case does; this is from actually owning and using the rifles for some 12 years.

I am always sceptical about references to "experts" and prefer to check things out myself; I do not think that re-chambering a rifle from .338 Win. to .330 Dak. is worth it and agree that it gives a "paltry" improvement while costing far more in conponents....BUT, if you just wanna .330, what the hell, it's all in fun, anyway!

In real world hunting terms I consider that paltry. No game animal of earth would know the difference. Not to mention that you now lack easily available factory ammo. As far as the belt preventing smooth feeding I again call BS. Now if someone wants to spend the money to rechamber to a .330 Dakota just because they want to I'm cool with that. It's your dime so do what you want. If you really think you would be gaining a significant gain in performance in the field then I disagree.

Jeff

That anti-belt alarum is pure BS..........

AD

That anti-belt alarum is pure BS..........

True, but the belt is as worthless as tits on a bore, I mean boar. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

dont forget your price of brass triples also.....

the UM would be a better bet if your action will fit...........

woofer

The belt is a non-entity either way. But I remember back in the early '70s, when I first got started hunting, NO ONE complainted about the belt on such cartridges as the 7mm Rem. Mag. No one reported a problem, and no one seemed to care. They took those rifles out and hunted with them. The "problems" only seen to get articulated in print when outfits like Dakota decided that a new line of cartridge would help sales, and of course some of the stooge gunwriters had to help the process along as best they could, even though they were always a little vague about what all of those horrific problems actually entailed -- the details of which always being sketchy, at best.......

However, I know this much: belted cartridges such as the 338 Win. Mag. are far, far more widely-available world-wide the something like the 330 Dakota will ever be. So I guess you could say that, in practical terms, the Dakota is more problematic by default, even without a belt....... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I've been shooting belted magnums since 1978, with literally thousands and thousands of rounds fired in practice through various rifles, and I've hunted with them in a score of states and several foreign countries for literally hundreds of big game animals. To date, I have yet to find or experience one single solitary problem with the belted case, in and of itself. But then I again maybe I've been doing something wrong after all, and in my stupid and unsophisticated manner just don't know it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />......

One of the guys in our local SCI chapter has literally taken all of the world's huntable big game species, and personally won the Weatherby Award a few years ago. For at least 99% of his hunting, he's used the belted 300 Weatherby Magnum, and he's used it for over forty years. When this anti-belt mumbo-jumbo got wound up a few years ago, I was at his house looking over a room full of trophies, and I jokingly made the comment, "They say belted cartridges are supposed to obsolete and are now a problem!"

Looking at a wall full of sheep trophies, my friend dryly retorted, "G@#$%^ belts!" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Seriously, take such hogwash in a serious manner to someone of that experience, and they'll laugh right in your face, and rightfully so......

Bring the same Chicken Little nonsense to an African PH who's spent thirty years day-in and day out with a 458 Win. Mag. or 375 H&H in his hand, and he'll likely look at you like you're nuts.............

AD

Allen,
I fully agree with you that the belt is a non-issue. However, if you were starting from scratch designing a cartridge today, would you include the belt?

While I have no problems with a belt on cartridges, I would not slap one on there for the fun of it, if I was starting over (shoulderless cases excepted).

I intentionally took the best hard line counter position I could generate on this matter because the truth is that I was on the fence and wanted to see the best defense against my argument from authority that could be mustered. I think you have persuaded me. All things being equal, I'd much rather have a non-belted .338. Since, however, there appears to be no significant real-world advantage, and taking the availability argument into account, I think that I will concede that you guys have won this debate.

I agree totally with what Allen and Kute said.

Unless for some reason you really have to do this I would not. There is no logical reason to make the conversion for the paltry gain.

Mark D

One issue with the Dakota case, at least theoretically, is the lack of taper. Don't know if that would be a real-world issue, though, as Ackley rounds don't have much taper either.

Why is it when someone asks if you can do something they consider fun and interesting, particularly with a "classic" cartridge, 47 experts come out of hiding to explain why you shouldn't do it? Meanwhile, someone else wants to create the latest 25 wsbang whatchamacallit with a 700 SA, PACNOR barrel, and McMillan stock and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. If someone asks "Can you do this...?", simply answer yes or no with the appropriate technical specs and don't judge. If someone wants to "create" something and make it "theirs", support them. Hell, this is supposed to be fun.

RL,

A few years ago I was contemplated exactly the same thing in 30 Cal. The 300 Dakota was a very nicely proportioned case that would have been "just right." But once I realized I could shoehorn the RUM case into the action, the thought of cheaper and more available brass, dies, factory ammo if needed, not having to alter the boltface, "gaining" even more, etc I felt it made a more "sensible" choice.

As stated above, of course you don't need it. But it sure is fun. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Ok, I actually own both of them, a 330 Dakota and a couple 338 Win mags I like them both and don't really have a bone to pick either way.
If you were starting from scratch designing a round you'd design the 330 Dakota, it's a better design without the belt. Yea the belt doesn't really hurt too much - until you start measuring factory brass at the shoulder and find it varies about 20 thousanths in a bag of 50. Supposedly the shoulder doesn't matter because it headspaces off the belt but you are not going to get as good of accuracy out of 338 Win Mag brass until you fire it once and set your dies to where it headspaces off the shoulder. This isn't an issue with 330 Dakota.
330 Dakota brass and ammo is on the other hand much more expensive and harder to find. A couple hundred rounds will last most people for the rest of their life but it is about $1.75 a round for brass and dies are $109.00 instead of $30. Cost is a bit of an issue but availability might be a bigger one. If you loose your ammo on a flight to Alaska or Africa I doubt youd find any 330 Dakota wheras 338 Win Mag wouldn't be too hard to find.

But the big kicker for you in whether to convert or not is the Mato itself. For the 330 Dakota to feed correctly it needs a wider magazine box than the 338 Win Mag. With the removeable box/magazine/floorplate arrangement on the Mato I think it would be difficult and/or expensive to get the Dakota case to feed well. If I get a chance I may go try out some Dakota rounds out of my Mag lenght Mato box but I'm pretty sure it's going to be too narrow. I ran into the same issue in my M-70 winchester 330 Dakota and I think the Mato box is narrower than the M-70 was.
So if all things were equal I'd prefer the 330 Dakota, but since they are not you might want to stay with the Win mag......................DJ

Or, you could just sell it to me, and buy a 330 Dakota. That way everybody's happy.

FWIW, I finally did try to see if 330 Dakota rounds would work in a Mato magazine box. In an unmodified long mag box the 330 wouldn't even fit between the lips. I had another that I'd worked a bit and the Dakota's would fit in. 2 330's would fit OK though the box isn't wide enough for optimum feeding, 3 were too tight to feed and bowed the sidewalls out.
I think you could make an Mato Magazine feed maybe decent with the Dakota rounds but if you want to hold more than 2 down you will need to make a new magazine box - which probably means a new floorplate also..............DJ