Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Jim Carmichael, Explain Yourself

how about asking the person requesting jims opinion.

someone out there is dragging around a 10lb 300 win and wants to know which is a better elk round. the 280AI or the 338/06? come on now. i think someone is blowing a little smoke up the "other" wind pipe.

i find it a bit hard to believe that someone can be remotely informed about two wildcats, which require handloading, and need JCs opinion on the two. how about a lighter 300? 06'?

i think jim was just blowong a little smoke of his own <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

woofer

Ken,



Thanks a ton!







I like that it still employs the standard action with it's .473 bolt face.



Maybe this is an uninformed question (politicaly correct term<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />), but what do yuo see as the attributes when comparing to both the 338-06 and the Win mag?



Thanks again!



Bill



Edited due to finding that page on AHR's site <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

For some inexplicable reason, AHR's reamers, etc, were made with 0.037 inch more neck and correspondingly shorter body. I can not predict how much more I'll get from my on-spec body's greater capacity.

AHR's web site lists the gross case capacity of their version as 78.3 grains of water (body, shoulder, and neck) versus only 71.2 grains for the .338-06 -- about 10% more. My original version, with its slightly longer body, may hold as much as 80 to 85 grains -- 12% to 19% more.

The .338 Winchester Magnum case holds about 85 to 86 grains, full to the mouth, so my full-spec .340 Howell has about the same gross case capacity as the .338 Winchester Magnum, in a slightly longer ".30-06" case instead of the fatter H&H-type case. That can't hurt.

I don't have velocity figures right handy, right now, for either the original .340 Howell or the .338 Winchester Magnum. AHR's chronographed loads with 225- and 250-grain bullets recorded velocities of 2,950 and 2,600 ft/sec, respectively, from their ersatz version. I'll probably load my slightly roomier version to lower pressures and probably get about the same velocities.

I'll be pleased, I'm sure, with even less -- maybe no more than 2,700 ft/sec from the 225-grain AccuBond -- if I ever get the chance to get close enough to an elk or whatever other big beastie that God will let me see through the scope long enough to get a shot off.

Allan, you make a good point, but... There is nothing the 280 can do that the 7mm rem mag can't. All the advantages the 338 win has over the 338-06 the 7 mag also has over the 280. Jim likes the 280, but lists the 338-06 is on the top ten list of all time worst cartridges. But based on this argument, it makes no sense why he would like one and not the other.

allenday:



Sir you are absolutely correct. The Win mag version will most certainly knock you on your azz much more effectively in a 6 1/2 lb (scoped) rifle. I've got a 338-06 rig in the aforementioned weight and cant imagine taming the Win mag version in such a set up.....



Roads

I believe I already mentioned the flaw in the "338 WM is better" logic. That would make the 338 ultra vastly superior to the 338 WM. And, while I don't disagree entirely with that, there is a reasonable limit to the recoil someone can/wants to live with.

I have no doubt that at reasonable hunting ranges, the -06 variety can do everything its big brothers can do. Maybe not with quite the authority, but equally dead.

The laws of physics and thermodynamics explain very simply why the elephant is more efficient at storing and exuding heat than a banty hen. But the banty's by far the better choice for sitting on her eggs. Bigger and "more efficient" aren't always the best criteria for making a practical choice. If they were, the .340 Weatherby or the .338-.378 would be the only current .338 worth talking about.

I think that the quest for efficency can be a rather misguided endeavor, especially if you're hunting on the other side of the world where the only additional source of ammunition is at your loading bench back home. The problem is compounded when the guys doing the paperwork are looking over your rifle, counting your cartridges, then wondering why the headstamp on your case dosen't match the caliber designation on your barrel. At that point, the issue becomes not a matter of "efficiency" but of common sense versus stupidity. And in today's world, the situation is getting much, much worse--not better. I won't create my own set of nearly insurmountable problems for the sake of theoretically more "efficient" cartridge. Going down in flames for the sake of a theory is absolutely ridiculous. There's no "efficiency" in that.......

Nine years ago, I went on a 21-day Tanzanian safari. I took a .300 Win. Mag. and a .458 Win. Mag. for armament. Due to airline problems, my duffle containing my ammunition arrived, but my rifles did not. The owner of the safari company I was hunting with offered to loan me his own .300 Win. Mag. Sako, plus a .458 M70. He didn't have much ammo available, but I had a plentiful supply of each. Problem solved, and it could have worked in reverse just as easily. Luckily my rifles DID show up the next day, but if they had not, and if I had a duffle full of off-beat wildcat or factory ammo, I'd have had a serious problem, and would likely have had to start and finish out the safari with the camp .375 H&H.

It's easy to jump to the conclusion that if a .338 Win. Mag. does more than a .338-06, then why not forget about the .338 Win. and focus on the .340 WBY. or .338-378. Lots of good reasons not to! First of all, ammunition for those two cartridges isn't exactly common anywhere, whereas the .338 Win. Mag. has made big inroads, even in Africa, and I've hunted with two safari companies in two countries that kept a limited supply in-stock, in-camp.

For another thing, most shooters can learn to shoot a .338 Win. Mag. very well, whereas a lot of guys simply can't get to the point of being really friendly with a .340 WBY. or something even bigger.

AD

A German writer friend has just pointed-out that my .340 Howell can be formed from Sako 9.3�66mm cases -- brass that I was not aware of. Its gross (overflow) capacity, according to QuickLOAD, is 81 grains of water.



Nice to know!



Thanks, W R!

now this, my cyber friends, is the kind if thread that keeps me coming to the 24hr.
probably won't ever get a medium bore like you guys are compsing about here, and probably won't ever get to hunt anything bigger than a whitetail, but i like reading this practical, useable stuff.
getting such efficiency from a .473 case always is interesting to me.
keep it up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Like allenday, I have traveled here and there. This ammo problem can be very real, and not just in Africa. A friend and I once hunted black bears in Saskatchewan. I took a .358 Winchester, while he took a wildcat .338, the 8mm Remington Magnum necked up. (Just why he couldn't have used a .340 Wby. is a mystery, but then much of what we do is.)

You got it. His rifle showed up but not his duffle with the ammo--and even with a .340 I doubt he'd have had much luck in Saskatoon. Even my .358 was a little risky, but I suspect a box or two could have been found somewhere local.

The .338-06 is a good round. I have owned three--yet now don't own one. I still do have my old FN Mauser .338 Winchester Magnum, however, complete with a U.S. Customs Form 4457 that has allowed me to take it to three continents. It has killed everything I've ever shot it at, at any distance, the main reason a .340 or .338 RUM has never entered the picture.

JB

I said I was done, but I guess I'm not <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It seems this thread has gone from:
Why is the .280AI appropriate for elk and the .338-06 is in the top ten dumbest calibers (cartridges), to efficient cases and cooresponding head stamps and barrel stamps.

allenday,

If you use the head stamp and available ammo argument to justify why the .338-06 is dumb, then why is the .280AI a better choice? At least there has been ammo made for the .338-06 A-Square.
I keep hearing why the .338Win is great. It is, but why is the .338-06 dumb?

Yes, the .338 Win pushes a 250grain bullet faster, but so what, for elk.

I also heard the comment that the Mag works better for it's intended purpose, which I believe Winchester brought it out as the Alaskan (or at least the rifle it was chambered in). "Alaskan" to me screams Big Bears and Moose. Yes, pushing the 250 grain slug faster than a .338-06 can, means something there, but the letter was asking about Elk between the .338-06 and .280AI.

Ken,

What's the guess-timated completion date for your book on one bullet rifles? I would like to check that one out! I like the idea of only shooting one bullet type in each gun. That way you need alot more rifles! Just think how many you would need just to cover all the 7mm and .30 caliber choices we have! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I hope the guy that wrote the letter to ODL could see this thread! This is fun! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

It goes without saying (or should) that your ammo has to be in your rifle, not in your luggage, when your trigger releases your sear. There's plenty of sad history solidly undergirding the wry old characterization of air travel as "breakfast in London, dinner in Paris, luggage in Cairo."

I too have hunted in exotic places that we reached by air -- but for the vast majority of my life, I've hunted locally, right from my house or my vehicle or my backpack. All of us hanker to hunt Alaska and Africa. I hunted in Alaska when I lived there. I've dreamed of hunting in Africa since the 1940s, but every time I got a dollar closer, Africa got ten dollars farther away. I'm sure, now and for some time, that I'll never hunt Alaska again or Africa ever. Acceptance of that probability as a fact does wonders for broadening the field of my practical cartridge possibilities. My menu is mouth-watering and huge.

So -- like (I bet) ninety-several percent of the rest of us -- what I can load at one of my benches and haul in my old F-150 will do me just fine. I'd go into an entirely different mode of mind, of course, if I had to plan for any other kind of hunting.

When I travel, I try to stay in the habit of seeing what big game ammo is available locally in gas stations, etc.

Usually it's pretty predictable -- .243, .30-30, .270, .30-06, maybe .300 Win. Mag., in your choice of the green & yellow box or the red & white box. One place in NE Montana had .280 and .338 Win. Mag.

The real surprise was a little place truly at the end of the road in Allagash, ME that had both .257 Roberts AND 7x57 gathering dust.

John

Ken,


Thank you very much for providing the info on your design.

I will consider it carefully when I get to this project.


Bill

Allen

I can accept your thoughts on the 338 Win Mag with few reservations. I have also had a 338-06 in the past and presently a 338 Win Mag. I think there is reason enough for both, unless the 35 Whelen would make the 338-06 un-needed in a practical argument. Be that it may practically no one in their right mind should debate the fact that the 338 Win Mag is not more versatile than the 338-06.

I myself can see little reason in a practical sense of the word to own a 300 Win Mag if you already own a 338 Win Mag. I myself would much rather own a good 30-06. I have a 30-06 with a 24 inch barrel that will push a 200 grain Nosler right near 2700 fps most any day of the week. It will push 180s considerably more. If more than that is needed I will use the 338 Win Mag. This is the reason I no longer have a 300 Win Mag. However, if you think you need a 300 Win Mag instead of a lesser 308 caliber round I can even live with that. I agree it is a very accurate round in most rifles and does out perform the 30-06 to some degree in ballistics if not practical killing ability in most situations.

However the thing I can't quite see, which you have danced around quite conviently, is why your friend Jim has such a high regard for the 280 Ackley while saying other rounds are some of the most worthless ones ever created. Do you share this line of thought. I know from past posts of yours you are a great fan, as am I, which Jim has also went on written record saying that it is the LAST rifle he would ever own, of the 270 Winchester. With this in mind what are your thoughts on the practicality of the 280AI? Can't many of the same criteria being given for not having a 338-06 be used for the 280 AI? It is no secret that two of Jim's favorite cartridges are the 280 Remington and the 338 Win Mag. One wonders why this came about, as it is almost a split personality of sorts. By this I mean, one standard and one magnum round, much like my 30-06 and 338 Win Mag. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

One further question, since Jack O'Connor championed the 270 and Warren Page likewise the 7mm Mashburn Mag, which is quite like the 7mm Rem Mag, do you feel that this may have forced Jim to back the 280 and ultimately the 280AI? After all it would seem natural use the 280 vs 7mm mag just like the 338-06 vs 338 mag argument is used. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

To sum things up I am not trying to pick on Jim as much as wondering if you think both lines of this thinking on the 280 AI and the 338-06 are constant with each other? I can't say that I do. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Ken--

Yeah, I do most of my hunting via F150 too--which is normally how I travel with the truly exotic rounds, taking ammo that can't be replaced at the general corner store. Though I did fly with a 9.3x62mm to Alaska recently! I hear it's making some inroads in the Great Land, though I doubt it will ever replace .375 H&H on the store shelves.

In Montana I have seen some odd choices on the shelves of TINY stores, probably because some local odered them and bought each box as needed. Bob's Store in Virginia City, for instance, used to have a few dusty, ancient boxes of .22 Savage Hi-Power and .348 Winchester among the new boxes of .243's and .30-06's. I have a few old boxes of WW .32 Specials in my collection that, along with a box price, have a sticker stating a per-round price of 5 cents each. Which makes sense. Probably the guys who shot .32 Specials didn't need to "check their scopes" with 10-15 rounds before each hunting season. They'd just buy a magazine full (or maybe even less) and go hunting.

One of the weirdest things I've ever seen in my travels was the first box of Swift A-Frame bullets I ever saw stocked on any store shelf. It was a box of 400-grain .416's--in a shooting store in Bergen, Norway. Some local rifle nut probably ordered them for a polar bear hunt, but they stuck out like a Cape buffalo in the corn patch.

I've seen ammunition sold in 5-rd. baggies in Old Town, Maine as recently as 2002. Not only were there a bunch of the baggies in the sale bin, a guy came in and asked for some while I was checking out the used gun rack.

Dern you, John! You've just rattled a nostalgic memory loose from the ooze!

When I was a wee tad "too young" to shoot anything bigger than a .22 Long Rifle, the local five-and-dime and general stores had counters covered with loose rounds in little glass-fenced "corrals," for sale by the round, like pen nibs and art gums or clevises and cold chisels. There was quite a variety there, too -- .25-20, .32-20, .38-40, .44-40, .38-55, .30-30, .30-40, .32 Special, ...

Some of us more-daring kids managed to buy a particularly sexy-looking "ca't'idge" just to carry about in an "overhaul" pocket to fondle and feast our eyes and imaginations on.

And nobody knew how "deprived" we were with no TV anywhere in town, the county, the state, ...

... let alone what deep moral and cultural perils surrounded us. I don't recall that anybody was terribly bothered by the definite odors from Rube Millsap's livery stable, right there on Front Street.

I remember seeing .30-'06 cartridges in a sporting goods store in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. It was shortly after the Rhodesian war was over and the store owner proudly showed me his display of seventeen .30-'06 shells.



The brands were mixed and heaven only knows what the bullet weights were. The price was $10.00 American EACH.



I took one-hundred rounds of ammo with me and I killed twenty-seven animals on the hunt, using twenty-eight rounds of .30-'06 (one for zero-check and 27 one-shot kills). My professional hunter told me that he would rather have the remaining seventy-three rounds of .30-06 ammunition than a monetary tip. Sooooo, I tipped him with ammo and we were both happy with the deal. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Allen Day is a friend of mine, by the way. At times (not often) we don't see eye-to-eye on gunny subjects, but as long as the opinion is backed by field experience, we totally respect each others views.



Having said that, Allen is absolutely correct about the risks of air travel and taking a wildcat or a rifle chambered for a weird round. Man, it really sets the traveling hunter up for disaster.



For this reason, I have always used a .30-'06 in Africa. If I hunted animals heavier than eland, I'd take a .375 H&H (yes, I've killed eland with the .30-'06 - one carefully-placed shot and they fall like a ton of bricks).



I've used the .280 Ackley a lot in Alberta, but Chub took my ammunition in his Suburban the first time. After that, I always left ammunition with the outfitter when I left; just so that it would be there the next year (and I took my old supply home). It always makes you feel good when you know that you have fifty or so rounds waiting for you on the other end of the plane ride.



Of course, when we use "Barky," our Z-71 Chevy pickemup truck, using a wildcat is not a problem. All I have to do is actually remember the ammunition <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />.



Steve