• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

.338 Caliber....Lots I dont understand

Sully2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
2,480
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
338-06...225 gr Hornady slug at 2700 FPS and it generates "X" foot lbs.

338 Win Mag...225 gr slug at 2700 FPS and it generates THE SAME FOOT LBS..!

Why would I NOT WANT to shoot the 338-06 and save some of my poor old shoulder.??

Tell me why if you can!
 
Lots of 338s out there in the medium power range to look at.

Rcm
Federal
Etc

If you don't need a long throw then there are some nice options.
 
I just looked through loaddata.com, 2700 fps is tough to come by, the magnum does it easily.

The magnum will hold roughly 16 more grains H20.

There is a difference, enough to matter is up to the individual.

Neither really exploits the potential of the .338 bullets, and really this is where the bigger cases (RUM etc.) come into their own, the ability to use the heavier bullets.

But 2700fps is 2700fps regardless how you get there.
 
338-06...225 gr Hornady slug at 2700 FPS and it generates "X" foot lbs.

338 Win Mag...225 gr slug at 2700 FPS and it generates THE SAME FOOT LBS..!

Why would I NOT WANT to shoot the 338-06 and save some of my poor old shoulder.??

Tell me why if you can!

You won't be saving much on your old shoulder with the same bullet, velocity/energy off the same weight rifle ...

Below is a comparison; 62g of Win 760 for the .338-06 (23 1/2" 1:9") and 66.3g IMR 4350 for .338 WM (24" 1:10") a 2700 FPS propelling the 225g IB (SOURCE: Hornady 9th).

.338-06%20vs%20.338%20WM_zps2jbp7ry6.jpg


I can push the 225 off my rifle at 2825 FPS and with it's muzzle brake, felt recoil is comparable to that off a .308 Win. It boils down to personal preference and application. My personal preference is the .338 WM.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
I can push a 225gr Accubond at 2795 with my 338-06 and a healthy dose of rl17, 25" tube. That said, Winchester brass isn't a fan of it, usually three loads of that and the primer pockets aren't as tight as I would prefer. The recoil feels different than my father's 338 Winny, but that may just be me preferring my rifle. I'm going to back down the charge and save my brass. I didn't even take it out hunting this year, stuck with my 338 federal.
 
There are a couple factors involved when comparing performance of a chambering while adding in the highly variable factor of (felt) recoil.

Simply quantifying the amount of energy of recoil is a fairly linear correlation to the ballistic characteristics of whatever we're shooting.

Like in your example, a 338 caliber bullet weighing 225 grs, going 2700 fps will generate X amount of kinetic energy (at any given distance) - regardless of the chambering that it was shot out of (in your example a 338-06 or a 338 Win mag). Lets say that load (a 338 caliber bullet weighing 225 grs, going 2700 fps) produced 3000 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.

That 3000 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle will also produce the same amount of energy at the back end of the rifle - say from the bolt face all the way back to the butt stock.

The difference in the amount of energy transmitted to the end of the butt stock is affected by how much the whole rifle weighs and even to some extent the distance from the bolt face to the end of the butt stock.

Imagine a butt stock that was 5 feet long weighing 4lbs but was not very stiff - some of the recoil would be dissipated by the wiggly-ness of the butt stock. So, "felt" recoil may be considerably less than an equal weight, but rigid (so it must be shorter) butt stock which had no wiggly-ness to dissipate any of the recoil.

Also, if both stocks are rigid but rifle A has a butt stock is either above or below the direct line of the muzzle, the stock on rifle A will feel like it has less recoil.
 
A braked .338 RUM or .340 Weatherby smokes these velocities by hundreds of feet per second with no more recoil. With the correct stock fit and recoil pad they would be pleasant to fire.
 
That 3000 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle will also produce the same amount of energy at the back end of the rifle - say from the bolt face all the way back to the butt stock.

The difference in the amount of energy transmitted to the end of the butt stock is affected by how much the whole rifle weighs and even to some extent the distance from the bolt face to the end of the butt stock.

Yep, just like as noted above, but made the rifle weights the same at 10 lbs but if I make the .338 WM 2 lbs heavier, the result would be much different.
 

Attachments

  • .338-06 vs .338 WM REV1.JPG
    .338-06 vs .338 WM REV1.JPG
    70.6 KB · Views: 105
A braked .338 RUM or .340 Weatherby smokes these velocities by hundreds of feet per second with no more recoil. With the correct stock fit and recoil pad they would be pleasant to fire.

I agree, but I shoot 100 rounds a year minimum out of my 338s to ensure I hit what I aim at during hunting season. Should be good for many many years and not worry about a new barrel. The big 338s can't do that for many years.. and personally I'm not a fan of a big brake on a hunting rig. The service did enough damage to my ears.

100% my opinion, not saying anyone elses is wrong.

Shm
 
The OP is simply asking between these two chamberings ...

338-06...225 gr Hornady slug at 2700 FPS and it generates "X" foot lbs.

338 Win Mag...225 gr slug at 2700 FPS and it generates THE SAME FOOT LBS..!

Why would I NOT WANT to shoot the 338-06 and save some of my poor old shoulder.??

Tell me why if you can!
 
I for one do not understand why the .338-06 is not a popular cartridge. I understand the rifle manufacturers are not chambering it in rifles but I mean with all the high B.C. bullets available in .338 caliber the .338-06 can be loaded to levels that outperform many magnums at less recoil and will kill anything that walks on North America. Now it may be a little light for some for Brown Bears in the alders but for everything else it will flatten.

No. it is not the ultimate long range range sniping cartridge but for thumping things for 99% of Americans in the hunting fields it will do the job with a lot less recoil, muzzle blast, with the right bullets used! I have owned a .35 Whelen and gave it to my grandson for the Giant Black Bears that inhabit the Pennsylvania forests that can reach the size of a grizzly. Now a deer caliber can suffice for the average black bear but when you run into a outsized black bear north of 500lbs a .338-06 or .35 Whelen and 250 grain controlled expansion bullets come in to there own to put a big bear down before they get deep into thick tangles where tracking and recovery can be difficult. Now I know, I am an old 67 year old Elmer Keith throwback type, that still believes in making big holes in things preferably two (one in and one out) depending on high velocity to kill. I like things that hit them hard up close and stagger them. My eyes are not what they used to be and I had to have my lens in my eyes replaced. Now I still love the .300 Win Mag, but for in close work I have my Ithaca custom shop DeerSlayer III bull barreled 12 gauge firing a Dixie IXL-DGS Dangerous Game Slug, .729 caliber, 870 grain at 1300 FPS out of my 24 inch barrel. I may have its barrel shortened to 20" which will reduce the velocity to 1200 FPS. However, a hardened 870 grain .729 chuck of lead slaps things rather hard up close even moving at under 1200 FPS as that is a LOT of momentum to run into.

It is my hunt black Bear Bear at under 100 yard firearm. If fire arm manufacturers made rifles more practical for the hunting we Americans actually do like making us some good bolt actions in .338-06s and a lot of good hunting ammo in that caliber I would would buy one. I mean how many people actually need or can even accurately shoot a .300 Remington Ultra Mag but then what do I know I hunted elk in Wyoming with a custom .375 H&H rifle. It felt good to have in my hands because I hunted in a grizzly use area that was known for problem grizzlies and I could shoot it as well as my .30-06 as I practiced with it. I'm just thinking out loud as old farts sometimes do.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts

Top