.338 ELR-capable projectiles, side-by-side

[ELR Researcher]

While I have been waiting for my 338 NM build to complete, I have accumulated a number of "prospective" ELR-capable projectiles to test. I've been thinking about taking a side-by-side pic for a while and finally did.

The projectiles are placed from lowest weight to highest, left to right, with the associated boxes (and projectile ID) top to bottom.

Notes:

1. Neither the Dynamic Research nor GSC projectiles will stand straight on their own - so the ugly tape-in-place treatment.
2. The first projectile, Hornady 225, is for fire forming only. [I had planned on an Improved version of the 338 NM at one point and purchased them at that time.] So just disregard in re "ELR-capable".
3. The "marks" near the tip of the Berger are what appear to be from water (as received) - water spots. They do not wipe off and I prefer showing exactly what came out of the box.

Yes, I plan on doing a lot of testing.

 

[Rockfish Dave]

Just curious what testing will entail?

Actualvs claimed BC?
trans stability?
operating envelope?
expansion tests?

Looking forward to you results.

 

[ELR Researcher]

Just curious what testing will entail?

Actual vs claimed BC?
trans stability?
operating envelope?
expansion tests?

Looking forward to your results.

Sorry, none of the above (not equipped for such testing). Simple stuff like grouping, drop, and apparent stability (i.e., round holes). I'm a fair weather shooter, so I don't expect to get anything serious done before the Spring - assuming no more major delays with my rifle.

 

[cowboywhorses]

Morning just curious did you ever sell your 338 Norma 40 degree imp reamer and gauges? I saw them awhile back thought you may still have.

Thanks

Jeff

gun)

 

[ELR Researcher]

Morning just curious did you ever sell your 338 Norma 40 degree imp reamer and gauges? I saw them awhile back thought you may still have.

Thanks

Jeff

gun)

Sold several months ago.

 

[Mike 338]

Testing so many different bullets, how do you decide how deep to cut the throat?

 

[ELR Researcher]

Testing so many different bullets, how do you decide how deep to cut the throat?

The spec (for my gunsmith) reads, "NOTE: Throat both barrels for zero jump/jam at COAL = 3.650 with Berger #33106 (Hybrid OTM Tactical 300 gr)." That is what I expect to end up with. [The COAL is to fit my AI 338 LM CIP mags. I provided him one mag and cartridge brass and the Bergers. He is also building me custom dies to match.]

My barrels will be nitrided and I will test from there. I want the barrels nitrided before doing any testing.

One of the barrels is a "salvage" rechamber job and will be used only for fire forming.

Depending on how the testing goes I will purchase additional barrels - possibly changing the throating at that time. I am trying to keep the initial overall rifle weight down to just under 17# to allow 1000 yard NBRSA competition - the "good" barrel is only 26" and fluted.

Going forward I will swap barrels to shoot ELR - longer barrels, possibly gain twist, etc. I may well attempt to engage Defensive Edge to go Shawn's +P. [I say "attempt" because I don't know if he'll be willing to spend the time to +P a 338 NM.]

Probably too much info. Its been typed so...

 

[lazylabs]

Not to be a jerk but...... Won't this "test" just tell us what bullet your barrel/load combo likes? Those are all quality bullets and I would hate to see one of them be called the "worst" bullet just because that one or even two barrels didn't like them. The hard part of testing bullets is just getting enough down range in enough different barrels, chamberings, conditions to make the data usefull. The berger 300 is a great example, they did a bunch of testing and still got the first batch wrong. If you shot 1000 of each in 10 different barrels with different muzzle velocities then maybe.... I am just guessing no one really wants to spend that large amount of money/time for a less than exact answer in the end. I guess any data can help I just worry that it could be misleading.

 

[ELR Researcher]

Not to be a jerk but...... Won't this "test" just tell us what bullet your barrel/load combo likes? Those are all quality bullets and I would hate to see one of them be called the "worst" bullet just because that one or even two barrels didn't like them. The hard part of testing bullets is just getting enough down range in enough different barrels, chamberings, conditions to make the data usefull. The berger 300 is a great example, they did a bunch of testing and still got the first batch wrong. If you shot 1000 of each in 10 different barrels with different muzzle velocities then maybe.... I am just guessing no one really wants to spend that large amount of money/time for a less than exact answer in the end. I guess any data can help I just worry that it could be misleading.

LL...

Seems some confusion.

The pic was posted to display the projectiles side-by-side, for visual comparison. My focus is not to do the research (a Jimmie Sloan-type development effort) that you describe but to find out what works with my rifle and my various barrels. I have to set it up one way or another and what I described is where I am starting. I have neither the resources nor time to "research" projectile vs projectile in any "globally" good or bad sense, only test what I have accumulated using my gear.

Very sorry to have led anyone astray.

 

[lazylabs]

ELR... that makes sense. I was probably off track. Good luck with your development.