This thread is not about my father is stronger than yours, or my father can drink more beer than yours. Or even the other way ... my muscles are smaller than yours, but they are much harder than yours, and I am not scared of you.

I have said before .... Mauser fans of the 7x57 and 8x57 are looking beyond numbers, as that is not the be all and end all. The rifle itself counts for a lot. The whole idea is not to beat any caliber for that matter with velocity, as that is not its niche nor its virtue. It is to have a medium bore shooting a 200 to 220 grain bullet at moderate velocity and at a low pressure on Mauser actions .... and custom built as well to one's liking. Something like this:-



I bet that in a few year's time there aren't going to be a lot of factory load choices for the 338 Federal as well, as the 338 Federal doesn't appear to be catching on anywhere, and I predict a smaller number of 338 Federal rifles will be out there than 8x57 rifles. The 338 Federal is efficient, inherently accurate, fits in a short action and can be built on a light-weight rifle and is suitable for basically everything in the US, but that has nothing to do with it whether it will survive or not!

Loaded with a 200 gr Nosler Partition to around 2,500 fps gives one adequate coverage out to 237 yds if we specify a vital zone radius of 3".

Loaded with 220/226 gr bullets at around 2,300 fps it would be an ideal eland caliber out to about 164 yds for the same vital zone radius.

This is flat shooting for a vital zone diameter of 6 inches, as small as an impala sized game.
I normally base my PBR calculations on 3 inches above and below the LOS for precision shooting, being conservative.

Here are some stats to look at ex Quickload:

Detail ---------200 gr NP ---- Trajectory
Bullet's BC --- 0.350 --------- Not applicable
Velocity ------ 2,500 fps ------ -1.5"
100 yds ------ 2,258 fps ------ +2.7"
200 yds ------ 2,031 fps ------ Zero
237 yds ------ 1,950 fps ------ -2.9" (Point blank range)
250 yds ------ 1,921 fps ------ -4.3"


Detail ---------220 gr NP ---- Trajectory
Bullet's BC --- 0.393 --------- Not applicable
Velocity ------ 2,324 fps ------ -1.5"
100 yds ------ 2,118 fps ------ Zero
164 yds ------ 1,991 fps ------ -3.0 Point blank range)
200 yds ------ 1,921 fps ------ -6.1"

This is fairly flat shooting on big game. I am sure some people load hotter, but it is really a moot attempt at these ranges to gain 50 or 80 fps.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
This thread is not about my father is stronger than yours, or my father can drink more beer than yours. Or even the other way ... my muscles are smaller than yours, but they are much harder than yours, and I am not scared of you.

Warrior, that is not my intention. I just call BS when I see it. I only took issue with the 8x57 being called "hands down" better. Looking at the paper ballistics, they are essentially the same cartridge. Yes, you can argue that we never needed the 338 Federal because we already had the 8x57. In reality, none of the cartridges in the last 50 years do anything that hasn't already been done before.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Considering they we're using CNC machinery back then to build these rifles

Oops, I mean WEREN'T using CNC machinery, and might add didn't have the advancements in machining we have today. Amazing how mispelling can change the whole meaning of the paragraph.

Ya got me guys!

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Considering they we're using CNC machinery back then to build these rifles

Oops, I mean WEREN'T using CNC machinery, and might add didn't have the advancements in machining we have today. Amazing how mispelling can change the whole meaning of the paragraph.

Ya got me guys!

One of the features of a Mauser made rifle often not discussed or written about was that its magazine box was designed to be case-specific, and that is where some others, even modern factory rifles, fall flat. Mauser understood the science of making magazine boxes and followers, and it was the key to the success of their rifles, both military and commercial.

It was Paul Mauser who first pioneered and correctly calculated proper dimensions for a staggered magazine to be used in bolt action rifles. He went strictly by a mathematical formula for all the cartridges that he made. Rounds should stack in the magazine forming equalateral triangles of contact,limited by the box,the follower,and the rails. Some of today's gunsmiths are still unaware of his magazine design concept. Great rifles need to be reliable and dependable to ensure superior feeding each and every time. Great rifles are built from the inside-out!

His formula for the optimum magazine width was as follows:-

(Cosine of 30 degrees) x base diameter of cartridge case) + base diameter = width of magazine

Here are some examples:

For a .30-06 Spr = (.866 x .473) + .473 = .882 inches
For a .300 Win Mag = (.866 X .532) + .532 = .993 inches.
For a 404 Jeffrey = (.866 X .545) + .545 = 1.017 inches.

For smooth, reliable feeding from double-stack magazines, it is important that the feed rails or lips are designed to properly align the cartridge with the chamber, both horizontally and vertically, and release the cartridge at the right time. Today the majority of centerfire sporting rifles feed from double-stack magazines. Compared to single-stack magazines, staggering the cartridges in two rows allows the same number of cartridges to be carried in a shorter column height. I don't like protruding single-stack magazines as they are in my way where the rifle should balance and where I am used to hold the rifle when I run with it.

With double-stack magazines, functioning is not affected much by necking the case to a different caliber as long as other case dimensions are unchanged - the critical case dimensions are diameter and case length. A Mauser rifle built around the 8mm cartridge easily adapts to cartridges of similar dimensions, such as 7mm Mauser or .257 Roberts. It generally will work with cartridges such as .30-06 or .270 Win having the same body diameter, but a longer case. Change these significantly, and we run into trouble. The Winchester 54 was built around the .30-06 cartridge, but its magazine also functioned perfectly with the .270 Win, which was based on the .30-06 case.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

With double-stack magazines, functioning is not affected much by necking the case to a different caliber as long as other case dimensions are unchanged - the critical case dimensions are diameter and case length. A Mauser rifle built around the 8mm cartridge easily adapts to cartridges of similar dimensions, such as 7mm Mauser or .257 Roberts. It generally will work with cartridges such as .30-06 or .270 Win having the same body diameter, but a longer case. Change these significantly, and we run into trouble. The Winchester 54 was built around the .30-06 cartridge, but its magazine also functioned perfectly with the .270 Win, which was based on the .30-06 case.

Warrior

For flawless feeding the diameter of the case @ the shoulder (case taper) is also critical. The Mauser double stack design has the cartridges stacked in perfect equalateral triangles W/the entire case body in full contact W/not only the magazine walls, but the adjacent cartridges above and/or below.

Yes, a 30-06 case will feed well, but to follow the true Mauser design, the case having less taper due to the larger diameter @ the shoulder requires a wider magazine dimension @ that point. (less taper in the magazine wall inside dimension) Not much, but to stay true to the design it does require a slight increase in width.

Cartridges W/even less taper like the 308 family will require an even wider magazine @ the shoulder. (less taper)

I had trouble W/reliable feeding W/an 8mm-06 A.I. The blown out, nearly straight case body would not allow the cartridges to form the perfect traingle. Even though the case head was .473, the rear of the cases would float in the magazine while the shoulder area would remain stable albiet not in the perfect 60 dgree relationship of an equalateral triangle.

Milling out the forward section of the magazine cured the problem & even allowed the bolt to be closed on 5 down. That could not be accomplished W/the standard M98 magazine dimiensions.

Now, all the 8mm-06 A.I. cartridges form the perfect 60 degree relationship of the intended design.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:



Warrior

I think I now know what Heaven looks like.

The MG 42 (shortened from German: Maschinengewehr 42, or "machine gun 42") is a 7.92mm universal machine gun that was developed in Nazi Germany and entered service with the Wehrmacht in 1942.The MG 42 has a proven record of reliability, durability, simplicity, and ease of operation, but is most notable for being able to produce a stunning volume of suppressive fire. The MG 42 has one of the highest average rates of fire of any single-barreled man-portable machine gun - 1,200 rounds per minute, twice the rate of the British Vickers machine gun and American Browning at 600 round/min.

The mg42, or Hitler's buzzsaw was by far the best and most effective small arms design of WW2. The Krauts actually designed the MG42 to be machined out of a single piece of steel so it was incredibly easy to mass produce. This gave them a huge advantage allowing them to deploy over 10x more machine guns per person then the allies on the western front. They even changed their battlefield tactics around the gun.

http://youtu.be/N59msUnyy1g

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:

The point isn't so much that the 8X57 is better than the 338 federal (it is) the point is, why develope a "new" cartridge that isn't any better (aguably it's inferior) than the one that already exists?

Seriously? How can you call yourself Wildcat Junkie?

Back when I started my (CF rifle) reloading experience, I too thought of the 8X57 as a weakling cartridge due to the anemic American manufacturer's loadings that (barely) replicated "32 Special" balistics.

When I started my 1st home spun custom Mauser project I just had to recamber the military barrel to 8mm-06 A.I. (hence the moniker Wildcat Junkie)

I was getting just under 3000fps W/180gr Nosler BTs & a bit over 2800fps W/200gr Partitions @ pressures that, looking back @ case life, were probably quite a bit higher than what I currently load the 8X57 to.

All that for less than 100fps?

Granted, what I have learned about using denser Vv N5XX series powders would have increased the MV of the 8mm-06 A.I. loadings, but I doubt that the increase in Mv would have exceeded 150 fps W/a given projectile.

150fps is a substantial increase in Mv, but it will take about 15% to 20% more powder & higher chamber pressure to accomplish.

And, yes, I do plan to do another 8mm-06 A. I., but part of the motivation is due to the fact that I already have dies, fireformed cases & a magazine that has been milled to the proper inside taper to accomodate the straight walled A.I. cases.

The 8X57 is a marvel of effeciency & when loaded to modern chamber pressure, it out paces the 30-06 by well over 300 ft#s of Me when bullets over 180gr are employed.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
WJ,

You don't even load the 338 Federal. If you think 80 FPS with a slightly longer barrel is significant, you are delusional. The loads I'm using are book loads from the Alliant website so they aren't dangerous loads.

Are you actually using a Chrony or relying on QL for your velocity?

By the way, the 338 Fed is accurate too....yes, even a plain old Ruger.

I'm using a "Pact" Chronograph.

A far as your "book loads". I believe, as posted earlier in this thread, that SAAMI 338 Feeble chamber pressure spec is 62,000psi so if you are aproaching "book" Mv, you are probably @ 62,000 psi.

If you are exceeding "book" Mv, you are probably exceeding 62,000 psi. "Fast" barrels are higher pressure barrels. There's no such thing as a "free lunch."

I reached QL predicted Mv (as measured by chronograph) @ about 2gr LESS powder charge than listed. It stands to reason that if I am reacing predicted Mv for 60,000psi, then I am most likely reaching that chamber pressure regardless of powder charge.

If you think that reaching 80fps Mv at less chamber pressure W/a barrel length increase of a mere 1 1/2", in a smaller bullet diameter that will have better BC & SD is insignificant, then perhaps you are the dilusional one.

As far as accuracy? That group I posted was for the 1st 3 rounds sent down range W/that particular load.

The only "load developement" was shooting a few incremental loadings across my chronograph on the back deck W/O a target to check for MV, standard deviation & pressure signs.

W/the results of those 1st 3 rounds on paper, I didn't bother W/any more "load developemnt." It was early bear season in the Adirondacks & I was short on components. A few more groups confirmed the repeatability of that load so I packed up & went hunting.

That was out of an unaltered (internally) "milsurp" barrel BTW. The only modifications were the have the countour turned down & the muzzle crowned.

The chamber, throat & rifling were untouched. The headspace checked out when I screwwed the barrel into the action so I saw no need to monkey W/anything.

wildcat junkie,

This is how it is ... when a rifle performs to expectation, is reliable and soundly constructed, one has a different idea or perception about a particular cartridge.

I too never considered the virtues of the "old and obsolete" military 7.92x57 mm, till I used it on a hunt bordering Botswanna where the river runs way up north in SA. It was a rifle that I used from a farmer shooting Prvi 196 gr SP bullets @ 2,461 fps. Shot 3 Wildebeest - all one shot kills in the river bed - 50 to 80 paces away.

I hunted for 15 years exclusively with my my FN-Sauer 270 Win, and the above experience led me to start getting custom built Mausers.

Here is a rather nice collection of 9,3x57 and 8x57 Mausers:

http://www.sporterizing.com/in...iew=findpost&p=36312

Warrior

quote:

If you think that reaching 80fps Mv at less chamber pressure W/a barrel length increase of a mere 1 1/2", in a smaller bullet diameter that will have better BC & SD is insignificant, then perhaps you are the dilusional one.

I remain delusional. By your logic, the 8x57 is feeble when compared to the 30-06.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:

quote:

If you think that reaching 80fps Mv at less chamber pressure W/a barrel length increase of a mere 1 1/2", in a smaller bullet diameter that will have better BC & SD is insignificant, then perhaps you are the dilusional one.

I remain delusional. By your logic, the 8x57 is feeble when compared to the 30-06.

How can that be when it will best the '06 in Mv W/a 180 or 200gr bullet?

You're right, you remain delusional.

quote:

Originally posted by wildcat junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:

quote:

If you think that reaching 80fps Mv at less chamber pressure W/a barrel length increase of a mere 1 1/2", in a smaller bullet diameter that will have better BC & SD is insignificant, then perhaps you are the dilusional one.

I remain delusional. By your logic, the 8x57 is feeble when compared to the 30-06.

How can that be when it will best the '06 in Mv W/a 180 or 200gr bullet?

You're right, you remain delusional.

Not really with 180 grain bullets. Maybe by a little with 200. But like you said, much better BC and better SD will make up the difference.

Your load with a 23.5” barrel

8x57 200 NP @ 2730 .426 BC-.274 SD 2321 fps @ 200, 2130 fps @300

My load with 22” barrel

338 Fed 200 HC@ 2650 .448 BC- .250 SD 2267 fps @200, 2088 @ 300


30-06 Factory Douple Tap

200 Accubond @ 2650 .588 BC-.301 SD 2355 fps @200, 2215 fps @300


I now can see how the 8x57 is vastly superior to the 338 Federal just like the 30-06 is vastly superior to the 8x57.

Scott

If we are in search of a fair comparison regarding retained velocity at distance, and thus trajectories, we need to use the same bullet with the same BC for all contestants.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Scott

If we are in search of a fair comparison regarding retained velocity at distance, and thus trajectories, we need to use the same bullet with the same BC for all contestants.

Warrior

Warrior, that goes against the advantages WJ stated, namely higher BC and high SD for the 8x57. I didn't even argue the fact that bigger frontal area could make a bigger hole. My point is they are all in the same class when it comes to killing game and calling one vastly superior is just not being realistic.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
Your load with a 23.5” barrel

8x57 200 NP @ 2730 .426 BC-.274 SD 2321 fps @ 200, 2130 fps @300

My load with 22” barrel

338 Fed 200 HC@ 2650 .448 BC- .250 SD 2267 fps @200, 2088 @ 300


30-06 Factory Douple Tap

200 Accubond @ 2650 .588 BC-.301 SD 2355 fps @200, 2215 fps @300


I now can see how the 8x57 is vastly superior to the 338 Federal just like the 30-06 is vastly superior to the 8x57.

Try this 8mm:

Bullet Name Diameter inches Weight grains Sectional Density Ballistic Coefficients
.323 dia. (8mm) 200 gr. HPBT MatchKing
.323 200 .274 .520 @ 2300 fps and above
.505 between 2300 and 1700 fps
.461 @1700 fps and below

That is a nice one for shooting targets.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
That is a nice one for shooting targets.

Then shoot the Game King:

Bullet Name Diameter inches Weight grains Sectional Density Ballistic Coefficients
.323 dia. (8mm) 220 gr. SBT
.323 220 .301 .521 @ 2500 fps and above
.524 between 2500 and 1850 fps
.512 between 1850 and 1550 fps
.495 @ 1550 fps and below


I know Sierra says not to use Match Kings for hunting, but I know a lot of guys do with great success. I don't however.

Scott & SmokinJ,

In modelling the same bullet needs to be used to derive an equitable answer. However, whatever the result and even if 2730 fps can be achieved with a 200 grainer, I see it as little value out to 250 yards within which most hunting is done. If the ranges gets longer I will take my 300 H&H along.

This is fairly flat shooting on big game for a 8x57 a 30-06. Our local PMP ammo is loaded to 2,625 fps with a 180 grain bullet and no 200 gr load is offered, and if the did it would be about 2,470 fps.

Detail ---------200 gr NP ---- Trajectory
Bullet's BC --- 0.350 --------- Not applicable
Velocity ------ 2,500 fps ------ -1.5"
100 yds ------ 2,258 fps ------ +2.7"
200 yds ------ 2,031 fps ------ Zero
237 yds ------ 1,950 fps ------ -2.9" (Point blank range)
250 yds ------ 1,921 fps ------ -4.3"

If the above stands in our way to be successful hunters, we better pack up and go. My view is that the above is actually ideal at practical hunting ranges for most people and as bonus to make the bullet perform better, avoiding fragmentation and weight loss.

Bullets that fragment or shatter cause the most meat damage. The situation is exacerbated with loads that yield higher impact velocities. Non-bonded lead-core bullets that are mostly used by hunters (those that do not reload) are susceptible to this.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
Your load with a 23.5” barrel

8x57 200 NP @ 2730 .426 BC-.274 SD 2321 fps @ 200, 2130 fps @300

My load with 22” barrel

338 Fed 200 HC@ 2650 .448 BC- .250 SD 2267 fps @200, 2088 @ 300


30-06 Factory Douple Tap

200 Accubond @ 2650 .588 BC-.301 SD 2355 fps @200, 2215 fps @300


I now can see how the 8x57 is vastly superior to the 338 Federal just like the 30-06 is vastly superior to the 8x57.

That has to be one of the most ludicrous posts I've ever seen on this forum.




1st you take a polymer tipped boat tail Accubond 200gr .308 bullet that has little in common W/the .200gr .323 Partition as far as similar drag properties, then you use an obvious misrepresentation by Speer as far as the BC of the 200gr .338 HC bullet.

If you think that a 200gr .338 soft lead nose, flat base bullet can have a BC anywhere near .448 when a Polymer tipped, boat tail Nosler 200gr .338 Ballistic Tip sports a BC of .414, then you are either delusional or totally clueless of the factors that contribute to a bullet's BC.

Similar 200gr soft lead nose .338 bullets like Hornady's 200g .338 Interlock have a BC of .361. Since Hornady”s 195gr .323 Interlock has a similar BC to The 200gr .323 HC bullet, then the .361 BC would probably be about right for the 200gr .338 HC bullet.

Furthermore, if we have a look @ Nosler’s 210gr .338 Partition, it has a BC of .400. If we give the 200gr .338 HC bullet the benefit of the doubt & split the difference, we would get a BC in the .380 range. In either case, the published BC of .448 for the Speer 200gr .338 HC is laughable, unless the Obama administration has been successful in repealing the laws of physics.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Scott

If we are in search of a fair comparison regarding retained velocity at distance, and thus trajectories, we need to use the same bullet with the same BC for all contestants.

Warrior

You are somewhat correct in that post.

Since the debate involves 200gr bullets, perhaps a better comparison, in this particular case would be 200gr bullets in the various calibers that are of similar construction & drag characteristics.

One could consider the 200gr .308 Partition W/a BC of .481 to the 200gr .323 Partition W/a BC of .426. The only fly in the ointment would be the fact that in .338, the closest we can get is 210gr W/a BC of .400. The extra length & weight would probably scale back MV to the 2575fps range.

If we want to compare Polymer tipped boat tail bullets we can use the 200gr .308 Accubond W/a BC of .588 to the 200gr .323 Accubond W/a BC of .450. Again, in .338 there is no 200gr Accubond available, Kinda makes you wonder if 200gr is a good choice for a .338 bullet doesn’t it? We can use a 200gr .338 Ballistic tip for drag characteristics since the BT is the same as the Accubond in most cases as far as BC. We have a BC of .414 for that scenario.

As far as similar BC in the various calibers?

That is probably a better choice as every caliber has a certain projectile weight that is the best compromise of Mv & retained energy downrange.

In 8mm that just so happens to be around 200grs.

So let's compare bullets of similar BC.

165gr .308 Partition BC of .410 @ 3000fps Mv, 3197ft# Me, 2342fps @ 300yds, 2009ft#
-11.4 @ 300yds W/100yd zero (the best load in Nosler’s 5th edition handbook)

200gr .323 Partition BC of .426 @ 2730fps Mv, 3310ft# Me, 2130fps @ 300yds, 2016ft#
-14.4 @ 300yds W/100yd zero

225gr .338 Partition BC of .454 @ a scaled back Mv of 2450fps 2999 Me, 1920fps @ 300yds 1842Ft#
-18.6” @ 300yds W/100yd zero (300ft# behind the others @ the muzzle & still behind @ 300yds W/more than 4” trajectory disadvantage to the 8X57)

Although the ’06 has a 3” trajectory advantage @ 300yds over the 8X57 & is a close as far as energy, a 165gr bullet MIGHT be considered a bit light for larger game.

The 338 Federal starts out in the hole, can’t gain it back & drops over 4” more @ 300yds compared to the 8X57

Same weight bullets for each caliber?


200gr .308 Nosler Partition BC of .481 @ 2650fps Mv,3118ft# Me, 2124fps @ 300yds, 2004ft#
-15” @ 300yds W/100yd zero (nearly 200ft# behind the 8X57 in Me but gaining downrange)

200gr .323 Nosler Partition BC of .426 @ 2730fps Mv, 3310 Me, 2130fps @ 300yds, 2016ft#
-14.4” @ 300yds W100yd zero (out to 300yds, the 8X57 still out does the ’06 across the board, only when the range excceds 400yds does the better BC of the 200gr .308 bullet start to pull ahead as far as velocity/energy)

200gr Speer Hotcore (real world) BC of .380 @ 2650fps Mv, 3118 ft# Me, 1995fps @ 300yds, 1768 ft#
-16.1 @ 300yds W/100yd zero

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
Warrior, that goes against the advantages WJ stated, namely higher BC and high SD for the 8x57. I didn't even argue the fact that bigger frontal area could make a bigger hole. My point is they are all in the same class when it comes to killing game and calling one vastly superior is just not being realistic.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension, I said there was a significant advantage, and I never said the 8X57 was “vastly superior.” 300 ft# of energy @ the muzzle & 250 ft# out to 300yds W/a flatter trajectory & better SD is a significant advantage. Not vastly superior, but enough to make a difference when perhaps a shot @ a less than ideal angle on a large game animal presents itself.

Your posts seem to be based on emotion, not fact. You use erroneous data to place the 8X57 @ a disadvantage.

If you can find ANY 200gr .338 lead core bullet, let alone a soft lead point flat base design, from a manufacturer other than Speer that has a published BC anywhere near .448, then your assumptions do have some validity.

Even @ an estimated BC of .380 I think I gave the 200gr .338 HC the benefit of the doubt.

As far as the ’06 being superior to the 8X57? When we compare apples to apples, whether W/ bullets of similar BC or bullet weight when of similar drag characteristics, the only place the ’06 showed ANY advantage was in trajectory when the more bore appropriate 165gr .308 bullet was used for comparison. The 338 Federal never equaled the 8X57.

The niche of the 8x57 is with 200 grain bullets and that comes at the lowest pressure one can ballistically obtain with hunting rifles. That makes the 8x57 one of the all time greats. It may not be seen that way by speed-freaks, but many gunsmiths concur with this view.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
The niche of the 8x57 is with 200 grain bullets and that comes at the lowest pressure one can ballistically obtain with hunting rifles. That makes the 8x57 one of the all time greats. I may not be seen that way by speed-freaks, but many gunsmiths concur with this view.

Warrior

Absolutely, and the .338 bore shines when bullets of 225gr to 250gr are employed.

The .308 case that the 338 Feeble is based on just doen't have the capacity to propel those length/wieght projectiles @ a versitile Mv in the short action rifles that it is designed for.

To get the most of the .338 bore only something W/the case capacity of the 338 Win Mag can really start to take advantage of those bullets.

IMO that's exactly why Winchester introduced the 8mm WSM (AKA 325 WSM) instead of a 338 WSM.

Furthermore, my experiments W/180gr .323 Nosler Ballistics Tips showed that even when starting out @ nearly 150fps more than the 200gr Partition, the trajectory fell off past 150yds giving the better trajectory to the Partition due to the better BC of the heavier albeit slower projectile.

You will find a similar scenerio when 150gr .308 bullets are compared to 165gr .308 bullets. The 150gr .308 starts out faster, but it bleeds off velocity much faster that the 165gr bullet.

The same would probably hold true for the less than ideal weight 200gr .338 bullets compared to more apropriate 225gr .338 pills, but not so much in a "short action" 2.8"ish cartridge OAL. A longer 225 gr bullet would probably impinge too much into the powder space of a .308 based case to take advantage.

From the above it seems that every caliber has an ideal bullet weight ballistically speaking ito a pressure/velocity ratio.

Warrior

Happy ramadan? are you kidding me? AR has gone too far! btw, like the 8mils, so long all.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
From the above it seems that every caliber has an ideal bullet weight ballistically speaking ito a pressure/velocity ratio.

Warrior

Ideal might not be the best term.

Perhaps "best compromize" might be a better word.

In the case of the 200gr .323 spitzer bullets in the 8X57 or other non magnum 8mm cartridges, it's the best compromize for retained downrange energy & trajectory @ moderate to long range.

In cartridges such as the 8X68S or 8mm Rem Mag that can drive heavier bullets @ higher Mvs that are to be used for the largest, perhaps more dangerous game, then something a bit heavier might be a better compromize for those particular situations.

If you look @ trajectory/retained energy data for various calibers there is indeed a bullet weight that is the best compromise for retained energy/flat trajectory.

In .264, bullets around 120gr fit that criteria in .277 130gr, .284 140gr, .308 165gr, etc

For ranges less than say 200yds one might opt to go W/a lighter for caliber bullet to maximize Mv & Me @ closer ranges where trajectory is a non issue & BC is less of a factor.

That would be the niche of the 338 federal W/200gr bullets IMO.

The 8X57 W/200gr bullets has the edge when longer shots @ elk sized game may be on the menu. It's just a bit more versitile.

Your posts on + or - 3" PBR are interesting as my 2730fps 200gr 8X57 load has a 3" PBR of 235yds & a zero of 200yds.

That is ideal for my purposes as most of my shots on my farm from elevated stands overlooking a 15 acre logged out area are in the 200 to 245yd range & seldom less than 75 yds.

I just hold on the vertical center of the heart/lung area on whitetails & forget about holdover on all but the longest shots. Even then, I just hold a bit high in the lungs. So far it has worked every time W/one shot kills W/little or no blood trailing when the animal is not DRT. 15 yds is the farthest a buck has made it so far after being hit W/that load.

Mr. Wildcat Junkie. Below is a copy of a part of your post.

If we want to compare Polymer tipped boat tail bullets we can use the 200gr .308 Accubond W/a BC of .588 to the 200gr .323 Accubond W/a BC of .450. Again, in .338 there is no 200gr Accubond available, Kinda makes you wonder if 200gr is a good choice for a .338 bullet doesn’t it? We can use a 200gr .338 Ballistic tip for drag characteristics since the BT is the same as the Accubond in most cases as far as BC. We have a BC of .414 for that scenario.

There is a 200 grain 338 Accubond, it is Nosler part number 56382

quote:

Originally posted by ron williams:
Mr. Wildcat Junkie. Below is a copy of a part of your post.

If we want to compare Polymer tipped boat tail bullets we can use the 200gr .308 Accubond W/a BC of .588 to the 200gr .323 Accubond W/a BC of .450. Again, in .338 there is no 200gr Accubond available, Kinda makes you wonder if 200gr is a good choice for a .338 bullet doesn’t it? We can use a 200gr .338 Ballistic tip for drag characteristics since the BT is the same as the Accubond in most cases as far as BC. We have a BC of .414 for that scenario.

There is a 200 grain 338 Accubond, it is Nosler part number 56382

Don't know how I missed that but regardless, it has the same BC as the 200gr BT as I thought it would.

However, I can see a problem trying to utilize a 200gr .338 Accubond in the short action rifles it is typically chambered.

The longer length of the bullet will impinge a bit more into the powder space in a .308 based case thus scaling back Mv a bit. it would probably be a wash as far asgains in trajectory from the better BC.

I find a somewhat similar scenerio W/the 8mm 180gr BT. The extra length does not allow enough MV increase over the 200gr Partition to make up for the poorer BC.

In the 338 Federal W/it's moderate MV, the controlled expansion of the AB (or Partition for that matter) is not really needed. In that case the 200gr .338 HC is probably the best choice. I plan to try the 200gr 8mm HC in my 8X57 for similar factors. It is much more affordable than the Partition bullet & it has a similar BC.

I hate to say this, but you guys are arguing from the same end of the field. About any bullet with a 400 or up, BC, weighing in the neighborhood of 200 grains, or more, traveling 2400 FPS, or more, is going to be pretty darn good in the field. I really like the 8X57, but own a 338 Federal, that I have had nothing, but good results with. You go to slingin 200 grain bullets,with reasonable BCs, at reasonable velocities, you can expect, no less than reasonable results.

Another cartridge being very close to the 8x57 mm (.323") that is often compared to the 8 mm Mauser is the 35 Whelen, developed in 1922. It has been based on the 30-06 case and simply necked up to .358" caliber. In 1987 the Remington Arms Company standardized the cartridge, in other words they began producing it as a regular commercial round. It was first made available in the Remington model 700 Classic, manufactured in 1988. With a maximum load of 63.0 grains of W748 powder it can launch a 220 grain bullet at 2,560 fps. By this time Intermediate Maser actions were already very scarce and so the 35 Whelen could fill a niche in the American market as something more powerful than the 30-06 shooting heavier bullet from 220 to 250 grains.

The .338 Win Mag, another medium bore of .338 or 8.38 mm, ) is another cartridge but introduced in 1958 by Winchester well before the 35 Whelen came about and stole most of the attention in the medium bore class. However the 338 Win Mag was based on a blown out and shortened .375 H&H Magnum case, whereas the 35 Whelen was just a simple and inexpensive adaptation of the 30-06 Spr, although it had a late start historically.

I would suspect that America then did then finally not need the 8x57 mm anymore as it had its own medium bore that could be made off a standard length action, rather than the intermediate length actions from Mauser.

There is one serious drawback though - the 35 Whelen came out with a 16" twist whereas the 8 mm Mauser had a twist of 9.4". With longer monolithic bullets the Whelen could more easily suffer from bullet instability. The 200 Barnes TSX is a perfect match for the 8 mm Mauser, and I am not sure that the 35 Whelen could match this with equal stability loaded with the 225 gr TSX offer in the caliber. There is a substantial difference in the twist rate, and perhaps it would have been better served to have come out with a 12" for its bore size. Incidentally Woodleigh offers a 310 grain bullet in .358" both in FMJ and SN form - rather long bullets for the caliber 37.65 mm & 34.34 mm respectively, whereas the classical standard of 250 grains the Woodleigh SN measures only 25.58 mm.

Perhaps someone would like to comment on this.

Warrior

I agree with you Warrior but:

The .35 Whelen was originally developed in 1922 as a wildcat cartridge by Col. Townsend Whelen, and built by gunsmith James V. Howe (later of Griffin & Howe). At the time Colonel Townsend Whelen was the commanding officer of the Frankford Arsenal, and James V. Howe was a toolmaker in the same establishment.

Now grant you that was as a wildcat not a factory option, but it still did exist before the 338 Win Mag.

American's have never liked the 8mm'ers and for that matter they weren't too fond of 6.5's until recently.

I agree the 8x57 is a very good cartridge.

I feel the 8x57 is more closely compared to the smaller 338's such as the 338-06 and the recent 338 Federal made off the 308 case.

quote:

There is one serious drawback though - the 35 Whelen came out with a 16" twist whereas the 8 mm Mauser had a twist of 9.4". With longer monolithic bullets the Whelen could more easily suffer from bullet instability. The 200 Barnes TSX is a perfect match for the 8 mm Mauser, and I am not sure that the 35 Whelen could match this with equal stability loaded with the 225 gr TSX offer in the caliber. There is a substantial difference in the twist rate, and perhaps it would have been better served to have come out with a 12" for its bore size. Incidentally Woodleigh offers a 310 grain bullet in .358" both in FMJ and SN form - rather long bullets for the caliber 37.65 mm & 34.34 mm respectively, whereas the classical standard of 250 grains the Woodleigh SN measures only 25.58 mm.

Long bullets such as the 310 gr Wdl in .358 is best suited in the 35 Whelen looking at the various cartridges below as it does not rob as plenty powder space as the others, but can the Whelen's slow twist rate handle it:-

Left to Right:

35 Whelen -------- 310 gr Woodleigh 3.280"
350 WSM --------- 310 gr Woodleigh 2.865"
358 Win ---------- 310 gr Woodleigh 2.865"
350 Rem Mag --- 300 gr Barnes Original 2.820"



Perhaps someone can comment on this, preferably someone who has actually shot this bullet.

Warrior

Warrior,

Not all whelens have 1/16 twist barrels. IMO, 1/12 is correct for .358 cal. and I'd bet most custom rifles, rebarrels, or rebores to 35 whelen are done in a faster twist than 1/16. I may be wrong but I think Ruger now uses a 1/12 in their 358 win and 35 whelen. Without the ability to stabilize the heavier bullets why in the world would any one bother with a 35 cal. at all.

I used my 35 Brown Whelen this spring for bear using 275gr woodleigh PP. Every bear I shot dropped instantly and never got up. The 310s would have had the same affect.

When loading 310s in the whelen you still have to seat the bullet deep enough to feed reliably. My rifle has a long throat and I played with seating depth to gain case capacity. Seated out too far and the feed ramp will put that big round nose into the top of your action. At least it will in a rem 700. Not to worry though, you can still reach the recommended impact velocity (1800 to 2200) with ease even if you have to give up a little case capacity. Seated to the canalure, as your picture shows, no one should have a problem with feeding.

As for the 8x57, its one of my favorite rounds. Very impressive on game performance with 200gr nos/par or 250gr woodleigh RN. I would'nt feel under gunned any where in Alaska with a good 8x57 so loaded. That being said, the American gun market will never choose it over the latest wizbang/ultra/short/beltless offering. It would be interesting if the American ammo was loaded to the 8x57s potential,if only for the mil/surp mod98s already out there.

With bullets of 200gr and up I see the 8x57 more akin to the 338-06 than the 30-06 but thats just my opinion based on what I've seen it do.

Yenta River,

I agree 100% with what you said.

The 35 Whelen does need a faster twist like a 1-in-12" and a longer throat, so longer bullets can be seated out a bit further and to stabilize them better. A 35 Whelen is basically an upgraded 30-06, and a good one at that. Some though prefer the other upgrade that you mentioned being the 338-06 that A-Square formalized.

My comment was more focussed on all the 35 Whelens that came out with the standard twist of 16" as specified by SAAMI - not a wise decision as we all know, but admittedly perhaps when 310 grainers where not available nor the widely use of long monolichics, such as the Barnes-X.

To fix a 35 Whelen from these shortcomings is in deed easy. Using a 310 gr bullet in a 35 Whelen on elk would be a deadly combination, coming essentially from a 30-06 case but with almost double the bullet weight.

Warrior

quote:

standard twist of 16" as specified by SAAMI

Does SAAMI specify twist rate?......I didn't know that!

Here we have some load info for the 310 gr Woodleigh bullet:

Subject: Re: 310gr Woodleigh SN load data request
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 19:58:09

For the 35 Whelan.
STD primer, Fed 210. Win WLR
310gr Woodleigh SN
55-58 grains H4350 for 2230 fps
51 grains IMR4320 for 2220 fps
57 grains Reloader 15 for 2435 fps
You need a 12" twist to stabilise them in the Whelan, not sure about the Norma/

Regards,
Geoff McDonald.
WOODLEIGH BULLETS

In 1987 the Remington Arms Company standardized the cartridge, in other words they began producing it as a regular commercial round, but who set standards in the US for factory rifles?

Could it be that Remington did it on their own without referring it to SAAMI?

Obviously I stand to be corrected, but would assume that it needs to be done under the auspices of SAAMI.

Warrior

quote:

who set standards in the US for factory rifles?

Anyone that creates a new cartridge! They record it with SAAMI

Remington set the dimensions of the cartridge and the operating pressure. SAAMI is merely a recording house that holds the information for other manufacturers such as other reamer makers and ammo makers and other rifle makers.

SAAMI does not set dimensions or pressure......Further (as far as I know) the twist rate is not part of the SAAMI data....it is optional for every manufacturer.

There is no SAAMI specified twist rate for any cartridge.

Had Remington designed the .35 Whelen in a less strong rifle that required no more than 40,000 PSI pressure they would specify that to SAAMI and all ammo makers would be required to load their ammo to that pressure.....the .30-30 is such a round!

SAAMI designs nothing and specifies nothing.....It's simply a recording and holding house of information. The designer of any cartridge is the one that specifies it's dimensions and operating pressure! Again.....the twist rate is not a part of the specification!

Vapo,

Thanks for clarifying.

Warrior