No sir, I have not yet had the chance. As many times a year as he comes through Nacogdoches, I should but I'm always are work or out of town. I still like his music though!

Everyone should take a look at the .338 Gibbs. With a 26" tube, it is very much the equivalent of the .338 Win. Mag. in most bullet weights, and with 10 grains LESS powder to boot!

I have my own 338 wildcat on an improved 280 case. Capacity is a grain or two bigger than a Gibbs. Using 225 gr and less I can get the same velocity in a 24" that I get from my handloads in a 338 wm 22".

Sounds interesting! What are your case dimensions, if this is not "classified info"?

I sent you an email with the write up on the round.

I have seen the rounds developed by RamRod340 and can testify that they look to be an interesting idea.
I have a few of his cases and have necked them up and down from 257 to 358. I am especially interested in the 30 cal version. If I were to build a 338, I would lean towards the 338-06 imp with a minimum 24" barrel. A 225gr Hornady or Grand Slam at 2600fps+ seems to be just the ticket for big bull elk.

RamRod340,
I have your rounds in my collection. Do you have any data I could look through?
Thanks,
Elk Country

Thank you very much!!

ramrod340-I'd like your wildcat 338 case dimensions also if you don't mind. I'm playing with my new 270 Gibbs now but I plan on building a 338 Gibbs next. I'm curious how your wildcat can have more powder capacity than the 338 Gibbs. The Gibbs already has a real short neck.
Thanks,
Victor
email ibpatone@swbell.net

Well the basic case started about 25 years ago as a way to improve on the 280JRS. So I moved the shoulder out so that I ended up with a .28" neck used the 40deg shoulder of Ackley and removed a little more of the body taper. Since the shoulder is just about at the same spot as the Gibbs and is 40 vs 35 and with the longer 280 case you get more case capacity. The longer neck also allows you to move the bullet out further giving you more net capacity.

Elk Country,
I did have data from 6mm all the way to 416. Had it all in a binder and loaned it to a friend. He took it to the range to add his chrono data and left the binder on the top of his car as he drove away. We never did find it. So I'm slowly redoing the data. In the 340 I tried the 225 and got an easy 2800fps but I now use nothing but the 210 Nosler PT. From my rifle it gives 2975. When working up a max load I measure each case and call max when I see expansion. Both of these are below max.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics and thermodynamics and heat transfer have not changed for the past 50 million or so years. What that means is that there is no magic formula that makes recoil and velocity dependent on case design.

If run at the same pressure levels with appropriate powder, the one with the most powder has the biggest wins everytime. Period. I know what folks get from Ole Betesy when shooting in the back 40 and looking at the primer or measuring th ecase head for pressure, but run the rounds in a pressure barrel and see what reality is.

Recoil is determined by ejecta weight. Two bullets weighing the same, driven by the same weight of powder, will have the same recoil. Period.

"Efficiency" has always been around, but has nothing to do with power. OF course, the smallest case will be the most "efficient", but it will also be the least powerful. A .30 Carbine has great fps/grain of powder ratio.
.308 Win has worse ratio, but more power. A .30-06 has worse ratio than .308, but more power
and so on and so on. THe Ultramag, 30-378, etc do not look "efficitent" on paper, but that has absolutely nothing to do with power, and "efficiency" is only relative to another cartridge. THe smaller cartridge is always more efficient. All of this assuming the same pressure levels. Keep it apples to apples and this rule will not be broken

THe original GIbbs figures used a barrel measured from where the rifling started, not at the bolt face as it is supposed to be measuerd (as required by the ATF and done by all othe rmanufacturers). Plus these cartridges were developed in the days of limited or no pressure barrels for most folks, limited, poor, or no chronographs, and wild claims that did not have to be sustantiated. THe last part is still true today. Just go back and reread all of the BS about the shortmags when they came out, moly coating as it was revivied from the failed experiemnts of 40 years ago, cryo'ing barrels, etc, etc.

If somw one wants to design their own cartridge, fine with me. If some one wants to run it at 75k psi, I don't care. Just want to be sure the uninformed know the whole scoop so they can make an info informed decision before building their latest rifle.

Marc, I agree with you 100% all things equal more powder capacity will get you more velocity up to the point that you can't burn it completely. I do believe that for a given caliber there is a point that gives you the maximum efficent capacity. If you plot the velocity vs capacity for a given caliber you will pretty much get two lines. The smaller cases will form a steeper line and the larger ones a flatter one. I view that the point where these two lines intersect is the ideal capacity. Any more than this you start seeing lower returns for more and more powder. My first 280 case was an attempt to reach that point for the 7mm. Can my 7mag and 7STW get higher velocity with the same bullet and barrel length. Sure not a problem.

Will my 340PDK match or beat my own reloads in a 338 winmag in a 2" shorter barrel. Yep using my same Chrono to compare and in my two rifles. Would others see the same who knows.

Yep Gibbs measured his barrels from bullet contact. There has been work done since using normal barrel measurment and pressure equipment that backs up a lot of his data after making the length adjustment.

Most people don't have pressure barrels to play with. We have to measure our case head expansion. Can't speak for others but I measure all case heads during build up. If my load won't allow 5-6 loadings with the same case then I view the pressure as to high. I have seen some of the velocities people are quoting and it scares me. One the other day said "can I get larger primers after I fire one time the new primer is loose and won't stay in". Yikes.

99% of all the wildcats around won't give you an increase in velocity over one of the many magnum factory round. I for one just like to see if I can do it with a little less powder. Most importantly to me is I like to be different. Makes an excellent topic for around the campfire at the hunting camp.

I really don't know why the GIbbs cartridges still aren't around either. THey were really pretty good. You obviously see them for what they are-great rounds that produce real world results. Maybe too much hype or soemthing killed them. Too many unrealistic expecations that could no tbe met? perhaps this led to dissapointment and they never caught on? I don't know, but it seems like they should have taken off in their day. ANd his rifles were pretty nice as well. Triggers were backwards, but other than that , they were good. Michael Petrov wrote some articles about them a few years ago and hads a good history. It is burried in a astack of Precision Shooting mags and I am not motivated enough to sort through 75# of magazines to find the article.

I think Gibbs himself caused his cases to fail to gain popularity. He would not share his demensions so if you wanted his rounds you had to use him. Unlike Ackley for example. Plus his rounds were full wildcat vs the improved case of Ackley. Requiring his cases to be formed not simply using factory rounds. He had the fire in 1958 that destroyed a lot of his data and all remaining "Front Ignition Loading Technique" booklets.

In 1973 when he died of leukimia he instructed his wife to burn all remaining records. Because he didn't believe anyone outside his family could produce his product with the quality he demanded.

With the availability of 9.3x62 brass just neck it down a wee bit to .338.