It would be VERY interesting to see how the '08 rounds stack up vs the '06 rounds with penetration and expansion test as I seen Finn Aagard do in the past. As you kn

Re post, some gliche:


Posted 21 November 2006 00:06
It would be VERY interesting to see how the '08 rounds stack up vs the '06 rounds with penetration and expansion test as I seen Finn Aagard do in the past. As you know, when the bullet impacts at slower speeds, expansion is less, which usually increase penetration.

I would think the '08 rounds penetrate perhaps more, with a somewhat narrower wound channel with smaller frontal area given less expansion?

Thoughts?

It would be VERY useful data to see tests done in some form of ballistic media. Any writers reading that are looking for something to do?

All the nay sayers on the 338 F might want to see more field results and tests as above. Not that it has anything a 358 can do, except MORE factory rifles, esp. in bolts, as well as factory ammo.

It seems guys using 338-06 and 35 Whelens that are NOT loaded all the way up never complain as to the field performance, which means their speeds are only that much closer to the '08 ctg's.

I see the '08 based rounds as being perhaps preferable in a shorter barrel gun say 20-21 carbine type. And that can be said of the 350RM. I would not build a long action round on anything shorter than 22-23" barrel if I could help it, for balance as well as performance.

Thoughts? I am speculating as much good info that hardcore 358 users have given on field performance, that the 338F might prove to be as effective, not better per say, but nearly or as effective at dropping game to 300 yds as the 358. Perhaps when the 338 F's get ramped up in production by Remington and Ruger, we will see more shooting tests published to give more data to clarify where we can see the true usefulness in the round. Personally I think I would prefer it to ANY 308 or 30-06 for up to 250-300 yds. That is just me.

I'll take the increased frontal area/weight anyday with trajectory very similar.
Posts: 692 | Registered: 25 September 2005

fredj338
one of us
Posted 21 November 2006 00:26 Hide Post
I test all my hunting bullets in wetpack. The penetration of the 250gr .338 is impressive. Being that I have only ever recovered one 210grNP, they aren't bad either.
I expect the 210gr NP in the .338Fed. to be very effective out to 300yds on elk size game.

LIFE IS NOT A SPECTATOR'S SPORT. MOST OF LIFE IS JUST ABOUT SHOWING UP.
Posts: 4892 | Location: kalif.,usa | Registered: 08 March 2001

Ignored post by fredj338 posted 21 November 2006 00:26 Show Post

Woodjack
one of us
Posted 21 November 2006 04:18 Hide Post
Penetration test .358win200NF: http://www.gunsandhunting.com/articles/bullet_bone/Bullethitsbone.html

and some extra reading on weight retention in general: http://www.gunsandhunting.com/articles/leaded/leaded.html
I would not say no to 338fed, but my pref would certainly be for 30/06 or 338-06. They can still be made into a rather light rig,and I dont see problem with 21" .338-06 aint excatly overbore & to run a good 225-250leadcore or 225tsx( which 338cal deserves)to 300yds, one might surely be wishing for the 33806 case.
Balance?not a problem if you turn the barrel up correctly and choose the correct scope/mounts.
A scoped 21"338-06 can be had at 7.5-8lb and is rather compact. A shorter action (M70sa against LA) would change that by 1/2"overall length and 5oz in receiver weight.
I would not mind tubing something up in 338-06 and giving the 210-225tsx or 225 NF a run, i must admit the 338win has more power than I need most of the time.


KINGS LIVE IN CASTLES,PIGS IN STYES,YOUTH IN JOYOUS ANTICIPATION....YOUTH IS WISE

Thanks for the replies, somehow I hit 'reverse' enough on my original thread and came back to the above: then the info must have 'went poof!"

anyway, my CHOICE would be a good 338-06 for all around hunting IF there were more factory rifles/loads available. It is easier for me to buy a quality gun and go shooting, and cheaper, my former gun was .710 muzzle Hart 700 Rem, weighed 8lbs even no scope/mounts, with synthetic ADL factory stock-when Rem first intro the SS mountain synthetics ADL style.

Recoil fine with Decelerator pad, My similar somewhat lighter 338 WIN Mag 700 BDL SS, with HS stock, KICKED too much for me with the 225's I loaded. I imagine it would have been ok to hunt with but honest, the recoil put some 'flinch' in me! I could "SQUEEEEEZE" my 338-06 trigger, not the mag. Gun weight did come to play some I am sure. 8lb vs say 7.5 or slightly less perhaps. Oh, the recoil pad on the HS was not as 'soft' either.

Too bad the 338-06 was not 'marketed' right. Is is just amazing who decides how/what gets marketed well.....or not. So many missed opportunties with great ctgs and rifles, keeps AR members busy for sure.

BTW woodjack; nice reads! Thanks for the good info.

6.5br,

No real problem with 21" if you really wanted that,but not length I would choose,nothing against SArecievers either.Its just that I prefer 06 capacity cases.
My idea of neat light 338cal to tout around: M70sa 338-284 or 338-350remMag.(Not keen on WSM)
,23".590"(same profile as WSM barrel,just chop 1"off)Leupold 2.5-8x36/DDbases/Superlow rings(it does fit)in an McEdgestock. Plenty room to seat the bullets out in that magbox,load some 210,225tsx and make sure youve got some gas for the BBQ.
Just for reference factoryM70338win has about .580@26"tube.

Interesting barrel dia., as my Rem 338 WM was either .675 or .65 cannot recall exactly, but it got chopped to 22.5 from 24 and was fine. My 338-06 was 23" I think 22-23 is a good length for non mag capacity mid bores on long actions. I realize the short vs long is 'less different' in practical terms ie. bolt throw and weight, but I do tend to prefer them. It is tricky in some depending on ctg. also to utilize powder capacity and get proper seating and accuracy in short actions. Think that a light weight syn. stock would do the job, if I were to build one in the future.

If Kimber would use a standard weight barrel and chamber for the 338-06 it would interest me. Those pencil barrels must be difficult to hold well esp. considering overall weight is LOW.

Personally I could easily lose 5-15 lbs-and that is off ME. I don't squabble over ounces, and a rifle 7-8 lbs is fine. All else equal, I would prefer any extra weight to be in the barrel, as it has never been a detriment to accuracy in my experience. I can imagine a 21 vs 23" would cost little more if even 50fps. Balance for longer shots might be better with slightly more length on a long action gun.

Just as some say they chose the '06 since the Win mag ctg was more than needed, the '08 is about all I need where I hunt most.

From the deep south

You can have any level of penetration you want these days. Use TSX's for deep holes, Game Kings for shallow ones and Partitions for something between.


Okie John