Biebs is going to go crazy if he sees this post cause he always accuses me of continually flogging the .338 Ruger Compact Magnum. He's right.

Pigmaster thinks the Ruger Compact Magnums are going to fade away. He could also be right. I sure hope that doesn't happen. I have a wood stocked .338 RCM with a 20 inch barrel and the first time I picked it up I immediately understood what Michael and Jeff had been talking about... short, light, and handy with plenty of punch. If you hunt elk or mule deer in the mountains, you're gonna love this gun.

Anyway, if any of you are considering a .338, I would urge you to consider the .338 RCM. Out to about 300 yards, it will do all the .338 Win Mag will do in a much more portable package.

Ruger now only shows it in their Guide Gun which I think is hideous. However, if you go to Guns America, you will find a good number of them around the country. Here is a NIB stainless model for $672:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/924...her_Stainless_Ne.htm

I wouldn't worry about brass. The RCMs are simply shortened versions of the .375 and .416 Ruger Magnums. They are going nowhere and as long as that brass is available I am sure that Hornady will keeping making runs of the RCMs

RIP, I know you are a big fan of cartridge design. I think the RCMs are a better design than the WSMs, no rebated rim but the WSMS have greater case capacity. Next time you are in a gun shop, see if they have one on the rack. Pick it up and handle it. You will be impressed.

Thanks for listening guys.

Dave,

I am impressed with the specs on the 338RCM. The more you champion them, the more I enjoy the .338" calibre.

Truth be told, I played with the 338WM for three decades so I'm kinda prejudiced. Everytime I've ever considered getting a 338RCM I immediately remember that I can get very lightweight 338WMags, like a Tikka that weighs under 7.5 lb with a scope.

HOWEVER--the old Ruger Hawkeye 338RCM came in a small package with a short Length-of-pull. For the ladies in my family, the 338RCM would probably be the 338 of choice if the older Ruger were available. I would imagine that Ruger will make a new run of them in a year or so.

Capacity-wise, the RCM gives up about 125-150 fps to the WinMag, and in a short barrel that would become more like 200-225fps. Still, a person could do a lot of African hunting with a 225TTSX at 2600fps. With that bullet I would shoot a buffalo, but I have better calibres for such a dangerous animal. Yes, most of the time they just lie down and die, except when they don't.

Tikka t3 light in .338wm changes owners often, to light rifle for what cartridge.

quote:

Originally posted by Nordic2:
Tikka t3 light in .338wm changes owners often, to light rifle for what cartridge.

To each his own.
My wife said that they 'jump a little'.
I do remember being pleasantly surprised, though, with its attempt to say that it fired. But if one gets used to something bigger, then the Tikka is just a nice little jump. Limbsaver make a nice recoil pad for them.

My opinion of the RCM's is that they are a solution in search of a problem. I get the short and light thing. But you don't need a proprietary cartridge that decreases performance over the original .338 WM to make it happen.

You could build a very light 22" .338 WM have better performance and get the same basic characteristics as the .338 RCM Hawkeye. Call it the Ruger light weight adventure rifle or some such. But then you wouldn't have the "buzz" of a new cartridge. And that is what the RCM's are really all about. In a word, marketing.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
My opinion of the RCM's is that they are a solution in search of a problem. I get the short and light thing. But you don't need a proprietary cartridge that decreases performance over the original .338 WM to make it happen.

You could build a very light 22" .338 WM have better performance and get the same basic characteristics as the .338 RCM Hawkeye. Call it the Ruger light weight adventure rifle or some such. But then you wouldn't have the "buzz" of a new cartridge. And that is what the RCM's are really all about. In a word, marketing.

You are correct, Surestrike. A proprietary wasn't necessary.
In fact, what we were expecting and hoping for was a cartridge built on the new 2.6" Ruger beltless magnum case. That would have duplicated 340 Weatherby capacity in a medium/standard action.

Sometimes I wonder why they didn't bring that one out, a 338 Ruger. My best guess? Ruger/Hornady were afearing that if a 340 Weatherby capacity cartridge is put in a little light package a lot of NorthAm hunters would probably start howling and complaining rather than purring with delight and satisfaction. In any case, the 338s are close to an optimum elk gun, their differences are their respective ranges. Maybe one should think of them as
250 yd (338Fed),
300 yd (338RCM),
350 yd (338WM),
400 (340Wby),
over 400 (338Lapua).
(Actual differences are tighter.)

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
My opinion of the RCM's is that they are a solution in search of a problem. I get the short and light thing. But you don't need a proprietary cartridge that decreases performance over the original .338 WM to make it happen.

You could build a very light 22" .338 WM have better performance and get the same basic characteristics as the .338 RCM Hawkeye. Call it the Ruger light weight adventure rifle or some such. But then you wouldn't have the "buzz" of a new cartridge. And that is what the RCM's are really all about. In a word, marketing.

You are correct, Surestrike. A proprietary wasn't necessary.
In fact, what we were expecting and hoping for was a cartridge built on the new 2.6" Ruger beltless magnum case. That would have duplicated 340 Weatherby capacity in a medium/standard action.

Sometimes I wonder why they didn't bring that one out, a 338 Ruger. My best guess? Ruger/Hornady were afearing that if a 340 Weatherby capacity cartridge is put in a little light package a lot of NorthAm hunters would probably start howling and complaining rather than purring with delight and satisfaction. In any case, the 338s are close to an optimum elk gun, their differences are their respective ranges. Maybe one should think of them as
250 yd (338Fed),
300 yd (338RCM)(338-06),
350 yd (338WM),
400 (340Wby),
over 400 (338Lapua)(338RUM)(338NM).
(Actual differences are tighter.)

Fixed the key point for you plus added a few more cartridges...

And the bitching and whining (about recoil) is the primary reason the 358 Norma Magnum failed to take off - was one of those 'to powerful for NorthAm game'.

Now for the conspiracy theorists - Winchester purchased all rights the the Chas. Newton patents which would have included his cartridges. Therefore little wonder that the 30 Newton and 35 Newton cartridge production was ceased by Western Cartridge (also owned by Winchester) some years before Winchester introduced their less powerful line of 2.5" belted magnum cartridges - otherwise the shorter less powerful cartridges would have fallen on their face. At least that's my theory...

Now my theory on the 338RCM... Very simple. Many hunters complain the 338WM is to powerful for NorthAm game except perhaps Alaskan bears. The 338Fed is a nice close range woods cartridge but the NorthAm hunter truly only needs the 338-06 to handle the largest game out to 'any reasonable hunting distance' (imphasis intentional) so... Ruger conspired with Hornady to replicate the 338-06 performance in a compact non-rebated rim case for use in a short light weight rifle and what they delivered is a cartridge that slots nicely performance wise between the 338-06 and the 338WM - so mission accomplished... If you like them use them - if you don't like them don't buy them...

Ok conspiracy theories off...

I just did a little comparison among the 338's.

Load a 225 TTSX .338" into the various cartridges and shoot them in a relatively small, light gun.

The following represent the cartidge, velocity in a 20" (Fed, RCM) or 22" (WM, Wby, Lap) rifle, a 2.1" maximum arc trajectory, and finally the yardage where the bullet drops -7.0 inches below line of sight and its energy at that point.

338Fed 2375fps 260 yd 2044ftlb
338RCM 2550fps 278 yd 2327ftlb
338 WM 2775fps 301 yd 2714ftlb
340Wby 2875fps 312 yd 2892ftlb
338Lap 3000fps 325 yd 3125ftlb

Those are the relative ranges. They would all provide excellent huntability up to 260 yards, and then beyond, according to calibre.

the above attempts to compare apples with apples. Obviously, someone with a Lapua may want a 26" barrel, and someone with a Fed may drop to a 210 gn bullet for a little more speed. Others may want to load hotter, etc. But the above chart shows just how close all of the .338s are within normal hunting conditions. Incidentally, 2000 ftlbs is plenty of punch for an elk as long as the bullet is in the vitals.

Some may want to see how the heavier cartridges provide a long range advantage, provided that bullet drop can be accomodated through rangefinders.

So where do the respective 338's cross the 2000 ftlb level? Incidentally, the 2000 ftlb level with a 225 grain bullet also happens to be the 2000fps velocity. (with +/- 1). Same velocities as in the previous post. Also the bullet is 225 gn TTSX with its .514 BC.

So here are the ranges where the calibres still provide 2000 ftlb of wallup at impact:

338Fed 277 yd
338RCM 398 yd
338 WM 547 yd
340Wby 611 yd
338Lap 690 yd

These last numbers show why the cross-canyon hunters prefer magnums. If only the winddrifts would cooperate! the numbers in the previous post which compare trajectories to -7" are more representative of traditional hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
My opinion of the RCM's is that they are a solution in search of a problem. I get the short and light thing. But you don't need a proprietary cartridge that decreases performance over the original .338 WM to make it happen.

You could build a very light 22" .338 WM have better performance and get the same basic characteristics as the .338 RCM Hawkeye. Call it the Ruger light weight adventure rifle or some such. But then you wouldn't have the "buzz" of a new cartridge. And that is what the RCM's are really all about. In a word, marketing.

Surestrike:

I had a Ruger .338 WM for many years but I sold it to a friend when I got this gun. You're right, the WM is a great cartridge. However, I think that the .338 RCM generates considerably less recoil and thus, it can be built in a lot more portable rifle. Again, if you happen to be in a gun store where they might have one, just handle it for a little while.

Tanz, I have kinda stuck with 225 grain bullets of conventional design which I can run at 2600 fps out of the short barrel. I shoot 225 Hornadys and I think they would be good hunting bullets at that modest velocity. If you want a bit better bullet, a 225 Woodleigh PP would be just about perfect. With monometals, I use the 210 TSX. Set 2.8 inches high at 100 yards, the Hornady bullet is zeroed at 217 yards and has a max point blank range of 255 yards. I don't often shoot that far. I like to get much closer in a hunting situation. However, I do have a 340 Weatherby if I anticipate shooting much past 200-250 yards.

Hornady recommends VIHT N-550 for max velocity. However, I didn't have any on hand so I just used Ramshot Big Game with great results. I use the load data from the Ramshot web site. I intend to try some Hornady 250 grain round nose bullets when I get a chance.

If anyone needs help with loading data, let me know.

P.S. I had given some thought to building a 9,3 RCM but Michaels 9,3 B&M is a better cartridge.

I almost went 338 RCM. I bought a new Ruger 77 on gun broker for $495, then the a-hole tells me he doesn't have one and called all his distributors and couldn't get one. The next few days I was walking through Cabelas and saw a Ruger 77 in 350 Rem Mag. I decided it was fate.

Nice topic... My view would be that using a 225 TSX in the comparison is the difficulty with the data. The larger cases 340Wby, 338RUM, Lapua etc deserve a 250gr. They aren't all apples . That said I can recognise why you tried to level the field. I just don't think it's that level and it's because of the ability to utilise a really high BC and heavy bullet in the big cases. Then the discussion becomes about retained energy at long range. I liked the idea of the 338 Fed and was sad to see that it got no real support. It would be a nice African bushveld rifle (as the 338-06 and 338 Sabi are). A 338 (and 300) on the full size Ruger case is something I'd like to see. Nothing wrong with the 338RCM but it seems the market sees it as neither fish nor fowl; people can be hard on a good all rounder because it sometimes has none of the best elements of either pole (although often none of the negatives). You know.. if I can get a 338 I may as well get a "insert cartrige either more or less powerful as appropriate"!

IMHO the neck would be a tad short on a full sized 338-375 Ruger case and you would likely have to set the shoulder back on such a wildcat to go with the longer case. Many wildcat 35-375 Rugers go that route.

I shoot the 375 Ruger, the 338-06, 35 Whelen, and 338 RUM. I have looked at doing a 338 or 35 wildcat on the 375 Ruger. The 35-375 would be similar to the old 35 Newton. Figure I may wait and see if Ruger develops either a 338 or 35 on the longer case, but will probably die of old age before that happens.

A fellow at the range bought a 338 RCM last year in the Hawkeye and is trying to work up loads for it to get it ready for elk season. It seems to shoot OK. Nothing spectacular. Don't know if it is him or his loads or a combination thereof.

Barstooler

Since I got the 280 I have been thinking about rebarreling the Stevens 200 in 270 to either a 338-06 or 35 Whelen. The 338 bore has a slight edge over the 35. Bullets of the same weight have a higher SD as well as BC. Loaded to simaler velocities the 338 will shoot flatter, hit harder, penetrate deeper.
I thinkI just decided.
Leo

quote:

Originally posted by 44magLeo:
Since I got the 280 I have been thinking about rebarreling the Stevens 200 in 270 to either a 338-06 or 35 Whelen. The 338 bore has a slight edge over the 35. Bullets of the same weight have a higher SD as well as BC. Loaded to simaler velocities the 338 will shoot flatter, hit harder, penetrate deeper.
I thinkI just decided.
Leo

The 338-06 is a good calibre. The only thing that you need to decide is cost. A rebarreling and rechambering can cost $600 and you might find a Ruger 338RCM for that price.

either way it's a good cartridge.

quote:

In fact, what we were expecting and hoping for was a cartridge built on the new 2.6" Ruger beltless magnum case. That would have duplicated 340 Weatherby capacity in a medium/standard action

.416,

That is exactly what i was hoping for as well. IMO and that all it is, my opinion, Ruger screwed the pooch with the RCM series.

I'm not especially recoil sensitive (I took an 8 lb .375 as the only rifle in my last safari) but I've only had 2 rifles that beat the XXX out of me and both were .338 WinMag's - a Model 70 Alaska and a Dumouline(sic).

One thing to consider when trying to load a ,338 down to the ,338 RCM level, using the same bullet and weight and achieving the same velocity, the .338 WM will recoil more as it will require more powder. How much more? Don't know but why buy it if you aren't going to utilize it's full potential?

I've got a 7.5 Lb Ruger #1 in .338 WM. I find it very pleasant to shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

In fact, what we were expecting and hoping for was a cartridge built on the new 2.6" Ruger beltless magnum case. That would have duplicated 340 Weatherby capacity in a medium/standard action

.416,

That is exactly what i was hoping for as well. IMO and that all it is, my opinion, Ruger screwed the pooch with the RCM series.

Guys, I am scratching my head here. Why would Ruger/Hornady want to bring out another 340 Weatherby? They brought out a little package that works great with a short barrel and nips at the heels of the vaunted .338 Win Mag with a longer barrel. Think of it as a short action .338/06. As Tanz pointed out, I can't understand why anyone would go to the trouble of building a .338/06 anymore. The .338 RCM is an extremely efficient little package. I have a 340 Weatherby with a 26 inch barrel. It's a great gun but I don't shoot it much anymore since I got the little Ruger.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

In fact, what we were expecting and hoping for was a cartridge built on the new 2.6" Ruger beltless magnum case. That would have duplicated 340 Weatherby capacity in a medium/standard action

.416,

That is exactly what i was hoping for as well. IMO and that all it is, my opinion, Ruger screwed the pooch with the RCM series.

Guys, I am scratching my head here. Why would Ruger/Hornady want to bring out another 340 Weatherby? They brought out a little package that works great with a short barrel and nips at the heels of the vaunted .338 Win Mag with a longer barrel. Think of it as a short action .338/06. As Tanz pointed out, I can't understand why anyone would go to the trouble of building a .338/06 anymore. The .338 RCM is an extremely efficient little package. I have a 340 Weatherby with a 26 inch barrel. It's a great gun but I don't shoot it much anymore since I got the little Ruger.

Dave,
I'm glad that you like the RCM. It is a great gun. Ruger decided to go down a rung in a small package (RCM) instead of going up a rung in a medium package (Wby ballistics in package smaller than Wby).

And some of us just have to live with the median (338WinMag) in a medium package. Life can be difficult.

Consider me another 338 RCM fan. Absolutely love mine. Its been my go-to all round rifle for a few years now.

Right on brother!

All this talk about a.338 Federal, 338-06, or .358 Winchester...

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Right on brother!

All this talk about a.338 Federal, 338-06, or .358 Winchester...

The 338 R.C.M. sucks!

Now that was just cold Scott, just cold.

quote:

They brought out a little package that works great with a short barrel and nips at the heels of the vaunted .338 Win Mag with a longer barrel. Think of it as a short action .338/06. As Tanz pointed out, I can't understand why anyone would go to the trouble of building a .338/06 anymore.

The .338 RCM is an interesting little rifle but not one that I was interested in. I simply built a .338-06 because I like it better. So my rifles a little heavier (M70 Classic 8 lbs 9 oz) but I can hold 6 round down vs. 3 of the RCM. Probably won't need those three extra rounds but I'd rather carry them in the mag than my pocket. Plus lets be honest how many of us go hunting with only the rounds their magazines will hold?

My .338-06 has a 24" barrel which I haven't found to be un-handy at anytime. I haven't shot my new .338-06 yet, but my old one would push bullets 100-150 fps faster than the RCM out of its 24" barrel. So I'm guessing I would be right in there with the .338 RCM if I shortened the barrel to 20"

Then there is the fact that I can find cases everywhere to make .338-06 easily out of, can't say the same for the RCM. I don't have to rely on one manufacture for the brass. That is why even the .338 Fed has more appeal to me than the .338 RCM.

quote:

Biebs is going to go crazy if he sees this post cause he always accuses me of continually flogging the .338 Ruger Compact Magnum.

Dave, you're right...I just had myself committed :-)

quote:

Originally posted by taylorce1:

quote:

They brought out a little package that works great with a short barrel and nips at the heels of the vaunted .338 Win Mag with a longer barrel. Think of it as a short action .338/06. As Tanz pointed out, I can't understand why anyone would go to the trouble of building a .338/06 anymore.

The .338 RCM is an interesting little rifle but not one that I was interested in. I simply built a .338-06 because I like it better. So my rifles a little heavier (M70 Classic 8 lbs 9 oz) but I can hold 6 round down vs. 3 of the RCM. Probably won't need those three extra rounds but I'd rather carry them in the mag than my pocket. Plus lets be honest how many of us go hunting with only the rounds their magazines will hold?

My .338-06 has a 24" barrel which I haven't found to be un-handy at anytime. I haven't shot my new .338-06 yet, but my old one would push bullets 100-150 fps faster than the RCM out of its 24" barrel. So I'm guessing I would be right in there with the .338 RCM if I shortened the barrel to 20"

Then there is the fact that I can find cases everywhere to make .338-06 easily out of, can't say the same for the RCM. I don't have to rely on one manufacture for the brass. That is why even the .338 Fed has more appeal to me than the .338 RCM.

Medium length action, medium weight rifle, 24" barrel? Sounds like an invitation for a 338WinMag.

Now for a short LOP, lighter, shorter rifle I can see the 338RCM.

Does anyone know if Ruger will produce another lot of them 'soon'?

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:

quote:

Biebs is going to go crazy if he sees this post cause he always accuses me of continually flogging the .338 Ruger Compact Magnum.

Dave, you're right...I just had myself committed :-)

LOLOLOL



Tanz, do a search on GunsAmerica. There is a bunch of them to be had in wood or stainless. Take a look at the link in my initial post.

quote:

Tanz, do a search on GunsAmerica. There is a bunch of them to be had in wood or stainless. Take a look at the link in my initial post.

Thanks. Either their site is down, or they don't let people on when their IP address is coming from overseas.
I'll keep an eye out the next time in the US.