As of now, I know Sako, Tikka, Ruger Hawkeye and 1A, and frontier model, and now Kimber informed me today it is coming.

Already filling an order for the Italian police for 1,000!!!

Someone their feels that this round is better than a 223!

I now am going to have to toil over a Ruger 1A or a Kimber! Have not heard about Remington, but they can either jump in, or lose out on some sales. This many guns might help more factory ammo and acceptance of this round.

Seafire, I would be inclined to think you want a Kimber, perhaps in this round? I myself thought about a 260 or possible 7/08 but a 338 within 300 yds will do a bang up job on deer and larger game I believe. That is about as far as I would shoot those 'fly weights' anyway.

i think the best thing is to do....A 358 WIN!

http://www.cpcartridge.com/358win-B.htm

you can do the advertised 338 federal 200@2700 AND use pistol bullets!

There is a beautiful Kimber 84 in .338 Federal in the standard package for the Friends of NRA program for 2007. Limited edition of 1050.

Boomstick, I would have a headache trying to decide which one if it were available in both, as I do see pros/cons for each round.

There is nothing wrong with the 358 at all, except not enough rifles in production in the ctg., and factory ammo, outside the one you sent-and they look impressive with choices and all.

I would think that a Kimber in .338 Federal would be a great-looking little rifle.

Ray, I agree, so much that I might find one in my closet some day in the not to distant future, production should have them available mid '07, in time to sight in, and work some loads, and prepare for some 'skinning work' to be done!

A kimber in .338 fedreal you say !
prety nice rifle, I .358 would be nice too,
can't think of why I would use a pistol bullet, I have a whelen and I have never come up with a reason to shoot a pistol bullet in it
mabye boom stick can rell me what he uses them for ?
...tj3006

6.5,

Based on the reviews I've read on the Kimber and their reputation amongst friends of mine who own them, I would endorse a Kimber bolt action in 338 Federal over a Ruger No. 1. It seems to me that you want a hunting rifle and if so, I would recommend a repeater and therefore the Kimber. And, should you decide on adding a .260 Rem, you could pick up a Kimber in that caliber and have a matched set (so to speak).

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
i think the best thing is to do....A 358 WIN!

http://www.cpcartridge.com/358win-B.htm

you can do the advertised 338 federal 200@2700 AND use pistol bullets!

I'm with Boom stick .

338 Federal will have it's place,358W gets my vote .



PS-These Australian made bullets would work a treat in both cal's.
300 & 310gner's on offer .
http://www.woodleighbullets.com.au/Bullet%20List%202.html#anchor

Good point, tex, I was happy to learn today by a kimber person that the barrels are entirely made in house as I was not sure if they used second rate blanks and then did the chambering/fitting/contouring, so they have the control in the process, hopefully it is a good one.

My biggest concern in Kimber's are the VERY light weight, not the recoil factory although it could be an issue, I mean if it is in the same contour as a 308, a 5lb 338F may kick more like a 338/06 in a 7lb or a 8lb Win mag, don't know, could run numbers I guess......but more than that, simply how well can I hold, and shoot in the field a gun with so little weight.

I do believe there is some correlation in field accuracy in the trigger weight vs gun weight ratio if you will, AND lock time.

These are NO doubt issues, and perhaps very key to field accuracy, AS well as 'holdability' but my thoughts are, DON"T over scope one, so as not to be falsely alluded as to the aim, and not to see too many wobbles, a 6x, 1.5-6x, 2-7x, or 2.5-8 seems ideal, or a scope topping out at 9 or 10 max, but I cannot see those last two having much advantage......long ago I remember not being able to steady well an ADL 700 in 243 with a 3x9 leupold, so I went with an M8 6x36 and was very happy, and less frustrated.

So with a light trigger on a Kimber, appropriate scope, AND Range time shooting AS one would in the field getting away from the bags after sight in and load development, I believe you could 'train oneself' to do fairly well. Realizing you were not shooting a long range precision sniper type rig for tiny distant targets.

For most normal ranges and large game i.e. deer through elk and such, perhaps the Kimber is fine with some practice. The Ruger Hawkeye might be alright with the new trigger, the standard weight barrel might be a bonus in holdability and recoil, and the price is half to boot.

Thoughts?

BTW, the Ruger 1A would be for carefully aimed (as all my shots are made with any weapon on game) first shots mostly on deer, and perhaps adding a Kepplinger trigger as is on my 6BR, a trigger job in the least to enhance potential. But agreed, the Kimber is a no nonsense, take anywhere after any reasonable animal, within normal distances, in various conditions, timber or otherwise. In my mind, once you start putting elk and similar game in the mix, then the 338 F would give you some comfort over say a 260-308 size round, admitting though that shot placement with any will do the deed with proper bullets.

Oh, and TJ, hey I would not mind using a few pistol bullets and save a few dollars to plink with, but doubt I would seldom if ever take any form of game as I would likely have a serious rifle bullet in chamber while in the field after deer and other game.

I suspect this coming year will bring several field reports written about the 338 F in the field as happened when the 325 was introduced. I expect to hear of similar performance as the 358 and 350 mag, sure solid kills, many such as deer being bang flops, but we will have to wait and see. Meanwhile I am awaiting bullets, waiting for dies to get in stock, to start getting ready for the 2007 season where I hope to use a 338F of some type for deer here in the south. My bullets in transit now are 200 SP Hornady, which should be plenty for any deer I pursue. Having loaded for my former 338/06, I expect a very similar load ease with this round, likely forming most brass out of once fired 308 picked up at the range. Perhaps a tad easier than going all the way up to 358. Just a slight difference I would surmise.

BR.

I have to admit, I am leaning toward, a stainless barrel to be put on a Ruger 77 Action...

probably in a heavier contour, for rigidness and about 20 inches for thick stuff...

I might even consider shortening the length of pull on the stock down and inch, and re installing the recoil pad...

I already have a couple of Bushnell Trophy 1.5 x 4 shotgun scopes, one which would set on top of the rifle..

I'd use mine for short range and brush work instead of real open field use.. the 338/06 on the Model 70 action will suffice for that kind of work...

If Kimber introduce the 338Fed,they should also list the 358W.I'm sure it would be a winner IMO.

As this would give them a fine list of short action calibres,in a very well built rifle.

And you my friend will be a 'happy hunter' as you cannot go wrong.

I seen a 350 posted on here that was shortened with sights, a ruger stainless, that would make a sweet 358 or 338 federal set up if one did not need the magnum performance, which in reality is hindered I believe in under 20" barrels, so a 20" 338F would be just about perfect.

In fact, I don't know if my math computations are 'scientifically correct' but let me tell you some 'self logic' I use re: expansion ratio.

Take for instance a .338 bore x 20=6.76, now divide that by say .284 and I come up with 23.8
so would that mean a 338 20" would give you the bore 'volume' to burn the same powder that would = a 7mm-08 in a nearly 24" barrel? If so, a 24" is about a good practical length, and from experience, I have a 21" 7/08 that does 2860 with Varget/139's. Efficient in 21, only better in 24.

SO, I think a 338 bore in 20 is going to give you about all the efficient 'burn' you need and faster powders used in this round may burn quicker in the bore than what is often used in smaller bores like the 7/08, so you get no argument from me in your concept.

I take it you perhaps do some elk hunter in your area and if so are those a tad smaller than Rocky Mountain Elk? Even so, I think they will take a little more killing than deer, but are well within the scope of how you will use yours should you build it. Is that a newer stainless 3 pos. safety gun, or tang blue action? Just curious.

If I had on hand 2 L579's Sako's, one would either be a 260 but likely a 6.5x47 Lapua as it would be a natural for where than action comes from, and the 2nd would likely get a 338F but I might be persuaded to consider the 358, not that I think I would gain much nor need the extra mass. Those actions as you know allow a tad longer seating depth as your Ruger.

Thanks for sharing. BTW, I once shot some trap with my son's Youth 870 20 guage and was a much better 'hit ratio' with it, then standard LOP, so I being average size, would not minding losing an inch off most guns esp. when adding hunting jackets. Does not hurt handling nor eye relief.

Typo, I believe that was 2960, yes over 2900 with the 21" 7/08.

I emailed Kimber regarding the 338Federal,as well as suggesting they should also look at the 358W for a future chambering .This was the response.

" The 338 Federal is being considered for the 2007 rifle line; however no final decisions have been made at this point in time. I will also be glad to pass along your recommendations for the 358 Win to my supervisor.

If you have any further questions please let me know and I will be glad to help you".

As to the recoil in a Kimber 84M Montana I have been shooting mine in 308 for over a year now. The recoil is very light, nominal in nature.

I did some testing of 165 and 178 gr bullets and even with the 178's there was no problem with the kick. The big thing is that it's still just a 308 case and the powder counts a lot in recoil. Magnums and even the 30-06 kicks a lot more than this 308 Kimber.

As for myself I already have some 358's so I can't see myself getting a 338 Fed. but I am all for whatever makes shooting more popular.

I think a 338 federal in a Kimber would make a great hunting rifle.

But, I'm partial to the 338-06.....Now if I could get them to make one in a 338-06.

Already emailed them and it was a no go. I even told them I would provide the reamer so it would match my other chambers.

quote:

Originally posted by Tez338:
I emailed Kimber regarding the 338Federal,as well as suggesting they should also look at the 358W for a future chambering .This was the response.

" The 338 Federal is being considered for the 2007 rifle line; however no final decisions have been made at this point in time. I will also be glad to pass along your recommendations for the 358 Win to my supervisor.

If you have any further questions please let me know and I will be glad to help you".

Well, I can tell you that I SPOKE to someone a few days ago at length that works at Kimber, and he told me otherwise, that 1000 rifles have been ordered and I believe sent to the Italian police/army, and that production/availability was going to be here in the US by mid 2007. I guess your email differs from my conversation that I had with Kimber personnel?





PS-The new Barnes 338 250gn TSX FB would be my choice in this cal.Check out the SD=.313 & BC=.425 .THAT WILL DIG-DEEP.

The 338 Fed in a short action will be its best with up to 210 or 225 so it can utilize case capacity, else a 250 would limit powder capacity heavily to be seated at an OAL to fit a short action rifle. Velocity for expansion will be best with 225 and down, a 358 would be the choice if wanting to use 250's.

If Kimber is looking for another chambering for the 84M, my vote goes to the .358 Winnie. The 358 may have languished over the years, but it's still here and it's as efficient and effective as cartridges come. Plus, it'll save my from rebarreling a Kimber 84 in 308. Lou

Read that last paragraph under the 'quote' above that I posted:

Well, I can tell you that I SPOKE to someone a few days ago at length that works at Kimber, and he told me otherwise, that 1000 rifles have been ordered and I believe sent to the Italian police/army, and that production/availability was going to be here in the US by mid 2007. I guess your email differs from my conversation that I had with Kimber personnel?

Just to be sure it was not missed the way that came out.

I agree, Ruger is offering BOTH the 338F and 358.

I may get a 358 as well, just because, since I will be loading 35's for my buddy's 350, and my Marlin 357. Bullets will be on hand, but I just received 200 Hornady 200gr sp's and dies will come soon, perhaps Redding will be adding I am sure. Looking at the Ruger 1A as hey, THAT 338F can always be chambered to 338-06 and it is one of my 'Ruger wish list guns, for the #1), as the 6.5x55.

I agree with many, if the 338-06 would have been offered, and marketed, it would sell, too bad Ruger does not do a ltd production each year as Rem. Classics are done, as that 338-06 is not short on much for MOST hunters across all over North America.

What is the hipe about the 338-08 oh sorry the 338F.. .LOL Maybe they will come-out with a 358F wait we already have that it's a .358Win!!! I just don't see a need for such a stupid cartrige.

No need for more, but anyone that shoots anything other than a 30-06 likely does so not out of need, but because they want something that has something different, like less recoil, or perhaps more bullet weight, etc.

No one can argue we NEED anything other than a well placed 7x57, 6.5x55, or a 30-06.

I be you shoot many cartridges being a TC buff.

Do you have something against it being offered to those who DO want to use it?

I myself like efficient cartridges, not wanting excess, but I do want positive killing power without taking a beating on my end. What is wrong with that?

6.5BR,

I have been shooting the Kimber 84M rifles for a few years now. I can hit stuff with them quite well if I make the same effort to aim that I always did with heavier rifles.

I have nailed some crows recently at 225 and 229 yards with my 243 Montana that goes under six pounds. I have not missed a crow with it yet in two years which is quite good for me.

The beauty of the light 84M's is that I can carry them easily yet add to them full size scopes for varminting and a bipod as wanted. Even with a big scope and a bipod the 243 Kimber Montana shown on the right is under 8 lbs and its rock steady.

You just have to try one. I love them.

NICE photos-rifles......great shooting.....hate to admit how many crows I have missed in my life, but I did get a double once, about 300 yds, with a Ruger 1b in 270 of all things, and some handloads with 100gr Remingtons.

They can be missed easily with any rifle, seldom get shots under 200, my best 2 might have been 1 with a 7TCU pistol, about 150 yds, another 125 or so with the TC in 22 barrel.

That was 'lots of luck!'

Get a .308 instead of the .338-08! I think the .338-08 is the lamest idea ever, the 8x57 is superior!

1,000 Kimber rifles to Italy??? There has got to be some misscommunication. Kimber doesn't offer a rifle suitable for police work. It is more likely that the 1,000 rifles refered to the NRA.

Aaron