Now THIS is the first NEW tech ctg I like (do like the 338 Federal and '06 version-much cheaper to load using range picked up brass)

The 338 here:

http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=761

I don't see where the 300 version will trump the WSM but it could cut into sales, and likely there are many in the industry who don't want to pay royalties to Rick Jamison.

Had we never had any 338 round, the Win Mag, '06, and now Federal, I could see this new round dominating in it's role, outdoing the 325 wsm by a landslide. Will the public forego the Win Mag for this I don't know, but I like the idea, 338/06 performance in a short action, what Winchester may regret not having done when they could have.....they gambled and did an 8mm bore and I think Hornady's round is going to eat their lunch but time will tell.

I can imagine the competition shooters jumping all over this one to see if they can better the WSM series.

Next? A 7mm or 270 version? Who knows, the 6.5 Creedmore looks good for a modest capacity round. The TC rounds I did not like but Hornady has some interesting new products IMHO.

357/44 pointed bullets, for better downrange use esp. in lever rifles, gives you 150 yd capability IMHO on game, based on trajectory, etc.

I could see them selling many component bullets for handloaders, IF they sell them as such, but most benefit I believe is had in rifle bbls.

6.5

I guess factory loads offered are based on exclusive HighEnergy(HE)load technology.
none the less if you can poke 338rcm to 2600+mv(225gn), thats decent step up from 308win.
I dont see any harm experimenting the market with new cartridges.
(Porsche911 purists thought mid-engined Boxster was a waste of time....WRONG!)
It put smiles on dials of owners & Porsche executives, that matters more than any shadow of objectional opinion to its exhistence
Maybe some will feel same way about 338RCM.
Nothing ventured ,nothing gained.
I guess a .270RCM would be a line worth dangling in the water.. ... simply cause many have .277bore imprinted deep within their psyche.

6.5BR,
I also like the idea of the 338RCM, but what will keep me away is the 20" barrel if that's what they decide to use. If they used a 22" barrel contoured like the magnums ie... give us a clone of their 350RemMag but with sights, well then I might just be in the market for one.
Cheers...
Con

Check out their 6.5 Creedmoore cartridge as well!

the creedmoor is like a necked down 30tc

once you get tired of yer 338 fed you can open the bolt and rechamber for something adequate

why didn't they just neck the 375 ruger down to 338 and be done with it???? forget about trying to go the 300 mag version, isn't there enough of them already........the ammo will probably have to be in the price range of the win offerings to be viable........

Boomstick, still using a 6BR and killed a nice deer at 400 yds with it.

Tell me what is 'inadequate' about a 338 Federal getting 3000 or so ft/lbs vs my 1800-2k? Using a bullet twice as heavy and much larger?

Inadequate? Depends on how large those dinosaurs are, but they are smaller where I hunt.

I don't like the 30TC, but do like a few of the new rounds, the 260 Rem could have had a longer neck and a sharper shoulder would not have hurt, but it's design is less than optimal compared to the Creedmore, x47L, or x55 IMHO. It does well as is, but the 308 already has a good design, and top accuracy from what everyone says, so I ask why 30TC? 6.5C makes sense for tactical shooters, competitions shooters, anyone needed top accuracy, minimal recoil, factory ammo options, and cheaper brass than Lapua.

338 RCM? What do you think Boomstick, bigger is better huh? I think the 308 bolt face houses MANY choices that are plenty 'adequate' IMHO. Respect your choice for 'more' and 'bigger' I just have not found I NEED that for MY hunting or use. YMMV

If they'd done an 06 length version IE simply neck the .375 Ruger down. They'd have really had something.

Instead they have created another lackluster under performer of a short mag.

I have to ask WHY in the heck did they shorten that round in the smaller calibers!?!

There has already been a lot of negative press devoted to the RCMs on the various boards by the people who hate the WSMs, but these people are completely missing the boat on these new Hornady / Ruger developments.

The principle advantage of the RCMs is that they can be chambered on any long or 308 length short action presently available by opening the bolt face to accept a standard magnum round with no feeding or strength problems down the line encountered. You also won't need a special short scope to put on that action.

The RCMs will virtually equal the WSMs in velocity and do it in a 20 inch barrel with the special powders Hornady is using. But in longer barrels with over the counter powders that are available to all of us, the RCMs will also equal any longer format case of equal case capacity and barrel length using those same powders, so these are more useful rounds for all of us than the WSMs are.

The WSMS have proven to have too much back thrust for Encores and Ruger No 1s, but the RCMs will work just fine in those arms as well as in standard action bolt guns. I predict that Winchester will eventually be forced to chamber the RCMs in their rifles, just as Remington has been forced to chamber WSMs, and that the WSMs will eventually go the way of the RUSMs.

Both Remington and Winchester attempted to cash in on the work Jameson had done with his shortened 404 Jeffery case. Hornady and Ruger took the time and put in the effort to develop their own case. Shortening the 375 Ruger to the RCMs is an inherently better design than the WSMs and RSUMs are for most of us, with many more advantages. I hope that they eventually see fit to produce a 6.5 RCM.

Here is a link to the Guns and Ammo article on the RCMS an an interview with Steve Hornady on what they sought to accomplish in developing the RCMs:

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ammunition/hornady_110107/#cont

...Rusty.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cc:
why didn't they just neck the 375 ruger down to 338 and be done with it???? QUOTE]

Perhaps because whilst Hornady would be thrilled at selling some factory ammunition ... us "gun-whores" would just rechamber an existing or cheap S/H 338WinMag donor rather than fork out for a new rifle. So Ruger may not be totally amused at the prospect But ... the more I think about it the more I'll let the 338RCM pass by as long as the 20" barrel remains. Remington tried a similiar beast in their 350RemMag's ... 18.5" then 20" ... both by all accounts where LOUD. Hornady's "special pixie dust" powder aint going to make them any quieter ... and blast is as good at making many flinch as is recoil.
In comparison to the existing 338WinMag ... a 22" barreled 338RCM already has a minimum 2" barrel length advantage over the 338WInMag, plus the action length advantage.
Another advantage the 338RCM will have ... how many are going to buy a 338Federal when this thing hits the market? What will the RCM do with a 185gr TSX and 210gr Nosler Partition???
Cheers...
Con

I think RUGER seriously does need to 're-think' what bbl length they offer. A 20" option is fine, but a 22" is a good standard, powder burn in a short bbl is not as big an issue with 338 bore as you all know, but the blast I agree may be a turn off. It is a case of 'marketing pendulum' gone to one extreme.

The 338 Win Mag is a standard in that cal like the 270 Win was, and very little has been done, nor likely to uproot it. The WSM in 27 was/is a good one, but does it provide much improvement? More recoil and blast is the price you pay for extra fps I don't need and to be honest, I KNOW I could not expect to hit as well with a WSM in a sporter weight rifle.

It will be interesting.... Speaking on the 350, it would be redundant, but a 358 RCM in a 20" would be performance wise, a powerful handy package. I think where the rubber meets the road, to use a long action and barrels that can burn magnum capacity cases of powder, is not a big issue for those esp. 30 bore down.

If you want a handy gun chopped carbine style, a larger bore makes sense as they burn powder quicker and are still more efficient. 300 mag performance in a 20" gun is not my idea of 'ideal' but my 338/06 was 23. If I did another I could be happy with a 21 or 22" with very little loss in speed.

Yes, there has been alot of confusion and perhaps the plethora of new offerings is a trend to keep those on their toes and tempt your wallets......do you think?

I don't own either but Wooters said years ago, a 308 and 338 Win Mag could do about all he needed done in game rifles....in North America. I cannot disagree....but its fun to have options.

I take a slightly different take on this than many of you do because I am a handgun hunter. Twenty inch barrel velocities in that league is really exciting to me. Twenty inches isn't all that far from the standard 15 inches that most Encores come in.

I have a 338 JDJ No 2 on a Contender, and a 338 RCM on an Encore would be a real step up in performance and easier to deal with than the 338 Magnum Beater JDJ on the 30-06 case with its case forming problems and the 60-degree shoulder. Ready made factory brass with that kind of velocity potential sounds great to me.

Muzzle blast is something handgun hunters just have to live with and are used to. That's probably why handgun hunters are so much more accepting of muzzle breakes than rifle hunters are, that and the extra recoil from the less gun weight involved in handguns.

Going from 20 inches to 15 will involve some velocity loss for sure. But not nearly as much loss as velocities developed out of 24 or 26 inch barrels involve. Those 20 barrel velocities sound great to me, and I believe these new powders will eventually become available to hand loaders. Look at all the money the powder makers could be making that they are missing out on now. They won't sit on this forever...Rusty.

6.5BR,
I think gun marketing is about finding a niche. The 338RCM will have a niche where larger game is chased in steep country ... if it was made available by mid next year (our winter) with a 22" barrel ... I'd personally buy one with no hesitation.

What worries me to some degree with the 20" barrel is if Hornady is optimising the powder, surely they must be achieving increased velocities due to pressures being maintained further along the barrel. Wouldn't that mean that muzzle pressures are higher ... hence potentially greater blast?

I think Ruger should market it in their compact rifles, but it needs to be in a regular short action sporter as well. I still think Remington got the RSAUM wrong by placing them in extremely limited rifle options ... whilst Winchester got the WSM's right by giving customers a variety of options where the customer chose the package they wanted to carry.
Cheers...
Con

I see alot of wasted effort here. Why Ruger and Hornady wanted another version of the slow selling SAUM family when they could have knocked Winchester off the block with a full length 338 and 300 is beyond me.

Oh, and we Porsche purists don't think the Boxster was a bad an idea, or the Cayenne. The strong sales of both saved the company and put the Spyder on the track.

For years I thohgt of necking the 8x68 up to 338. It looks like Ruger will be making one sim. w/ factory available ammo & brass. Make mine at least 22" bbl. though. Maybe a semi custom rifle on this round??

Ted,

Wanna trade a 338 Ultramag for your Porshe

I'll go buy one just for you....Seriously CON I agree, Ruger is not making a big mistake with cartridge and 20" gun, but does not need to limit the guns to that length alone IMHO. As to optimum powders, cannot recall just what Hornady told me at the SHOT show last year, I BELIEVE that instead of 'special powders' it may be more in the 'loading technique' getting more of a given powder in a certain size case than normal, seems like that was said somewhere. I know there are 'preferred powders' in given cartridge/load combos and I'd suspect with a short vs long barrel to some degree. Short barrels lose more velocity with light bullets IIRC and most say you still want to keep same burn rate, if say you are using a slow powder for instance, but I am sure much testing has gone into the R&D of say 338 Federal, everyone saying 'special powders' but I am not convinced, possibly. I think reloaders with current powders should get VERY close safely to whatever the factory is loading in these so called hi energy rounds, etc.

I think Ruger is selling the idea that a 338 RCM is better than an '06 version performance, but less blast kick than a Win Mag, but I'll tell you as popular as the 350 mag was/is in 18.5-20" carbines, or even 22", there is NO reason why one cannot build or chop a 338 Win Mag down, as the expansion ratio is such that it will fare well, albet loud like many 20" guns. I would suspect this round may have less blast than a say Win Mag in 20", but I imagine it has a smaller capacity which correlates into that aspect.

I admit, it is a good looking round as is the 6.5C, but ballistics are just over what a 338-06 gives, and for a reloader, you only need a tad longer action to use dirt cheap '06 brass. For the factory ammo guy, these make sense, but I wonder if the stocking of ammo will be as widespread as the Win Mag, if you get in a bind? Hornady does have a strong brand so that may help. It will be interesting, seems a strong trend in short rounds, whether its a fad or not for these mid bores will remain to be seen. I think the 338 version will do well, the 300 may or may not fare as well as the WSM, as there are many out there now, but the industry will likely push away from WSM to avoid the 'jameson royalty fee' that I have heard about. I can see wildcatters going 358/375 and 416 on this round....just because. If the 300 does well, I'd watch for a 7mm and 270 version, as the 270 was said to be the better of the 3 bores in the WSM for most hunters (could have been when it came to the average deer hunter-specifically), as suggested by those in the industry.

Oh, sorry, don't forget the neck up to 9.3!

I will stick with the 338 win mag .I get 3/4" groups at 200 yards with factory ammo and 2850 fps out of my 24" barrels.I dont have barrel rise that is horrible or a bunch of muzzle blast.Its a waste of time on short mags.I think the 416 Ruger is a better idea.The short mags are known to jam easy in alot of rifles I have seen.Ruger dumped all the short mags in their rifles before.I will stick to my good old 338 win mags that will be around as long as hunting will be around.Plus I can use 250 gr or even 300 gr bullets if I choose.

DGR, I would not tell you to do otherwise, as if one has a good 338.....but I don't so if I wanted one, or need one for an upcoming hunt, I'd prefer the RCM, really I'd imagine ONE advantage to a 338-06 or 338 Federal that I don't know was mentioned is having 5 rounds vs 3 or 4 that many other 'fatter' rounds can fit in a magazine. Hope to always have no need for a second or more round, but if one were in bear country, I'd be happier with a 338-06 than a Win Mag, 1 more shot for insurance.....just in case......and my shot recovery time would be faster....not to mention a tad better shootability-placing hits having that less recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by dgr416:
The short mags are known to jam easy in alot of rifles I have seen.Ruger dumped all the short mags in their rifles before.

dgr416,
And to be honest ... the Ruger actions seemed fairly prone to these jams. The Ruger 350RemMags where on a Ruger WSM action and around 6 of the 10 that came into Australia needed modification to get them to feed. It was a minor modification but getting them to feed any sort of RN projectile was "challenging" initially.
Cheers...
Con

quote:

Originally posted by Ted68:

Oh, and we Porsche purists don't think the Boxster was a bad an idea, or the Cayenne. The strong sales of both saved the company and put the Spyder on the track.

HooooAaaaah!!!!

My 338 win mags both mark I and II in the 338 win mag have never jamed on me.I do have a control feed winchester model 70 stainless that had to be totally rebuilt to not jam.I dont trust that Winchester.I do trust these Ruger 338s.I have shot 95 deer one hog and a black bear with my 338s from 3 yards to 425 yards.I think time proven in the 338 win mag is hard to beat.Plus you can get 2800 fps out of a 338 win mag with a 250 gr bullet.Try that in the short mag.My dad always told me if it aint broke dont fix it.I love the 338 win mag I did super size it by using the 338-378 Weatherby.

I am not looking at the 338 RCM as a replacement for the 338 Win mag. IMO, it is sort of like a 338-06 with a bit more power and housed in a short action. Is this such a bad thing? I was seriously considering buying a 350 Rem Mag Model 77 until I heard rumors of this cartridge and to be honest I think the 338 RCM may be a better option than the 350 Rem Mag. At the moment, I am hoping that Ruger will release this cartridge in a Stainless Hawkeye with at least a 22" barrel and preferably 24".

As I have stated before ,
Clearly these rounds will work, no question about it. But so do all the others. It seems rather silly to keep making new cartridges just for the sake of making new cartridges.
That said, If I saw a hawkeye with nice wood with a 22 inch tube and had some extra cash, I could see one comming home with me.
if you could get 2750 with a 225 grain bullet, it would be a very versital and easy to handle rifle.
Put a good low power variable on it and it would be good for any NA game ,out to prety decent range...tj3006

The smallest rifle I will use in Alaska because of Grizzleys must shoot a 250 gr bullet at 2600 fps or higher.I shot a black bear with the 2256 gr grand slams through both shoulders.It had about 8" of fat all around the bear.The bullet stopped on the far shoulder under the hide at about 30 yards.It was just a 350 pound fat black bear.I decided then and there I would only use 338 bullets 250 grs or larger.This rules out the 338 rcm because it like most other wsms wont handle longer bullets well.I have shot over 2500 rounds of 338 win mag in my ruger 338 win mags both mark I and Mark II without any

I can understand the need to reduce the 'pucker factor' if one frequents AK w/large bears.

Many guys have dropped many bears with 210 and 225 partitions, TSX, and 230 FS.

A 250 might be that extra 'insurance' that helps you relax, nothing wrong with it, they do well, esp. in the larger capacity guns. Imagine a 06 case would handle them, as Keith even promoted 275 GS I believe.

I think Ray used 230's a good bit, and could speak to the Barnes.

I've busted down brown bears with my .336-06 using the Speer 275 semi point, and it's the bullet i settled on to do the job. Too bad Speer quit makeing them!!

I've crawled through the alders and bear grass many times with that load/rifle, and i've never felt undergunned...

DM

That 275 gr use to be Elmner Keiths Favorite bullet.I use my 416 in the thickets for bears and my 338-378 weatherby with 250 gr Nosler Partitions at 3150 fps in the open tundra.I dont use my 338 win mag as much as I use to for bears.I had three grizzleys at 300 yards and the other two guys didnt have tags.I didnt have my 338-378 but I had my 338 win mag.I backed off the other side of the hill and let them slide.One of my friends shot one of them the next year with his 338 win mag with 225 gr bullets it took 6 shots and he almost got mauled.He now uses 250 gr Noslers at 2800 fps in his gun.You will never use too large of a gun on grizzleys.A 50 bmg is not too big.

You blokes should try the Lapua Naturalis 230 grain monometal. It is a semi spitzer with a plastic tip.............not tried it on bears, but it is one serious looking bullet!!!

DGR, I realize we are speaking VERY large and VERY dangerous game and your points are taken, that said, due to my recoil tolerance etc, I rather shoot something I know I can get shot recovery from, as I did fire a 416 RM ONCE, built on a 700 Classic, that stock may be poor for recoil and the brake was added later, but that thing nearly put me on my butt, and the bbl was straight up, oh, the floorplate popped open, which the owner said happened frequently. Believe it was 400 gr or so bullets, Hornady I remember, likely 4k or more ft lbs, if not 4.5? LOTS of power, but follow up shots seem tough, likely would hope to have earplugs, and muffs AND a brake if I ever used one again (did have ear protection on that shot), just if I were to be hunting with one.

That said, the 416 is a remarkable round, but not all can handle that much gun. a 338 WIN mag and 375 HH might be my max limit, but I know I shot my 338/06 much better. I think it in a quality feeding (and I don't mean to start a new thread, but it would never be a Rem-as I had a bolt handle fall off, and I'd want positive 100% feeding under the worst conditions during a time of 'high pucker factor-as in a charging bear crisis")......so I can see where ole Finn Aagard used the M98 in I believe most all larger bores, 338/06, WM, 375. Seems they are known to feed, and guys up in AK seem to be fond. Never heard a bad word on REAL pre-64 and old Sako's either, though the latter CRF M70 in 375, the SS/Syn seemed like a great gun for AK, as well as 338 WM although the 26" bbl would have to shorten to 22-23 for my liking.

Thanks for teaching me something new Blair, Lapua bullet, sounds nice. Sounds like it is made for hunting, if so, cannot imagine Lapua making anything poorly.

6.5Br- You might try a Vais muzzle break and a led sled if you are recoil sensitive and would like to shoot a heavier rifle. These breaks are really good at reducing recoil and really don't increase muzzle blast too substantially.

Grizzlies are tough and very large animals, but as with all game, shot placement is what really matters. With perfect shot placement, a 270 is ample for grizzly or even elephant, as O'connor and Bell proved respectively. The 338 win mag is an excellent bear gun by any standards. It may not be a stopper, but I wouldn't call the 338-378 a stopper either. In fact, with soft skinned game, you'd want a fatter/heavier and slower bullet on a stopper so that all of the bullet's energy is exerted on the bear. A 338-378 would simply blow right through the fur ball.

I believe that within ~200 yards the 338 win mag would be just as effective on bear as would the 338-378. Both have ample velocity to fully penetrate the bear, and they both use 338's (same size hole). Whether the weatherby is going a couple hundred fps faster inside a certain range is irrelevant b/c the extra velocity is not needed. That said, there is obviously an advantage in using the 338-378 on grizzly at extremely long distances past ~250 yards. Shooting anything out farther than 250 yards is generally something that most hunters don't do too often, but for those that do, I guess the 338-378 would be a good choice. All of these assertions assume that good bullets are being used.

On the 338 Ruger... The difference in performance of the 338R and the 338 win mag is not sufficient enough to warrant a switch-aroo in my opinion, but it might be fun to put a 358 or 366 bullet in the new cases.

I agree with most all you said, but my ears have had permanent damage, cotton balls did not suffice as dad only had one pair of sonic plugs when I tagged along at the trap club, 125 rounds of 12 guage around me per round....tinitis each time I left so whenever anyone has a brake on a rifle, I cringe and want to get far away.

Too bad silencers are not legal, w/o a heavy expense and paperwork, I KNOW I could and would likely or as easily shoot larger cartridges w/o flinching or hearing consequences. The few bad make it worse on the majority.

It would seem weird to shoot a silenced rifle and have a disproportionate level of recoil, but I think my shoulder would be more tolerant than the ear splitting blast. That's just me. If I ever do go after bears, I will be adequately armed, nor minimally or marginally, but sufficiently equipped with what is needed. To think of the likes of Fred Bear slinging sticks.....at Griz, from a stick, man had some ......STEEL hanging!!!