People I speak to say that the .338 win mag is difficult to use accurately and to follow up due to the recoil. Any truth in that?

The rifle weighs 8 lb and I weigh 230lb, I think no big deal!
Would a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40 be suitable?

You are a bigger man then I am and I didn't have a problem with a 300 H&H in a similar weight rifle... I'm thinking the recoil was probably similar... As to a scope it depends on what ranges you expect to be shooting... If they are shorter, say up to 250 yrds/meters, I would go with something in the 3 - 9 or 3.5 - 10 range of magnification... The choice of brands is the hardest part... A Zeiss 3 - 9 x 40 has very good optics and will give you 4 inches of eye relief (that can be handy with something that kicks a bit)... Can't go wrong with any of the other European names or Leupold for that matter...

Ken....

The 338 Win Mag shooting a 225gr bullet recoils at 31.FT LBs. My 300 win mag recoils about the same shooting 180gr bullets.

I think I would rather shoot my 338 than a 300.

quote:

Originally posted by Johanv:
People I speak to say that the .338 win mag is difficult to use accurately and to follow up due to the recoil. Any truth in that?

The rifle weighs 8 lb and I weigh 230lb, I think no big deal!
Would a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40 be suitable?

You'll love it!!

I f you already shoot a .30-06 & 180gr loads you'll find recoil there but not objectionable . Sure a .243 is easier to hit with but a well placed .338 is pretty decisive on game. BTW, leave the 4x16 on your varmint rifle unless you plan on many shots over 300yds. 3x-9x is plenty, I like the 2.5x-8x especially if you get into the bush.

quote:

Originally posted by fredj338:
BTW, leave the 4x15 on your varmint rifle unless you plan on many shots over 300yds. 3x-9x is plenty, I like the 2.5x-8x.

Do a lot of shooting on Gemsbok & Springbok over 300m

338s kick, but are in my opinion easier on the shoulder than say a 300 Weatherby, given rifles of the same weight. For sure recoil is subjective, but I find the 338 has a BIG PUSH as opposed to a sharp jab like a hot 300.
I am also of the opinion that the 338 is at its best with 225s and 250s, altho lighter bullets are common. A 225 Accubond will give you all the range and power the 338 is capable of offering, something that can't be said about 180 & 200 grain bullets. Lighter bullets are faster, but don't pack the wallop heavier ones do at distant ranges. This is the exact reason why 338 calibre outshines the various 35s.

Just a note, bigger people don't always handle kick better. Smaller people move more with it, while larger people absorb more. Personal comfort also has to do with recoil tolerance too.

in terms of "felt recoil" my 338 mag is about the same as my 375 H&H......

Neither is very bad except sitting at the bench!!!

I'd put on a scope of no more than 9 power.....a 3X9 is fine and more is not going to be much help.

I have been reloading, shooting and hunting extensively with .338's for over 25 years. This was with 5 different rifles. I currently use a Ruger No.1S and a Winchester M70.
The only one I found uncomfortable to shoot was a Ruger 77 with the original style synthetic stock. But I think this was more a factor of stock design than weight.

90% of my shooting has been with bullets weighing 250 grains at max or near max loads. I cannot personally feel less recoil with the 225's. I can tell the difference with 200-210 grain loads, but with those I think you are giving up one of the biggest attributes of the .338 - great sectional density and penetration.

For scopes, I stick to mid-range variables with plenty of eye relief. Leupold VX-II 2x7 and VX-III 2.5x8 are both great. But my current favorite is the Zeiss Conquest 3x9. I have never been in a big game hunting situation where a 3x9 was not enough magnification - and I have shot lots of game at long ranges. However, I have been in plenty of situations where I was glad I had lower power - both in Alaska and Africa.

I would leave the 4x16 to varmint shooters. The Elite 4200 is a decent scope - but I would stick to the 2.5x10. I have used one on a .338 and found it to be a great scope. The only problem I have with it is the short eye relief.

Before I bought my .338 (M77, stainless, skeletonized plastic stock) I, too, was very worried that I might not be able to handle the recoil.

But then, it occurred to me that I hunted grouse with a little Franchi Falconet. This gun had very short barrels (what, 20 inches?), C and IC, couldn't have weighed more than 5.5 lbs, lacked a recoil pad . . . and had 3 inch chambers, in which I shot 1.25 oz loads. I calculated the recoil this puppy generated, and it turned out to be greater than what a .338 shooting 225 gr bullets would be by a goodly amount.

Once I realized that, I ran out and bought the .338.

I'd recommend against a very high power scope. You don't need to be able to hit a squirrel's head at 400 yards, after all, with a .338.

If you hunt with it, you will probably need to be able to acquire a large target quickly, and a scope whose lowest power is less than 4X will be of greater value to you than a scope whose higher end is above 9X. I have a Leupold VX-III 2.5 - 8X on mine, and love it precisely because of it's low-end magnification.

By the way -- my rifle is well better than one MOA with a couple of different loads.

Thanks that very reassuring!!!

Johan

Recoil is an individual thing, but the scope, one I have is MORE than you need and may want. I had a 6x42 and another time a 2.5-8x on my 338-06, either I could live happily ever after on that rifle. Shot 1/2moa groups CONSISTENTLY with the 6x42 so it will let you hit better than you can hold if you ask me. As others say, you are not after varmints so you don't need more than say 10x on the high end IMHO.

Good luck.

Oh, btw, I did have a 4200 1.5-6x when I took it to Colorado, gave me a LOW end which was nice when I startled 2 bucks together in timber. A low end of 2-3.5x can come in handy in timber for FOV.

I personally find the 300 Mags to be harder kickers than my pre-64 M70 on a McMillan stock in .338 WM. It weighs 8 1/4 pounds with a 3-9x40MC Zeiss scope, sling, and shells.

The 300's are sharper in recoil ... which I find to be less comfortable.

At the other end, the .375's I have push harder but are less sudden than the .338 WM. Life changes at .416 calibers.

At any rate, the .338 WM is not a nasty beast. Even if you have some recoil sensitivity this is one that you can learn to handle with a little experience.

I found that my 300 wm kicks harder then my 338wm. Then after shootiny 416taylor they don't kick so hard any more

To me a .300 and .338 are similar in recoil. I would likea 4-16 on a .338, a 2.5-8x is perfect for the size game that you use a .338 for. I believe you will always lose more game with too much magnification shooting moving game at close range than you will ever kill at a range that a 6x scope can't be used for. I hate trying to shoot offhand with a scope set over 4x. Try a 1.75-6x or 2.5-8x for a year or two, leave the 4-16x's for .257 Wby, .25-06, etc not a big game thumper.

I reckon I'll weigh in and echo what everyone else is saying my .338 is not as bad in the recoil dept as my uncles .300 win. The 30 mags seem to have a sharper jab recoil than the .338. Mine wears a 3-9 and rarely gets turned up over 5. Hope this helps

gabe

A good stock makes all the difference in the world. I shot a friends Ruger with the boat paddle stock and it kicks twice as bad as mine does. Mine is stocked in a McMillan.

I took a Rem 700 BDL in 338 to Namibia. The 338 was a great caliber for plains game. Never felt any recoil when hunting. When practicing at home I felt it but it was never a problem I also agree with a lower range variable with adequate eye relief.
John Hill

I had the exact same rifle in two different calibers, .300 Win Mag and .338 Win mag. Shooting them side by side, I felt the .300 had more recoil, or at least it was sharper. I sold the .300 and will have the .338 until my dying day.

shoot both, in the same rifle and the 300win kicks less then the 338win. felt recoil is more noticable, compared to the 300win using 180gr loads. in the 338 am using 225gn. the 338 pushes harder, whilst the 300 has more blast.
a 3-9 scope is ample for a 338win, need the eye releif in case you crawl up the stock. but every one percieves recoil differently, you will have to c for yourself.....

cheer cc

quote:

Originally posted by Johanv:
People I speak to say that the .338 win mag is difficult to use accurately and to follow up due to the recoil. Any truth in that?

The rifle weighs 8 lb and I weigh 230lb, I think no big deal!
Would a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40 be suitable?

Get a Remington, Winchester, or Ruger, and put a Hogue Overmolded stock on it.

I have a .338WM chambered in a M70 Supergrade. Recoil is stout, but quite manageable. I have shot up to 20 rounds from it at a bench session without discomfort.

Here are some tips I follow when shooting heavy recoiling guns at the bench:

1) I wear a PAST recoil pad

2) I set the seat low at the bench so my back is vertical behind the gun, rather than curved into the gun. This allows the body to move with the recoil rather than absorb it.

3) Even though the gun is set in a rest, I hold it firmly with both hands, snugged tightly into the body. Hug the gun tightly like you love it, not tentatively like you're afraid of it.

Johanv,

Before I had my Ruger .338 laminate I had a ruger 30/06 boat paddle stock..............with 180gr at 2750 thats was worse than my .338 due smaller surface area on the butt and light weight I'd reckon. My .338 with 225 gr woodleigh's moving at around 2700 fps is nicer to shoot from ute window than that light 30/06 was.

But I have on occasions shot my .416 Rigby from out of the ute window and thats in a whole different league so may be I am used to recoil a little bit

Not sure how much a Zeiss 3-9 costs but I just purchased a Leupold VX-II 3-9 X 40 and feel it is a very respectable hunting scope.

http://www.leupold.com/products/products_highlights.asp

Peace in the Lord,

Corey

Forgot to add a 2-7 or 3-9 is all thats needed on a .338 winnie, my own has a 3-9 leupold.

Sorry, forgot to mention, I recommend the Leupold because of its generous eye relief for a .338 Magnum. The Zeiss would be an equally good choice. Granted, there is nothing like standing over when of the Creators majestic creatures with blood dripping off your forehead and jumping up and down!

Corey

quote:

Originally posted by Johanv:
People I speak to say that the .338 win mag is difficult to use accurately and to follow up due to the recoil. Any truth in that?

The rifle weighs 8 lb and I weigh 230lb, I think no big deal!
Would a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40 be suitable?

I think that the 338 Win mag is a caliber that most people can learn to shoot well if they will just work a little bit at it. To me the recoil seems pushier than sharp as compared to say a 300 Ultra Mag.
I took my first Elk (about the size of a good Kudu) at pretty long distance with 225gr Accubonds and IMR-4350. I think the sleek Accubonds would be great bullets for Gemsbock and Springbok but would probably go with 250gr Noslers, A-Frames or TSX's for Kudu, Sable and your heavier Antelopes.
My only gripe with the 338 Win Mag is that he shoulders tend to vary widely since they are supposed to headspace on the belt. If you reload you will probably get best accuracy with once-fired brass that has been carefully resized not to set the shoulder back.
The Elk I shot was using a 2.5-10 scope, I think I'd choose a 2.5-10x40 Elite over the 4-16x42 Elite on a 338 Win Mag.
The 338 is a Classic African caliber you will probably love handing one. Heck invite me over to do a little hunting and I'll bring one for you to borrow...... .............DJ

The .338 is very manageable round. In a rifle of decent weight, a good pad, the proper LOP and the scope set up right you are in high cotton. If one is used to shooting a .243 the .338 may seem harsh, but if you want to shoot this round well it is no problem with practice. The 338 is a great caliber, with LOTS of fine bullet choices.

If you want a 338 go for it! Get used to it and have fun. You might even venture into the dark side and get into the big bores like I have

John

Would a Bushnell Elite 4200 4-16x40 be suitable?[/QUOTE]

I think I've got my mind set on the Zeiss Diavari 2.5-10x42

I hear that scope has great optics. Just make sure it has enough eye relief.

They claim 3.6" 90mm - would that be enough?

I had an old scope on a 30-06 once, with less than 3", really more like 2" worked O.K, Obviously more recoil on this one!

I've a 338 win mag with a Zeiss conquest - a full 4 inches of eye relief at all power ranges. I wont say that one can ever have to much eye relief...but I know I could easily get by with a little less if need be, on this rifle. Jmo

My first rifle was 338 win mag in a ruger 77. I was 15 and weighed maybe 150#. I think they are plenty easy to handle, same as a 300 mag.

If you want a 338 to kick some just put some 275 grain bullets in it.

I have a 338 win mag Beretta Mato which has an HS Precision straight stock built to handle recoil. After a range session my shoulder will be sore for a few days. I use a Past recoil pad and know how to hold a rifle on the bench. No bruising, just a sore shoulder.

I have an identical Beretta Mato in 300 win mag and it does not make my shoulder sore. The 338 does seem to recoil more, IMO.

The 338 is one of my most accurate rifle and I prefer it over the 300 now but after the hunting season I will take it to Briley and have them install one of their good looking flush muzzle brakes.

All excellent advise listed above..

My quick scan, all I can add is about the 4 x 16 scope.. I concur with the 3 x 9 max recommendation...

However, if you are shooting at stuff at 300 yds, plus... a good mildot reticle or some of those ballistic plex reticles like Burris and Nikon offer could be great help...

Just wanted to weigh in on scope power range.
Just giving an opinion here.
I can see no value in any thing over a 3X9 on an Elk or plains game rifle.
When I am hunting, what ever scope I am carying is on the the low end most of the time.
the kill zone on an Elk is what 18 inches ,top to bottom. A 4 power will do at 300 yards, A 3X9 turned up will do anything a scope can do for you at 400 on a target that big.
My .338 does not have a scope on ot at the moment. I had a 3.5X10 leupold on it but I moved that to my 7mmSTW.
I will probably put my 3X9 Burris FF2 on the .338 but I might just put a VX3 2.5X8 for it. Can't think of anything I could do with a 14 that i could not do with a 8. And no adjustable objective, plenty of eye relief.
I Have 2 2.5X8s and except for my 25,06 and my stw, I would be happy with them on all my rifles. including my 280 imp and my 270.
I also like my 2 VX 2 2X7s Infact one of those on my .338 is a good idea...tj3006

I've had my 338 for over 8 years, it is a stainless ruger with the boat paddle stock. The only thing other then reduce the trigger is that I put a decelerator pad on it. I think you would be surprised at the recoil, given the fact that people have told you it was rough. It's not as bad as people would have you beleive. At least that what I thought of it.


JMeier