quote:

I was wondering where all the "experts" who predicted the quick demise of the 375 and 416 Ruger rounds had gone.

I could be wrong, but methinks I detect a hint of sarcasm in this statement :-)

By the way,

Congratulations, Biebs, on two new rifles, both a 375Ruger and a 416 Ruger.

-

Not to mention the 500 MDM coming soon.
Methinks, you'll have enough gun for anything short of Godzilla

Not sure why, but I just like big bore rifles. The last Whitetail I took was with a 375...I just like the heft and power. Needed?...no. Desired?...s**t yeah! :-)

quote:

By the way,

Congratulations, Biebs, on two new rifles, both a 375Ruger and a 416 Ruger.

Tarzan, I can't think of better rifles for the time I spend in Alaska every September. Short, powerful, weatherproof, and if you bang them all to hell, just get another one.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:

quote:

By the way,

Congratulations, Biebs, on two new rifles, both a 375Ruger and a 416 Ruger.

Tarzan, I can't think of better rifles for the time I spend in Alaska every September. Short, powerful, weatherproof, and if you bang them all to hell, just get another one.

And while you're banging hell out of them you have the benefit of an accurate rifle/cartridge combo as well...

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:

quote:

I was wondering where all the "experts" who predicted the quick demise of the 375 and 416 Ruger rounds had gone.

I could be wrong, but methinks I detect a hint of sarcasm in this statement :-)

I don't care what anyone says about you Jon, except when you are shooting you don't miss much

I feel certain the 375, 416 and later the 404 Ruger are all here to stay, and like the .338 that was supposed to be a flash in the pan they will become more popular as time goes by. How can they fail, they are great rifles, well designed cartridge, and fit the pocket book of every red blooded American..I mean who else has a big bore at $699. that feeds, functions and is accurate right out of the box??

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I feel certain the 375, 416 and later the 404 Ruger are all here to stay, and like the .338 that was supposed to be a flash in the pan they will become more popular as time goes by. How can they fail, they are great rifles, well designed cartridge, and fit the pocket book of every red blooded American..I mean who else has a big bore at $699. that feeds, functions and is accurate right out of the box??

Well put and compelling logic.

Two caveats on data:
a. in reality a "404" Ruger would be a .423" caliber, and virtually indistinguishable from the 416Ruger in ballistics. I can't see a reason for messing with the nostolgic "404 Jeffrey", which apparently meant 40 calibre, 4 in the chamber. Bullet selection is better in .416" and I'm guessing that Ruger will market their 416Ruger more before doing a "404Ruger".
b. on the 338 Ruger, I think they dropped the ball with the 338 RCM. Yes, it is a great calibre, but it is a notch UNDER the 338 Win mag. The 338 Win Mag is about as good as it gets for matching calibre, capacity, and bullet integrity. On the other hand, a 338 Ruger (2.6" case based on 375 Ruger) would be of some interest and would equal 340 Weatherby ballistics in a standard action rifle, a pretty nice proposition. However, it is doubtful that Ruger will want to risk a 338 Ruger replacement of its 338 RCM in the near future. The 338WinMag has an impressive market share and track record and it will take some sustained marketing to eke out a market niche beside the WinMag. At least a full 338 Ruger would have a chance to achieve that with an 11-12 grain capacity advantage.

PS: the 338 RCM and a future 338 Ruger would effectively straddle the 338 Win Mag. The 338RCM is as many grains smaller than the 338WinMag as the 338Ruger would be larger than the WinMag. The difference between the 338RCM and 338Ruger would be about the same magnitude as the 30-06 and 300WinMag. So maybe there is room for Ruger to market both a 338RCM and a 338Ruger at the same time. The fly in this ointment is that the 338WinMag already exists, splits the difference of the two Ruger chamberings, and is a calibre that Ruger will also want to continue to market in the their rifles. That makes 3 different capacity levels, ignoring the 338Fed. Is there room for all of those in the current market? Maybe. We have a 270 Win, 7-08, 280, and 7m Mag that sustain themselves, along with the 308, 30-06, and 300WinMag. Ruger can do it in 338 if anyone can.

Tanz,

I can’t fault your overall logic, but I will just throw something else to ponder into the mix…

To many cartridges in a single caliber… How about this comparison:



I’m sure that I’ve missed a few but with the growing popularity of the .338 caliber I’m pretty sure one more cartridge would survive pretty well.

That said, I perceive that if Ruger doesn’t step up with a 3.4” magazine length factory’ .338 caliber cartridge pretty soon it’s quite possible that Nosler might step in with a 33 Nosler based upon their recently issued 26 Nosler (RUM derivative at 2.590” case length). As both cartridges would be designed for a 3.4” magazine it’s likely that the cartridge with the greater performance would win out – which based on potential powder capacity that would be the 33 Nosler.

Just something to ponder…

Jim

While I enjoy your point-and it makes sense, I would bet a steak dinner that the 338 Win Mag sells as many rifles, reloading dies, etc as all the others put together.

That said I really want a:

338 Federal
330-06
338 WSM/ 338 B&M


Its all good and all fun.

Hey Sean,

I’ve little doubt that the .338 WinMag is the most popular seller right now and I certainly wouldn’t bet a steak on it, even a cheap $5 one. LOL… That said, it was a ‘very slow starter’ when first introduced which I believe it was due to a few things – very poor stock fit (primary reason) plus many ‘gun scribes’ alluded to it being nigh on shoulder disabling (secondary reason) and most of all, the perception that the 30-06 with heavy bullets would do as well (and I have one is on the rack right now)…

As many of us know now, lesser cartridge performance does not necessarily mean less deadly within game performance because the cartridge is only the engine that drives the bullet while the bullet dictates its killing ability. Bullet selection is much more important than selection of the actual cartridge case to drive that bullet. And yes I’m aware of the importance of the cartridge case as it helps dictate the range the bullet can reasonably de delivered in…but even then, deliver the improper bullet and the shot game just might not die quickly which should be of primary importance to the ethical hunter. And yes I’m aware that when limited to an identical range of distances that the greater capacity case will deliver the bullet to the target at least at equal if not greater velocity and energy than a smaller capacity case – but again selection of the proper bullet is paramount.

I like the cartridges you’ve noted, while understanding the limitations of each they all have a ‘place’ within the hunting community.
* The 338 Federal chambered in a short action rifle with short barrel makes a wonderful carbine for use in heavily wooded areas while still providing the ability to ‘reach out’ to 200yds or so should the shot be required. Plus it works very well with standard C&C bullets which reduce the overall cost of the hunting/shooting endeavor.
* The 338-06 A-Square requires the use of a 3.4” magazine so it must be chambered in the standard length rifle action which lengthens the overall length of the rifle. It can be configured as a carbine but will still be slightly longer than the SA’ based carbine but in proper configuration as a rifle rather than as a carbine it becomes a package to ‘reach out’ to 300yds or so should the shot be required. As the cartridge will deliver greater velocity on close range shots bonded C&C bullets should be utilized rather than the standard C&C bullets.
* The 338 WSM and 338 B&M cartridges are another bag of issues.
- 338 WSM:
Winchester set the WSM COAL so that they would properly function within other manufacturer’s Short Action rifles, their action length and magazine length are true ‘short’ whereas the WSM action based upon action length and magazine length falls within a ‘true Intermediate Action’ length. It was this thinking that caused Winchester to go with the 323 WSM rather than a 338 WSM because while the heavier, hence longer, .338 caliber bullets would have worked in the WSM case and action combination the cartridge would have worked only with lighter weight, hence shorter, .338 caliber bullets in their competitors SA rifles. The 338 WSM loaded with a 250gr TSX – loaded to the same seating depth with a 338 WinMag – will fit within a function properly from the WSM action.
- 338 B&M:
A 338 B&M loaded with a 250gr TSX – loaded to the same seating depth with a 338 WinMag – will likely fit within but will not function properly from the WSM action/magazine unless the action/magazine are altered to accommodate a 3.10” minimum COAL. Being a M98 Mauser kind of guy I’m not adverse to the slight alteration of an action/magazine to accommodate a specific bullet/cartridge combination. Interestingly, if the MRC WSM action/magazine is properly listed on their website it will accommodate the 338 B&M at a minimum 3.10” COAL.
So there you go…

Here’s the comparison net powder data using 250gr Barnes TSX, all loaded to the same bullet seated depth…
338 WinMag = 71.047grs (used as the comparative standard)
33 Nosler = 89.308grs
338 Ruger = 83.769grs
340 WeathMag = 83.573grs (comparison only)
33 Newton = 74.492grs (legacy-obsolete cartridge)
338 B&M = 72.041grs
338 WSM = 66.551grs
338 RCM = 56.055grs
338-06 AS = 54.047

I’d recommend using a parallel-sided freebore of 0.200”-0.300” for either the .338 B&M or .338 WSM to assure proper function of the available .338 caliber bullets.

So there you go… Just my ¢…

quote:

Here’s the comparison net powder data using 250gr Barnes TSX, all loaded to the same bullet seated depth…
338 WinMag = 71.047grs (used as the comparative standard)
33 Nosler = 89.308grs
338 Ruger = 83.769grs
340 WeathMag = 83.573grs (comparison only)
33 Newton = 74.492grs (legacy-obsolete cartridge)
338 B&M = 72.041grs
338 WSM = 66.551grs
338 RCM = 56.055grs
338-06 AS = 54.047

PS: '33Nosler', I see you mean a necked up 26Nosler/shortened-RUM before the ink is dry?


Capo-

that is a helpful little list. I would highlight that the '338Ruger' and 340 Weatherby have the same capacity. Those would have a small but not insignificant potential of 100-125 fps over the 338WinMag, other things equal. And need for headspacing on the shoulder forces a case conformity on reloaders that should lead to better accuracy.

First, I think that Hornady is aware of the potential of the 375 Ruger case. That would explain why both 375 Ruger brass and unsized '375Ruger' basic brass is publically being offered for sale. They know that it is almost a dream platform for cartridges from 30 to 40 calibre. It can use the common boltface for .532" caseheads, its limit to .532" width means that it should not need much if any alteration for feeding rails, and it fits in 3.4" magazines.

For me, the big question is why the Hornady-Ruger case has not made a bigger splash. While a few have wildcatted a 338 Ruger (aka 338 Campfire) there is no open discussion and growing source of 338 Ruger reamers or barrel makers. For those living in the US who have both 'motive and opportunity', I am puzzled by the relatively slow utilization of this case. Maybe its the panic buying of components and cartridges already on the market? But wildcatters are not usually limited by brass and ammo strictures. Maybe the market is bewildered by so many new cartridges in the past 15 years?

Following up on those thoughts, here on AR we have Michael's B&M short adaptations of the RUM cases and Jeffoso's medium (aka 'standard') length RUM-adaptation producing the Accurate Reloading cases. (The "33Nosler" would basically be a Jeffosoian 338AccRel.) We also have ample examples of .590" (aka Rigby/Lapua) case developments as your .500" and my .510" cartridges testify to RIP and Jeffoso's endeavors. It seems strange that there is no parallel development of the non-belted .532" Ruger case into a series of cartridges, perhaps down at the 'rat-calibre level'. Meanwhile, I'm glad the 375 Ruger exists without any need for adaptation.

PPS: Between the 338Ruger and 33Nosler/AccRel, I'd probably be content with the 338Ruger, given its simplicity of design. No rebate rim, adequate power for current bullet technology. If bullet design and long-range elk demanded, then I might go with a 338Lapua Montana Rifle. But a 338Ruger makes a lot of sense as efficient, economical, and powerful. So does a 375 Ruger.

Tanz,

You're correct in that the 33 Nosler is a necked-up 26 Nosler. Also both are very close to Jeff's AccRel line of RUM cased standard length cartridges - I believe just a slight difference in shoulder angle and neck length, perhaps even in shoulder diameter.

I should also note that I used the 338 RCM neck length specification for the 338 Ruger as I dislike the very short neck of the necked-down .375 Ruger. And I'm not positive what neck length Ruger/Hornady used when they designed there full range of cartridges (eliminated any potential Jamison issue) based off the 375 Ruger case.

Personally I believe that basic case is optimum from .264 caliber up through .475 caliber. The case base mouth-to-shoulder length of the .375 Ruger works well for that caliber and larger whereas I believe the specification for either the 300 RCM or 338 RCM works much better for calibers under .375. Personally I'd have used the B-T-S M-T-S of the 300 RCM for all caliber above and below even if that'd have resulted in equalizing the 'overflow capacity' of the .375 Ruger with that of the .375 H&H. I've not checked in QD so don't know whether it would have or not - that said, I seriously doubt that the 'net capacity' of the case would have been affected negatively by this design change.

Reamers and barrels for a 338 Ruger... PT&G and Manson is where I'd go for finish reamers and gauges. Barrels - take your pick as .338 caliber barrels are available from virtually all domestic barrel manufacturers. I personally would select a 3-groove barrel in the 1:8" - 1:9" twist range depending upon how heavy a monometal bullet you intend to use.

Standard magnum boltface and bottleneck cartridges... The Ruger case is only slightly longer with an improved shoulder diameter and shoulder angle than the legacy 30 Newton and 35 Newton cartridges and the extremely rare legacy 33 Newton and 40 Newton cartridges. We've been there, the Newtons were just allowed to die commercially else the 2.5" belted magnum cases would never have gotten off the ground. After all, Winchester did purchase Chas. Newton's patents, designs, and design rights (except those previously obtained by Savage Arms and DuPont Powders) beginning after his 1928 bankruptcy and following his death in 1932.

Personally I'm unconcerned with the slight rebated rim of the RUM cases because rebated cartridges have become very reliable feeders since the factories worked out the feeding issues with the 284 Winchester cartridge. The 500 Jeffery is also a rebated-rim cartridge that is safe for DG hunting. But there is a degree of rebate we should stay away from - an example being the 425 Westley Richards - solely because of the degree of work required to assure flawless feeding. One just needs to remember to use a properly trained gunsmith/builder for our custom rifle builds and for use in commercial rifle tweaking to assure flawless function for DG hunting.

Ok I think I've pontificated enough in this post...

Note - Corrections made above thanks to Tanz.

quote:

Personally I'd have used the B-T-S of the 300 RCM for all caliber above and below even if that'd have resulted in equalizing the 'overflow capacity' of the .375 Ruger with that of the .375 H&H.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but it sounds like you're opting for something less than the 338 WnMg. I'm thinking that .338" is a pretty thin bullet to begin with and running it slower seems . . . strange. I'm thinking that the 375 Ruger will be more to my liking, especially if a tad slower than the 338. We'll see after we run my wife's new 375 Ruger through its paces. June will be here soon. As I mentioned, we'll be looking for some nice loads for her around 2600fps. She give up a little in trajectory and energy, but gain a bit in diameter and 'smack'.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Personally I'd have used the B-T-S of the 300 RCM for all caliber above and below even if that'd have resulted in equalizing the 'overflow capacity' of the .375 Ruger with that of the .375 H&H.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but it sounds like you're opting for something less than the 338 WnMg. I'm thinking that .338" is a pretty thin bullet to begin with and running it slower seems . . . strange. I'm thinking that the 375 Ruger will be more to my liking, especially if a tad slower than the 338. We'll see after we run my wife's new 375 Ruger through its paces. June will be here soon. As I mentioned, we'll be looking for some nice loads for her around 2600fps. She give up a little in trajectory and energy, but gain a bit in diameter and 'smack'.

Tanz,

B-T-S was a very poor terminology on my part - it should have been M-T-S (mouth to shoulder) of the 300 RCM. Insufficient coffee on my part... LOL...yes using the RCM BTS would have resulted in a very funky looking cartridge. LOL... I'll correct my post above.

Also I did use the 300 RCM MTS specification on the '338 Ruger example' so net capacity would not be less than the 388 WinMag. I'm not sure if any net case capacity would be gained by using the 375 Ruger MTS specification for the 338 Ruger - but it would result in a neck length shorter than I'd like to use when reloading even though maintaining a similar caliber to neck length ratio. Just my prospective on the issue...

And thanks for identifying my error...