anybody built one? If so, how do you like it?
What kind of performance are you getting from it?

The 338 WSM is a wildcat, and a bit problematic with the longer 338 bullets as they be seated to a point where the case mouth falls over the ogive. same problem with using a full length 300 WSM for the 338 WSM, so they kept COL constant and cut back the case length a bit.

The 358 and 375 bullet selection for the WSM case is better, as they are more friendly to the deep seating and typical ogives in those calibers. They are both dead ringers for the 358 Norma and 375 H&H, respectively.

One should work as the 8400 action and mag box are quite long at about 3.05" long. The thing is that it's a wildcat! I just don't see the practicality of it. Kimber chambers the 300 WSM and 325 WSM and those should be similar.

I suggest that you wait till next year as Kimber is coming out with the 8400 in a long action that is already annouced in the 30-06 and 270 but will be made in 300 WM and maybe 338 WM. That action will also take the 375 H&H etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
One should work as the 8400 action and mag box are quite long at about 3.05" long. The thing is that it's a wildcat! I just don't see the practicality of it. Kimber chambers the 300 WSM and 325 WSM and those should be similar.

I suggest that you wait till next year as Kimber is coming out with the 8400 in a long action that is already annouced in the 30-06 and 270 but will be made in 300 WM and maybe 338 WM. That action will also take the 375 H&H etc.

The thing is, I already have a .300 Winnie and a .338 Winnie on Model 70 Actions. Older I get the less weight I want to carry. So I want something with the .338 oomph but in a lightweight rifle and I thought the little kimber would fit the bill.

quote:

The thing is, I already have a .300 Winnie and a .338 Winnie on Model 70 Actions. Older I get the less weight I want to carry. So I want something with the .338 oomph but in a lightweight rifle and I thought the little kimber would fit the bill.

I am with you on the rifle weight issue.

Here is the one I will carry tommorrow. It weights six pounds and it's a 308.



The 8400 Montanas go about 6.2 lbs sans scope and add a pound for optics and mounts. Thats a magnum that's a least a half pound less than a M70 Featherweight. A lot less weight than seven pounds in a 338 maggy is going to kick with a capital K.

Someone here will get a weight for you soon on the new Kimber long action in the Montana version. It may be on the way long before some smith does a barrel switch anyway! I would guess it would go about 6.5 lbs. I question my memory now on what the new barrel lengths will be on the 8400 long action magnums as 26" sticks??

I've had 4 338 WSM's, three on M70's and one which I still possess on a Montana action. I built them for the same reason as you, weight reduction. Don't recall the weight of the Montana but as best I recall it's just over 7# "up" with a Leupold 2.5X8. Barrel is 22". It's perfect for elk and shoots up to 225g pills at velocities about 100 fps less than a Win Mag. I was never able to get accuracy out of 210 Partitions but they all shot well with 200 grainers and this current one shoots the 225 Accubond real well at about 2800 fps. The new 200 Accubond coming out next year should be perfect. Love the caliber and this particular rifle.

How light a rifle you wanting?

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2711043/m/965104773

Your not going to get 338 Win performance out of a 338 WSM. This is why Winchester hasn't produced the 338 WSM.

You will get 338-06 performance, but that's about it.

You might consider a 323 WSM and shoot the 220s. A 220 from a 8mm will out penetrate a 220 from a 338. Because of sectional density. I am talking about with the same bullet. Not comparing a hollowpoint to a partition.

D99- you will get the same speed relative to its big brother with the 338 WSM than you will with a 300 wsm vs say a 300 WM (big bro).

I know Bob has worked with a few, my one and only 338 WSM with a 21" tube is right on the heels of a the 338 WM.

I kind of believe that Win will still bring out the short 338 (and the 25), but time will tell.

Just a curious but how many of these short 338's have you worked with?

On another note I personally do not believe all that a gun company tells us.

Mine is on a M70 and with it's 3 weight Schneider it shoots like a house a fire. My wife has a late season elk tag this next week and she may just use it.

Using H4350 (on Brads suggestion) the 250 MK' are running right @ 2700. I kind of gotta believe that with the exception of the HE loads that will stay with most all 338 wm loads home brewed or factory rolled.

Mark D

Bob338
When you say you built your .338 WSMs do you mean you did the chambering and fitting of the barrels, or did you have that done. If you had it done, who did it for you. I would like to know because I would like to find out what reamer dimensions they used and who made the reamers for them.

As far as the 338 WSM not meeting the performance levels of the 338 Win Mag, I don't give a damn. It I have to trade off a hundred feet per second to get a pound less weight to carry around a mountain all day I am all for it!!!!

The machine work in rebarreling was done by Bret Graveline @ Nimrod Rifles, Diamond Springs, CA, telephone 530-622-2508. I believe I purchased the reamer, which he still has, from Pacific Tools in Oregon. It's basically what is now called a 300/338 WSM. He also has a reamer for the 7mm/338 WSM which has a slightly shorter neck for a slightly longer body and more volume in the case. I understand that latter reamer was used on one rifle that shoots like a house afire.

You know Bob-oddly enough but the new 325 brass works better (chambers better) in mine than the 300 ever did???

Mark D

What will a Kimber Montana weigh in the 8400's?

A short action 8400 Montana goes 6.1 lbs in 270 WSM now with a 24" barrel. The longer action may go a few ounces more, lets say 6.4 lbs. They will chamber it in 338 WM so that would be easier than a 338 wildcat.

Some report has the 8400 LA magnums with 26" tubes and if so I would cut that back. That's if I were to buy a LA Montana anyway.

The issue of a way to grip the stock should be solved with checkering or something. If the LOP grows from the present 13.66" to 13.75 as mentioned in another topic thats too long for me.

Overall I would have to see the new rifle in the Montana version first. Right now I would not buy a 8400 Montana SA in 300 WSM or 325 WSM as the smooth stock is too hard to hold onto recoil wise.

Right now I am going to try to get it done with the 270 WSM or if necessary use one of my old .375's. I will restock a M70 in 7mm WSM with a Bansner and that may be light enough. Don't see a LA Kimber in the near future.

I keep coming back to the 308 Montana. Heck, people get game with arrows. In fact for medium range "338" performance I would much rather hunt with a lightweight 358 Win in the 84M!

Get closer or let them go. <-----subject to revision.

Huh--what are you guys talking about a stock being too hard to "grip" under recoil?

Not being a butt, but this just doesn't make cents to me.

Mark D

Search back on Allen Days comments on his 300 WSM. I agree with him. The forend on the 8400M is very smooth.

"The stock is well-shaped, but it's rather slippery and it would benefit greatly from some molded-in checkering. But the stock is extremely well-made and sturdy, complete with pillar-bedding, and I'm not sure if a better synthetic stock is available on an off-the-shelf production rifle today.

Since it's light and kicks a bit, I named this rifle 'Snotty' after the first three shots, and you really have to hold on to it front and back for best results."

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?C...arch=true#Post574106

Mark, the thing I noticed most with the 325 brass is that you don't get a donut at the base of the neck as early and it's therefore more accurate longer before you have to ream the necks, which is a royal pain. I didn't notice any difference in chambering but then I size mine to a crush fit when camming the bolt, PFL to give Hot Core something to crow about.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dobrenski:
D99- you will get the same speed relative to its big brother with the 338 WSM than you will with a 300 wsm vs say a 300 WM (big bro).

I know Bob has worked with a few, my one and only 338 WSM with a 21" tube is right on the heels of a the 338 WM.

I kind of believe that Win will still bring out the short 338 (and the 25), but time will tell.

Just a curious but how many of these short 338's have you worked with?

On another note I personally do not believe all that a gun company tells us.

Mine is on a M70 and with it's 3 weight Schneider it shoots like a house a fire. My wife has a late season elk tag this next week and she may just use it.

Using H4350 (on Brads suggestion) the 250 MK' are running right @ 2700. I kind of gotta believe that with the exception of the HE loads that will stay with most all 338 wm loads home brewed or factory rolled.

Mark D

So you have a chronograph and you know your loads are what you claim?

I know the reason the 338 ultra is totally different than the other ultras is based on increased pressure and a decrease in power.

The 338 WSM as I understand is similar. They couldn't make it work the way they wanted.

I am not an industry insider, and I don't own the short 338s. I have owned several 338 Wins, 338-06, and even a 33 WCF. I don't have your knowledge of the cartridge, but if it was on as good as the 338 Win it would be out, why would any company be stupid enough to build a 8mm wsm if they could build a 338 wsm?

As a corallary, I have never seen a 300 Winchester VS 300 WSM with the exact same bullet comparison in the same length barrel.

I wonder why that is?

Maybe the WSM isn't as shiny as they are making it seem

If someone has one somewhere, let me know I will post photos of me eating crow.

I am sure I can whack one from my window with a slingshot or something. I am guessing there are crows in Italy, I have sure seen a lot of magpies.

D99- yeah I've a crono, how in the heck do you think I know what it'll run???

It is for most all bullet weights within 100 fps of the 338 WM. Some are closer than 100 fps.

What I am saying is that this is same thing that happens with the 300 wsm and the 7 wsm. They are both close for the most part, within 100 fps of the 300 WM and the 7 RM. But they doi not run exactly with it, close but not quite.

That was my point.

Win is using the excuse that the 338 would not come close enough. I would allow (from experience) that it does and it does so in the exact same way that the 7 and the 300 wsm do.

Mark D

There was also a statement attributed to Winchester that the 338 bullets were too long for a standard COL of 2.86" and thats why they did not do it.

I totally agree with Mark, I also have a chronograph, and I also have, or have had several 338 Win Mags. Mark is dead on. I also built a 325 WSM just after the cartridge was announced and it doesn't do much better than the 338 wizzum with as nearly as possible comparable bullets.

The reason Olin didn't develop the 338WSM is that the were partially hung up on the comparatively short necks; they are still hung up on the old adage of have a neck length equal or exceeding caliber. They wanted to crow about velocity, and they have though it's mostly propaganda. Deeper seating has minor effect on velocity, particularly since the Win magazines exceed 3" capacity, as do the Montana and Kimbers.

Sav 99- from the for what it is worth category, I've done a fair amount of work with the 250 MK.

That is a fairly long head and I've had no problems.

Out of my 21" tube with H4350 it'll run 2700. I pretty much figure that'll give the average 338 WM a run.

Mark D

Mark,

I am just trying to repeat what Winchester was quoted as saying. It was the 2.86" standard COL and you must have gone longer. Heck the M70 and Kimber will work with COL's over 3" out of the magazines.

Another reason may have been that they could not claim more velocity than the old 338WM

The 338/08 that Waters made up had a long magazine and maybe throat as he could not get the neck to hold the 225 BT at the standard COL.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dobrenski:
D99- yeah I've a crono, how in the heck do you think I know what it'll run???

It is for most all bullet weights within 100 fps of the 338 WM. Some are closer than 100 fps.

What I am saying is that this is same thing that happens with the 300 wsm and the 7 wsm. They are both close for the most part, within 100 fps of the 300 WM and the 7 RM. But they doi not run exactly with it, close but not quite.

That was my point.

Win is using the excuse that the 338 would not come close enough. I would allow (from experience) that it does and it does so in the exact same way that the 7 and the 300 wsm do.

Mark D

Mark, that 100 FPS is enough to keep them from making it. You know that's suprising, because they just fidgeted with the numbers on the other two to make them sound equal.

100 FPS is close but it's not equal. Hopefully they will come out with a 338 WSM next year, you know it would sell. Winchester could put some dark sky figures out there like they did with the other two and make it sell.

Now that they have the 323, they should probably do a 358 WSM, and skip the 338. I think the 338 would cut into the 323 sales.

D99- the 100 fps is the same thing they have going with with 7 WSM and the 300 WSM. Despite what they claim they will not duplicate what the 7 RM and the 300 WM do. They will come close, and for the most part that closenes IME is 100 fps.

So, I honestly do not believe the idea that they didn't do it because it wouldn't dupe the 338 WM. If that is the case, then they should of never done the 7 and the 300 wsm...

You see where I am coming from?

Make it your best day

Mark D

Regarding the molded in "checkering" vs a smooth stock, I've never found it an issue and think it boils down to personal preference. The reason the Kimber MT in 300 WSM is hard to deal with has nothing, for me, to do with the stock but rather the very thin nature of the tube and overall light weight. Mine was 7lbs at the bench... for me that's just too light for a rifle of that power without a beefier barrel.

Yeah Bubba, take that tube to 23" and .65" at the muzzle and then it'll rock!

Mark D

but it will only kill elk to 423.2 yards though, according to my calcs....ork ork

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dobrenski:
D99- the 100 fps is the same thing they have going with with 7 WSM and the 300 WSM. Despite what they claim they will not duplicate what the 7 RM and the 300 WM do. They will come close, and for the most part that closenes IME is 100 fps.

So, I honestly do not believe the idea that they didn't do it because it wouldn't dupe the 338 WM. If that is the case, then they should of never done the 7 and the 300 wsm...

You see where I am coming from?

Make it your best day

Mark D

If WW got burned on the fact that those WSM's cannot go faster than the old magnums then they had to pull back on the later introduction. Thus the 325 can claim to come close and since it's not the same..........

While waiting for a M1999 action that would become a 270 WSM I grabbed one from Savage out of the catalog. Out to the range I went with a box of factory 150 gr Power Points and I shot them over the chrono. First of all the bolt was hard to open on it's inital lift and but when I saw that the velocity was higher than what Weatherby claims for their 270 Mag. I stopped shooting.

My supposition is that WW manufacturing told WW marketing that the WSMs were too hot as loaded and the backed off with the later introduction.

As to AD's comment that he would select a Super America thats something that I almost typed but I was thinking the Classic. I think the reason for either is to get the checkering to hold onto and a little more weight.

Kimber is about to introduce the long action in the Montana and it will be chambered for the 375 H&H. Thats the kind of round that you have to hold onto! I heard somewhere that they might have 26" tubes on the LA Montana magnums. If so it will help with the blast some but not much will be added to the weight.

I still think that the rubber "checkering"on the M70 Super Shadow makes a huge differance in holding on. I hope that Kimber does not use rubber or goooie plastic surfaces.

The Montana in 375 ouch and ouch and then the tube abbreviated to a more user friendly length is exactly what Brad said he was gonna buy me for my birthday next year...right old buddy?

Mark D

I would like to see them available in all WSMs in the fluted heavier sub-varmint barrel with the montana stock in black.