is the .338 beyond North America's Needs?

[SCW]

I just shot three mule deer over the past two days, and watched several others shot as well. These were does on depradation permits in hay fields.

I typically shoot a custom-ish Swede with 140gr Partitions. This seems to be a great load, kills very dead and doesn't screw up a lot of meat. Just nice. This fall I'm getting ready for elk, so I've been shooting my Ruger #1 in .338WM quite a bit, including this last three does. My first two shots were both head-shots, first at 120 yards and second at 104. No big deal I expect a .338WM to make a hole in a neck/head. It's the third shot that got me thinking, I hit my last doe at 344yds with the 225gr Accubond. Got her right through the hips (yeah, yeah, I screwed up the shot but that's not the point) where the bone and muscle mass are the largest. It went right through both hip sockets and out the other side with enough zip that it created a vaccum (I'm assuming) and dragged a fist-sized clump of intestine with it where it just sort of blossomed on the far side, protruding from the hide. No tears or damage to the intestine, just pulled out.

So- here's my thinking. 344 yards is as far as I'll be shooting for a long time. That's the furthest I've ever shot at live game and try not to shoot that far as a general rule. With the energy I've been seeing, my Swede or .30-06 is well within an needs I would have outside of Alaska, in fact when comparing ballistic tables the drop at 400 yards is within inches using either the .338WM, the 6.5x55 or the ol' -06, so range to 'shootable' distance (for me) is moot. I'm thinking that the .338 has TOO MUCH energy, if I'd been using the swede my placement would have been pretty much the same at 344 yards, and internal destruction would have been more manageable, to the point there I not only would have lost less meat, but possibly not a huge exit wound either. Either way, she would have been down and not running away.

That said, I'll still be using the .338WM on elk this fall to conduct more research into the matter.

now for the obligitory pics, the first two I cleaned before taking the pics and all of them are situated not to show the gore, which was significant on the first two.
first blood for the .338-


Second-


334 yards

 

[Cougfan2]

My personal opinion, .338WM is overkill for Deer, but not for Elk. You could certainly take Elk with your '06 with the right bullet and well placed shot. I'd say for Elk, use the rifle you shoot best and select the right load.

 

[GunTech]

I shot a western Oregon blacktail with a 458 Win Mag. Does that make me a bad person?

338 is probably more than you need, but if you are worried about meat destruction, you can always change bullets.

I have several friends who took their elk with the Swede laster year, so that claiber is more than adequate if the shooter does his part.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The key question in choosing a hunting rifle and cartridge, is "How well can you shoot it?" Most people find a trade-off at some point between "shootability" and recoil. If you can shoot your .338 well (and obviously you can) then it's a great elk rifle. Someone with less shooting skills, more sensitive to recoil and so on would be better served with a .30-06 or a 6.5 Swede.

 

[Deer Hunter]

Aw, I thought you were talking about my dream rifle: a .338 Lapua.

 

[Cougfan2]

I shot a western Oregon blacktail with a 458 Win Mag. Does that make me a bad person?

I suppose you could shoot one with a LAW rocket, but you'd have to pick it up with a sponge!

 

[DogBonz]

For North America?

No. For deer? Yes, IMHO. For elk it is a fine caliber. For moose and brown bears it is a great caliber. It is not a new uber magnum, but it does the trick and you can find it in a gas station in Alaska, so it's popularity up north could be a great asset. The 338 bullets have very good BC's and SD's, so if you match up the bullet to the task at hand you should have a nice set up. Also, this is not scientific, but anyone that i have seen shoot a 338wm that was not flinching usually had very good to excellent accuracy.

 

[Cosmoline]

Based on what I've seen over the past decade, it's become *THE* Alaskan hunting cartridge. So the answer would appear to be "no."

Sweet No. 1 BTW. And you're doing good by following EK's maxim that if you use a single shot you should have it chambered bigger rather than smaller. The deer look dead. And the faster they die the better, both for humane reasons and because of what protracted stress does to muscle tissue.

 

[Jimmy Newman]

The other thing is, the hunting in North America isn't only for native species... there are places in Texas that have nilgai, for example, and you need a good bit of gun for those.

 

[SCW]

Thanks all, I was very surprised, astounded, at the amount of damage done by the Accubond from the .338 compared to everything else I've seen, including the .300WM with unknown bullet type. I do know that the .300WM was using factory ammo, but I doubt it was premium stuff at that.

Anyway, a complete pass-through from 344 yards hitting hips and just about as much meat as you can hit on a mulie doe shows me that even for elk, this is a lot of energy.

I look forward to seeing the results on elk, but regardless I'm not swapping it for a BB-gun. I really like this gun, more all the time. I think I see more Ruger #1's in my future

 

[skinewmexico]

If you had been shooting the Swede, you probably wouldn't have hit the doe in the hips, so it's an unfair comparison, because shot placement really does count. And elk were hunted almost to extinction with 30-30 and less powerful rifles, so I just don't buy the magnum theory.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I turned in some 3.5" groups with a borowed M77 at the range a couple of years ago. It was a 338 at 300m. I was very impressed with the round.

And the #1 is a superb rifle, is it not?

 

[SCW]

If you had been shooting the Swede, you probably wouldn't have hit the doe in the hips, so it's an unfair comparison, because shot placement really does count.

Pardon my bluntness, but that's just 4 kinds of stupid. I shoot the swede well and I shoot the .338 pretty well. Offhand I actually shoot the .338 better because of the balance and fit, at the bench I get battered by the #1 and love the swede. Hitting in the hips was not a matter of elevation difference, only windage. Wind at the time was minimal (0-2mph? Not really noticeable and not enough to flicker the grass). If I'd been shooting the swede (I practice with both the swede and .338 at 200yds) my holdover would have been the same, and the result would have been the same.

The remainder of your comment is closer to what I'm thinking, that's just a lot of boom left on the far side of the animal, but it's also unfair to assume that results on elk will be the same. I have two elk tags for the fall (one bull and one cow), so hopefully I'll be better equiped to make a statement in two months. I won't stand in judgement of it till I've had some experience, but regardless the gun stays My old man lives in Anchorage so I wanted the .338 for hunting there, but then handicapped myself with the single-shot. I just can't abide an ugly gun

 

[Nhsport]

My thoughts
For many the 338 would be "too much" from the standpoint that the heavy recoil would be too much to handle and they would be botching shots and wounding animals. From your description that is not the case with you.
I think the possible loss of deer meat isn't a bad trade off for your getting experience with this rifle and the assumed beter performance you will have with it on elk and a possible alaska trip .Shooting at targets and such is good but the test is going against animals.
I never saw huge benifits of a repeater over a single shot for larger game (varmint hogs or prarie dogs yes!)
At some point you might want to revisit the swede to save some meat but there is something to be said for the one gun man!

 

[skinewmexico]

I don't know that my comment was 4 kinds of stupid, as I wasn't referring to holdover, and wind apparently wasn't a factor. As a general rule, most people do shoot rifles with less recoil better. I can think of situations where a 338 would be great in North America, but I'd want more than one shot for those situations. And elk aren't one of them for me.

 

[Taurus44]

Slightly off topic, but when I read posts like this, I just wish we could use something other than slugs and muzzle-loaders for deer here in Ohio.

If I ever get the chance to hunt deer-sized game with a rifle, I hope to use my AR15 in 6.5 Grendel.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[ECVMatt]

For me the .338-06 seems about ideal..

I really like mine, it shoots well and has enough power to hunt any where in NA.

Having said that, while hunting moose in AK there were several spot I wish I had brought my Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70 for the thick stuff. In the thick stuff you could not swing a full size rifle and god forid I saw a bear I would want as much whoop a as I could manage in a small package.

I am not sure if this deals with the original post, but some food for thought anyways.

Matt

 

[BAT1]

.338

The 7 mm or 7-08 would be less taxing for those size deer. The .338 is an excellent long range rifle that you might be able to carry as a ultra long range shot. Caribou and up.

338 Ar Laupa goes through 1/4 inch steel at 600 yds. Cost per shell very expensive!

 

[def4pos8]

My mind was warped by a short guy named Elmer Keith. Why didn't you go with a #1 in .375 Hollands'?

The key is to DOWNLOAD for the smaller critters and go full-bore for larger/dangerous things.

Whitetail in northern Wisconsin or upper Michigan are much easier to "track" -- max distance 30 yards -- when using a .375. Careful shot placement minimizes meat damage.

When I owned a .338, Nosler had a nice Partition bullet at about 220 grains. This is a good weight for whitetail.

 

[Browning]

I clicked on this thread hoping that someone would talk about their experiences with that new .338 Federal cartridge that came out a short while ago, but no one's talked about it yet.

So I guess I'll just ask straight out, anybody use the .338 Federal yet?

Is it fairly accurate up to 300 yards?

What's the recoil like in comparison to the .308 or 30-06?

How does it anchor deer or elk in comparison to the .338 WM, .300 WM or the 30-06?

I've shot the Win Mag and I didn't like it much because of the recoil, but I thought that the .338 Federal might be a little better in this department and that it might be an option if I didn't go with too light of a rifle. I just didn't want to sink a whole bunch of money into a rifle that I may or may not like. I don't know anybody who has one, so I can't ask to shoot theirs to get my own impressions and no one rents them at ranges here.

 

[mustanger98]

Any time I ask myself "do I need a magnum rifle", the answer comes back "no, I really don't". .30-30 and .30-06 get the job done just fine. But then, most of these deer around here don't require as much killin' to put 'em down... just a 150grains at 2200-2800fps through the boiler room.

 

[SCW]

Some good posts in my directionless thread, I love the rifle but that might have more to do with the rifle than the caliber. I might start a quest for a good download for my .338WM, or at least a smaller bullet with less explosive characteristics. I think the Accubond is just a little much, but again, I'll be using it for elk in 2 1/2 weeks now.

Probably if I could get a hold of one of the limited edition Lipsey's 6.5x55 Ruger #1's that were produced this year, I'd have a new favorite rifle again anyway, and I'd be back to finding the best 400yd elk load for the swede

Or maybe just go back to old faithful (.30-06) and have everything I need in one package.

 

[anymanusa]

let me add my 2 cents. I am theorizing, as I've never been hunting, of any kind yet, but spend a lot of time with hunters, discussing, and researching bullet stats (I am a tech geek). I feel as though a 7mm wsm is my 'ideal' cartridge. When I finally do break from my 'para military assault rifle buying spree' and buy a true hunting rifle, it will probably be one chambered in 7mm wsm.

That being said, I have no idea how it would stack up against a bear, and I would definitely research that before I went bear hunting (if that ever happens).

So I guess that I'm saying .338 is possibly beyond NA's needs. Hope that helps.

 

[N1150X]

Aw, I thought you were talking about my dream rifle: a .338 Lapua.

Hey, mine too that think is freaking awesome

.338 for deer is probably overkill but for elk I'd say its just about right. It's kind of like asking is the 308 overkill on foxes but the shooter uses it for deer also.

Remember if you blow the guts out its ok cuz you don't eat those

 

[dogrunner]

I've killed deer with my.338 WM in the appalachians and I do agree that it's a bit of overkill........same bullet too. That said, its a wonderfully accurate cartridge and if one can deal with the enhanced recoil and recovery time then why not.

My rifle is Browning's BAR. Picked it up in a trade as I am partial to the design and use an '06 in the carbine version for most of my deer hunting here in Florida. The recovery time for extra shots on fast moving deer is a LOT easier and quicker with the smaller round. That said, if you hit your target solidly repeats aren't really much of a consideration!

I recall one buck I hit with a downward angling shoulder hit from about 150 yards at about a 45 plus degree angle that actually flipped over backwards and landed upside down.....damn little doubt they're down for the count when that happens! I've shot deer in similar situations with the '06 and never had that happen.

I lived in AK for three years back in the 60's and frankly that BAR .338 would've been my dream gun then. Preferably wearing a modern finish and stocking arrangement it'd have been the nuts and a LOT more reassuring when crawling around the alders with pie pan shaped long clawed footprints in the mud!

Great cartridge and if it makes you happy then why in hell not use it.