.338 Federal

G

Gunplummer

New member
Is this round starting to fade away already? I really do not see mention of it lately. I really never saw a need for it to begin with, kind of a round for novelty guns.
 
It doesn't meet any real need. It just barely beats a 308 velocity and can't match a 30-06 with equal bullet weights. While it offers .03" greater bullet diameter, bullets of the same weight from a 308 or 30-06 will shoot flatter and penetrate deeper.
 
I had the same question. I think because you can't get the performance from factory loads when reloading. I think that's why the 358 win keeps chugging along. But knows reloaders could start picking it up.
 
Every so often, a manufacturer will make a new cartridge, hoping it will catch on. In the case of the .338 Federal, I don't think that it ever did, simply because as a general rule, American hunters aren't enamored with .338 calibers. While the .338 Lapua Magnum has applications in long-range shooting, the .338 Federal is neither fish-nor-fowl, and rifles in that caliber aren't readily available for our home-grown shooters.

Many of us shoot .30 caliber rifles with heavy-for-caliber bullets. It's quite fashionable nowadays to have a .308 load with 180 or 200 grain bullets and these bullets will have better ballistic coefficients than the same-weight bullets in the .338 caliber. So, the question becomes why we should step up to the .338 caliber? If I want to shoot a 180 grain bullet, I can load it in my .308 or .30-06, which is already in my gun locker.

The .338 Federal is a niche cartridge, well covered by both the .308 Winchester and the .358 Winchester. All that having been said, the .338 Federal is a cartridge I followed in the gun rags when it came out in 2006. I've got a nice Savage donor action that I've considered re-barreling in .338 Federal simply for the novelty. I believe that it could be made into a nice, light woods gun, and I'd certainly be the only guy in my deer club that has one.
 
Oh, I think the .338 Federal has a strong and steady following. However, it was never going to be a huge selling cartridge. I don't think anyone is currently making a rifle chambered in this cartridge except Kimber.

One thing to remember this would never be a long range round but a hunting round good to 300-400 yards max. I don't quite agree with jmr40's statement because within that 300-400 yards effective range it does everything as well as the .30-06 and .308. Plus it makes bigger holes through game, which to some there is "no replacement for displacement".

John Barness has done quite a bit of work with the .358 Win and found that TAC is the go to powder. I have data published by him on both the .338 Fed and .358 Win, but I don't think he did the nearly the testing on the .338 Fed that he did on the .358 Win.

338Fed-358Win-Barsness3.jpg
 
Yeah, looks like the .338 Federal is fading but I'm not selling mine. My converted Savage Model 11 is my favorite hunting rifle. With its longer magazine I've been able to seat my bullets out and match factory rounds for velocity. That's using stick powder, I've always avoided using ball powder in my hunting rounds. Two feral hogs dropped in their tracks and one eight point deer went no more than twenty yards (part of that down an incline). Best of all it doesn't waste meat!

Some loads I worked up. All probably too hot if the bullets were seated to load manual specs.

Bullet: Hornady 200 gr. SP Interlock (my favorite)
Powder: Hodgdon H4895 47.8 grs.
Primer: CCI-200
Case: Remington .308 Winchester Reformed
LOAL: 2.895 (2.228 base to ogive with Stoney Point)
Avg. Velocity: 2636.69 fps
Spread: 20.63 fps
Std Dev: 8.48

Bullet: Nosler 180 gr. Ballistic Tip
Powder: Accurate 2230-C 46.0 grs.
Primer: Federal 215
Case: Federal
LOAL: 2.895 (2.250 base to ogive with Stoney Point)
Avg. Velocity: 2692.53 fps
Spread: 21.54
Std Dev: 10.81

Bullet: Nosler 180 gr. Ballistic Tip
Powder: IMR 8208 XBR 48.0 grs
Primer: CCI-BR2
Case: Federal
LOAL: 2.895 (2.250 base to ogive with Stoney Point)
Avg. Velocity: 2768.83 fps
Spread: 20.29
Std Dev: 6.63

For comparision.

Federal Fusion 200 gr. Factory (Soft Point)
Velocity: 2644 fps


"Thumper"

CustomSavageModel11.jpg


Nosler180grBT100yards.jpg
 
Nothing wrong with the 338 Fed, but it sits between the already established 308 Win and 358 Win. The appeal of the 338 is a closer range brush gun/woods rifle but in every way the 358 surpasses it up close, out to range the 308 handily beats it if shots over 250 yards are on the menu.
 
I wouldn't say the .358 Win surpasses the .338 Federal, sure you can get a little more speed out of it than the Fed. However, there are much better hunting bullet selections for the .338 Fed. They are pretty much the same IMO, one not doing any one thing better than the other.
 
Interesting that Mr. Barnes found TAC to be his go-to powder. I've never seen a can on our local shelves, but I notice that the Hogdgon burn rate chart puts TAC one place from H4895, which is a powder I keep on my bench.
 
I think the .338 was an interesting idea, a compromise between the .358 and .308, but using the .338 bullets that were en vogue for a while. People seem to assume the performance of 250-275 grain .338 bullets from magnum rifles will translate to lighter calibers, but it really doesn't. Still, any practical caliber based on an efficient existing case will have a niche, and the .338 Federal works better in AR rifles than the .358 by most accounts and us a good compromise if you need more punch than a .308 but more range than a .358 in a short action rifle. The ability to make brass from .308 casings is a big plus, too.
 
I wanted some opinions. I had been toying with the idea of re-barreling a beater '99 Savage. Now I don't think it will be worth the trouble. I have an early '99 in .358 anyway. I think the .338 FED will just fade away.
 
It may be of interest to note that the 9th Hornady Handbook doesn't even list it. I'm not sure whether the 8th did because I don't have that edition, but this may be an indication of the end being nigh.
 
Reminds me of the 7-30 Waters. That round was really pushed when it came out. I made a spare barrel for a 99 Savage to shoot 7-30 because .303 brass was impossible to get. Now I am using the original .303 barrel again. Hornady does not even make the 140 Gr Flat Point 7mm anymore and I have never seen new brass available. I don't care for the 120 grain 7mm and the 140 gr Pointed are too long for the magazine. Well, the .338 Federal won't be the first to fail.
 
According to several gunsmiths I have talked to, if your Savage 99 was made before the advent of the 308, it may require heat treatment. It may not be worth the effort.
 
When the 338 Fed first came out I read a rerview in Guns & Ammo. I was interested I must admit. But as I read more on it I decided it wasn't really any better than a .308 or '06 and wasn't worth the expense of a new rifle, dies, components, etc.
I have no real expierence with it though.
 
math teacher said:
According to several gunsmiths I have talked to, if your Savage 99 was made before the advent of the 308, it may require heat treatment. It may not be worth the effort.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that the .303 Savage 99 he was referring too isn't the only one that Gunplumber owns. They were still making the Savage 99 after the .308 Win came out and I'm sure that the one that was looking for a new barrel was a .308 rifle, or another cartridge of similar case capacity.
 
I am a Gunsmith. Just how would these "Gunsmiths" go about re-heat treating that receiver? Maybe they can tell you what kind of material it is ? I am kind of curious. I have never seen anything reliable in print that would indicate that the heat treating process was changed when Savage started to chamber higher pressure rounds. Either way it is a moot point.
You would have to mill out and change internal parts (Just as the factory did) to get it to feed using a frame made before the .243 and .308 came out.
I do have an old model I converted to 22-250. That round has pretty much moxie and I have no problems. We are not talking Winchester here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top