The 338 Federal Really Shines and Should be More Popular!!

Great stuff everyone.

I wonder, I'll bet the '06 was in short supply back in 1912.

Ain't it a wonderful world that we have all these choices...or not. We'all be the judges.
 
I guess I'm with Pk on that one, it's not really all that superior to a 30-06, and doesn't have the authority like a 9.3x62 or 338 WM on stuff that needs more power than the 30-06.
 
"I wonder, I'll bet the '06 was in short supply back in 1912."

And, with no Walmarts to go to what would some people do!!!:eek:

T.
 
I like your thinking Interlock! I keep my eyes open for an 338RCM just for that reason even if the Federal isn't too far behind.

Guess I'd go in a W'Mart if they gave me the place....they've killed off a lot a little stores and I don't like that.

NRA Life Member
 
338 Fed (or even 338-06)

I'm in agreement Mac. I wish I took a serious look at the 338 Fed before. I'm still learning and love my .308 for an all around cartridge (3-400 yards) BUT I couldn't believe the numbers coming out for the 338 Fed based on the same case. Just barely shy of WinMag/WSM velocities or ft/lbs of energy from a .308 case. That's amazing and when you think of the heavier bullet options for the 338-06, then is a magnum even necessary for anything less than 500 yards?

I love target shooting and I won't be free hold shooting an animal (I know I'm far more accurate with a bipod) unless it's trying to kill me ;) and for hunting I don't plan on shooting beyond 3-400 yards. As I was researching my options (aiming at 300WSM) I came across the 338 Fed again but gave it a real chance, now that I understand reloading and ballistics a little better than a couple years ago. From deer to moose or elk, the 338 Fed/338-06 can do it all.

It seems to me that a 338 fed or 338-06 outshine the .308/30-06 in almost every way? These should almost become standard cartridges IMO. Thanks for starting this thread, I hope more manufacturers will start taking these calibers seriously (Savage & Browning in particular).

Q's.

  1. I'm assuming the barrel wear will be just as good as the .308?
  2. Can you rebarrel or change a .308 barrel to 338 without any other mods, since the case is essentially the same?
  3. Since 20" barrels work great with .308, assuming same for 338 Fed?
 
Last edited:
I've got the same rifle in .325WSM back when the cartridge first came out. With ammo prices where they are, I wish I'd have made the same choice you did and gone with .338 Federal.
 
Thanks Miykael.

Regarding your Q's:

I'm assuming the barrel wear will be just as good as the .308?
Can you rebarrel or change a .308 barrel to 338 without any other mods, since the case is essentially the same?
Since 20" barrels work great with .308, assuming same for 338 Fed?

I can't imagine why the barrel life would be any different. They are pushing their respective bullets down the barrel with about the same powder charges and speeds.

Your 308 can eaily be re-barreled to 338. Contact Shilen or another barrel maker for costs, etc.

The 338 Federal IS the 308 win. case necked to 338.

20" is going to cost you a loss of 35-40 or so fps according to the stuff I have read.

Good Luck
 
The revered 30-06 will launch at 180gr Speer at around 2700fps according to the Alliant book.

At 300yds this bullet will be going 2169fps and have 1880ft/lbs of energy.

This 180gr 30-06 load will recoil approx 2lbs less than a 338 Federal 200gr Speer launched at 2750fps (which by the way at 300 yds is going 2211 fps and has 2171ft/lbs of energy) out of a similar weight rifle.
Click to expand...

I am confused as to how a more more efficient .308 caliberbullet launched just 50 foot seconds slower will still be going slower than the heavier, squatter .338 caliber bullet at 300 ..... or are you not comparing apples to apples (comparing a flat based, round nosed 180 grain .308 bullet to a boat-tailed 200 gr .338)?
 
It does not seem to fit any need that others cannot do as well or better.
No point to the caliber that I can see.
But, if you like, that is all that is important.
 
338 Win Mag has enough case volume to get the job really done. Any other 338, save the Lapua, is suffering from lack of powder. The last decade has produced droves of "me too" cartridges, with the biggest feature "fits in short actions." The gun magazines breath life into many that should have remained wildcats. This further dilutes demand for the successful cartridges, causing higher ammo prices. Sounds like a win-win for gun magazines and their sponsors. Not so much for the mainstream hunter.
 
338 Fed/338-06 can replace .308/30-06

Thanks Mac, great thread to start and for the descriptions you mentioned at the beginning too. Kimbers seem like great rifles (out of my price range for now :)

I was thinking of just replacing the .308 barrel later on (might be cheaper than cutting it up to 338) but for now just have to work with what I have. This season will be .308 & Barnes LRX 175.

For when I can go to a hunting only rifle, 338 Fed or 338-06 might be it.

The big magnums really only have distance as an advantage, not anything else.

If you're going the magnum route anyway, might as well be 338 Lapua :) Me I think that the 338 Federal, 338-06 AI can essentially replace the .308/30-06 (except .308 for target shooting) as they're better in every way for hunting, without the magnum recoil.

Mac, let us know how your season goes with the 338 Fed :D
 
Last edited:
Just found this thread... I'd been curious about the .338Fed for a while, myself... and I found a really good deal on a Ruger Hawkeye All Weather in .338Fed three weeks ago ;)

I liked the fact that it hits as hard or harder than a .30-06 out to 300yds and makes a bigger hole. That it drops more after that isn't a problem as I doubt I'll shoot it over 300yds to begin with. Also, it's not a problem that it won't shoot laser straight for a mile... makes it easier on the mind about what's behind the target, IMO.

I've already taken it to the range and broken it in...

The rifle itself shoots nicely... the way it feels, etc. all good. I was actually surprised at the recoil... it feels less than my Browning A-Bolt .30-06. The pad that comes on the rifle is plenty good, IMO. I can tell you for sure it's easier to see the .338" holes at 100yds through my 3x9 scope than it was to see the .30" holes the guy next to me was putting in his target at 100yds at the range the other day ;)

I was using the 200gr Fusions to start with. I need to go back out and finalize sighting it in and will then actually pay attention to shot groupings, etc. I'm pretty happy with the rifle and the cartridge so far (mostly on paper) and will definitely be trying it out this year on whitetails and hogs, if I'm lucky. Maybe one day I'll get to try it out on something bigger :)

My main whitetail/hog gun is my .260... I like that cartridge a lot, too.
 
The big magnums really only have distance as an advantage, not anything else.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out how a shorter, heavier bullet is going to be better at a distance than a longer, thinner one.

As for hitting harder, even elk are not armored vehcihles, and a bonded bullet out a .30-06 will do for them at any reasonable distance.
 
The .338Fed isn't about distance... it's a solid 300yds cartridge... good strong punch without magnum recoil.

Another thing magnums are good for are heavy bullets. The .338 Win Mag can lob a 250gr at the same velocity that the .338Fed throws a 200gr. Or it can fling same weight a couple/few hundred fps faster.

As for hitting harder, even elk are not armored vehcihles, and a bonded bullet out a .30-06 will do for them at any reasonable distance.
Click to expand...

Yeah... but .30-06 is boring... everybody has one of those... ;) Bigger holes can be a bonus, too.
 
?

jimbob, if you reread the post or quote, you'll notice I said the opposite (or I can't really understand your post - what calibers were you comparing or favoring?). A 300/338 magnum's advantage is only for longer distance (OK and a little more muzzle energy) but when you realize you're getting close to (not exactly but close) magnum energy with far less powder and far greater barrel life...the 338 Fed/338-06AI really are in a class of their own...
 
I was referring to Macwhatever's post #15 .... it think his numbers are fuzzy, and said so in post #30.

I just don't see a use for the 338 Fed ...... that is not aready covered by more established cartridges, especially since advances in bullet construction have made lighter calibers so much more effective.

Q: "What is it for?"

A: "Why, to sell, of course!"

If you like it, buy it and shoot it a lot..... maybe it won't go the way of the 225 Winchester, the .30TCU, and the .222Mag ....
 
I just don't see a use for the 338 Fed ...... that is not aready covered by more established cartridges, especially since advances in bullet construction have made lighter calibers so much more effective.
Click to expand...

By that logic, we only need .223, .308 (or the .30-06), and the .375 H&H... just three cartridges. Why would anyone have any rifle that shoots anything other than those cartridges? It's because we can :)

Personally, those cartridges are just boring *because* they are ubiquitous. Having something different is just fun and far more interesting *to me*. I have several rifles chambered in various of the ubiquitous cartridges if I want to use them but I find I almost always take something that isn't one of those.
 
Not *that* different and out of mainstream ;) I actually think it would be fun to run a wildcat and/or even make my own... I just don't have the time for it or really the budget to do it right, either.
 
I just don't see a use for the 338 Fed ...... that is not aready covered by more established cartridges, especially since advances in bullet construction have made lighter calibers so much more effective.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the statement I saw in the 1970 Speer reloading manual #8, in the section about the .223 Remington:
Because it is so close to the .222 Remington Magnum and has no advantage over it, there is no real need for this cartridge, but because of its adoption by the military, it will be around a while.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top