I ask your indulgence as I wax effusive about the .338 MAI conceived and brought to existence by THL's own Ol' John (John Talley). The more I fiddle around looking for something better, the more I am impressed with John's cartridge.

My latest foray into a wildcat that could compete with the .338 MAI had me looking very closely and enthusiastically at the .284 Winchester case. Ignoring any consideration about perceived recoil, the 63,817 PSI SAAMI max pressure spec, and the 71.5 grains of case capacity allow me to deliver 2000 ft-lb of energy to 500 yd, with an impact velocity of 2000 f/s! That's from a 26" bbl and a muzzle velocity of 2775 f/s for the 225 Accubond, at a theoretical max chamber pressure of only 57,689 PSI - more than 6,000PSI below the SAAMI max. (That was the pressure at the top  Optimal Barrel Timing node.) Furthermore, if I do consider recoil and drop back one node, the MV is 2629 f/s and I can still deliver 2000 ft-lb of energy to 425 yd with an impact velocity of 2000 f/s. Max theoretical pressure is only 47,861 PSI!

So why don't I consider the .284 Win case to be better than the MAI? To tell the truth, it's a close call for me. There are only two issues:
1) "Dead is dead". First, I don't plan to shoot at ranges greater than 300-ish yards. Therefore, I don't need the MV, and attendent recoil, to get the 2000 ft-lb range out to 400 yd, let alone 500.
2) The .284 Win case is VERY difficult to find, and when you do, if you have to ask "How much?", you can't afford them. Compare that to  x57 Mauser brass.

So... My perspective that the .338 MAI just might be the most versatile cartridge for North American big game, is solidifying.

That's NOT to say that there aren't plenty of other excellent cartridges. Nevertheless, for 'dead right there' and 'hammer effect', along with SERIOUSLY flat trajectory, the .338 MAI is just hard (impossible?) to beat.

I am seriously considering 'making' a .338x284Win. 1) I have a couple of Ruger No.1s, (chambered in 7x57 Mauser and .308 Win). 2) I have a lifetime's supply of .284 Win cases, (thanks in part to Hunterbug). 3) I am EXTREMELY pleased with PacNor's job on the .416x348 Win.

Stay tuned.

Paul

There is, of course, another case to consider for the No.1 conversion...

The 7.62x54R.

Necked up to .338, it has a case capacity of 68.6 grains, and therefore, with one exception, 'ticks all the same ballistic boxes' that the .284 Win case does. That one 'box not ticked' is the max pressure spec: Only 56,565 PSI for the Soviet case vs 63,817 PSI for the .284 Win. However, 7.62x54R cases are WAY easier to come by, AND, are MUCH cheaper than .284 Win cases. That's no small consideration. Nevertheless, there's just something 'wrong' about putting a Soviet cartridge on a quintessentially American rifle like the No.1. (I know that the No.1 action is an English Farquahrson. Don't care. The RUGER No.1 is an American rifle.) I wouldn't have a problem turning the butt-ugly Mosin Nagant rifle into a .338x54R. :grin:

The bottom line is that I will not be converting one of my No.1s into a .338x54R even though I think it's a great conversion for an old Soviet Mosin Nagant.

Of course if considering the 7.62x 54R, one should consider the 8x56R Steyr. Better than the Soviet case, but back to the problem of getting them in your hands.


Paul

By the way... and just to illustrate a point... Attached you will find a picture of the relative overall lengths of a 26"-barreled No.1, (on the left), and a 24"-barreled Remington Model 700. The butt of the rifles are sitting on the floor. Point being: A 28"-barreled No.1 has the same overall length of a 24"-barreled bolt action. Hence my inclination to use 28" barrels in custom No.1s.

Alas, (and alack), I recalled that I am 225 Accubond poor. In fact, I have none except those already loaded.:frown On the other hand, I am 200-grain Accubond rich, with a few hundred in hand. The 200 is a fine bullet, delivering 2000 ft-lb to just over 400 yd with an impact velocity of just over 2100 fps. That from a 28" bbl with a MV of 2988 fps. (At the high pressure - 59,519 PSI - node, which is "fine" for that case in a No.1.)

I'm talking myself into calling PacNor tomorrow morning.:D The bad news is that I will likely have to wait 6weeks to get the reamer from Pacific Tool and Gauge, or Clymer, or whomever. I'm thinking about ordering a resizing reamer at the same time. Then, when my descendants sell the rifle, they can get a premium for having reloading dies for the wildcat cartridge.

If any of 'you' find any .338, 225 Accubonds for sale anywhere, please let me know.


Paul

While considering spec'ing the reamers, and the chambering for PacNor, it occurred to me that I might need or want to use a variety of bullets. Given that, I figured I should adjust the .284 case more rigorously than just 'neck it up'.

I want to seat bullets at least one caliber deep, and have the full length of the bearing surface in the case, 'grabbed' by the case's neck. In the .284, that means lengthening the neck just a skosh (0.053") from 0.285, (1 caliber for the original caliber), to .338. That pushes the shoulder back thereby reducing the case capacity a tad - a couple of tenths of a grain. That in turn changed the angle of the shoulder and consequently the point at which  lines, drawn along the shoulder, intersect. That resulting intersection point was then beyond the mouth of the cartridge. There are those that think that if those two lines intersect outside the case, throat erosion is increased. Seems plausible to me. Therefore, adjusting the shoulder angle to 40 degrees, puts that intersection point right at the mouth. That adjustment in shoulder angle results in another couple of tenths if a grain loss in case capacity. In the end, case capacity went from 71.44 grains to 70.68 grains. Considering that this cartridge has all the oomph I need or want, I can live with a 0.76 (1%) reduction in case capacity. Of course a different neck length and shoulder angle means it's kinda not a 'real' .338x.284 Win now. I may hafta think of something else to call it.

News at 11.

Paul

Picture of new cartridge next to the .338 MAI. As well as the Nosler "E-Tip" so-called "non-toxic", 200-grain .338 bullet. The MAI looks bigger, but in fact, the .284-based cartridge has a larger case capacity by almost 9%.

Paul

Quote from: gitano;155654While considering spec'ing the reamers, and the chambering for PacNor, it occurred to me that I might need or want to use a variety of bullets. Given that, I figured I should adjust the .284 case more rigorously than just 'neck it up'.

I want to seat bullets at least one caliber deep, and have the full length of the bearing surface in the case, 'grabbed' by the case's neck. In the .284, that means lengthening the neck just a skosh (0.053") from 0.285, (1 caliber for the original caliber), to .338. That pushes the shoulder back thereby reducing the case capacity a tad - a couple of tenths of a grain. That in turn changed the angle of the shoulder and consequently the point at which  lines, drawn along the shoulder, intersect. That resulting intersection point was then beyond the mouth of the cartridge. There are those that think that if those two lines intersect outside the case, throat erosion is increased. Seems plausible to me. Therefore, adjusting the shoulder angle to 40 degrees, puts that intersection point right at the mouth. That adjustment in shoulder angle results in another couple of tenths if a grain loss in case capacity. In the end, case capacity went from 71.44 grains to 70.68 grains. Considering that this cartridge has all the oomph I need or want, I can live with a 0.76 (1%) reduction in case capacity. Of course a different neck length and shoulder angle means it's kinda not a 'real' .338x.284 Win now. I may hafta think of something else to call it.

News at 11.

Paul

Interesting that the .284Win's standard neck length is equal to its caliber.

Yup.

Just got off the phone with Pac-Nor. The good news is that they have a .338/.284 Win chamber reamer in hand, so there's no waiting 6 to 8 weeks for a custom reamer before I send the barreled action to Pac-Nor. I think they have the same prices as they had when I had the .416/.348 Win done by them. Total cost, including bluing and installation of the Ruger quarter-rib will be just over $700, not counting shipping back and forth.

I'm not sure I want to use their reamer. Not having to wait two months is BIG incentive, but "getting it exactly like I want it" is a big deal too. I'm waiting for Pac-Nor to send me the spec sheet on the reamer. There's at least a small chance that "they" (the reamer maker) MIGHT have lengthened the neck.:undecided: Regardless, I'll use that spec sheet to have the resizing die reamer made.

News at 11.

Paul

Just got the email from Pac-Nor with the reamer spec sheet. Wonder of wonders, the neck length on the spec sheet is 0.357"! So, I'll go ahead with the order and have them start immediately. They say they have a 20-week lead time. :cry: BUT... getting them started right away, AND getting the longer neck, is great! I'll be taking the .308 Win No.1 apart and sending it off this week. That means by the end of August, God willin' and the creek don't rise, I could have the thing in my hands by this Fall's hunting seasons.

Paul

Eez dun.

Now I have to order the resizing die reamer from PTG... and wait 5 months.:cry:

Also planning to have persimmon forearm and butt stock made for it. Not yet sure who, (me or "them"), is going to do that. Since the .416/.348 Win No.2 has performed the task it was created to perform - kill a bull bison - I will probably take the scope off of it to put on this rifle.

I'll also have to perform the modification to the forearm hanger - see here http://www.thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19959 - but I'll wait until I shoot it some to see if precision is an issue.

News at ll.


Paul

Resizing die reamer ordered. Unfortunately, they didn't have one in hand, so that is a 6-8 week wait. The . 416x.348 Win only took Pac-Nor 8 weeks to get it back to me. Here's hoping this one will be on a similar time frame.

Paul

As I am wont to do when I have to wait for something to show up at my door, I occupy the time fiddling with numbers. Some of you may recall that I have distilled the criteria for my "ideal" hunting rifle/cartridge combination down to two simple values:
1) In calibers greater than .264, deliver at least 2000 ft-lb of energy to 300 yd. In calibers smaller than .284 and greater than .22, deliver at least 1500 ft-lb to 300 yd. And,
2) Not exceed approximately 4000 ft-lb of energy at the muzzle, and preferably, not greater than 3500. (This is essentially a 'felt recoil' criterion.)

Unfortunately, those criteria in combination put me back in the "BC matters" arena. The reason that it is unfortunate is because as soon as you start buying bullets based on their BC, you put yourself at the mercy of the integrity of the manufacturer and their marketers. Ptooey. While it is true, in my experience, that today's manufacturers are LESS inclined to tell bald-faced lies about their bullets' BCs than they used to be, some of them still DO. It is therefore up to ME to determine if they are lying or not. I shouldn't HAVE to do that, but sadly, that is the nature of the world today. The GOOD news is that there are bullets 'out there' with TRULY excellent BCs, AND excellent terminal performance as hunting bullets.

As a rule, I am loathe to speak highly of ANY bullet, but personal experience simply leaves me no choice but to choose Nosler's  Accubonds for their high BCs (that I have actually verified), as well as their very impressive terminal performance on big game, that again, I have first-hand experience with. Sadly, true to all of Nosler's products, they are priced at the maximum "the market will bear".

SO...

I have been fiddling with delivering the most energy to the greatest range with the 28-inch barreled .338x284 Win on the Ruger No.1. Since there is a 250-grain .338 Accubond, I decided to compare its external and terminal ballistics with  the 225-grainer that I use in my .338 MAI.

In the Ruger No.1 rifle/cartridge combo, I can reasonably use a max pressure in the neighborhood of 56000 PSI, and drive that 250-grain bullet to a MV that will deliver 2000 ft-lb to 510 yd. The impact velocity is 'only' 1900 ft/sec at that range, (I'd prefer 2000 or more), but 1900 is well above Nosler's minimum velocity spec for 'as-designed' terminal performance in the Accubond. The muzzle energy is 3828 ft-lb.

By comparison, the 225-grain bullet delivers 2000 ft-lb to 515 yd, but the impact velocity is 2000 ft/sec. Interestingly - to me at least - the muzzle energy at 3891 ft-lb, is only very slightly more than the 250's.

HOWEVER...
I don't shoot big game at those "2000 ft-lb" ranges. So, droping back to a range I would shoot a big game animal at - say 325 yd -  the comparison is:

2585 ft-lb impact energy and 2275 f/s impact velocity for the 225, and,
2562 ft-lb impact energy and 2148 f/s impact velocity for the 250.
23 ft-lb difference . . . . . . . . . . 127 f/s difference.


To my eye, they are essentially identical. No need to go looking for any 250-grain Accubonds. HOWEVER, as it turns out, it is much easier to find the 250s IN STOCK, than the 225s. Which are out of stock EVERYWHERE. I have time to mull this over. I wonder if the heavier bullets might shoot straighter? :huh: Oh, I have not calculated Optimal Barrel Timing nodes for the two bullet weights. That MIGHT make a difference, but I kinda doubt it.


Paul

Three days, and it will have been 8 weeks since I ordered the resizing die reamer from Pacific Tool and Gauge. I will be giving them a call on Tuesday, June 1, (Monday is Memorial Day). Unless of course, I receive it in the mail in the next 3 days.

Paul

If you really want a rimmed case then what about a 45-70 necked down?

Where did I say I wanted a rimmed cartridge? I don't.

Paul