270wsm, 280rem or 338fed for Elk?

[turner]

Originally Posted by bs1865

Turner,

Looks like my over the counter options for a .338 Federal are Sako, Tikka, Ruger Hawkeye or another barrel for my Encore. You obviously have experience with the .338 in a Ruger rifle. If given the option, would you purchase a Ruger again. Please explain why or why not.

Thanks!
bs1865

I bought a SS/Fib version of the Hawkeye as it was the first one I could find. I've since restocked it with a Laminate stock. I used to own a Tikka T-3(also SS/Lam) in .300WSM, and I actually prefer the Ruger Hawkeye to the Tikka. Nothing wrong with the Tikka, but I do not like a L/A rifle for shooting a S/A caliber, and I don't like the "non metal" triggerguard and detatchable magazine of the T3. I also way prefer the three position safety of the Hawkeye. Again, I'm not slamming the Tikka, it's a very good gun. My Ruger is about 2" shorter and it shoots VERY well. I've gotten 3 shot 3/4" groups with the Fusion ammo and to be honest have not even fired the other in my rifle since the Fusions shoot so well and are much less expensive. That all being said, I hope, in the very near future to buy a Sako 85 Hunter .338 Fed. I'll use that pretty Sako when the weather's not too bad, and that SS/Lam Ruger when it pours! I'll hope the Sako shoots those Fusion well too...lol.
By the way, I'd originally wanted a 24" barrel for my encore, but still have only seen 28". So, I got a 24" .35 Whelen.

Originally Posted by Phil Lozano

I chose the 338 Federal only because those were the cartridges you had listed.

If I were choosing an Elk catridge, I'd go with the 338 Win. Mag or the 358 Norma Mag, both with 250 grain bullets (both fine cartridges), as I have said before.

If not going with a Mag. cartridge, I'd look at the 35 Whelen (don't know if anyone chambers for the 338 '06) with 250 grain bullets.

I use my 35 Whelen in Africa to back clients on plains game hunts, and to 200 yards . . . . it is DEADLY ! It is not a long range cartridge, but to 200 yards, for me, with 250 grain bullets, it works like magic.

The 35 Whelen has little recoil and mine will shoot sub MOA groups for as long as you want to sit at the bench.

In my opinion, the 35 Whelen is superior to it's parent.

Best,
Phil
____________________________
Stay out of sight and down wind
Professional Hunter ~ Tanzania

You are much more experienced than I, but I have felt the same way about the .35 Whelens I have owned. It is a HIGHLY underappreciated round that would suit a large range of hunters for a large range of game. If people stopped looking past 300yds on ballistics charts (which is farther than 90% of hunters should shoot at game anyway), they'd see just how awesome those numbers are for a .35Whelen. New bullets from Barnes, 200 and 225 TSX make it even better than it was before. Add 225gr TBBC or 250NP and you have something very special. Use a soft (read that fast expanding) 200gr bullet on deer and you will see what you'd always hoped your '06 would do with a well placed shot. Bang, flop! I recently had another bolt rifle rebarreled to 338/06 but have no experience on game with it as yet. I expect it to mirror the .35Whelen, and it has more bullet choices available. One of these 2 or a .350RM might just be the best compromise between big power and big bullet and less recoil than the .338WM brings to the table. The average hunter cannot shoot a .338WM effectively for that one reason, no matter how good it is on game.

[Phil Lozano]

Originally Posted by turner

Whelens I have owned. It is a HIGHLY underappreciated round that would suit a large range of hunters for a large range of game. If people stopped looking past 300yds on ballistics charts (which is farther than 90% of hunters should shoot at game anyway), they'd see just how awesome those numbers are for a .35Whelen.

Bang, flop! I recently had another bolt rifle rebarreled to 338/06 but have no experience on game with it as yet. I expect it to mirror the .35Whelen, and it has more bullet choices available. One of these 2 or a .350RM might just be the best compromise between big power and big bullet and less recoil than the .338WM brings to the table. The average hunter cannot shoot a .338WM effectively for that one reason, no matter how good it is on game.

I fully agree that the 35 Whelen is very much underrated and overlooked by many hunters. It is a great cartridge out to 200 yards. Personally, I feel that in 90+% of the shooting that is done at distances over 200 yards, could be shortened by doing some stalking. Additionally, I think most of the shooting when hunting is done under 200 yards.

I personally don't care much for the 350 Rem. mag. cartridge, but the short 660's chambered in the 350 are very cool looking.

Regarding recoil (and this will not go over well) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as I said, it is ethical to dispatch all animals as quickly as possible. If you can only handle the recoil of a 243, 257 Roberts, or a 7mm '08, maybe you should just hunt deer sized and smaller animals.

"If you are going to take the life of a noble animal . . . . you should feel the pain as well."

Originally Posted by turner

New bullets from Barnes, 200 and 225 TSX make it even better than it was before.

I am not a fan of Barnes bullets, seem to many failures. By the way for the shooters that swear by them, OK, no problem by me. Shoot whatever you want to shoot !

Send me a PM and I will send you some photos of the end result of Barnes bullets on animals, that when Barnes contacted me (through a friend's complaint) they now deny.


Best,
Phil
_______________________________
Stay out of sight and down wind
Professional Hunter

[vikingpreacher]

I would personally take the .338 Federal.

[Magnumsrule]

I dunno. My dad did buy a 338 fed. He shot a moose with it this fall and just over 100 yards. It did do a number on the animal but if you look at the paper data the thing does not look to good past about 250 yards. I know the whole "95% of shots are taken under 200 yards" argument, but if you did want to reach out there im not sure that the cartridge would deliver effectively. Plus for everyone saying that it kicks less than a 300 win mag, i disagree. His is in a Tikka and the thing kick pretty good. His 300 is a Sako TRG, and it kicks less.

[.280Rem]

Originally Posted by Magnumsrule

I dunno. My dad did buy a 338 fed. He shot a moose with it this fall and just over 100 yards. It did do a number on the animal but if you look at the paper data the thing does not look to good past about 250 yards. I know the whole "95% of shots are taken under 200 yards" argument, but if you did want to reach out there im not sure that the cartridge would deliver effectively. Plus for everyone saying that it kicks less than a 300 win mag, i disagree. His is in a Tikka and the thing kick pretty good. His 300 is a Sako TRG, and it kicks less.

Nothing wrong with the .338Fed per se, just not my cup of tea. Inside 250yds, the energy on paper certainly beats the .270, .280, or 30-06 with lighter bullets. And then there's the whole short action thing if that's important to you. Again, like I said, just personal pref, but I can think of many rounds I'd opt for over the .338Fed.


Recoil? Physics is physics. In a like weight gun, a 200gr bullet pushed at 3000fps will recoil more than the same bullet in the same gun pushed at 2500fps. "Felt recoil" is not only a function of energy, but how that energy is transfered. Stock design, can certainly effect that. Then the lighter gun will certainly recoil more than a heavier gun with the same load.

[Phil Lozano]

Originally Posted by Phil Lozano

"If you are going to take the life of a noble animal . . . . you should feel the pain as well."

Best,
Phil
_______________________________
Stay out of sight and down wind
Professional Hunter

Forgot to add, . . . . . . . . . no muzzle breaks please, I am quite deaf enough (what'd he say ?)

Best,
Phil
___________________________
Stay out of sight and down wind
Professional Hunter ~ Tanzania

[vikingpreacher]

Originally Posted by Magnumsrule

I dunno. My dad did buy a 338 fed. He shot a moose with it this fall and just over 100 yards. It did do a number on the animal but if you look at the paper data the thing does not look to good past about 250 yards. I know the whole "95% of shots are taken under 200 yards" argument, but if you did want to reach out there im not sure that the cartridge would deliver effectively. Plus for everyone saying that it kicks less than a 300 win mag, i disagree. His is in a Tikka and the thing kick pretty good. His 300 is a Sako TRG, and it kicks less.

The rifle recoil table at chuckhawks.com shows that the .338 Federal kicks 22 lbs. in a 8 lb. rifle with a 210 gr. bullet, also I read a review on it by Wayne Van Zwoll who is notorious for not liking hard kicking cartridges and he liked the .338 Federal. Plus another stat is that "95% of people can't shoot over 200 yards and make a good shot on the animal at that distance or hit it for that matter, regardless of the cartridge".

[Magnumsrule]

lol another stat "99% of statistics are made up on the spot, if your part of the 1% that dosnt paste this into your signature" lol lol Not saying yours isnt though! Im sure its quite true and the truth is that the majority of hunters in Norht America probobly would never have to shoot there white tails at more that 100 yards. But out west here there is a great possibility of 200 yard + shots.

[turner]

Originally Posted by vikingpreacher

The rifle recoil table at chuckhawks.com shows that the .338 Federal kicks 22 lbs. in a 8 lb. rifle with a 210 gr. bullet, also I read a review on it by Wayne Van Zwoll who is notorious for not liking hard kicking cartridges and he liked the .338 Federal. Plus another stat is that "95% of people can't shoot over 200 yards and make a good shot on the animal at that distance or hit it for that matter, regardless of the cartridge".

I agree, How's this.... I own a .338 Fed and shot it back to back with '06 and found it to be NO different to my shoulder than a stout 180gr '06 loading(factory). The law of Physics has nothing to do when DIFFERENT powders are used. The fact that many shooters/hunters will not accept the fact that new powders do make a difference in small cases and that recoil (felt) can also be less as well, compared to their larger parents. It's a new age...there are new things. this does not make all the older calibers obsolete, it simply means that we need to wake up to a new era and new facts. If I had a dollar for every gun writer who stated that a .300WSM had less felt recoil than it's ballistic twin, the .300WIN mag, I'd be replacing my entire collection with Sako, and Merkel rifles!

[.280Rem]

Originally Posted by turner

I agree, How's this.... I own a .338 Fed and shot it back to back with '06 and found it to be NO different to my shoulder than a stout 180gr '06 loading(factory). The law of Physics has nothing to do when DIFFERENT powders are used. The fact that many shooters/hunters will not accept the fact that new powders do make a difference in small cases and that recoil (felt) can also be less as well, compared to their larger parents. It's a new age...there are new things. this does not make all the older calibers obsolete, it simply means that we need to wake up to a new era and new facts. If I had a dollar for every gun writer who stated that a .300WSM had less felt recoil than it's ballistic twin, the .300WIN mag, I'd be replacing my entire collection with Sako, and Merkel rifles!

New powders have repealed the laws of physics! WHODATHUNKIT?

FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE'S AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION! Gun powder doesn't change that!

[turner]

Originally Posted by .280Rem

New powders have repealed the laws of physics! WHODATHUNKIT?

FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE'S AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION! Gun powder doesn't change that!

If you'd take the time to read up on burn rates and how new powders perform vs older standbys (read up on the velocity vs pressures on the new .308 ME for instance) you might see through the outdated thinking of those who think the quality of rifle calibers and powders used have not progressed in the last 50 yrs. After all it is new research that finally brings the .280 into light after all these years. I'll stand by exactly what I said before, which did NOT say anything about repealing the laws of physics (as you mentioned).

[.280Rem]

Originally Posted by turner

If you'd take the time to read up on burn rates and how new powders perform vs older standbys (read up on the velocity vs pressures on the new .308 ME for instance) you might see through the outdated thinking of those who think the quality of rifle calibers and powders used have not progressed in the last 50 yrs. After all it is new research that finally brings the .280 into light after all these years. I'll stand by exactly what I said before, which did NOT say anything about repealing the laws of physics (as you mentioned).

So, if I move a 140 grain bullet at 3000fps in my Rem 700 using R-22, it will recoil less than if I used H4350 to move the same bullet at the same speed in the same rifle?

[turner]

Originally Posted by .280Rem

So, if I move a 140 grain bullet at 3000fps in my Rem 700 using R-22, it will recoil less than if I used H4350 to move the same bullet at the same speed in the same rifle?

No, what I'm saying is in L/A cartridges pushing that bullet, whether .280 or 7MMRM to (your mentioned) 3,000FPS has more felt recoil that the same bullet pushed to 3,000FPS in a 7mmWSM or 7mmSAUM. I am not trying to imply like velocity out of the same case.

[vikingpreacher]

Originally Posted by Magnumsrule

lol another stat "99% of statistics are made up on the spot, if your part of the 1% that dosnt paste this into your signature" lol lol Not saying yours isnt though! Im sure its quite true and the truth is that the majority of hunters in Norht America probobly would never have to shoot there white tails at more that 100 yards. But out west here there is a great possibility of 200 yard + shots.

True I made it up but its true that most people can't make that good of a long shot. Even in the west.

[ArkansasHunter]

turner I'm glad to hear you like your Ruger Hawkeye, best gun you can buy right now.

[.280Rem]

Originally Posted by turner

No, what I'm saying is in L/A cartridges pushing that bullet, whether .280 or 7MMRM to (your mentioned) 3,000FPS has more felt recoil that the same bullet pushed to 3,000FPS in a 7mmWSM or 7mmSAUM. I am not trying to imply like velocity out of the same case.

"Felt recoil" is purely a subjective matter based on the individual shooter. Actual recoil measured in weapon's recoil velocity and ft/lbs of energy will vary slightly with differing powder charges. For example a powder charge of 57 grains moving a 140grn bullet 3000fps will be slightly less than a 65grn charge moving the same bullet the same velocity in the same wt rifle. But the differences, in my opinion, are not enough that anyone could really percieve them. In fact the differences are less than 1fps recoil velocity and less than 2 ft/lbs of energy.

[turner]

Originally Posted by .280Rem

"Felt recoil" is purely a subjective matter based on the individual shooter. Actual recoil measured in weapon's recoil velocity and ft/lbs of energy will vary slightly with differing powder charges. For example a powder charge of 57 grains moving a 140grn bullet 3000fps will be slightly less than a 65grn charge moving the same bullet the same velocity in the same wt rifle. But the differences, in my opinion, are not enough that anyone could really percieve them. In fact the differences are less than 1fps recoil velocity and less than 2 ft/lbs of energy.

I'm simply going by my own experiences and that of at least several dozen writers who have commented on the slower burning powders and perceived recoil. I'll, of course, agree with the idea that different rifle styles and/or weights make at least as big a difference. Case closed.

[bs1865]

Originally Posted by ArkansasHunter

turner I'm glad to hear you like your Ruger Hawkeye, best gun you can buy right now.

Does that mean there is another gun you can't buy right now that would get your vote if it was available?

[.280Rem]

Originally Posted by turner

I'm simply going by my own experiences and that of at least several dozen writers who have commented on the slower burning powders and perceived recoil. I'll, of course, agree with the idea that different rifle styles and/or weights make at least as big a difference. Case closed.

I can't argue with your perception of your experiences, nor can I know all the variables. We are agreeing in a sense, but there's 2 sides to the coin. A 140 driven at 3000fps from a .280 vs a 7mmRM, assuming the same wt rifle, the 7mmRM will have more recoil, slight though it may be. However, a 140 driven at 3000fps from a .280 with H4350 and one with R-22...the R-22 will have more recoil! More powder=more recoil! In that case the slower burning propellant is causing more recoil, not less.

Check the numbers here: Recoil Calculator

[Phil Lozano]

Seems to me, pressure is pressure. It takes about the same pressure to push the same weight bullet the same speed.

However, larger capacity case tend to lower the pressure. But, the felt recoil will be approximately the same.

JMO


Best,
Phil
______________________________
Stay out of sight and down wind
Professional Hunter ~ Tanzania