Your thoughts on the "most underated rifle cartridge"?

I pick the .357 magnum.

The 6.5x55 is on my short list as well and both the 260 and 7mm-08 never hit it like I thought they would. I had a 7mm-08, I thought it was fun to shoot and shot flat but never hunted deer with it.

Thanks guys
God Bless

Another one that has been a surprise that it lessened in popularity.

I bought one in a 700 BDL varmint in 69 and lugged that monster around, up and down railroad tracks blasting groundhogs and crows.

The 87 grain hollow point made a MESS. It was the first rifle I had not in .224

Interesting pattern, I think, with the mentioned 260 Rem, my mentioned 7mm-08 and this 25-06. MOST the family of cartridges off the 308 and 30-06 parent rounds are held in high regard and yet a few kind of fell through the cracks as far as public popularity.

Throughout time there has been a LOT of rounds that did what they were intended, in spades, and still will.

My thinking runs towards a deer/elk/moose/bear rifle. Lightweight. Moderate recoil. Larger bullet cross section. With enough sectional density (IMO) for the bigger game in a bullet that still shoots relatively flat to 250 yards and retains 2000 fps and a ton of energy for bullet performance and "killing power" without an unbearable muzzle blast. (again in my opinion only)

SHOULD I be able to hunt elk or moose in the remaining years it will be in KY for Elk or Maine (or other East Coast state) for Moose. Odds of getting drawn are not great but stranger things happen. Point being is, 450 yard shots would be about impossible to get so arming myself for ranges even over 300 just does not seem feasible, in my brain.

Interestingly, the largest ROUND suggested for Moose in the Maine moose hunting pdf is the 30-06 and the largest bullet diameter the 444 Marlin followed by the 358 Winchester. I found that interesting myself.

NOTICE if you will, that the rounds "not recommended" are NOT listed as "not legal", they are legal. Legal rounds are listed as "not 17 or 22 rimfire"...



The rounds listed by others here as underrated, as I mentioned, are quite often of the 30-06 and 308 family. Two of the most respected rounds used for decades and decades. Interesting I have always felt. Some will often state that others "don't fill any need" and the others will do as well. Yikes. I can give you a LONG list of popular rounds with similar rounds equally as popular, the same length, and only of different caliber.

A fast look at the 270 Winchester and 30-06 Springfield and you could start a war over which is "more versatile" on any site you wish. The above listed 280 Remington falls in there and would be MY choice of the three, even now in a LONG action for longer ranges but not for what I have in mind, even though all of them would "work" just fine in the same conditions. There simply isn't many scenarios we could dream up for hunting here in the US that the 30-06 wouldn't do just fine. I guess that is why that round has more rounds and rifles bought even today, compared to all others.

However, in my choice of THE RIFLE for me, the long actions are put aside for the "light rifle, moderate recoil" desires I prefer. I am not getting any younger and I carry my rifles much longer than I shoot them. A bit more recoil from a light rifle only lasts a split second. Weight wise, guns get heavier by the hour anymore, or is it I get weaker by the hour?

So....first we have "short action" rounds to choose from.

The 260 Rem and 7mm-08 listed previously are just dandy rounds. I've shot both and enjoyed them immensely. For deer only, I'd grab either in a heartbeat without remorse BUT a larger bore, and higher sectional density and bullet weight for penetration on the larger game that I would PREFER, set them aside as well. Their low popularity is a real mystery to some. I'll touch back on that further down. (Tired or reading yet??? LOL!)

THE most underrated round, IMHO, is the 358 Winchester. Chambered in only a FEW bolt action rifles by manufacturers, the potential of this round is way under rated and loading manuals are "reduced" from the full capability due to the large number of less strong action types the round is used in. They are simply covering their butts and is totally understandable. What FEW realize is that there are "other" things to consider looking at loading manuals and such info provided is NOT carved in stone. The "max load" listed in the manual isn't the max load. Higher or lower, the true max load one has for any round, in any rifle.....is when you see any of the ever unpopular pressure signs and then is when we back off a tad. WHAT the chamber pressure IS with that load, we have no clue. The manuals don't either. They didn't test YOUR rifle, brass, load combination. All of which have "variables" from set up to set up. Heck a lot of the reloading manuals and sites DO NOT AGREE anyway. Case in point.

Am I suggesting one IGNORE load manuals? Heavens no. Not at all. Should the person reading this be uneducated in the reloading process and ignorant of pressure signs......USE THE MANUAL as your bible. Better than that though will always be to have a much experienced reloader sitting at your side. Several times.

The 358 Winchester is capable of terminal velocities much higher than most think. John Barsness had an article out a few years back that rocked the shooting world with his 358 Winchester testing in a modern bolt gun. Many of us here in Hoosierland have gotten a taste of the round's capability by loading the reduced capacity, 358 Hoosier or rounds like my 350JR that matches the capacity of a 358.

While I really like this round, there is another out there, almost equally ignored, newer in age that, IMO, nudges it out of 1st place for me, and my desires......just barely.

The 338 Federal.

Only chambered in the 500-600 dollar rifles for a short time (Ruger 77)for the average Joe Deer Hunter, few have hand their hands on a rifle in this round. Sako and Kimber, neither considered "inexpensive" to a lot, are the "normal" platform for this round but for the "modern" gun nut, DPMS rifles in the 338 Fed are around. Federal even loads a round FOR such (what is different I have no clue).

Also based on the 308 Win the 338 Fed and 358 Win will achieve similar velocities with similar weight bullets but in one small area, IMO, the 338 round sneaks ahead. The sectional density per bullet weight.

I have read, and agree with, the statement that .250 is a safe minimum in sectional density for game larger than deer.

In the 338 bore, it's the 200 grain bullet that hits .254
In the 358 bore, it's the 225 grain bullet that hits .251. 25 grains more bullet weight. Nothing wrong with that but with both having adequate energy "out there" it is unwarranted. If the added diameter erases that is up to the buyer. Both would work dandy and doubt I or the animal could tell the difference.

Depending of course on your preferred bullet manufacturer, overall, the 200 grain 338 ballistic coefficient will more often than not, meet or beat the BC of the 225 grain .358. BC of a Speer 200 grain 338 Hot Core is .448. That of the much heralded 225 grain Nosler PT 358 bore is .430. Again, I am positive that I could not tell the difference but for the fact that the 200 grain 338 bullet can be pushed another 100+ fps faster AND have a tad more BC just giving this bullet more velocity, more retaining energy at longer distances.

Most bullet mfg's claim a "1800 fps minimum" for proper bullet performance. Covering all bets I prefer judging the maximum range by velocity by using 2000 fps as the furthest distance to shoot for.

While 1500 lbs is (online) considered minimum "bullet energy" for elk and moose, once again, I'd cover all bets and go with 2000 lbs. One ton.

So, using these yardsticks just how does the 338 Federal perform?

At 2600 fps, the 200 grain Speer hot core bullet (just an example) and a point blank range (PBR) of plus or minus 3 inches, it may surprise you. It did me. Even at 300 yards it meets and beats the "suggested minimum" in both velocity and energy suggested online, and almost hits 250 yards to retain my preferred 1 ton of energy with excellent bullet velocities.



After loading the 8208 XBR powder in my 350JR, reloading suggestions do not surprise me that it is right up there in what I would pick for the 338 Federal. The "compressed" load at 47 grains has me doubtful though since I can run 48.5 before compressing in the 350JR. Again, there ARE variables to look at. Capacities is yet anther one of them.







Last but not least. If I could pick THE RIFLE it would be the Kimber 84M. While no longer chambering the new ones for it. There is a few around. I know of four as I type this.

A six pound rifle that looks like this? Oh yeah. (but cheap they are not).

I also LOOK AT my rifles more than I USE them so...

www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=394408737

So there you have it. If I can get where I can buy one rifle to do all I may be lucky enough to do yet. There it is.

Only my thoughts, my opinions and just sharing.

God Bless
Steve

My neighbor has one of these in an AR pistol platform. I haven't looked into it yet, but as far as I can tell it is Indiana legal. If that pans out, Rob knows a gun he's gonna borrow this fall.

An AR pistol in 260 would be sweet; I'd try and get my hands on it too
I think the 35's in general are another series of under appreciated round as well, good choice Steve.

How about the ".465 Steve"! I figure it to be quite the boomer.

I ran the numbers on the 284W for an Indiana legal round before I chose the 350Rem mag to do just that.

It has the advantage of having the standard 308 bolt face yet is slightly smaller (.500 base) compared to the belted rounds (.5126" base) so it was pretty much of a toss up in over all comparison yet would have slightly less capacity. (I've never much cared for rebated rims but many don't like belted cases either. LOL)

It probably wouldn't be much different than anything existing in way of velocities but would have much better brass all the way around, to choose from.

The Indiana legal 350JR I made matches a 358 Win in capacity with just a tad more chamber pressure (assumed only since the parent rounds compare in that manner. Things DO change in chamber pressures when altering a case so one shoots for which he or she feels is their best option.)

A 338-350JR is still driving me wild. WAY too much time on my hands yet such calculations does help me take my mind off issues at hand, so nothing lost.

Thoughts, if I were to build another, would be the Indiana legal 1.8" length case wise even for out of Indiana.

Why? Less limitations on length of bullets used.

In the 338 bore selection, there exists some very highly respected bullets that are LONG in nature thus very high in BC (Ballistic Coefficient ). An excellent example would be the Nosler Accubond.

In the 338 Federal, longer bullets seated for a working OAL to fit a bolt's magazine (generally accepted as 2.82") end up with the base below the neck of the round and into the area best used for powder capacity.

In this powder capacity range the 225 grain bullets are pretty much (IMHO) maximum in usable weight. The 225 accubond is 1.45 " long but has a BC of .550, even the 200 grain accubond is 1.34" long with a BC of .414.

Taking the case length of the 338 Federal (2.015) and subtracting it from the COAL of 2.82 we have .805" inches of "bullet room" to max length. Add the .339" of neck length and you end up with 1.144" to neck bottom.

The 225 grain Accubond would extend over .3 of an inch into the powder area. The 200 grain would do the same but only by just under .2 inches. No, before asking this does not "hurt" anything much....other than my idea of the way a round should be built and how components should fit.

With the chosen 1.795 case length that I used for the 350JR, that changes. 2.015"-1.795" = .220" inches further to the neck bottom from max over all length. A bullet intruding into the powder charge area of a 338-350JR would have to be longer than 1.364" so even the high BC 225 grain accubond would only sit approx. .086" below the neck bottom.

Already having driving 225 grain bullets in the 350JR to 2572fps without pressure signs in a TWENTY inch barrel, I've no doubts I could readily push a 225 grain accubond in a 338-350JR 2625-2650 in a 22 inch barrel considering both the slightly longer barrel and the slightly increased USABLE (smaller neck diameter and shorter neck of the .338 vs the .358 round) case capacity. Maybe even a tad more playing with powders of various burn rates.

Federal has already stopped making 338 Federal brass to sell as a component and while 338 Fed can be made out of 308 Win brass readily and factory rounds still are available, one has to wonder for how much longer. RIGHT NOW, I can buy Federal Fusion 200 grain factory loads FOR LESS than I can reload them. I priced that out just this week, BUT.....if I have to make brass in the future for a 338 fed it's not much more work to make 338-350Jr brass for me.

Just thoughts. I like building a wildcat. Some feel the only goal of a wildcat is maximum fps. You can readily tell that is not my only desire or I'd shorten a 338 Norma Magnum and have capacity several grains over a 30-06 capacity, even at 1.795 inches of case length.

Desired rifle weight (and recoil of such), velocity, bullet choices, brass choices, work involved, muzzle blast.......efficiency...everyone building has their own "cartridge utopia" but....

All said and done?

A deer or elk at 200 yards would not care a rip and 99.9 percent of the hunters could not tell the difference between a 358 Winchester a 338 Federal or........a 338-350Jr.

However, given the money to play with............I know which I would pick.


BTW. USING the projected 2650 fps 225 grain accubond from a 338-350Jr the trajectory would look kinda like this. Make SPECIAL note of the retaining energy levels.


A 25 grain heavier bullet with higher bc yet only 50 fps faster ( I should have used the same velocity, drat) with near identical case capacity.........and even at 400 yards MY "2000fps and 1 ton of energy" limitations are met. No magnum round required.




More so than ever in my life, this is all about FUN ( and more often than not HOW DO I PAY FOR THAT? LOL!)

God Bless and thanks for allowing me to share (but I didn't give you much of a choice. )
Steve

"If one is not dreaming.....planning on doing SOMETHING in the future, then all they really doing is planning to die"
Me