338-06 OR 338 Scovill

[Birddog 1]

I was at the local gun shop yesterday and was telling a friend about my new project the 338-06 and he told me about the 338 Scovill same case you just have to extend the body by .094 change the shoulder to 25 degrees and fire forming the cases. You have now gained a extra 150 fps and have droped the case pressure with the same powder and bullet and no compressed powder charges if you desire max loads.

How many people out there have chosen to go with the Scovill by either running a 338 Scovill reamer into the chamber of a 338-06 or just having it chambered for it ?

Nim

[AtlLaw]

I just posted something related to this in another thread not long ago.  While discussing wildcats I noted that in my opinion there was generally few really usefull ones anymore as the available factory cartridges have most nitches filled.  I felt, and still do, that if I needed more then my 338/06 could give me, instead of chambering my rifle for the 338 Hawk, which sounds like the Scovill, would just go to the 338 WM.

But that's just me.   

[Graybeard]

I really don't have that high an opinion of Scoville as he seems a bit full of himself and has some real weird ideas to my taste. Still I don't think a cartridge exists in which you can extent the shoulder forward a few thousanths and change the shoulder angle and gain 150 fps while lower pressures.

The facts of life are that to gain velocity you must either increase pressure or gas volume by using more powder. While I won't claim Barness' four percent powder volume increase equals one percent velocity increase theory is written in stone it seems pretty close to right.

Most wildcats gain their wonderous miracle velocity increases either by increasing pressure or by not running them across a chrono and just guessing at it.

Since the .338 Federal is a factory round with good factory ammo available and operates right up there at the max of SAAMI pressure limits these days it's a good choice. The .338-06 offers a wee bit more potential but has less load data from pressure tested sources and less factory ammo availability. If you need more just step up to the .338 WM.

[6.5BR]

What AtlLaw Said....I had a 338/06,,,,never wanted more......but if I did, I'd move up to a Win Mag too.

[AtlLaw]

I don't think a cartridge exists in which you can extent the shoulder forward a few thousanths and change the shoulder angle and gain 150 fps while lower pressures.

+1

The facts of life are that to gain velocity you must either increase pressure or gas volume by using more powder.

+1

While I won't claim Barness' four percent powder volume increase equals one percent velocity increase theory is written in stone it seems pretty close to right.

As much as I respect Barsness, for some reason this ratio has always bothered me.  Not enough to test it myself, even if I had the time, but for some reason I don't take it as Gospel.  Enlighten me Master!   

There was a formula I used years ago for double based powders (I think... maybe it was single based...  , anyway it gave you an optimal charge based on velocity increases derived from powder increases.  Sort of a point of diminishing returns... It was interesting information, but I stopped using it because I found no practical application in the areas of velocity and/or accuracy of a given load.

[deltecs]

The .338 Scovill is the .338 Hawk with very minor deviations.  The current proprietary gun maker even calls it the Hawk/Scovill.  My Barnes manual has a reload page for the .338 Scovill along with the .338-06.  I see minimal differences in velocity with lighter bullets and none in the heavier ones.  The Scovill listing doesn't even show the 250 gr loading.  I don't see any advantages of the Scovill over the standard .338-06.  If I was the wildcat the .338-06 it would be for a .340 Howell from American Hunting Rifles.  This is a standard 06 size base case, just a bit longer at 2.600" with a bit larger powder capacity. 

[Lone Star]

The .338 Scoville gives no usefull increase in power over the standard .338-06.  This is clearly demonstrated in the Barnes #3 Manual with pressure-tested data in 24" barrels.  MVs are:

Bullet...338-06....Scoville...% increase
175......2930.......2973........+1.4
200......2828.......2802.........-1.0
225......2574.......2618........+1.7

An interesting example compares the .280 Remington and the 7mm Remington Magnum.  Case capacities are 62.2 and 74.0 grains of water respectively (Waters Pet Loads) for a difference of 19%.  Velocity differences from Barnes #3:

Bullet...280....7mmRM...% increase
120......3261.......3445........+5.6
150......2892.......3093........+6.9
175......2639.......2826........+7.0

Disregarding the possible lower chamber pressure of the .280, that's an average of 6.5% more velocity for 19% more capacity.  That's 1.3% more velocity with a 4% capacity increase.  Barness seems pretty close - but he wasn't the first to use that comparison, it's been around for years.

I won't be rechambering my .338-06 any time soon.

.

[Graybeard]

As much as I respect Barsness, for some reason this ratio has always bothered me.  Not enough to test it myself, even if I had the time, but for some reason I don't take it as Gospel.  Enlighten me Master! 

Ah so grasshopper,

While like you I've never been interested enough in his theory to devote a lot of time to it clearly he did. As I understand it he took data from loading manuals huge amounts of data and compared them. From those comparisons he deduced that on average when case volume as increased by a factor of 4% velocity on average increased only 1%.

I suppose any of us could do as he did and compare reams of data and see if his conclusions held water or not. I have better things to do with my time really.

What I have done and have noticed is that you really have to increase powder consumption a bunch to increase velocity only a little. That any of us can see by comparing the various .30 caliber rounds. Look at their case volume and compare that as a percent of increase to the increase in velocity the manufacturers claim for them or the load manuals show for them. I have done some of that kinda study and clearly the percentage increase in case volume and increase in velocity are not proportional it takes a lot more powder to get a little more velocity.

Thus I accept Barness' investment of his time and his theory as somewhat valid. I've never said I totally buy into it as perfect just that to me from what study I have done it seems reasonable. Sure it might be 3% to 1% or even 5% to 1% but the idea is sound that it takes a good deal more powder for a small velocity increase all else being equal. Of course all else is NEVER equal in the real world is it?

[deltecs]

One can increase pressure without a subsequent increase in velocity.  It is the rate of pressure curve which denotes the velocity increase.  Take a very fast burning powder and use it in a small case and you will see abnormal and potentially unsafe pressure, but a chronograph can show reduced velocity from slow burning safer powders.  The rate of the expanding gas upon ignition is the driving force of the bullet through the barrel.  Admittedly, huge increases in rate of powder burn will increase velocity and still be above safe operating pressure.  The reason for increased case capacity was not to increase velocity so much, as to reduce pressure for the same velocity.  Both the .308 Win and 30-06 operate within the same pressure limits but the 06 with the same bullet will increase velocity somewhat.  If the 06 velocity is identical with a bullet from the .308 Win, the 06 pressures can be and will generally be lower. 

[AtlLaw]

Now Greg, I've read this post 3 or 4 times and sumpin just ain't clickin!     'course it may be that my brain is froze from my ride tonight - it's downright COLD out for Jawja, Ima gonna have ta start wearing gloves with fingers on 'em - or it may be the last six-pack ...    I'll read it again when I'm sobe... uh, rested. 

[deltecs]

Now Greg, I've read this post 3 or 4 times and sumpin just ain't clickin!     'course it may be that my brain is froze from my ride tonight - it's downright COLD out for Jawja, Ima gonna have ta start wearing gloves with fingers on 'em - or it may be the last six-pack ...    I'll read it again when I'm sobe... uh, rested. 

Nope, it is not you.  One sentence says one thing when I meant another.  Let me clarify. 

Take a very fast burning powder and use it in a small case and you will see abnormal and potentially unsafe pressure, but a chronograph can show reduced velocity  from (should have been unlike ) slow burning safer powders.

  Must be the hot buttered rums myself.  Starting to get cold up here today.  Snow finally accumulated on the ground.  About 3" currently with 4" expected overnight.

[Drilling Man]

  Seeing as i've been shooting the 338-06 since the late 70's i'll add my 3 cents...

  I've built the std 338-06 and guns with imp chambers...  I don't think the imp is worth the trouble and i'm with GB on the "150fps at lower pressures".  In fact i agree pretty much with everything GB said in his first post, but would like to add that the 338-06 "is" worth the trouble over the 338 Federal "IF" you want to shoot heavy bullets...  That means for the biggest animals, like big bears, moose and where you want/need deep penetration, you will have to go to 250 NP's or heavier bullets...  My experience has been that those heavier bullets need at least the 06 case behind them and a long action to get the OAL you need...

  DM

[Lone Star]

Okay, let's compare the .338 Federal with the .338-06 in Speer #14 max loads with 200-grain bullets:

.338 Fed = ~45 grains H2O = 2598 fps
.338-06 =  ~61 grains H2O = 2773 fps
Increase in capacity = 16 grains of H2O = 35%
Increase in velocity = 175 fps = 7%

So for a 4% increase in capacity, we see less than a 1% increase in velocity, close to Barnses.  I don't think that "improving" the .338-06 will give anyone 150 more fps at equal pressures.


.

[sonofafish]

338 federal all the way
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/A+Civilized+Medium?packedargs=pagenum%3D
Hope this works but it is a good read.

[sonofafish]

- 7mm Rem Mag..175-grain, TKO 20.3, 3180 ft-lbs, 2860 fps
- 338 Win Mag.......200-grain, TKO 28.5, 3866 ft-lbs, 2950 fps
- 30-06 Spg............180-grain, TKO 21.4, 2915 ft-lbs, 2700 fps
- 30-06 Spg............200-grain, TKO 23.1, 3060 ft-lbs, 2625 fps
- 308 Win................180-grain, TKO 21.7, 2743 ft-lbs, 2620 fps
- 308 Win................200-grain, TKO 21.7, 2690 ft-lbs, 2461 fps
- 338 Federal.........180-grain, TKO 24.6, 3200 ft-lbs, 2830 fps
- 338 Federal.........210-grain, TKO 26.7, 3224 ft-lbs, 2630 fps
(TKO and energy at muzzle)

[deltecs]

- 7mm Rem Mag..175-grain, TKO 20.3, 3180 ft-lbs, 2860 fps
- 338 Win Mag.......200-grain, TKO 28.5, 3866 ft-lbs, 2950 fps
- 30-06 Spg............180-grain, TKO 21.4, 2915 ft-lbs, 2700 fps
- 30-06 Spg............200-grain, TKO 23.1, 3060 ft-lbs, 2625 fps
- 308 Win................180-grain, TKO 21.7, 2743 ft-lbs, 2620 fps
- 308 Win................200-grain, TKO 21.7, 2690 ft-lbs, 2461 fps
- 338 Federal.........180-grain, TKO 24.6, 3200 ft-lbs, 2830 fps
- 338 Federal.........210-grain, TKO 26.7, 3224 ft-lbs, 2630 fps
(TKO and energy at muzzle)

I must totally disagree with the results posted.  The .308 Win with 180 gr at 2743 ft-lbs and 2620 fps has a HIGHER TKO than the 30-06 with the exact same bullet traveling at 2700 fps with more energy at 2915 fr-lbs has LESS Tailor Knock Out than the .308 Win?   Somehow something is amiss.  Can't physically be done according to Tailers KO formula.  Impossible to happen with higher velocity and more energy to have less TKO than an exact bullet with less velocity and energy.

[sonofafish]

deltecs, it may be a type o.I cant find it now.

[deltecs]

Taylors KO formula is bullet weight times velocity, times diameter divided by 7000.  180*2620fps*.308=145252.8/7000=20.7, not 21.7.  In your calculations, I think you used the energy of 2743 ft/lbs instead of velocity 2620 fps.  That result indicates a TKO of 21.7.   Also, most reloading manuals indicate a 30-06 loading of 2800 fps for a 180 gr bullet, which would change the TKO substantially.  Either way the TKO difference between a .338-06 and a .338 Hawk/Scovill would be minimal, yet substantially more than the .338 Federal, especially with bullets in the 250 gr and above. 

[sonofafish]

Thanks for the school'n that is something I did know I'll have to remember that formula. I copied it from
http://www.chuckhawks.com/358Win_mystery.htm

[deltecs]

Thanks for the school'n that is something I did know I'll have to remember that formula. I copied it from
http://www.chuckhawks.com/358Win_mystery.htm

Taylors KO formula is effecive for comparisons but Hatchers KO formula is probably a better indicator of true terminal ballistics.  Hatchers formula is the same as Taylors with the exception that he uses the area of the bullet instead of the diameter.  So a 180 gr at 2700 at .308 diameter by Taylors formula is revised to indicate the smack of a larger diameter bullet more accurately using 180 gr at 2700 at .308/2 squared, both results divided by 7000.   The reason for 7000 is it is the weight of a bullet in lbs in the formula and there are 7000 grains to a lb.  I strongly suggest for those who would like to really understand the terminal ballistics and what really works on game in the real world to read "The Perfect Shot" by Kevin Robertson.  Dr. Robertson is a vetrinarian that is also a Pro Hunter in Africa.  His book deals with the different and terminal ballistics of different rifles on actual forensics taken from dead animals along with an illistrated internal organs and locations for hunting almost all of Africas game, both DG and plains.  His explanations are down to earth, easily understood and compared to real time scenarios on actual game.  It is one of my most re read books.  He really like the .338-06 for most plains game hunting in Africa.  But so did Taylor like the .333 Rimless Nitro.  Both have the same ballistics, thought the .333 Rimless Nitro can be loaded right with the .338 Win mag using todays powders.  That still doesn't change how well liked it was by African professionals for most of Africas plains game hunting at the older loading and the same loading as the .338-06 by todays standards. 

[sonofafish]

That is so interesting I'll have to get that book. thanks 

[Graybeard]

Ya gotta love it when folks apply the Taylor formula to things he said it had no application to then argue over the numbers you get. It applied to big bore SOLIDS used on big bag African game like elephants and such. It has zero application to expanding soft points or small bore bullets.

[deltecs]

Whether or not the bullet is expanding, momentum is a major factor in straight line penetration.  Since both Taylor and Hatcher use a variance of the formula for momentum along with a bullets frontal area, the KO is a better method for terminal ballistics as compared to just using energy alone, as the determing factor in chosing a caliber and bullet weight for plains or NA game hunting.  Agreed that the formulas do work more accurately using solids but the terminal effects of like expaning bullets on game is a product of momentum, bullet weight, caliber and placement.

[gldprimr]

I built a 338 Scovill on a M70 Classic a few years ago.  No longer have the rifle due to a home fire where all firearms were lost, but if I were building one again I'd just go with a 338-06.

I never materialized the velocity increases and the case forming turned into more hassle than it was worth to me.

FWIW, I think a 338-06 is a really nice well balanced round.  I shot a few deer with my 338 Scovill, but really don't have anything in Mississippi that needs that much gun.

To sum it up again - I'd go with the 338-06 if I were building another.

[Lone Star]

... the KO is a better method for terminal ballistics as compared to just using energy alone, as the determing factor in chosing a caliber and bullet weight for plains or NA game hunting.  Agreed that the formulas do work more accurately using solids but the terminal effects of like expaning bullets on game is a product of momentum, bullet weight, caliber and placement.

That reads so nice, too bad I have to relate that Taylor himself disagreed with you.  He wrote that for expanding bullets, kinetic energy is just as good an indicator of "killing power" as TKO or phases of the moon or.....

For the record, he also wrote:

"I do not pretend that they [TKOs] represent "killing power"; but they do give an excellent basis from which any two rifles may be compared from the point of view of the actual knock-down blow, or punch, inflicted by the bullet on massive, heavy-boned animals such as elephant, rhino and buffalo". (African Rifles and Cartridges, pg. xii)

Feel free to re-interpret whatever the long-dead John Taylor wrote all you want - it's a free country after all.   


As stated above, I too recommend the .338-06 over the Scovill. 


.

[jro45]

My 338 is the Remington 338 Ultra Mag. I shoot the 225 accubond with it. They travel at 3178 FPS. They all go into 1 1/2" at 200yds.

[Graybeard]

... the KO is a better method for terminal ballistics as compared to just using energy alone, as the determing factor in chosing a caliber and bullet weight for plains or NA game hunting.  Agreed that the formulas do work more accurately using solids but the terminal effects of like expaning bullets on game is a product of momentum, bullet weight, caliber and placement.

That reads so nice, too bad I have to relate that Taylor himself disagreed with you.  He wrote that for expanding bullets, kinetic energy is just as good an indicator of "killing power" as TKO or phases of the moon or.....

For the record, he also wrote:

"I do not pretend that they [TKOs] represent "killing power"; but they do give an excellent basis from which any two rifles may be compared from the point of view of the actual knock-down blow, or punch, inflicted by the bullet on massive, heavy-boned animals such as elephant, rhino and buffalo". (African Rifles and Cartridges, pg. xii)

Feel free to re-interpret whatever the long-dead John Taylor wrote all you want - it's a free country after all.   


As stated above, I too recommend the .338-06 over the Scovill. 


.

I've been preaching that on here for years and folks still don't get it. Ya know why? Cuz the magazine writers just keep on using it improperly and telling folks it is right. Even they have no clue cuz most likely they never read anything Taylor wrote they just parrot what some other writer long ago said about his forumula rather than reading and doing the research.

[crash87]

Bob Fulton developed the Hawk Wildcats, as I'm sure many of you know so I wont go into detail. He started out, I believe, with them in the 9.3x62 case. Scovill apparently saw the oppurtunity to get his name in lights and grabbed it, adopted it and put it on the 30-06 case. He apparently talked with Bob on this, What Bob had to say about Scovill pirating his idea we'll never know. (I've talked with Bob on bullets and He is a good and knowledgable guy.) Apparently the comprimise was to call it the HAWK/SCOVILL. "I" will always refer to it as the 338 HAWK. Read the Barnes manual, Velocty increase is a non-issue, read the intro (by Davo himself) to the cartridge and it's the new rimless wonder mag, you decide. Amazing how the truth can be told in a controled setting, ballistic lab. He even has gone so far as to compare "COMPARE" it to the 7mm STW when using 185gr barnes bullets (in the 338). Just goes to show you how paper ballistics and real world ballistics are 2 completley different things entirely.(advertizing hype)
          As for the comment on the 150fps gain. P.O. Ackley's wildcat books show less velocity in his 338-06 IMP compared to the std. cartridge. The calim has been that the proper powders at the time weren't available to show the true potential of the Imp cartridge. O.K., in Nick Harvey's Practical Reloading Manual (1993) He has them at about a dead heat, with maybe, a slight edge going to the 338-06, this with powders available now. My opinion is that I can compare the Imp. to the Hawk as ballistically (real world) there is no real difference. Personally I'm going to have a 338-06 IMP built, hopefully soon, as I have a few hundred 225gr. bullets available to shoot up and I've always had a thing for the cartridge. (My 338 WIN mag has become boring and mundane.) Why, the improved? Because my son has a 30-06, I have a 35 Whelen, put them all side by side and you'll see what I mean.
          On a side note, I agree with G.B.'s opinion on The editor Scovill as being a little high on himself. As another example of him getting his name in lights, is him taking Elmer's bullet, changing it somewhat, nothing "new", and calling it his own. Of course I'm talking about the RCBS 270 SAA, which The other half of the "show" is now calling the "Scovill" bullet in print. It can be seen in the periodical known as Handloader & Rifle. The Scovill/Pierce Show of course. If you can read between the lines it really is quit entertaining. CRASH87   

[crash87]

Correction: In the above post it should have said Scovill/Pearce Show and not Scovill/Pierce Show, My opoligies to the NOTED author. CRASH87

[Boxhead]

I have been shooting the 338-06 for 12 years primarily using the 210 gr Partition at 2800 fps on elk, nilgai and hogs. Two elk seasons ago I gave the 185 gr Barnes TSX a go at 2960 fps. It too gave the bang/flop on a nice bull at 280 yards. As others have written stay with the plain ol' 338-06.