LV,
You are correct, at that time, that was my standard load. It was however because of the brass we were using, not because that is the limit of the rifle or chambering. Let me explain.
When I designed my 338 AM, we had access to the amazing TTI brass. That brass was very strong, in fact, I would honestly say it was as strong as the current 338 Lapua brass, amazing stuff. With that brass, I was driving the 300 gr SMK to 3500 fps out of my heavy rifle. My XHS rifles were getting 3400 fps easily with the same bullet with that brass.
Within a year, TTI brass went away, no way to get it anymore, very sad. Jamison international had just started making this brass. They were already using the 505 Gibbs so they just took that same case and necked it down to 408 CT. For Chey Tac standards of pressure, these worked acceptably well as they had no intent to reload the brass.
For handloaders. Even light loads for the 338 AM were opening primer pockets prematurely, sometimes on the first firing. That was the start of Jamison trying to get the brass made to higher standards. They worked with many of us using the 408 CT for a parent case for wildcat rounds. They took some of our advice and some they did not. In the end, they beefed up the case head thickness, tightened the primer pocket a bit and also changed the alloy in the brass to help support higher pressures.
This made a big difference. Now we were able to get back to around 3300 fps with max loads. It was at this time that I posted the numbers you list and it is true, at that time, I felt 3250 fps was a very comfortable load level with this bullet weight.
I then started working with Jamison to make my own brass with my correct headstamp. I was not willing to invest the money though on a case that would not take more pressure. The standard Jamison 408 CT brass would allow 3-4 firings at 3300 fps max. I wanted more and wanted more velocity if possible. I asked that they tighten the primer pockets up so they were 2 thou smaller then even their newly designed primer pocket just to get as many firings as possible from the cases.
I will be honest, those new cases that I had made, have all gone to customers. I have yet to do any serious load development with them as I am sending them all out to customers and letting them report on the results. They are telling me 3400 fps is practical and 3350 fps is very comfortable with the new brass which makes me very happy. Case life is not as long as the TTI cases were but its usible for what we want to do and much better then is has been since we lost the TTI brass.
So, yes, you are correct, I said those were my numbers but those numbers were limited to the brass we had to use, not the max performance of this chambering. As you can see, with current brass, the numbers I list are accurate and practical and still higher performance then the smaller 338s with the super bullets. Its a moot point, put the high BC bullets in the big 338s and the discussion is over again.
In my numbers, I was using the BC that you offered for the HAT bullets as you had tested them much more then I have. IF the bullets are structurally the same but just have a different Ogive, for the most part, velocity potential will be the same so in my numbers I just used your .91 BC value to give you the benefit of the doubt.
From your own words, one of my rifles is already getting good results with the Gen II Hats loading them to 3440 fps.
How does a 338 AI compare to that???? It does not in any way and to my knowledge, that load in the 338 AM was a relatively mild load. Mild pressure and 200 fps more velocity with same bullet weight......
As far as a 325 gr HAT with a BC in the 1.1 range. On paper, it sounds great, only problem in the real world is that a bullet of this length will cause some problems unless a non conventional bullet design is used. Baring surface is huge, fast twist barrels are needed for this length barrel. The combination of these two will result in larger variations because of temp changes and other environmental changes then a more conventional bullet length and weight.
I am not saying they would not be extremely accurate and amazing ballistically. The only problem is you will see dramatically wider variations from environmental shifts.
To solve this, if you could do something unconventional, such as a double diameter bullet(bore rider like) or wasp waist the bullet to reduce baring surface, this would help alot but it would also complicate bullet manufacturing and final bullet cost. That is why solid bullets are best for this extreme high BC bullet because its easy to cut relief cuts or band the baring surface to reduce baring surface.
Other problems, when you take a lead core bullet that is that long, you will run into a problem I have nicknamed "bullet wringing". This is when you take a very long lead core bullet and drive it into a barrel with a very fast twist. My theory, what happens is that when the bullet engraves the land, the front portion of the bullet begins to rotate but the rear section of the bullet has enough length and mass to resist this rotation and while the front begins to rotate, the rear does not and the section in the middle will weaken the bond between the jacket and core.
This probably happens to some degree with all longer conventional bullets but at the velocities we are working at and the extreme length of the bullet and fast twist, its much more dramatic. In worst cases, the bullet will fail in flight, in best case, accuracy will suffer to some degree.
How to cure that, well, really only two ways. One way that really helps is to seat the bullets hard into the lands which gets the bullet rotating the very instant it starts down the bore which will greatly reduce "bullet Wringing".
Number 2 is to use a very heavy jacket that can help support these forces. Only problem there is that unless you use a tapered jacket, expansion will be very limted. You can also bond the core to the jacket which will help some but is not a real cure and it costs alot more to do. Just my opinion on such matters.
When I tested the HATs, I shot into a line of media consisting of a water soaked phone book, followed by a sheet of 3/4" oak backed with 4 water filled milk jugs and then backed by soft sand.
First couple shots were at 500 yards. First shot was stopped in the first water jug and fraged severely. Second shot went through all four of the milk jugs. Third shot did not make it to target.
Fourth and fifth were very similiar to the second shot. Full penetration with little expansion.
I then moved to longer range. It was roughly 950 yards. All shots fired, 6 total except one showed very little penetration if any and one shot did not land on target.
Accuracy wise, they held 1/2 moa easily at 950 yards. No problem there. I read your results on the Gen II results and it sounds like the bugs are getting worked out. There are always bugs to work with and work out. ANytime you are pushing things past the current established max performance you are in new ground and speed bumps are to be expected. I think the main issue with the HAT bullets is that they were pushed pretty hard really before any serious testing had been done. Had their release been held up until the Gen II bullets had been tested, I the end result would have been in much more bullet sales and less heated discussions on the board.
I can not say who the first was that necked the 408 CT down to 338. To be honest I would bet it was no one here on LRH. I do not know if Dave did it before Bruce Baer but I do know both of them played with it long before I did and I have always given them credit for that. I just took a good thing and added more volume to push things a bit harder in velocity, that is all. I have never and will never claim to be the originator of this idea, that would be silly, I do feel I have added to the relm of big 338 magnums with the 338 AM, 338 AX and now the 338 Ultra Maxx which was designed by the urging of Joecool here on LRH.
