Reading gun magazines these days is a lot like watching one of those finishing shows, more than once – You pretty much know the setting and it’s not too much of a stretch to guess the outcome. I could be wrong, but then why is this month’s issue of Petersen’s “Rifle Shooter” asking the novel and penetrating question, “Is the .338 Winchester a good gun for elk and bear ?”
I’d almost bet that if you took a look at every rifle magazine that comes out each month, at least one will offer yet another review on the .338 Winchester. The article I referenced attempts to sell the .338 as a hard kicking, flat shooting round, able to knock virtually anything down, and is right on the heels of the .375 H&H. That would be a 30+ year old round hot on the heels of a 70+ year old round.
I wouldn’t have minded if the article dragged out a .338, loaded it with some newer IMR 7828, or RL25, pushing new generation bullets and reporting something different than a very predictable outcome. Unfortunately, even the reloading components selected were dated, and the resulting ballistics were the same as those appearing in print for I don’t know how many years. New powder and bullets actually do have the potential to extract some surprising results out of old rounds and, hopefully, this would have been the new information that was brought to the table.
The truth of the matter is, unless you’re into nostalgia, there are at least three other .338 caliber production rounds that kick the crap out of .338 performance. But I don’t have to pick on the .338, the same magazine, and several others this month, reviewed the .270 Winchester, the .280 Remington, the .30-06 and the .35 Whelen. I know I hold my breath in anticipation and surprise whenever I see an article on the .30-06’s performance.
In the same issue, there was a review on an accurizing job done by Arnold Arms, the guys who make rifles chambered for their own proprietary cartridges like the 4,000 fps+ 6mm Arnold. So I’m reading along, thinking there might be something new, after all, Arnold even has a proprietary .338. About a third of the way through the story, I found the article was about Arnold accurizing the author’s Remington 700, which was chambered for the .270 Winchester. Worse, the rifle apparently became less accurate, after it was accurized, and the average 100 yard group looked to be over 1.6″. Hope the service didn’t cost much.
Maybe there is too much editorial support for advertisers, and publications go out of their way to find articles to wrap around advertisers products. The thought might be, if a reader is numb to the .338 Winchester, maybe they’ll notice a new Swift bullet when it’s mentioned 10 or 12 times in the article ? If anyone read the Arnold article, I doubt if they will come away reciting .270 Winchester ballistics and groups sizes, but they might come away remembering Arnold’s new accurizing service, the H&S Precision stock, or even the very expensive Federal Premium Nosler Partition ammo that was reported as shooting the tightest group.
Even the magazine’s cover teaser “.30 Caliber 4000 fps” wasn’t much more than an ad. There was a two page ad spread for Lazzaroni, followed immediately by an article lead in that featured a 130 grain .30 caliber bullet at over 4,000 fps. The story went on to say, very briefly, that Lazzaroni cut the belt off of a Weatherby round, after Roy spent all that time putting one on the .416 Rigby, and pushed a impractical lightweight .30 caliber bullet to over 4,000 fps, which was more than 30 years longer than it took Weatherby to pull off the same feat with a .30-378 prototype. I may have paraphrased.
The real bulk of the article, the substance, was actually a rehash of a very mature Lazzaroni cartridge and rifle, and an opportunity to drive home the point – Sako now chambered for the Warbird in a low cost rifle. Advertising. We’re reading infomercials. Is there somewhere to go with all of this and is there a point ? I hope so. There is a tremendous of innovation surrounding firearms and firearms sports. Maybe some of the new can be pulled to the front and bump some of the old gunk from the pages of industry publications.
I’d like to see more comparisons and competition between like products. I’d like to see more “how to” articles that apply to things guns owners do with some frequency. I’d like to see some sneak previews of new technology, or featuring custom work that is innovative and not just nice to look at, and not performed on a 98 Mauser or 1911 Auto. I’d like to see information that would help me to get more enjoyment out of the sport, rather than articles that are designed to just set me up to buy something.
Email Notification