.333 O.K.H.

[TX_GreatPlains]

I’ve been reading Keith’s Rifles for Large Game by Elmer Keith. I believe it goes without saying that Mr. Keith knew his business. He dedicates a great deal of of content and ballistic data to the custom wildcat cartridge 333 OKH developed in the 1940s by Charles O'Neil, Elmer Keith, and Don Hopkins (OKH).
“The 300-grain .333 O.K.H. kills the big brown bear quicker than anything I have ever seen used, with similar placement of bullets. It quickly beats even the .375 Magnum at long range, owing to its great sectional density and low velocity-loss”. Here’s something for @ActionBob @Bob Nelson 35Whelen “the .35 Whelen and .350 G&H have already been thoroughly discussed. Both are ideal for lion and buffalo under favorable conditions. The .35 Whelen can never quite equal the .333 O.K.H. .

Any thoughts on why this cartridge went the way of the dodo bird?

 

[CoElkHunter]

Winchester standardized it as a factory cartridge with a .338 diameter bullet as the .338 WINCHESTER MAGNUM in 1958.

 

[TX_GreatPlains]

Winchester standardized it as a factory cartridge with a .338 diameter bullet as the .338 WINCHESTER MAGNUM in 1958.

Holy smoke how did I not know that. That completely changes my thoughts on 338 Win Mag. Thank you sir.

 

[BJH65]

Big fan of Elmer Keith. The 333 O.K.H. used the then plentiful .333 caliber English bullets which were heavy for caliber and offered great sectional density. The introduction of the 338 Win Mag, .338 caliber, not .333 caliber, killed any chance for the 333 O.K.H as the .338 bullets were much more widely available.

 

[Huvius]

Any thoughts on why this cartridge went the way of the dodo bird?

Must have everything to do with the odd .333” bullet diameter.
My guess is that O and K and H chose that bullet because there was already a powerhouse .333 - the 333 Jeffery, which had a good reputation in Africa, but it was on a rare (404 Jeff) case which required a LOT of action and bolt work to make work. The 333 OKH was a simple rebarrel or rebore/chamber of an existing 30’06 and loaded hot could match the Jeffery.

They must have also thought that adopting the .333” bullet in the 30’06 case would be a good idea regarding sectional density even though the venerable 35 Whelen predated it by close to 20yrs and the 9.3X62 by about 40yrs!
That was a mistake.

 

[TX_GreatPlains]

Big fan also. I will say that even though 338 Win Mag replaced the 333 I subscribe to Keith’s Pounds-feet killing power formula. Which is MV x bullet weight divided by 7000.
333 shooting 300 gr according to his data 2400 mv so (2400x300)/7000=102.857 compared to hot loaded Buffalo bore 338 (3100x225)/7000=99.64. Keith subscribed to lower velocity heavy projectile for big game.
So was the 338 an equal replacement? I’m not totally convinced.

 

[Huvius]

BTW, the 338WM is really a Winchester standardization of the 334OKH - that is, the 300H&H opened up for a .338” bullet.
I believe it was developed concurrently with the .333OKH but with a .338” bullet.
No idea why that path was taken…
Strangely, I happen to have what is probably the only .333 G&H Supermag rifle which is the 300H&H with a .333” bullet which is in essence a .334OKH with e .333” bullet of the 333OKH
Confusing, I know…

 

[BJH65]

Winchester standardized it as a factory cartridge with a .338 diameter bullet as the .338 WINCHESTER MAGNUM in 1958.

Not exactly. The 333 OKH was based on a 30-06 case necked up to the then available English .333 caliber bullets. The 338 Win Mag was a belted magnum case using a .338 bullet. One could say the 333 OKH spawned the idea of the 338 Win Mag.

 

[TX_GreatPlains]

This is all great info. Gives me something to think through and consider. Thank you all!

 

[RedTag]

To the best of my knowledge, the .333 OKH was based on the .30-06 case necked up using .333” projectiles. Then the .334 OKH was based on the shortened .375 H&H case necked down and using the same .333” projectiles. So it’s probably fair to say the .333 OKH would be analogous to the newer .338-06, while the .334 OKH would be analogous to the newer .338 Winchester Magnum. To say that any of these is more capable than the .35 Whelen or the .375 H&H Magnum would be a stretch of the imagination.

 

[CoElkHunter]

BTW, the 338WM is really a Winchester standardization of the 334OKH - that is, the 300H&H opened up for a .338” bullet.
I believe it was developed concurrently with the .333OKH but with a .338” bullet.
No idea why that path was taken…
Strangely, I happen to have what is probably the only .333 G&H Supermag rifle which is the 300H&H with a .333” bullet which is in essence a .334OKH with e .333” bullet of the 333OKH
Confusing, I know…

Actually, all the belted magnums (.458WM, .338WM, .300WM, 7mmRM and .264WM) have the .375 HOLLAND and HOLLAND as their parent case. With the case shortened and blown out so as to fit in long action instead of magnum length rifle receivers. Really, a genius move at the time, at least for the NA market.

 

[TX_GreatPlains]

I was quoting Keith so it’s a hard argument to make he was stretching his imagination. He was a data driven guy even in his day. My only thought was maybe it was a little biased marketing since it was in fact his cartridge.

 

[Huvius]

To say that any of these is more capable than the .35 Whelen or the .375 H&H Magnum would be a stretch of the imagination.

Think that today in real world effect you are correct.
BUT, one can easily understand that a 250gr. .333” bullet has a higher sectional density than a .358” 250gr bullet just as a 300gr .338” bullet has a higher sectional density than a .375” 300gr bullet.
On paper (even wet stacked paper) they have better penetration.
Is that penetration into an elephants brain or penetration right through a broadside buffalo? Probably both…
Keep in mind that these cartridges were developed in the immediate post war data crunching age.

 

[RedTag]

We should of course understand it to be axiomatic that the bullet with greater sectional density penetrates more and the higher ballistic coefficient outperforms at greater distance, but at the same time that the wider diameter can initiate expansion with more rapid energy transfer and at comparatively lower velocities, all things otherwise equal in terms of bullet weight, construction, and target resistance.
Mr. Keith goes on to state the .375 is “possibly better” under 300 yards. But what I’d really like to know is how in the world they were getting a 300 grain bullet to go 2,400 fps from a cartridge based on the .30-06 case, and if they actually did achieve that why no one is currently pushing that with their .338-06, as the .338 Winchester Magnum is pushing maximum to get there. I’m certainly not questioning the integrity of Elmer Keith, only whether his achievements are realistically possible for any other mere mortal to duplicate.

 

[TX_GreatPlains]

We should of course understand it to be axiomatic that the bullet with greater sectional density penetrates more and the higher ballistic coefficient outperforms at greater distance, but at the same time that the wider diameter can initiate expansion with more rapid energy transfer and at comparatively lower velocities, all things otherwise equal in terms of bullet weight, construction, and target resistance.
Mr. Keith goes on to state the .375 is “possibly better” under 300 yards. But what I’d really like to know is how in the world they were getting a 300 grain bullet to go 2,400 fps from a cartridge based on the .30-06 case, and if they actually did achieve that why no one is currently pushing that with their .338-06, as the .338 Winchester Magnum is pushing maximum to get there. I’m certainly not questioning the integrity of Elmer Keith, only whether his achievements are realistically possible for any other mere mortal to duplicate.

Hey I enjoy the dialogue. Anybody’s data is subject to scrutiny and verification. That’s objectivity not disrespect. I appreciate your participation.
The whole basis of my question remains: if this cartridge was what it is said to have been why would it not still be in play today in the same form. 333 in 300gr. I agree that data has advanced but at the end of the day Elmer Keith killed a lot of game. So I tend to trust his personal field observations. Not sure how he was chronographing velocity but the man saw many a bear shot. So was it the big budget ammunition production ability, advertising etc that pushed the cartridge out or was a better mousetrap truly made.

 

[RedTag]

Hey I enjoy the dialogue. Anybody’s data is subject to scrutiny and verification. That’s objectivity not disrespect. I appreciate your participation.
The whole basis of my question remains: if this cartridge was what it is said to have been why would it not still be in play today in the same form. 333 in 300gr. I agree that data has advanced but at the end of the day Elmer Keith killed a lot of game. So I tend to trust his personal field observations. Not sure how he was chronographing velocity but the man saw many a bear shot. So was it the big budget ammunition production ability, advertising etc that pushed the cartridge out or was a better mousetrap truly made.

I think the .333” diameter was more a European thing being 8.5mm, and the availability of its 300 grain bullet was, at that time, the deciding factor in Keith et al. choosing it for their own experiments. Ultimately the manufacturers decided to go with their .338” diameter with which the American buying public was already familiar (as in the form of the .33 Winchester) and the rest is history. I remember seeing factory loaded 300 grain ammo for the .338 Winchester Magnum, but it’s been years and I don’t believe those are made anymore. But I would be genuinely interested to see the results that someone could put up with 300 grain bullets in the .338-06, as it seems this would be as close as we could get to the .333 OKH with currently available components.

 

[Badboymelvin]

Big fan also. I will say that even though 338 Win Mag replaced the 333 I subscribe to Keith’s Pounds-feet killing power formula. Which is MV x bullet weight divided by 7000.
333 shooting 300 gr according to his data 2400 mv so (2400x300)/7000=102.857 compared to hot loaded Buffalo bore 338 (3100x225)/7000=99.64. Keith subscribed to lower velocity heavy projectile for big game.
So was the 338 an equal replacement? I’m not totally convinced.

I don't believe that the 333OKH could do anything that the .338WM couldn't do better...

Russ

 

[Badboymelvin]

We should of course understand it to be axiomatic that the bullet with greater sectional density penetrates more and the higher ballistic coefficient outperforms at greater distance, but at the same time that the wider diameter can initiate expansion with more rapid energy transfer and at comparatively lower velocities, all things otherwise equal in terms of bullet weight, construction, and target resistance.
Mr. Keith goes on to state the .375 is “possibly better” under 300 yards. But what I’d really like to know is how in the world they were getting a 300 grain bullet to go 2,400 fps from a cartridge based on the .30-06 case, and if they actually did achieve that why no one is currently pushing that with their .338-06, as the .338 Winchester Magnum is pushing maximum to get there. I’m certainly not questioning the integrity of Elmer Keith, only whether his achievements are realistically possible for any other mere mortal to duplicate.

I agree, I also don't understand how they were able to get 2400fps out of a '06 case...

And did they?

I mean, I can't imagine chronographs being that plentiful back then, how did they actually determine that velocity?
Did they actually have access to a chronograph?

And if they did have access to a chronograph, once again, how did they manage to get that velocity safely?

I also agree with you on your point when you ask why aren't people doing it now with their .338-06 etc...
We have better powders now so has the only thing changed that chronographs are now so accessible?

I have been hunting, shooting and reloading now for a long time. And in that time I have heard many, many claims of what people have said about their 'pet' loads...
I'm in the camp now where unless it is shot in front of me - with my chronograph, I take it all with a grain of salt.
On more than one occasion my chronograph has hurt someone's feelings...

Elmer Keith is certainly a legend, but I'm sure like all of us he had his prejudices, his likes and his dislikes.
And like the rest of us I'm sure he wrote more favourably about the things he liked as opposed to the things he disliked.

Of course this is all just my 0.02...

Russ

 

[mooze]

We should of course understand it to be axiomatic that the bullet with greater sectional density penetrates more and the higher ballistic coefficient outperforms at greater distance, but at the same time that the wider diameter can initiate expansion with more rapid energy transfer and at comparatively lower velocities, all things otherwise equal in terms of bullet weight, construction, and target resistance.
Mr. Keith goes on to state the .375 is “possibly better” under 300 yards. But what I’d really like to know is how in the world they were getting a 300 grain bullet to go 2,400 fps from a cartridge based on the .30-06 case, and if they actually did achieve that why no one is currently pushing that with their .338-06, as the .338 Winchester Magnum is pushing maximum to get there. I’m certainly not questioning the integrity of Elmer Keith, only whether his achievements are realistically possible for any other mere mortal to duplicate.

simple: no pressure testing, no Quickload, just stuff the powder in until the brass flows....

 

[BFaucett]

I thought I'd add these pics to thread.

Image sources:
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/333-okh-cartridges-beltless-and-rimless/39533
https://www.ammo-one1.com/product/333-okh-belted-rimless-2-different-cartridges-sold-as-1-set/

Factory spec: 300 gr bullet at 2450 fps MV

Cheers! Bob F.