bronko,

It's kind of like the ".243 Winchester/6mm Remington."The 6mm is actually superior to the .243, especially from a reloader's perspective, but the .243 hit the market BIG well before the kinks got worked out of the 6mm.The .338 is so WELL-ESTABLISHED (i.e. you can buy ammo for it just about anywhere in the world), that any competitive cartridge (anyone remember the 8mm Remington Mag?) has a tough row to hoe keeping up.

The new "short mags" may have a number of advantages to them: 1) Can be chambered in a short-action ("lighter?")rifle, 2)More efficient propellants may get the same job done with less powder.

You're stillspitting the same weight bullet down the barrel at about the same velocity, though. And, from my own experience, THAT (how heavy the bullet, how fast the velocity)is what impacts"felt recoil" the most, notthe powder I burn. And, lighter rifles (i.e. potentially, short-actions) just amplify that. My buddy's light .338 M77 is more painful to shoot than my heavy M700 .375.

I don't see anything earth-shattering in the performance of any of the short-mags to unseat the more traditional, "tried-and-true" veterans like the .270, .30-06, 7mm Rem Mag, .300 Win Mag, .338 Win Mag, or the .375 H&H. They were there first, and a lotmorepeople stillswear by them. Doesn't mean that you can't try something new yourself. But, it doesn't mean either that a new cartridge won't be just another "Johnny-come-lately".