Shot the .350 for the first time.

WB
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 15:06 (2468 days ago)

It feels like less recoil than the .223. Probably due to lack of the squeezed .22 horrific muzzle blast. It grouped great and laid all the brass right in a neat pile. The un-modded 20 rnd. GI mag did not work. So I ordered a 10-shot Ruger mag for $25.

The factory rated 145/2250 fps ran 2109 fps in my 16". I had pulled some bullets and re-inserted .356" 140 gr. JHP, they averaged 2060 fps, shot fine. I had two 200 gr. that I reduced the factory 18.5 gr. charge of whatever to 16.5 and re-inserted one 0.356" sized bullet and another standard .358 Sierra (actually 0.3565"). Just to test function and get a little bit of a basis, they averaged right at 1700 fps.

Observations:

I think the factory loads are on the lighter side with a faster powder than what can really perform. More toward medium rifle burn rates, actual .223 powders, at minimum old .357 Maximum type. Is there 200-250 fps more there for the 200 gr. JSP? If so we have a mimic .35 Remington for hunting. That would be cool for a cheap to buy straight wall case.

I have lots of fun planned. In my stock are 147 gr. 9mm FN cast as well as the RCBS 200 gr. FNGC, to be coated and shot for speed. I think it should be fruitful and a great little deer/hog gun for anyone who does not like thundering recoil.

While it would clearly work in a handgun like the TC it has no benefits over the .357 Maximum. Actually detraction, no rim and critical case length for headspace. Ditto for a lever action. It's at home in a bolt or semi platform.

I'm still hoping for a Mini 14 so chambered...

Huey
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 15:16 (2468 days ago) @ WB

Would have retro written all over it and include a touch of modern.

With the American and Ruger AR in .350

WB
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 15:47 (2468 days ago) @ Huey

One might doubt the prospect. However, I personally see it as inevitable.

I’d buy that.

Brant
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 19:41 (2468 days ago) @ Huey

- No text -

Saw a video of a BFR in 350 Legend online

Derek
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 15:58 (2468 days ago) @ WB

Dont know if he chronographed the loads yet. Was pretty accurate though.

Basically just a .357 Maximum. I’ll check capacity.

WB
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 16:37 (2468 days ago) @ Derek

- No text -

Just looked and the Hodgdon data for the 350..

Gus S.
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 16:45 (2468 days ago) @ WB

It matches my old 357 max loads with the exception of the 180 gr loads. I was getting better speed than advertised for the 180 350 load. Those loadS show for a 24 inch barrel. Mine was a 16". My load was hotter, but I was loading as long a COAL as possible to fit more in the case. I'm curious to see what 180s will do in your 16 inch gun.

Factory just seems whimpy to me.

WB
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 17:07 (2468 days ago) @ Gus S.

The "old half as big" .351 pushed a 180 gr. at 2000 fps in a 20" barrel with only 39K psi in a BLOW-BACK (!) action. Factory specs. on the .350 Legend at 55K psi (I checked) is a 180 gr. at 2100 fps.

I've owned a .351 M1907 and still have a M1910 .401. Something does not add up.

think about all the new whoop de do cartridges that have

gary reeder
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 18:23 (2468 days ago) @ WB

come out in the last few years. The advertised velocities never actually matched what actually was possible. Think of all the WSM and WSSM and other short magnums. Ammo manufacturers aren't required to be truthful, just required to sell ammo. You have a cartridge that is identical to the 357 Max so really you can't expect velocities to beat it by much if at all. When the 357 Max was developed by Elgin Gates the velocities were hot. The cartridge was developed for the silhouette shooters and those cartridges were required to knock over a 53 lb steel ram at 200 yards, so it took some heavy punch to do so. I would imagine the current advertised loads for the 357 max are a bit lower than the old silhouette loads. And to keep pressures down the ammo manufacturers will keep the loads a bit below max, and probably not near the old 357 Max loads. As my old Granny used to say, "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit".

I was getting..

Gus S.
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 18:30 (2468 days ago) @ WB

2200 fps with the old 180 SSP from my 16" Handi rifle using H110. I loaded until extraction was sticky and then backed off. It was a pretty hot load, but it was a good one in my rifle. I think 2100 for 180s would be good in your rifle.

LilGun shows the most promise in that data

WB
[subject]
Saturday, November 23, 2019, 19:19 (2468 days ago) @ Gus S.

and I know it likes a longer barrel. Hodgdon lists 180/2200 fps in a 24" so maybe it will do 2000 in a 16". Today the 200 went 1700 easily with what I think is fast powder (about 50% capacity). If I can get 200 fps more I won't fuss. Back in the day my 336 Marlin in .35 Rem was getting 1950 fps with the Hornady 200 gr. RN and IMR3031.

Back when I didn't reload factory

Sid R
[subject]
Sunday, November 24, 2019, 08:18 (2468 days ago) @ WB

Core Lokts of 200 grains got 2148 average fps in a 20" barrel 35 Remington. I'll save my money 38-55 I have my eye on.

powered by my little forum