I was intrigued by the latest reincarnation of the Remington 600 rifle, now the 673 chambered in 350 Rem. Magnum. So I rushed to Remington's website to check how the round stacks up against other Magnums, figuring it would fall in nicely between say, .300 Win Mag and .375 H&H.
Here is the ballistics data from Remington's website (mv - muzzle velocity & me - muzzle energy):
180 GR. 300 Win Mag:
mv = 2960, v at 300 yd = 2294, me = 3501, e at 300 yd 2103
200 GR. 350 Remington Magnum;
mv = 2775, v at 300 yd = 1921, me = 3419, e at 300 yd 1639
275 GR. 375 H&H
mv = 2690, v at 300 yd = 1928, me = 4337, e at 300 yd 2228
I mean, what can the 350 Rem. Mag. do that a good .30-06 can't do? For comparison:
180 GR. .30-06:
mv = 2700, v at 300 yd = 2070, me = 2913, e at 300 yd 1713
Here is my problem. What good is a Magnum round that is fairly expensive and hard to findin stores that has no more power than a .30-06 and is no flatter shooting than 375 H&H? What is this round really good for?
This is not a flame, just good old confusion... :banghead:
I am sure there are plenty of good folks who's favorite round is the 350 Rem. Mag. And more power to them. But how can Remington seriously market a niche cartridge that holds no advantage whatever over a .30-06?
Just wondering... :scrutiny:
If you enjoyed reading about "350 Remington Magnum (who needs it?)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
April 21, 2004, 02:41 AM
Bah! It's not magical, it's a cartridge. It comes in a really compact, light package and packs enough punch to take any North American game at 300 yards, so what's the problem? Spitting out numbers doesn't mean squat. Try shooting a bear with one, the bear doesn't read books. Yes, the 350 can do more than a 30-06 and less, it's a different round for gawd sakes. Different purposes. It falls exactly between an '06 and a 375H&H. Bigger hole, not as flat a trajectory as the other two rounds though.
April 21, 2004, 02:50 AM
If I were you, I wouldn't raise questions about why particular hunting rounds are offered. Because if you look at it objectively, you could dump 95% of them and not lose any real-world capability ;)
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
April 21, 2004, 03:33 AM
It is the 35 Whelan ( 35/06 ) in a 308 length case. That's it's reason for being.
In looking at the 350 Rem Mag, you quoted only the 200 grain load. Check the loads in reloading manuals which show the 250 grain bullet with which it was originally loaded by Remington. The 250 was preferred for the largest of big game on this continent.
The 350 failed to sell well because it was packaged in a short, light, handy carbine that could do the job. And produced a recoil that kicked the daylights out of folks who weren't prepared.
The then wildcat 35 Whelan did just about the same thing in a longer, heavier action and longer barrel that made it tolerable to shoot. Both the 350 and 35 Whelan when loaded with 250 grain bullets produced 3500 Ft. Lbs. of muzzle energy, a significant increase over the 30/06's 3000 Ft. Lbs.
When the 350 was introduced, the mill said it wouldn't do anything the Whelan wouldn't do. So nobody bought it. After it was discontinued, they brought out the 35 Whelan in factory guise, and the mill said it wouldn't do anything the 350 couldn't do.
The few who understood grabbed for them before they were gone. They realized it was a round that did what it was designed to do, whatever you called it, and with less recoil that the longer 338.
Same for the 358 Win. except the 250 grain bullet is a hundred feet per second slower than the Whelan/350 Rem Mag.
The 30/06 will kill a bear or a moose for you. The 350 Rem Mag./35 Whelan will do it a little better.
April 21, 2004, 11:19 PM
Guys, I'm all for more choices. The more the better. I'm just trying to figure out the role of the 350 Rem. Mag. Like, I know .270 and .30-06 are almost identical, but the .270 is a bit flatter shooting while the .30-06 can handle 180 grain bullets for a bit heavier game, such as elk.
Now I'm just trying to figure out where the 350 Rem. Mag. fits in. Obviously it has far less recoil than a .375 H&H. Will it do what a .300 Win Mag will do, but just with less recoil?
I'm not putting down the 350 Rem Mag exactly but Remington put it in a guide gun. I thought it would have like power for a guide gun, but it appears less powerful than a .30 Win Mag.
The more choices the better. I'm just wondering why would someone pick it necessarily. I'm not saying it should be banned or anything. I was in fact interested. I'm not much anymore.
April 21, 2004, 11:22 PM
Thanks for telling me it fits in a short action rifle. Maybe that is the attraction?
April 22, 2004, 12:09 AM
Guides don't need power, they need the ability to anchor the animal. 30 caliber weapons rely almost completely on their bullet expansion to anchor an animal whereas a 350 or 375 can punch big, effective holes without a perfect expansion even after hitting bone or tough flesh. Me, I've got a 358 Winchester.
September 14, 2009, 02:10 AM
I have a .35 Rem, a .358 Win and a .350 Rem mag... it might seem redundant, but I like putting big holes in the things I shoot. I love my 35s!
Nothing goes a long way when shot with a 35 cal
September 14, 2009, 11:57 AM
plus it developed good mv out of the short bbls of the old 670's, so it still shot with tons of energy, out of a 16 or 18 inch bbl.
September 14, 2009, 05:51 PM
I don't like it much too. I am going with the 358wssm in a Ar15 upper instead.......
September 14, 2009, 09:09 PM
I shot a 358 Norma mag for years. I loved that rifle.
A couple years back I ran into a good deal on a Ruger M77MKII Stainless all weather in 350 Remington Mag. The original short mag. It needed some action work and a new barrel crown which I did over a weekend. Then I
coated the stainless parts in dull gray. I installed a Leupold scope using warne quick detach mounts and I also installed a Remington style front sight base and a fiber optic front sight. Then I bought a NEGC detachable rear peep sight.
My particular 350 rem Mag rifle likes 220 or 225 grain bullets. The best for hunting here in Alaska being the 225 grain Kodiak bonded bullets. The Ruger has a 22 inch barrel and a slightly longer magazine well than the Remingtons, so I can load longer and a little hotter.
Using an Ohler Chronograph at 10 ft from the muzzle. Temp 32 F.
62.0 grains of RL-15 and a 225 grain Kodiak Bonded give me a muzzle velocity of 2,820 fps from the 22 inch barrel. (loaded at 2.850 col)
My rifle now shoots those into a 0.70 inch group at 100 yards. It will do even better with Sierra 225 grain game-kings.
57.4 grains of RL-15 will push a Nosler 250 grain bullet to 2,600 fps. Although it will only give me 2 inch groups at 100 yards.
By the way I have also pushed 200 grain Hornady round nose bullets to just over 3,000 fps using 51.0 grains of RL-7. They gave me a 1.5 inch group at 100 yards.
I have been loading for the 30-06 for over 30 years and there is no way I could push a 200 or 225 grain bullet to those speeds in a 22 inch barrel.
There is nothing wrong with a fat bullet weighing 225 grains smacking a moose at anything over 2,600 fps...Which is about as fast as mine are still going after 150 yards.
September 14, 2009, 10:48 PM
Really it and 90% of other rounds are not "needed". And the amount of overlap with something else is what often determines how much of a niche round something is. I love to tinker and own several rifles chambered for rounds less popular than the 350. That said, in 20+ years of hunting all over north america, there is exactly 2 times that I needed something besides a 30-06, my first grizzly hunt, and my 2nd. And though it's hard to prove after the fact, both were good shots with a .375 at less that 150 yards, so it is likely the '06 would have done the job, although I have to admit I felt more confident with the H&H!
justashooter in pa
September 14, 2009, 10:52 PM
the 600-660 series used a medium length action that is shorter and lighter than a standard length action, and a shorter barrel (18") than standard. the 350 rem mag is optimal in this combination for dangerous game, and was popular in alaska on brown bears.
September 15, 2009, 10:12 PM
I see this thread has been resurrected from 2004.
For the record, I shoot a Rem 673 in >350 Rem Mag. I load 250 grain Noslers right at 2500 fps. They hit elk hard, and I would use this round on a brown bear.
The rifle is a dream to carry, points naturally, and is compact. My favorite rifle.
December 23, 2009, 01:04 PM
Short action,short barrel,very efficient case,medium bore...
If you reload=donor case everywhere,performance from mild to wild,push like a kitten to black and blue.
Outstanding projectile sellection from 125gr 357 plinking/varmint thu' 300gr. take anythings.
Again to the size/weight/effciency/medium bore this "old" cartridge would seem to fit the bill perfectly for a great "brush","scout" or "truck gun".
Having resently been bitten by BOTH the .35 bore AND short magnum bugs I will be getting one or two rifles for this cartridge...As an aside I have plans for a .358-.300 RCM that should just edge out the "original short magnum"...tho' this old cartridge still has it going on and still too cool.
December 23, 2009, 01:43 PM
I am going with the 358wssm Does that even exist?
December 23, 2009, 01:58 PM
Badger's right on two counts:
1. Guides need to anchor the animal.
2. "the bear doesn't read books":)
If you ask me, the perception problem with the round is that it's called "Magnum". Because of its name, the numbers don't look impressive, since rounds like the .338-378 Weatherby are also called "Magnum". Note that Federal came out with something similar, more recently: the .338 Federal. They resisted the urge to call it "Magnum", and I think that's probably wise. Might the .350 Remington Magnum have been more successful as the ".35-08"?
Now I do wonder whether rounds ought to have more standard nomenclature in the US, so you can tell what they really are, but that hasn't been the case since the end of black powder (.45-70, .38-40, .38-55, .40-60, .44-40 all meant something, more or less).
For modern rounds, there are a few divergent names that do this, e.g. .25-06, .338-06, 7mm-08, .300-378, .338-378, etc. to signify the bore diameter and the parent cartridge.
Then, there are standard cartridge families like WSM.
However, there are other meaningless designations like "Magnum". And you wouldn't know by looking that a .243 Winchester or .260 Remington are in the .308 family, or that the .270 Winchester and .35 Whelen are based on the .30-06.
European designations, like 7x57mm, have a bit more meaning.
December 23, 2009, 02:21 PM
AB, I have to say that calling a round a XX-06 after its parent round is a bit on the stupd side...as the '06 is not a virgin cartridge (was designed based upon something else...which came from something else), and the "oh-six" part was from the date of birth...and the .25-06 wasn't created in 1906...or 2006, or any other '06. I don't even care for blackpowder nomenclature because in my research (for building a .45-120 NE) I have discovered that the .45-70 doesn't quite hold a 70gr charge of BP, and the .45-120 can hold a little more than 120gr of the black stuff. Personally I like the metric designation due to clear case size (7.62x51mm is 7.62mm projectile, followed by 51mm of brass), it is simple, short and works. It seems to me that the word "Magnum" is expensive so I try to avoid it and get something that is equally powerful and cheaper...call it a .375 Powederpuff instead...that way I can afford the stuff. :D
December 23, 2009, 02:26 PM
I have discovered that the .45-70 doesn't quite hold a 70gr charge of BP
Are you using a drop tube and an original-style 405 grain government lead bullet? How thick is the wad? Also, the 70 grains is supposedly the weight of the water that fits in the brass. I didn't say it was a good system; it was, however, a system of sorts.
I know what the -'06 means. The fact is, every .30-'06-based cartridge is based on the .30-'06.:D Call it whatever you want. Give it a cartridge length designation. The Euros do (7x57, 8x57, etc.) Winchester does (WSM, WSSM).
Action length shouldn't be esoteric knowledge, i.e. why should someone have to be a rifle nut to know that a .270 goes in a .30-06 action, and a .260 goes in a .308 action?
December 23, 2009, 05:23 PM
ArmedBear--I basicaly agree with you -back when the .350 Rem.Magnum was introduced it may have failed due to the lack of Magnumness it possesed...add to that in the U.S.A. the .358 bore simply fares poorly for some reason. Now if Remington had placed "Short" infront of Magnum...:scrutiny: ".35-08"= .358 Win. already;),sorry could not resist. I do agree with you on that using part of the "parent" catridge designation in very helpful too a large degree.
Maveric223--I hear you on the history of the .30-06,however this day in age most anyone the world over that has spent little more than basic time pulling triggers knows what is being referenced to...Not all but most...It is "the Rifleman's cartidge",even grudgingly to the Germans and Russians I know.
December 23, 2009, 05:27 PM
I've been looking for the old Remington Alaskan model 600 with the top rib and laminated stock in 350 Rem. Mag. Always wanted one ever since I saw them in the stores back in the 70's...........maybe some day I'll own one. :rolleyes:
December 23, 2009, 05:28 PM
".35-08"= .358 Win. already
What's interesting about that is that Remington could have used the clarity of the name to undercut the .358 Winchester, which, since it's not common, is another "God-knows-what-it-is" cartridge like the .350.
I think that, in the US, the largest common game is in some of the most wide-open country. If European Wild Boar were a common quarry, as it is in Europe, something like a short-action .35 caliber might be quite popular.
December 23, 2009, 05:46 PM
ArmedBear--agreed on the clarity... .35-08 may have been better name than .358 Win. but with the 350 RM it was not based off the .308 case so in it's "case"(ha,ha) I think "Short Magnum" would have been the ticket,or is that what you were speaking to in reference to undercutting,may I say "beatting" Winchester to that designation.
December 23, 2009, 06:12 PM
Take notice of the barrel length...the 350 rem mag does quite well even out of short barrels....something the others cannot do.
December 23, 2009, 06:31 PM
Quite,speaks well of it's effeciency,much like the newish fullsize Rugers and their compact magnums...That is why I was contemplating a .35-.300RCM,then remembered the old 350RM.
.35-300RCM= more velocity/power,headspacing,feeding.
350 RemMag=reloaders dream as far as parent brass availibility...not that far behind the wildcat for velocity/power.
December 23, 2009, 06:51 PM
What case is the .350 based on? Or is it a one-off?
December 23, 2009, 07:08 PM
Are you using a drop tube and an original-style 405 grain government lead bullet? How thick is the wad? Also, the 70 grains is supposedly the weight of the water that fits in the brass. I didn't say it was a good system; it was, however, a system of sorts.I don't currently load the black stuff, I have just done a bit of research on case sizes do to the project and from all accounts the -70 has come up a little short and the -120 holds a little more than 120gr. The .45-70 was originally called the ".45-70-405 Government" and fully described the cartridge (with the exception of the charge being a bit off), as it detailed the caliber (.45"), the charge of BP (70gr.), the weight of the projectile (405gr.), as well as the designer or in this case who commissioned the cartridge design (Government) after the previous cartridge was a flop (the 50-70 IIRC). FWIW, the "70" is for the weight of the black-powder charge but the weight of H2O is about the same (about 79gr.) because black has a specific gravity of 1.0-1.3.
I know what the -'06 means.I wasn't suggesting that you didn't...just sharing my distaste for the system...but I will say that it's better than the .270Win., et al.
What case is the .350 based on? Or is it a one-off?The 7mm Rem. Mag, and indirectly the .375H&H like most other magnums, which is likely why it received the "Magnum" moniker.
December 23, 2009, 07:09 PM
The .350 Rem Mag is based off the same .300HH that so many other Magnums like the 7mmRemMag,.300WM,.338WM,340WbyMag,etc. So to reitterate,parent cases for the reloader abound...
I wish Marlin had done the same with their .450 Marlin...Lawyers=? or Propiratory case belt=?..............I have had my Marlin XLR rebarreled to .458x2.16 for more aboundant cases,as it should have been to begin with.IMO.:rolleyes:
December 23, 2009, 07:17 PM
Maveric223---I took no offense nor thought that you were suggesting that I did not know.Only making conversation and hoping to add my take on the designation system.:)
December 23, 2009, 07:19 PM
Ooops,I think your correct Maveric223 that it was the 375HH,not the 300HH.:o
December 23, 2009, 08:02 PM
Maveric223---I took no offense nor thought that you were suggesting that I did not know.I was actually referring to AB, whom seemed to be offended by my statement.
Ooops,I think your correct Maveric223 that it was the 375HH,not the 300HH.Well technically we are both correct...because the .300H&H came from the .375H&H as well (as did nearly all other "belted magnums"), but the .350RM actually was a direct descendant of the 7mmRM IIRC.
December 24, 2009, 01:28 PM
I love the 350 RM because it punches big holes and there is plenty of brass everywhere. I am also working on another wildcat related to the 350 RM. It is called the 9.3 BS (for Barnesness-Sisk). This one also punches big holes and anchors everything you throw these big pills at. Even Midwayusa.com sells brass for it now, check out the link at: www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=952816
Custom gunsmith Charlie Sisk and John Barsness came up with the 9.3 Barsness-Sisk (BS) by necking the .350 Remington Magnum up to 9.3mm. It does exactly the same things as the 9.3x62 but in a short action. Loads shot from a custom Sisk Remington Model 700 with a 23-inch Lilja barrel. (Handloader Issue #250 - December, 2007). Here is an article on it: http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php?t=4591
December 24, 2009, 01:43 PM
was actually referring to AB, whom seemed to be offended by my statement.
I wasn't offended by it. You're right that the .30-'06 was developed in 1906, and the .270, .25-06, .338-06, .35 Whelen, 6mm-06, .280, et al. were not. However, the names of the other cartridges are -06, not -'06, so they don't refer to 1906; they refer to the -06 cartridge case.:D
A name that designated caliber, case, and developer would probably make the most sense.
Maybe the .338 Winchester Magnum could be the .338-HHBM-Winchester. A tweaked version of the round could be the .338.1-HHBM-Winchester.
Names like .338x57 O'Connor are an attempt to do this. But that's also true for .25-06 Remington, which doesn't mean "Caliber .25 of 1906" like the .30-'06 name does; it means .25" bullet in .30-'06 brass.
Sadly, I don't think we'll see anything like this, because obscurity serves the marketing of some cartridges.
December 24, 2009, 02:11 PM
A name that designated caliber, case, and developer would probably make the most sense.Agreed.
Sadly, I don't think we'll see anything like this, because obscurity serves the marketing of some cartridges.I don't doubt that at all. If someone doesn't like the .30-06, it would be unlikely that they would give the .270Win., .280Rem., .35Whelen, et al a shot, due to knowing the parent case, even if it might serve their needs a little better.
December 24, 2009, 03:04 PM
If someone doesn't like the .30-06, it would be unlikely that they would give the .270Win., .280Rem., .35Whelen, et al a shot, due to knowing the parent case, even if it might serve their needs a little better.
I'm the opposite. I LIKE the parent case, and, for example, I'd love to get a .338-06 after seeing the numbers it turns out. The Model 70 long action is a good deal shorter than some, so a .338-06 in a Model 70 would make for a rifle with .338 WinMag performance (for all practical purposes), with decent magazine capacity and without a bulky receiver.
I know, hunting isn't battle, but with a 5-round rifle, I feel fine just loading it up, and stashing a few extra rounds in the backpack somewhere. With a 3-round rifle, I feel more like I have to have a few extra rounds where I can grab them quickly.
December 24, 2009, 04:37 PM
I'd love to get a .338-06 after seeing the numbers it turns out.
Amen to that....Already trying to scarf up parts for the build but...
just you try and find a Model 70 receiver...scarce as golden hens teeth and twice as expensive!
Would that be sweet or what...a Model 70 in 338-06!
and I'm not about to drop 700 bills on the whole rifle and re-barrel it!
Hail hail to ups...we received our Winchester order, the Remington order and...ready for this.... 1 box of ammo, that's right, you read right...1 box! out how many case...!?!?
Anyway, gotta get the 338-06 built!
December 24, 2009, 05:55 PM
Hail hail to ups...You spelled Hell wrong. :evil: So I assume that the parts for your new build have arrived, and you decided upon the .338-06?
December 24, 2009, 06:01 PM
Model 70 receiver is $349 from CDNN (not FFL price, don't know what that is).
But... It's a short-action with the FN tactical finish. Still, it could be polished, and it can be had with a phone call and 350 bucks.:)
December 24, 2009, 06:08 PM
Model 70 receiver is $349 from CDNN (not FFL price, don't know what that is)...But... It's a short-action with the FN tactical finish. Still, it could be polished, and it can be had with a phone call and 350 bucks.Hmm, that is interesting, do they have any long, magnum actions? I would love to have a new model Winchester chambered in either .375H&H or .416Rigby (which probably won't fit due to the enormous OAL). Wouldn't mind a .260Rem., but I don't know if that is worth the additional cost over a factory Featherweight in 7mm-08.
December 24, 2009, 06:14 PM
Just short actions.
They do make the new 70 in .300 WinMag. Not sure about the action length vs. a standard long action.
December 24, 2009, 06:20 PM
Just short actions.
They do make the new 70 in .300 WinMag. Not sure about the action length vs. a standard long action.Figured that much. That is why I inquired, if the .300WM and new .338WM fit the .375H&H should also (don't know if the .416Rigby would or not...probably not, it's big), but I am not buying the whole rifle to replace the stock, barrel, refinish, and tie up a whole lot of gunsmith funds in...looks like I'll be getting that new Ruger M-77 Mk-II (will likely get one next week).
December 24, 2009, 08:49 PM
There was a post here recently about why an 8x57 cartridge didn't fit an 8x57 rifle. It didn't fit because it was a DIFFERENT 8x57 cartridge entirely. Myself, I like our colorful and confusing names for cartridges.
As to the 350RM? Same power as a .338WM in a light, short handy package. What's not to like? If you really are concerned about Magnum monikers, try looking at the Weatherby .224 Magnum or even the 300 H&H magnum. The 300 gave, in it's day, perhaps 150 FPS over a 30-06. The .224 doesn't even best a 22-250.
December 24, 2009, 09:45 PM
I think the 300H&H Magnum makes perfect sense, it is the .375H&H Magnum necked down, and was one of the most powerful .30cals in its day.
December 25, 2009, 12:29 AM
I assume that the parts for your new build have arrived,
NO!!! Shucks, I'm still waiting on the final parts for the 30-06 I am doing to return from the coating shop, after new years now....dangit!
we have a few of the CDNN FN SPR actions, all short, rough finish, you would be well off to turn them, and they are the 'old' actions built in CT., not that they are bad or anything, but I don't want to use one.
The 30-06 in all polymer coated and camo....not your elegant looking rifle, all balls, for working.
The 338-06, I'm not sure if I want another 'work' rifle, or a pretty, blue and wood.
Depends on the cash I have, the time I have, what's available when I kick off the project.
December 25, 2009, 12:58 AM
NO!!! Shucks, I'm still waiting on the final parts for the 30-06 I am doing to return from the coating shop, after new years now....dangit!Don't feel bad, I have only been looking for a new gunsmith for a couple of months now...one is scheduled to come in on Tues. of next week, and then (assuming he seems to know what he is doing) I can finally finish my 1885 project and begin saving up for brass (@ $2/case) so I can start load development.
we have a few of the CDNN FN SPR actions, all short, rough finish, you would be well off to turn them, and they are the 'old' actions built in CT., not that they are bad or anything, but I don't want to use one.Yep, I'll pass too...they are pretty good actions, but not nearly as nice as the new models that I have seen, nor is it the size I want.
I'm not sure if I want another 'work' rifle, or a pretty, blue and wood.Polish blue, add walnut. Everybody likes a purdy rifle. ;)
December 25, 2009, 01:50 PM
Yeah....the poly coated '06, which has a long and involved story behind it...
I would like a blue and walnut.
What happened with the other one, simply put, it was speced. out a certain way, screwed up, sold, returned, speced. again, done, refused because of a death in the customers family and finally bought and changed again by yours truly....Has not had a round fired through it yet!
So, if I don't end up 'hauling the trash' out with another rifle, I'll start from scratch and do what I really want! Yeah, that's it...lol hehehehe
December 27, 2009, 02:43 AM
At the time of it's introduction the 350 rem mag was the most powerful cartridge available in a short action rifle that was factory loaded. Jeff Cooper considered it his go to gun and carried it in Africa as his "light" rifle. The 460 G&A Special was his heavy rifle. Ruger made a limited run of the 350 rem mag a few years ago. I work with a guy that got one. The model 600 remington series were short action rifles that were ahead of their time and came out I believe in 1965. They are highly sought after now days. Consequently they are also not cheap.
December 27, 2009, 03:14 AM
I have seen two or three Ruger M77MKII all weather stainless rifles in 350 Remington Mag in the past month at a couple of stores.
The one I bought two years ago has been working out just fine.
December 27, 2009, 05:17 AM
Yeah, I wish I would have gotten one when we had them....hind sight.....or is that hind end?
January 5, 2011, 04:49 PM
I bought a 600 Mohawk chambered in 350 Rem Mag in 1969 while I was home on leave between Army assignments. Several years later I took it on a hunt out West and used it from horseback to kill a pretty good sized bear with one shot from about 30 feet.
Unfortunately, the muzzle was about 8" from my mare's ear when I fired, and this provoked her into taking me on a wild ride down a slope covered with loose shale and dirt with me hanging onto the rifle with my left hand and the saddle horn with my right.
All the way to the bottom, I could hear the guide's laughter, never mind that I had saved him and his horse from a nasty surprise.
I subsequently discovered that the bullet had literally crushed the bear's spine and stopped her in her tracks: skid marks on her chin. Let me say that I have no regrets about shooting her in the back.
I've often thought about that minute since, and believe that the short barrel and compact length of the Model 600 were significant contributing factors to me being able to get the rifle out of the scabbard and into action quickly. Also, I'm sure the size and light weight helped me keep hold of it all the way down the hill.
To my eternal regret, I sold that little rifle a few years later when I was out of work for a couple of months. Now I own a couple of 673s in 350 Rem Mag, and I recently found a mint 600 in .308 Win. I reload, and find the Sierra 200 and 225 bullets sufficient to cover all my needs, but have also loaded a few 250 Noslers out of curiousity.
The 350 can be loaded down to make a positively delightful brush cartridge for use in heavy scrub like we have here in Tennessee.
January 5, 2011, 05:22 PM
As stated before I use a Ruger M77MKII Stainless All Weather to launch the 350 Remington Short Mag. (The original Short Mag as far as commercial success is concerned)
The advantage of that particular rifle is that they used a faster rifling twist.
Thus I am able to stabilize heavier bullets.
Plus I think the magazine and chamber are a touch longer. So I can load a little longer COL.
Out of hundreds of experimental loads.
My favorite loads so far, from my modified M77MKII Sourdough Survivor:
200gr Barnes Triple Shock: 60 grains H4895:Fed215M: 2.786 col
=2,800 fps and a 0.50 inch group.
225Gr Sierra SPBT: 62.0gr RL-15 : Fed215M:2.875 in COL
=2,820 fps and a 0.80 in group
225gr Nosler Accubond: 53.0 gr benchmark: CCI-250: 2.875 col
= 2,590 fps and a 0.70 inch group
250gr Hornady Round Nose: 56.0gr H4895: Fed 215M: 2.785 col
= 2,540 fps and a 0.75 inch group
280gr Swift A-frame: 56.0 grain RL-15: CCI-200: 2.800 col
= 2,410 fps and a 0.80 inch group
That's a nice all around rifle you got there, Float Pilot, and I'm sure it puts the smack on most everything.
The Rem carbines were good, but I really like a bit more barrel length like you have.
January 5, 2011, 08:51 PM
It has turned out to be a good all-around carry rifle. And properly loaded 358 bullets will do the job..
As I previously posted here and on a few other forums..
This M77MKII All Weather has a few extras besides my odd-ball paint scheme.
2. feed ramp improved
3. Ejector modified to allow longer COL
4. Magazine feed lips modified.
5. Front sight with perforated hood installed.
6. Rear Sight (back-up peep) from NEGC stored in stock compartment.
7. Second sling added to left side.
8. Storage compartment installed into buttstock
9. Cleaning gear stored in buttstock.
10. Action and barrel channel glass bedded.
11. Scope storage tube made for back-pack frame.
I am currently modifying a bubba'ed 1903-A3 to see if I can make one in 35 Whelen or 338-06....
January 6, 2011, 06:21 AM
The big plus is that the 350 RM fits in a short action. It also fires a 35 caliber bullet, which can be more effective than a 30, but doesn't show up in energy figures. Just another reason to take energy figures with a grain of salt.
If you enjoyed reading about "350 Remington Magnum (who needs it?)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!