Will people hate me if I do this to a somewhat rare Ruger No.1?
- Thread starter Crosshair
- Start date
- Status
Certainly a good bullet (BC of .300), especially for the 35 Remington. Two flies in the ointment for the 357 Maximum though, are that Hornady only makes that bullet in .358 (watch the load), and 200 grains restricts the starting velocity of the Maximum. That would have a detrimental effect on expansion. Ballisticstudies.com says it is best to keep these 35 caliber bullets above 1600 fps at impact (note quote below from ballisticstudies for the 35 Remington).
"The .35 Remington is the slowest in the .358 family. Factory loads tend to start slow, then lose velocity very quickly. Hand loads help boost power significantly and provide a major step up from the .357 Magnum. With full power hand loads we are no longer reliant on wide hollow point projectiles and can utilize both flat / round nose bullets to great effect along with some pointed bullet designs. However, the .35 Remington does shed velocity quickly. In plain terms, this cartridge does its best work inside 100 yards. Beyond 100 yards (1800fps) shot placement is critical, and beyond 150 yards (1600fps) bullets may altogether fail to expand depending on the individual bullet design and target resistance."
On a side note, I once shot a coyote in the chest frontally at 50 yards with a .357 158 XTP HP from a short barreled Win 1894 Trapper. It did NOT result in an instant kill. That was the last time I did that.
someguy2800
Member
I don't know what velocity your load would have been but the XTP's basically turn inside out at about 2000 fps or faster impact velocity when I have tested them in water jugs. That's the most serious detraction from the 357 maximum is that there just aren't that many bullets that actually work properly in a 357 max when really pushed to its potential. Hornady used to make a 180 grain spitzer SSP (single shot pistol) bullet that was ideal but its been out of production for many many years and they command a high premium now. The 180 grain XTP works great but you have to throttle it back to about 1900 fps impact velocity or it will over expand. Even leaving at 1900 though it will still fully expand at 200 yards, I've tested that myself. The 180 grain speer shoots great but is on the harder side for 357 max and 35 rem. I have never tested the 200 FTX bullet myself but I have shot the 200 grain hornady RN and my 13" contender would push it to 2000 fps, so I would expect that 2200 or maybe a bit faster could be done in a 20" barrel. I also have a 14" 35 rem pistol and I get faster velocities from 357 max than I do from standard pressure 35 rem. Assuming that 2200 could be done with the FTX in a rifle, that would put you at about 250 yards range to stay above 1600 fps. If you really intend to hunt at 250 or 300 yards there are much better tools than a 357 max, a 35 rem, or a 30/30. They are all fine cartridges with their pros and cons.
This doe did not offer any criticism about being shot with a 180 grain XTP at about 130 yards.
I mostly agree. I was shooting my standard pistol load out of my carbine. If I recall correctly, they were doing 1550 or so at the muzzle. Out of a 6 inch revolver, they do 1350. Very likely the bullet encountered too little resistance to upset. A 125 HP would have been better.
I don't believe you would get 2200 fps. First, you are shoving a heavier than standard for the caliber .358 bullet down a .357 barrel which increases pressure, and you would already be disregarding any published pressure standard for the round without having any way to measure it (I assume you don't have pressure equipment). Ballisticstudies also said a good 200 grain handload for the 35 Remington out of a Marlin 336 is 2100 fps.
Fudging some for safety, I ran a chart for 2000 fps at my altitude (4900 feet). That is a pretty good bullet and, at that velocity, gives you an honest 1652 fps at 200 yards with 9 inches of drop and 1211 foot lbs. Shave some off for the rainbow on a possibly moving target at an unknown range, and I figure that would be a pretty darned good 150-175 yard load. If you shortened the range up to 100, you would be above 1800 fps and would guarantee good bullet performance.
Then again, this is theoretical because you might not have the powder room to achieve that performance with a 200 grain bullet intruding into the powder space. It would be fun to experiment with it.
Last edited:
Dr T
Member
Back to the original point: The OPs question is not so much about the ballistics (and some of the new bullets in that diameter range solve the B.C. issue). It is about the overall SYSTEM: The rifle and the load.
That particular form factor of the No. 1 is a very nicely handling rifle. With that load and iron sights, it would make a very good walking-around rifle, particularly in heavy cover. No, I do not think it is something I would take with me to a deer stand where I would expect 200 yard shots. There are a lot of other rifles better suited for that. No, it is not a rifle that you would use to spray-and-pray: For that an AR or AK is better suited.
It is an ELEGANT single-shot rifle where you take your time and make sure the first shot counts.
That particular form factor of the No. 1 is a very nicely handling rifle. With that load and iron sights, it would make a very good walking-around rifle, particularly in heavy cover. No, I do not think it is something I would take with me to a deer stand where I would expect 200 yard shots. There are a lot of other rifles better suited for that. No, it is not a rifle that you would use to spray-and-pray: For that an AR or AK is better suited.
It is an ELEGANT single-shot rifle where you take your time and make sure the first shot counts.
CoalTrain49
Member
Obviously I haven't been keeping up on the 350 Legend so yeah, .355. Winchester bungled that one badly. I'm not a yuge straight wall rifle fan anyway. I spent a great deal of time with a bolt rifle 357 and after experimenting with lots of different loads, a new barrel and a custom stock I sold it. Additional velocity, weather it comes from Max or Legend isn't going to ever keep up with a bottleneck cartridge in the precision dept. Probably why there are so few rifles chambered for straight wall cartridges.
I don't rent reamers. I'm not a gunsmith and I'm not set up to do the work. I just buy the rifle that chambers the cartridge I want to begin with. If it doesn't do what I want after load development I sell it and move on. I just sold a .223 bolt rifle that should have been a little better in the precision dept.
Jim Watson
Member
There was a guy here whose whole shooting hobby was wrapped up in that. He would buy a rifle and tinker with loads until he had it shooting as accurately as it was going to, then trade it in on another one. No gunsmithing, just different loads.
someguy2800
Member
You have no experience with the cartridge, so no offence intended but what you think can or cannot be done is meaningless. I've been there and done that and have the souvenirs. Your trying to tell me the sky is orange when I've seen its blue.
someguy2800
Member
My 357 max shot sub moa. It is what it is, no more and no less. If you don't like it you don't have to have one.
Alrighty then, I guess that settles that.
CoalTrain49
Member
I'm not claiming that a 357 Max as a cartridge isn't capable of enough precision for a given application like hunting. The fact remains that bench rest shooters who compete don't flock to straight wall cartridges. The military moved away from those about 120 years ago. I load several several straight wall cartridges and I like those for revolvers and pistols.
I sure wish I had all of the sub MOA guns that get bragged about on this forum.
someguy2800
Member
I sure wish all mine were. Of the 50 or so rifles and specialty pistols I've owned only about 10 could claim the title. Of the 5 contenders I've had, the 357 max barrel was the most accurate. Was throated to my specs by match grade machine. The others have been a 30 herrett, a 357 herrett, a 223, and a 44 mag. The rest were all TC barrels so no big surprise that they didn't shoot as well as the MGM barrel did.
As discussed on multiple other threads, there is no real consensus about the actual meaning of MOA precision. Rounds fired? Number of groups fired? How many groups? What range? On and on and on we go.......
Some days, my gun is probably MOA capable, but I'm not.
someguy2800
Member
For me it means shooting off a benchrest at 100 yards just because that's how I do my load development. Take away the bench or extend the range out far enough and I'm no longer capable either.
lightman
Member
I guess I'm in the group of "your rifle your money". If your Smith doesn't skin the barrel up in the lathe you and others will never know its been rechambered. Kind of like shooting a 38 in a 357 chamber.
For the record, I would reveal this to any buyer if I ever sold it.
For the record, I would reveal this to any buyer if I ever sold it.
The unmarked .357 #1s are lesser in number than the CHP rollmarked.
Seen em around 1500 bucks last summer.
What they are now? I dunno.
Id buy one if no rollmark and have rechambered to .35 rem.
Life is short.
Do what ya want to have some fun.
.357 max is no slouch and an easier deal.
When IN first allowed PCR (pistol cartridge rifle) a guy actually did such a conversion and wrote a blog about it.
I did a quick search for the thread where somebody here refinished a #1 stock set but couldn't find it and this thread popped up.
My #1 buttstock on the #3 has a few dings on top of comb. Was wondering about cleaning that up, a partial refinish. Gun is gonna be a hunter so may leave as is and add more character through field use.
Am in process of trying to get a B model barrel in .223 to rebore and cut down to .35 rem. If headspace off, set it back, as I won't be using the quarter rib anyway (EGW base instead ). Yup, bbl taper wont match forend. Thats what acraglass is for LOL
Seen em around 1500 bucks last summer.
What they are now? I dunno.
Id buy one if no rollmark and have rechambered to .35 rem.
Life is short.
Do what ya want to have some fun.
.357 max is no slouch and an easier deal.
When IN first allowed PCR (pistol cartridge rifle) a guy actually did such a conversion and wrote a blog about it.
I did a quick search for the thread where somebody here refinished a #1 stock set but couldn't find it and this thread popped up.
My #1 buttstock on the #3 has a few dings on top of comb. Was wondering about cleaning that up, a partial refinish. Gun is gonna be a hunter so may leave as is and add more character through field use.
Am in process of trying to get a B model barrel in .223 to rebore and cut down to .35 rem. If headspace off, set it back, as I won't be using the quarter rib anyway (EGW base instead ). Yup, bbl taper wont match forend. Thats what acraglass is for LOL
gunmechanic
Member
I would not de /value a gun in an odd caliber like that .Buy something cheep to tinker with!Sell it to a no1 collector before doing that pleas.
Bcwitt
Member
I doubt very much anyone would be able to tell. That would not devalue or change it in anyway.
Considering the fact that you can fire 357 magnum and 38 special in a 357 Maximum I don't see why not. On the other hand 357 Maximum ammo is not easy to find and it's pricey, at least at present. I've always thought of it as more of a handloader's cartridge. On the other-other hand, if you're planning on handloading and can find the components, again I say, I don't see why not.
As for me, I wouldn't do it, but that's just me. IMO 357 Magnum is plenty zippy enough from a long barrel.
As for me, I wouldn't do it, but that's just me. IMO 357 Magnum is plenty zippy enough from a long barrel.
tark
Member
I am one of those " purists." I have never peed and moaned about someone "sporterizing" an old milsurp in less than pristine condition. I have never "verbally abused " anyone who has done this. If it's old and beat up I could care less about what you do with it.
However, if it is a high conditioned, pristine example... Leave it alone. Sell it to someone who appreciates it and go buy a sporting rifle that suits your needs. And save yourself some money. "Sporterizing" an old milsurp almost always cost more than the finished product is worth.
redneck2
Member
Today I believe that is totally true. I’m 71 and remember barrels of milsurps in Army/Navy surplus stores. At that time it was significantly cheaper to convert a milsurp. Today I can buy a new shorter rifle for half what a semi decent milsurp goes for
- Status
Similar threads
