.350 Remington mag - little powerhouse

Status
Not open for further replies.
MachIVshooter

MachIVshooter

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
17,935
Location
Elbert County, CO
So I finally got a chance to chrono my 225 gr. Accubond loads today. Wasn't sure how well they'd work out, since the under-max charge of 57.5 grains ended up being compressed a bit under the loooooong Accubond bullets to get a 2.830" OAL that fits in my 673's magazine. The results were good, though: No flattening or cratering of primers, no sticky extraction. Recoil was stout, but that's to be expected moving the 225 grainers at 2,625 FPS average!

I'm not really big on the short action craze, but I have to admit, this one definitely does live up to the reputation. The .35 Whelen can barely muster such velocity with 3-5 grains more powder and 2 extra inches of barrel. And with the decent BC (.421) of the Accubond, it still retains some 1,700 ft/lbs at 500 yards and is only 50" low with a 200 yard zero.

This is going to be my pig gun, topped with an ATN Mk 390 Paladin. I think the compact 673 rifle in this chambering will be a dandy for anchoring even the biggest hogs right where they stand!
 
Those are some decent numbers out of the short barrel, and should put the smack down on any hog. It's a very efficient cartridge and under appreciated, and the Accubond is one of the best choices for everything, if it shoots well for you.


NCsmitty
 
I never did understand why the cartridge wasn't more popular. I've launched a few 200 gr and 250 gr slugs out of a 700 Classic. I'd call it a darn fine elk gun at typical distances in this area.
 
It is a neat cartridge that never did catch on. Why? I think because of the Star Trek looking Model 600's in which they were chambered. They were light, which meant ferocious recoil and their barrels were short (18 1/2"), which meant ho-hum velocities and lots of muzzle blast.
Yes, you can use it in a longer barrel, but still there's no advantage over the Whelen and you have the disadvantage, even if it's only psychological, of only three shells in a magazine.
After I built my Whelen I did lots of load testing and did quite a lot in my Dad's 700 Classic. They have 24" and 22" barrels respectively. Both of these rifles will do 2700 with most any 225 gr. bullet, but the Classic does so more easily due to its long magazine and long throat which equates to more powder space.
The 350 RM makes me wonder why the 358 Norma didn't catch on. I have one of these too and it's all but equal to the 375 H&H easily doing 3000 fps with a 225 gr. Barnes TSX and 2700+ with a 250 gr. Partition.
All that aside, I'm glad you like your 350 RM. It's a great cartridge that ought to do anything a fella could ask of it!


35W
 
Last edited:
Good points. Those rifles are "unique." Personally, I wouldn't want one. Now the 700 Classic is a different animal. If they'd have introduced the cartridge in a more typical rifle, acceptance may have been better. Did anybody other than Remington chamber the round?
 
Krogen said:
Good points. Those rifles are "unique." Personally, I wouldn't want one. Now the 700 Classic is a different animal. If they'd have introduced the cartridge in a more typical rifle, acceptance may have been better. Did anybody other than Remington chamber the round?
Click to expand...
Ruger chambered it in their 77 for a time.

35W
 
Those rifles are "unique."
Click to expand...

It's basically a model 7 with a slightly chunky stock and a vent rib. I always liked the looks of the red/blonde laminate.

I'd personally prefer it be a tad lighter (it's 7.5 lbs), but I understand why it's not. The original 600's were just 6.5 lbs, and earned a reputation for ferocious recoil with the .350 mag. Even in the 673, it has authority, but it's nowhere near my 700 BDL CD 8mm Rem Mag or, much worse, my 7.5 lb 700 BDL SS .375 Ultra Mag. Nonetheless, I did have to watch my eye relief with the ATN NVRS; There's less than an inch of travel in the accordian rubber eyepiece.

It's unlikely that I'll ever use it for elk, since the 8 mag is considerably more capable at range and no heavier a rifle, and I have a Marlin 1895 SS if I wanted a close-in thumper for thick timber. But I never say never, and I'd have every confidence in it taking an elk or moose at any reasonable range.

It may be overkill for piggies, but my AR-10 is an A2, so the NVRS sits way too high. This gave me a great excuse to trade my Tantal in on a rifle I'd wanted for some time.
 
I am sure figure this out if given a little time///

Would a 284 Winchester necked up to 35 cal preform about the same as a 350 R.M.?
 
I've been shooting the .350 in a 20" barreled Model 7 for years. I had it built with a Mannlicher forearm to give it a little extra muzzle weight, though I don't know if it actually makes any difference. I like it.

I shoot a lot of 250 grain bullets. The recoil is stout, but not painful.

350.jpg
 
That's a beautiful rifle, Kodiak. Always liked FL stocks, plan to buid one myself some day, perhaps making a sporter out of my M95 7x57.

Would a 284 Winchester necked up to 35 cal preform about the same as a 350 R.M.?
Click to expand...

It'd be pretty close. Couple grains less case capacity, but I imagine it'd be within 100 FPS or so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top