Help Develop a New Cartridge: The .358 Ocelot
- Thread starter CmdrSlander
- Start date
- Status
Okay, I forgot that this was meant for boar hunting, but it still might be a nice cartridge to have in a F.A.L. or C.E.T.M.E. or even that funny French Gas-Auto that they used before they adopted the F.A.M.A.S. "bugle". My experience with boar-hunting inclines me to believe that a medium weight (200 + 20 grains well-constructed mid-caliber projectile launched at no less than 2200 f/s (2400 f/s would probably be better, but 2700 is probably too much) from an unobtrusive carbine disposed of one or more instantly available follow-up shots might be made-to-order for the pesky swine.
Depending on the ballistics obtained, it might make for a dandy "S.H.T.F." gun for the northwestern U.S. And by "S.H.T.F." I mean against overly territorial FOUR-legged adversaries. We already have many very nice solutions for the two-legged ones, though this would surely work for those, also.
Depending on the ballistics obtained, it might make for a dandy "S.H.T.F." gun for the northwestern U.S. And by "S.H.T.F." I mean against overly territorial FOUR-legged adversaries. We already have many very nice solutions for the two-legged ones, though this would surely work for those, also.
Last edited:
armarsh
Member
At 2.58 it is about .25 too long for AR-15's.
If a 30RAR is necked up to .35, with a 200 gr bullet you get something like this:
I bet that would work very nicely.
armarsh
Member
On the other hand, 7.62x39 bolt faces are much easier to work with. Here is what a 35 PPC might look like:
funny - it does resemble a 300 BLK scaled up.
funny - it does resemble a 300 BLK scaled up.
35 Whelen
Member
Yep, you essentially have recreated the 35 Remington. Problem is you're going to be limited to bullets for that cartridge as those intended for .358" pistol cartridges won't be stout enough and those intended for other such as the 358 Win., 35 Whelen, etc. will be too stout.
Sounds like fun though!
35W
Sounds like fun though!
35W
Okay, WHY are we limiting case length to 39mm? The Original Ar-15 cartridge ran 45mm in length. I'm not sure what the max C.O.L. is, that can be run through one, but I'll wager that it'll be very close to the same, whether the developed cartridge launches a .22 or .35 caliber projectile. Tossing away available cartridge length surrenders case capacity for no real gain. Case capacity translates to higher velocity/lower pressure, which is something we should not give up too willingly.
Yes, it IS true that it would be easier to adapt existing species of cartridge to the task, but if the mission is to "create NEW", then LET US "create NEW". To base the firearm on the "mighty MATTEL" strain of rifles already concedes more to convenience than one might consider prudent.
Yes, it IS true that it would be easier to adapt existing species of cartridge to the task, but if the mission is to "create NEW", then LET US "create NEW". To base the firearm on the "mighty MATTEL" strain of rifles already concedes more to convenience than one might consider prudent.
GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,151
Actually, the max oal for the .35Rem from a Marlin Mod 336 is 2.550".
And, like .35Whelen stated, the pistol bullets are too soft, and the .35Rifle bullets too hard, except those intended for the .35Rem.
But this oal is like you said, about a 1/4" too long for the AR15 platform.
I don't think your ocelot will hunt..... but plink, perhaps
I would use the AR10 platform and chamber for the .358 and call it done, if you're wanting a .35 cal AR....
And, like .35Whelen stated, the pistol bullets are too soft, and the .35Rifle bullets too hard, except those intended for the .35Rem.
But this oal is like you said, about a 1/4" too long for the AR15 platform.
I don't think your ocelot will hunt..... but plink, perhaps
I would use the AR10 platform and chamber for the .358 and call it done, if you're wanting a .35 cal AR....
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
One reason would have to do with the shape of bullets. The ogive of a .308" or .358" bullet would taper a lot farther back, longitudinally, before it reaches the full-diameter "driving band" section of the bullet than does a 5.56/.223". So in order to keep the overall length of the cartridge short enough to feed in an AR-15, you'd have to stuff that .358" bullet way down into a case that was 45mm long. The neck of the case has to be in the right position, lenght-wise, to grip the fat part of the bullet.
That may not quite be as short as 39mm, but it sure isn't 45mm.
Now you can get away from this problem -- or at least help it a little -- by specifying that this cartridge must use very stumpy bullets shaped more like handgun hollow-points or SWCs, but few rifle bullets really look like that anymore. Even .35 Rem. bullets for use in lever-actions tend to have a fairly long tapered nose in front of the driving band.
jerkface11
Member
If you base it on .30RAR you'll be close to 358win velocities so the tougher bullets will work. Same way if you base it on a WSSM. Though that's been done already.
CmdrSlander
Member
So many excellent responses! Good work gentlemen.
boltgunner93
Member
So this is a more technical question about wildcatting a cartridge. From what I've read looking at the cartridges mentioned in this thread, the .30Remington AR is a necked down .450 Bushmaster, which is a necked up .284 Winchester. For reforming purposes, wouldn't necking down be a better option since necking up thins the brass? How about necking down the .450 bushmaster to .358? Would the necks then need to be turned? As for working up the powder charge could you do that by plotting the .30RAR loads and .450 bushmaster loads on a graph and finding a curve that runs about 35% of the difference between them?
- Status
