reloading the 350 rem mag
I just picked up a new Ruger 77 mk2 in a 350 Rem. Mag,and am going to start working up some loads for it. I am wondering about the availability of brass. The only brand I have found is Remington. Not that there is anything wrong with rem.,but was wondering if anyone else makes it.
Also,I am thinking about the case capacity. If I reform,any recommendations as to which brand has a greater internal cap. verses another?
Any info or advice will be much appreciated!!
One last thing. The ser.# on this supposed new Ruger has a 789 prefix. Making it a 2003 year of production. So if I understand things correctly,this rifle was warehoused for roughly 2 years! What's up with that?
Also,I am thinking about the case capacity. If I reform,any recommendations as to which brand has a greater internal cap. verses another?
Any info or advice will be much appreciated!!
One last thing. The ser.# on this supposed new Ruger has a 789 prefix. Making it a 2003 year of production. So if I understand things correctly,this rifle was warehoused for roughly 2 years! What's up with that?
0
-
For a rifle in that caliber to be warehoused for 2 years is not unusual.Remington made a small run of BDL's in 350 in 1969.It took 7 years to sell that original run of about 1500 rifles.A nice cartridge,but not nearly as popular as the common calibers.With Remington now chambering the Guide rifle in that cal.,there will be plenty of ammo and brass available for a while. 0 -
The 350 is not a very good cal to reload for, has a short neck and a long bullet, the bullet has to go down in the case to far, The recoil is very noticable. I think the old 35 whelon is a much better round. my 2 cents worth.[:0] 0 -
IMHO, be grateful Remington still offers their brass. I don't believe any of the major ammunition companies or any of the major component manufactuers will offer this brass since Remington still provides it. Case capacity shouldn't be a concern as a result. You can always pay to have a custom outfit make brass for you.
The 350 Remington was the fore-runner of the modern short magnums we see today and was originally offered in the controversial Model 600. Here is an interesting article about reloading for the 350.
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/reloads/magnum_1215/
Regards,
Heavyiron[8D]
"If I don't see you nomore on this world, I'll meet you on the next one, and don't be late!" - Jimi Hendrix0 -
Heavyiron,
Why was the 600 controversial?
I have a 660 in 350 mag and am wondering.
thanks
Seafarer
NHSWHunter/Seafarer
NRA, NRA-ILA
S&W C. A.
NHRA
GONH
SASS 60382
SCI0 -
Hi NHSWHunter,
The Remington Model 600 was controversial because it was way ahead of its time. For one thing the rifle was truely compact measuring only 37.25 inches from end to end. These rifles weighed in between 5.5 to 6.5 pounds. Additionally and probably most important, they were chambered for two newly designed rounds - the 6.5 and 350 Remington Magnum.
What was so unique about these two rounds (these rifles were also chambered in 222, 223, 243, 6mm, 308, and 35 Remington) was they were made short and fat to fit a potent cartridge into a short action carbine, viola, the Model 600. These two cartridges were designed specifically for the Model 600s short action and is what this rifle was all about. The Model 600 in 350 was advertised by Remington as "the most powerful package, pound for pound, of any carbine on the market today." That was in 1965 long before any of the short magnums, ultra short magnums, and super short magnums were ever concieved. Remington discontinued the Model 600 in 1968.
As you might imagine, the 350 in this light and short of rifle was not for the recoil timid and many sportsmen did not care for this trait. I have shot a Model 660 in 308 which is a decendent of the 600 and it is nasty and powerful and one of the most vicious venom spitting rifles I have witnessed. Perhaps even worse than several of the heavier caliber rifles I have fired.
Both the 350 and 6.5 Remington magnums died in a few short years for various reasons. The 600 was unconventional looking for its time and this is thought to have contributed to its demise. Another reason for their death is thought to be the unpopularity of the .35 and 6mm calibers by Americans. For some reason, these calibers have never been very popular in the US especially when considering the 358 Winchester and the 264 Winchester.
Also the shooting public was not ready for a short magnum in the mid to late 60s. If Remington had introduced these cartridges and rifle today there is a good chance that they would be a huge marketing success with its trend toward lightweight rifles and short magnums calibers. Remington jumped the gun (no pun intended) and misjudged the market by about 40 years.
This is the reason I said the Model 600 was controversial. The Model 600 with the 350 and 6.5 mm magnums attracted a cult-like following but it wasn't enough keep the rifle or the 350/6.5 magnums alive. Personally, I love the looks of these great rifles and greatly respect the ratio of power to its size. You really have to see one of these rifles touched off in a large caliber to appreciate it. I am on the lookout for a good used one and someday I will find the Model 600 I am looking for.
The Model 600s that were produced in 223 are the real collectors items because so few were made. However, the 223 rifles are not good shooters because the twist rate of the rifling was wrong. This really didn't contribute to the 600s demise though because the 223s are so rare, probably the few people who have them will ever shoot them due to their value.
Regards,
Heavyiron[8D]
"If I don't see you nomore on this world, I'll meet you on the next one, and don't be late!" - Jimi Hendrix0 -
Thank you to everyone on the info! I have tried to do all my homework before getting this rifle,and am aware of all that has been said on the amount of recoil and limitations on case capacity.
I already have a few rifles in larger calibers and I am not very concerned with recoil,my freinds think I am not right in the head because of what I shoot!!
I just had an empty spot in the safe and no 350!(what a shame having an empty spot eh?).
I was just wondering about different brands of brass. For example,if I reform a 338 case,if there is a particular brand that may have a grain or two advantage over another?
Thanks again for all the responses!![:)]0 -
One more thought.
After all the info I have read on the 350,I believe it is somewhat underrated for it's intended purpose,and recieved a bad rap being introduced originally in such a light rifle.
That's my 2 pennies worth[:)]0 -
I have always found that Winchester brass was the lightest(more powder capacity) Federal being in the middle and Remington being the heaviest(less powder capacity).Trimming and necking down 338 or 458 brass may also require you too turn the inside of the brass as it will be thicker in that part of the brass.
AlleninAlaska
Delta Firearms & Supplies
http://www.galleryofguns.com
aglore@gci.net0 -
Thanks aglore!
I'll look into it.0 -
The 350 RM is a joy to reload.
It is not very finicky and today a good number of available bullet weights nad styles are available to fit the game you are after.
Remington's brass is well-suited and I've used it in different batches for going on 7 years.
The case capacity comments are unwarranted if you understand the limitations of the 350. Yes the 250 grainer does intrude into the powder column, but it was designed as such.
It was designed to shoot a 250 grain bullet at velocities of 2400fps.
It is mighty handy fodder for any big-game animal including the big bears out to 250 yards. Moose, deer and black bear can stretch that yardage another 50.
Remington, in it's latest effort, chose the 225 grainer to "up the velocity". It is a shame that the current trend is of blistering velocities.
I've used 250 Hawk and Northfork with great accuracy and success(from an 18.5 inch barreled M600).0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments