350 Remington Magnum (who needs it?)

[jimbo]

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...

 

[Badger Arms]

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.

 

[Tony Williams]

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 and discussion
forum

 

[russlate]

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.

 

[jimbo]

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.

 

[jimbo]

russlate,

Thanks for telling me it fits in a short action rifle. Maybe that is the attraction?

 

[Badger Arms]

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.

 

[gralewaj]

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

 

[rangerruck]

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.

 

[MJR007]

I don't like it much too. I am going with the 358wssm in a Ar15 upper instead.......

 

[Float Pilot]

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.

 

[jbech123]

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]

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.

 

[DR505]

This is a really old thread...

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.

 

[Wanta B]

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.

 

[Arkel23]

I am going with the 358wssm

Does that even exist?

 

[ArmedBear]

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.

 

[Maverick223]

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.

 

[ArmedBear]

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. 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?

 

[Wanta B]

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... ".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.

 

[xXxplosive]

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.

 

[ArmedBear]

".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.

 

[Wanta B]

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.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Take notice of the barrel length...the 350 rem mag does quite well even out of short barrels....something the others cannot do.

 

[Wanta B]

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.