.450 Marlin conversion to .350 Rem Mag?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pigoutultra

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
233
Location
Near Fort Dix, NJ
I was thinking about how it would be awesome for a lever-action gun to be chambered for a .45-70 necked down to .35 caliber, but since all of those are wildcats it would be difficult to get ammo. Then it dawned on me that the .350 Remington Magnum is almost like that. It has the same characteristics of a .45-70 necked down to .35 only it is closer to a .450 Marlin necked down. Since it has the same case head dimensions as the .450 Marlin, it must be easy to covert to it. The only issue I can think of is OAL, but if it is possible to rechamber a .45-70 to .450 Alaskan which is based on the .348 Winchester, having a OAL greater than the .350 Remington Magnum, then there shouldn't be a problem. Any thoughts?
 
You would have to becareful of of action strength the pressures are VERY different.
 
Ain't gonna work. Industry standard pressure for the .350 is 53,000CUP and that's way more than any Marlin action can handle. No reputable gunsmith would tackle the job if it's not strong enough for factory ammo. Closest you'll get is the fatbody Winchester 94 .356 or .375 or as suggested, the new .338Marlin. Although a late model Winchester 1895 .270 or .30-06 could be rebarrelled to .35Whelen. Which will probably set you back around $1500-$2000 for rifle and conversion.
 
You could get a Browning BLR in .358 Win or .325 WSM... or you could convert one in .30-06 to .35 Whelen.

Then again... a .350 Rem Mag on a BLR might be doable... rechamber a .358 Win... change the bolt... maybe change the magazine to a .450 Marlin magazine... or maybe start with a .450 and rebarrel? Not a gunsmith, you might ask the guys at Z-hat.

Recoil from a .350 Rem Mag in a BLR lightweight is going to be, um, pretty brutal I would guess.

Another option would be to take a .325 WSM, rebarrel and neck it up to .358... search .35 Sambar or .35/.300 WSM.
 
I have never been interested in the BLR, not never not no how. I was thinking about a Marlin action. If the action can be worked to handle the OAL of the cartridge there shouldn't be any problems other than pressure of course. Man, I wish they really made a lever-action--with a tube mag that is--that could handle pressure up to 55k psi.
 
The .338 marlin comes pretty damn close to the .350. You COULD if you really wanted a .35 neck that case up and stick to pressure limits required for that cartridge and action 43K ish?
 
Although a late model Winchester 1895 .270 or .30-06 could be rebarrelled to .35Whelen. Which will probably set you back around $1500-$2000 for rifle and conversion.
Click to expand...
IMO that is the best option, but I believe your price is a ways off unless I just happened to come across a smokin' deal (FWIW I paid $800.00 OTD). The conversion should cost an additional $400.00.

:)
 
That was a good deal. I paid $975 for my .405 and that was six years ago. It was an off-the-cuff estimate. Depends on whether or not you want a rebore or a rebarrel. Rebores always require a third party shop, there are few that do that kind of work so it usually takes longer. New barrels are quicker but cost more. No reason to spend that much coin on a rifle without addressing the trigger so I also always assume more work would be done like trigger and action work. The 1895 also benefits from a forend hanger and not all of them have been D&T'd for 1886 pattern receiver sights. I don't think it's necessary but some folks would also opt for a Pachmayr Decelerator recoil pad or an equivalent. A barrel band swivel stud is also a good idea. New rifles are around $900.

Here's one for $819. It's D&T'd for receiver sights but the wood is really plain.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=227400044
 
Last edited:
I was just speaking in general. I never looked into it because I just bought mine in the perfect chambering to begin with. ;)

Although I did talk to Mic McPherson about doing the forend hanger, barrel band, receiver sight (mine's not D&T'd) and an action job. I would query Nonneman, Dave Clay and Cosby Custom Guns to start.
 
Z-hat is the only one I know of for sure that does that kind of work on 1895's. He would probably be my first choice and his Hawk wildcats look to be very good. I guess he solved the headspace issues with the .400Whelen for his .411Hawk. David Clements also works on leverguns but he's busier than a one-legged cat these days doing revolver work.
 
That is what I have discovered as well. His Hawk cartridges do look pretty good, but I think the .35Whelen is the "butter round" for this particular rifle. Whatever I decide on will definately be a 9mm as I plan to use Trail-Boss + pistol bullets for cheap plinking...and save the heavy loads for big game. Furthermore, it makes for a great cartridge to span the gap between my .30-06Spd. and .375H&H.

:)
 
I'm actually kinda surprised they haven't already built one. I mean really, it was a longshot to resurrect the completely dead .405. Which they did with rebarrelled .270's that didn't sell. Mine is of this first run and is serial number 12. They took almost as much of a chance with the .30-40Krag. Why not introduce one in .35Whelen in the spirit of the old 35WCF??? At least the Whelen is fairly common and gives up very little if anything to the less common .350. IMHO, really a better all around cartridge for north american game and a better fit for the rifle than the `06. Hell, I'd buy one!
 
Who knows, it is certainly one of the better fits (same for the .338-06A-Square) for this particular rifle...the .270Win. (whether you like the cartridge or not) being a very poor choice. FWIW, I very nearly bought a .30-40Krag but came across a fair deal on the '06 first. Just seems to me that the rifle was made for larger species like am. buff./bison, grizzly, caribou, elk, and the larger species of deer...none of which makes me really want a .270Win. (with the exception of deer, et cetera), particularly if I can't easily scope the rifle. While the .405WCF isn't my absolute favorite cartridge (mostly because I like the .45-70Govt. a bit better) it is, without a doubt, a better choice than the others.

:)
 
I like the .270 but I agree 100%. Totally wrong choice for the rifle. The .30cal. should've been the smallest bore cartridge offered and a .338/06 would be a good one too. I'd also like to see it in .35Whelen and some sort of .375. The .405 will probably remain my favorite, as it is astonishingly accurate and hits like a sledgehammer but shoots a bit flatter than the .45/70. Loaded with 400gr bullets, its sectional density is higher than a 500gr .45/70 and they run 400-500fps faster, equalling the classic .450/.400. The Hornady 300gr bullets act like varmint bombs though, even on small deer. So all I use are Woodleighs. Have yet to try the North Forks.
 
It would be nice if they brought that gun back into full production. Maybe it would be a good idea to rechamber and rebarrel one into 9.3x62 so it would truly be a african level lever gun.
 
It would be nice if they brought that gun back into full production. Maybe it would be a good idea to rechamber and rebarrel one into 9.3x62 so it would truly be a african level lever gun.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, but I think the 9.3x64mmBrenneke would be the chambering I would choose...on the heels of the venerable .375H&H with a mite bit less bullet and energy (but fitting in a standard length action, like the Win. M-95). I even pondered having mine chambered for it, but ultimately decided that I didn't need (as if that had anything to do with most of my purchases) a 9.3x64mmBrenneke and a .375H&H, and that the work necessary would be too extensive/costly (I don't know for certain, but it may not fit in the magazine either).

:)
 
I don't know for certain, but it may not fit in the magazine either
Click to expand...

As soon as I started reading your post, I figured it would be either extremely expensive to do or just plain impossible as the 1895 would need a brand new design bolt for that cartridge and I don't think anyone is going to be up to the job for peanuts.
 
Bingo...Dumbo the elephant declined the job...and everyone else either thought I was nuts or said it could be done for about double the value of the rifle.

A new rifle, with some crazy nut (like myself) designing it expressly for such a cartridge is about the only reasonable hope for such a radical, but well-suited, chambering. Why not put an out-of-place big-bore cartridge adapted for a repeater in an out-of-place lever rifle adapted for spitzers? :uhoh: Am I alone (feel free to say yes..I'm used to it) in thinking that the 9.3x64mm is one of the most versatile, well designed cartridges in existence?

:)
 
I could certainly dig on a 9.3mm, whichever is the biggest we can fit in the action. I think the 9.3x62 would fit easily.
 
I think the 9.3x62 would fit easily.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, the 9.3x62mmMauser should fit nicely...certainly an easier task than cramming the x64mm in there, with it's larger base. Now all we have to do is convince Winchester. :D
 
Dunno, length might be the issue with the 9.3x64. Either way is fine with me, as long as they don't do something silly like the 7.62x54R in memory of the Russian contract. ;)

What kind of pressures are they running in the .375 and .416 Ruger cartridges?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
The Misunderstood .450 Marlin
Replies
3
Views
524
rbernie
rbernie
C
  • Locked
The Misunderstood .450 Marlin
2
Replies
31
Views
13K
Rob96
R
W
  • Locked
Fantasy 336 question
Replies
13
Views
828
Hutch
H
Coltdriver
  • Locked
Encore with .450 Marlin Barrel
Replies
6
Views
1K
seeker_two
S
Eb1
  • Locked
Marlin 450
Replies
2
Views
371
NCsmitty
N
Back
Top