The .350 magnum was my first "powerful" rifle. The slim M-700 stock from Remington in the early '70s lasted less than a box of handloads, before it split from fore-end through the tang and deep into the pistol grip. The M-600 with its laminated stock was the rifle I wanted, but was recently discontinued, and the supply of new ones had dried up. The TV screen Redfield scope of the day defied it's seal, and would fog up at it's earliest convenience, but that's another story, which doesn't reflect on the rifle or cartridge. Accuracy was good, and in those pre-chronograph days, we just believed what the loading manuals told us, but who knows. It kicked pretty good, so it must of been as advertised, right? The .350 is the round that lead me to dislike short cartridges. Any reasonable load with extruded powder was a compressed load, and compressed loads are a nuisance to load and less consistent in my opinion than loads that use 90-95% of the available powder capacity. For that reason I consider the .35 Whelen the better cartridge although it is considered a ballistic twin. If you do build a .350 magnum, get the most out of the short powder column by loading it with ball powder with a medium burning rate, Winchester 748 would be my first choice, rather than with extruded. The short action rifles chambered for the .350 often had too short a magazine, and too short a throat to seat bullets long, and precluded the use of bullets heavier than 250 grs, although I don't know if that was true of the Ruger 77. Of course if a big power .35 is the name of the game, a .358 Norma is the real answer.
I have a SA to build on and am looking to build a SA thumper and thought this would be a good choice. But if I can't find brass I guess it's not a very good choice 
