350 rem mag?

Wrong Way

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
198   0   0
I got into the whole 35W vs .338 thread...and am wondering how the 350 rem stacks up. I am seriously considering having a smaller moose rig built (probably either a ruger 77C or a rem 7 or 700, 18-20" tube, stainless/laminate) to replace my 700 LSS in 300RUM, and was pretty much set on 325WSM...but now that I'm thinking about the 350..........?
 
well it basically duplicates what a Whelen can do, but does it in a short action rifle. If you handload, and want something different,

Picture%2013.png


do it
 
Basically the 350 rem mag was first introduced in the model 600 with a barrel length similar to what you are talking about. It was a let down, as the velocities with that barrel were below the 35 Whelen. If you really like a particular rifle then go for it, as I'm sure the moose can't tell the difference. In terms of power however you're looking at this in terms of the three cartridges you mention (with 20" barrels).

#1 - 338 Win Mag
#2 - 35 Whelen
#3 - 350 Rem Mag.

The only benefit of the 350 over the 35 is the shorter action. But the .338 has that too...
 
After building and shooting a few of each I find the 350 can reach velocities in a 22" barrel that require a 24" in the Whelen. I had a nearly new Ruger M77 last year that chronyed over 2700 with a 250 in a 22" barrel with a near max load of Rel15. My Whelen (that's currently for sale on the EE, PM 280_Ackley) had a 24" barrel and pushed a 225 to a bit over 2700 with 60 grs of Rel15,..a max load in the Barnes manual.
Build the 350..all you need is a 700 or a 7 factory chambered for one of the short mags and it's a simple rebarrel....for ease of handling I prefer a short action 22" rifle as compared to a long action 24" rifle....especially when they will do the same thing.
 
Basically the 350 rem mag was first introduced in the model 600 with a barrel length similar to what you are talking about. It was a let down, as the velocities with that barrel were below the 35 Whelen. If you really like a particular rifle then go for it, as I'm sure the moose can't tell the difference. In terms of power however you're looking at this in terms of the three cartridges you mention (with 20" barrels).

#1 - 338 Win Mag
#2 - 35 Whelen
#3 - 350 Rem Mag.

The only benefit of the 350 over the 35 is the shorter action. But the .338 has that too...

"the .350 Remington Magnum will duplicate the performance
of the .35 Whelen in an 18-inch barrel and will easily exceed it when fired in barrels of equal length
."

The above quote is from the "Accurate Reloading Guide #2 (Revised Edition)," at page 316.

Can you please tell me how you came to understand that the 350 offered inferior performance to the Whelen? Thanks

Big
 
Wrong Way,

I've used a 350 Mag on Moose and Elk a fair bit. Although I've never had a bang flop (except on deer), I've never had to follow either critter more than a few steps from where it was hit to find it piled up.

A lot of junk has been written about the 350, some of which is regurgitated in one post above. The 350 has just a slight bit more powder capacity than the Whelen, so it will beat it by a small margin in direct comparison. The trouble with the whole Whelen/350 thing began when the boys started looking at loading manuals. The Whelen data was usually on a 22 or 24 inch BBL, while the 350 was usually on an 18 1/2. If you've got any old manuals, check it out.

As you likely know, the 338 requires a long action and .............

You can discount the stuff (which always comes up in a short mag discussion) about the short 2.8" Remington mag box limiting the 350 by restricting COAL. To seat a 250 gr to 2.8" restricts the 350 by about 4% of it's total powder capacity, which keep in mind is already a bit above the Whelen to begin with. Since there is roughly a one to four ratio of powder increase to velocity gain, restricting the powder by 4% equals a 1% loss of velocity. With a 250 gr going at 2600 fps, that boils down to 26 fps. So, definitely build on a short action, as you originally mentioned, if you go 350.

If you're building custom, I would recommend you consider 1-14 or 1-12 twist. The factory Remingtons were built on a 1-16 twist, which tops out at about a 250 gr spitzer. There are a few good bullets made heavier than 250 and it would be nice to be able to try them in your rifle.

The 350 mag works wonderfully with 250 gr bullets, of which there are several good choices. If your shots are going to be under 200 yds, I'd use the Hornady 250 Round Nose. Always accurate, shorter slug helps seating depth and stabilizes better, and it mushrooms perfectly at 2600 fps muzzle velocity. If you want something more aerodynamic, the 250 gr Speer Spitzer is a great bullet also. I use both. My preference is the Hornady RN, as the Speer seems just a bit too hard for proper mushroom at 2600 fps, based on the animals I've shot so far. If you like premium bullets, the Nosler Partition in 225 or 250 and especially the Barnes Triple Shock in 225 should be considered. If you want a 200 gr load for deer and what not, the Remington bulk 200 gr PSP is quite hard and shoots well.

For powder, so far I like IMR 4320 and Win 748. Lots of folks who know like R15 in the 350.

For my money, I'd build on a stainless M 700 (more aftermarket choices, one more scope base screw hole), 20 or 21 inch barrel 1-14 twist, fibreglass stock at a total weight of 6 to 7 pounds, depending on your recoil preferences. :p
 
Last edited:
I've had my eye on a Remington Model Seven CDL in 350 Rem Mag for quite some time. Handsome package, 20 inch bbl and nice iron sights.
 
EllwoodEpps has a bunch of Ruger77s in 350ReMag for $679 new I believe. Very good price. A GREAT thumper with short and longer range clout when properly loaded.

As mentioned above you almost must handload these for best performance. Last week I grabbed my little M600 with a fixed 2.5 Leup and fired 3 fairly quick shots at a 200 yard target. I got a nice triangle group about 2.5" big centred about 1.5" below bull centre. Works for me. See load used in comparison chart below.

Recoil can be stout in a lighter package but no issues for me or most seasoned shooters who want to master magnum rifles. Not as bad as many claim I think. However I just did some recoil comparisons of three ready to hunt combos - my little M600/350RemMag (which weighs in at 7.5 lbs) with Ruger77s - in 350WSM and 30-06.

The 350Rem Mag Recoil Compared

Load One 30-06 - Free recoil energy (ft/lbs) 19.15
-180gr/55gr IMR4350/2700MV
Bullet weight in grains 180
Velocity in fps 2700
Powder charge in grains 55
Weight of firearm in lbs 8.25 (RugerM77/Leupold1.5x5)
----
Load Two 350WSM - Free recoil energy (ft/lbs) 34.86
- 250gr/66.3gr IMR 4895/2750MV
Bullet weight in grains 250
Velocity in fps 2750
Powder charge in grains 63.3
Weight of firearm in lbs 8.25 (RugerM77/Leupold1.5x5)
----
Load Three 350 Rem Mag - Free recoil energy (ft/lbs) 31.61

- 250gr/60gr ReL15/2500MV
Bullet weight in grains 250
Velocity in fps 2500
Powder charge in grains 60
Weight of firearm in lbs 7.5 (M600/Leupold 2.5x)
 
Last edited:
Whelen,

Although there is definately no mistaking whether a 350 Mag went off or not once you squeeze the trigger :D, I agree that recoil is another one of those things that the 350 got some undeserved bad press about. I find the recoil quite reasonable considering the performance advantages in a light package.

By the way, my compliments on your website. I've used it for quite a while. That and Greg's paper (which I know you host) are some of the best work out there on the 350 Mag and the much under appreciated 35's in general.

Thanks for the effort to pass on some good info!
 
Last edited:
By the way, my compliments on your website.
Shucks - twern't nothin. I just luvs those 35s. But thank you for your kind comments. Ya Greg's article is great - lotsa first hand experience there with 35s and their missiles for hunting.

BTW here's a pic of that 200yard target I fired last week with my little M600 "Maggie" which I mentioned above. Turns out the group was actually a 3" group - not the 2 1/2" I reported above from memory - I did say "about". Still works for me. FYI 100 yards groups were printing about 1" high so those 250 Speers @ 2500MV seem to be flying fairly well.
my_600_350_1_sm.jpg


M600_200yd350RemMag1sm.jpg
 
FYI 100 yards groups were printing about 1" high so those 250 Speers @ 2500MV seem to be flying fairly well.

Yes, I agree. As I stated in an earlier post, so far I like the terminal ballistics of the 250 Hornady Round Nose. But last year's elk is a good case in point for the Speer.

I had been on the tail of a small herd of elk for a couple of weeks, but they kept giving me the slip. I set up at the point of a finger of bush overlooking a rancher's hay field one day after work, and spotted the bull working his cows that way about a mile away shortly afterward. He eventually had them down on the hay in front of me, but still about 500 yards away. Since they were eating now, they were still moving closer but not very quickly. By about 20 minutes before dark, they were still only a bit closer. I decided it was now or never, and set up for a long shot. I was using the Speers and held on hair at the top of the ribcage. That translated into an elk in the freezer, with the final distance paced off at 325 yards. There is certainly something to be said for flatter trajectory, despite the fact the round noses perform so well. :D
 
I,m Still a 358 fan! It,ll do just about as well in a 20"bbl.

I'm a fan of the 358 too.

But don't agree with your summation that it "does about as well" with 20" tubes as the 350RM. I haven't found that myself - at least in pure ballistic terms.

I'd like to see one of those in 358Win., but I doubt Remington would do it.
Me too. But since they are sooo purty, how about just buy a M7 CDL in 350RM and load it "down" to 358Win levels. Voila - a 250gr at 2250MV! Your gonna handload any 35 anyway - right?
 
Right on, great story....sounds promising for me and my "new" .35 whelen this fall too.

Jeff/1911.

Yes, I agree. As I stated in an earlier post, so far I like the terminal ballistics of the 250 Hornady Round Nose. But last year's elk is a good case in point for the Speer.

I had been on the tail of a small herd of elk for a couple of weeks, but they kept giving me the slip. I set up at the point of a finger of bush overlooking a rancher's hay field one day after work, and spotted the bull working his cows that way about a mile away shortly afterward. He eventually had them down on the hay in front of me, but still about 500 yards away. Since they were eating now, they were still moving closer but not very quickly. By about 20 minutes before dark, they were still only a bit closer. I decided it was now or never, and set up for a long shot. I was using the Speers and held on hair at the top of the ribcage. That translated into an elk in the freezer, with the final distance paced off at 325 yards. There is certainly something to be said for flatter trajectory, despite the fact the round noses perform so well. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom