opinions please on the 358 Win

Gate what would be your 1st choice of bullet?

My choice 1st would be a TTSX.
But I respect your experience...

That is my choice too, because it will work fine close and far, and won't destroy meat. I shot a few deer and bear at very close range with the 300WSM/130gr TTSX at 3500 FPS, the bullets definitely expanded, there was some meat damage but the carcass wasn't wrecked at all. Probably lost a pound or two more meat than if I shot the deer with a 30-30. hat's a pretty extreme example though, most guys hunting deer and bear in the coastal forest around here will be pushing bullets in the 2700-3000 fps zone.

Although if you are specifically talking about a .358 bullet, probably get advise from those that use them. I've never had much use for a .35 cal, unlike .338, .375 or .45 caliber cartridges :)
 
Last edited:
]

I think there is a name for these people. I think it starts with F Laugh2


Well, I guess I'm one of those people 'cause I like it.
My 358 sits in the rack beside my 28 Nosler, does owning a 28 make me an " F " person too ??

Funny how these discussions degenerate to the name calling level...
 
]

I think there is a name for these people. I think it starts with F Laugh2


Well, I guess I'm one of those people 'cause I like it.
My 358 sits in the rack beside my 28 Nosler, does owning a 28 make me an " F " person too ??

Funny how these discussions degenerate to the name calling level...


Oh geez...It was a joke, directed at my friend SuperCub, who certainly will understand the humour. I thought the Laugh2 guy would have signaled that.

You are looking for something that doesn't exist.
 
Yes, I do. and I gave it on post #50 of this thread.

OK.... got it..... SO here is my question, and not being argumentative, just trying to understand.... If you were in a situation similar to mine, think deer, bear or moose hunting in hardwoods with max visibility of say 100 yards - 150 yards with most actual shots being below 75, would you still be advocating a wsm?

Not saying that you have to chose .358, but I fail to see the logic behind burning more powder, needing a premium bullet and risking meat damage just to have that bullet dump half of it's energy into something behind the target instead of the target itself..... All so that I could carry a rifle capable of a long distance shot I have no chance in hell of ever seeing.....
 
The gunstores aren't full of .28 Noslers and .22 TTH's either... the further you move from a standard .30 cal, the more "niche" the cartridge is, which has nothing to do with it's viability.



Whoa, Hoss... that the way you read this... I'm "knockin" opinion? All I have done here is give my opinion on the OP's question... while you are acting like an angry little man that some people are not agreeing with you.

You're first post that was directed at me implied that you were a great hunter and I was just a shooter. (Knockin) and now as expected have upped it to name calling. I knew it would happen, going against the grain in this forum is what it is. But I still think the the .358 win is a poor choice for a hunting catridge. It's like pondering whats better to take afield, a 30-06 or a 30-30. The op did ask for opinions on this chambering after all.
 
OK.... got it..... SO here is my question, and not being argumentative, just trying to understand.... If you were in a situation similar to mine, think deer, bear or moose hunting in hardwoods with max visibility of say 100 yards - 150 yards with most actual shots being below 75, would you still be advocating a wsm?

Not saying that you have to chose .358, but I fail to see the logic behind burning more powder, needing a premium bullet and risking meat damage just to have that bullet dump half of it's energy into something behind the target instead of the target itself..... All so that I could carry a rifle capable of a long distance shot I have no chance in hell of ever seeing....

Your situation- hunting deer, moose and bear in the woods at close range- is EXACTLY the situation many of us in BC are in, except often our dense coastal rainforest is thicker than your hardwoods, and our interior have plenty of dense forest is also on steep ridges.

I wouldn't necessarily advocate a WSM, but I wouldn't try to make a case against it either, especially with "failure to expand at close range, meat damage, or slow kills" cited as reasons.
 
I own one (no surprise there, I own one of almost everything) but have never hunted with the cartridge. As most of you know I have my 350 RM that covers the same scenario hunting wise and have used it for years. I do know several people who have used one exclusively and to great success even at extended ranges (for this cartridge). I also know two guides that used to pack the 358 and said it was perfect for the job. They never had a need to shoot way out and it had plenty of punch for the hand to hand distances.
I have fooled around at the range quite a bit with it as it is a fun cartridge to play with. I shoot 200 gn Rem bulk RN and spritzers and I can tell you that with a 200 mtr sight in it's only about 1.5" high at 100 and with a little hold over I can regularly peel the pigs off the rail at 300 mtrs. It is one of the few cartridges that has impressed me with it's big, fat, short bullet at moderate velocity, it peels the pigs off at 300 mtrs, with much greater authority that my 257 Wby. There are certain hunting conditions where I think it would be ideal and a big step up from the 30-30 or 35 Rem which have been traditionally used in these scenarios. It is also about perfect for a camper or back porch gun when in bear country and is not so obnoxious that the wife or child cannot be taught to use them effectively. I learned a whole new respect years ago for 35 cal bullets at modest velocities, they kill well above what their paper ballistics would indicate.
Why Not? can relate a story of a good friend of his harvesting a bull moose, with one shot, at well past 400 mtrs with his 358 (the only rifle he has used for many, many years) Ted was there and witnessed it, so that's good enough for me!! There are some pretty strong opinions expressed here, but the reality is a good hunter can hunt successfully with almost any cartridge or gear and have a good time..........The only difference hunting with a 300 Wby or a bow is 4 hours, that's how long it takes to stalk successfully from 500 mtrs to 40 mtrs........and a 358 has no where near the limitations of a bow.
I have many better suited rifles and cartridges for pretty much any type of hunting one would wish to undertake, however if the only rifle in my closet was a 358 Win, I sure as Hell wouldn't be staying home.
I have read every post on this thread and find it amusing that there are people who hunt successfully every year with 30-30s, iron sighted 303s, 7.62X39s and even old 38-55s and the like and they are given the "nod of approval" from many of the same people here who choose to denigrate the 358 Win. Like the 30-06 it too has a place and is better than some cartridges and not as good as others, but it does the job for those who like and use it.
It is IMHO a superior hunting cartridge to the 45-70, it has as much punch up close and has a much longer MPBR and is well suited to a bolt gun and scoping.........a better all around candidate than the 45-70.

Then there is the whole world of plinking and practicing with jacketed and cast pistol bullets, which I don't think has come up yet on this thread. This is another HUGE plus for the 358 Win as it allows many hours of joyful trigger time with a minimum of expense, even with jacketed pistol bullets, your costs are about half of rifle bullets. Some of these reduced loads are exceptionally accurate and are adequate for varmint and small game out to 100 mtrs or farther.
 
Last edited:
Whenever .35 cal rifle cartridges come up there is the "pistol plinker loads" brought up, but you can do the same thing with just about any cartridge by using cheap cast bullets. There's even the powder coated ones now that can take more speed.
 
You're first post that was directed at me implied that you were a great hunter and I was just a shooter. (Knockin) and now as expected have upped it to name calling. I knew it would happen, going against the grain in this forum is what it is.

At no time have I ever said that I am a "great" hunter... I indicated that I am more of a "hunter" than a "shooter..." I did not make a statement about you in any sense. I like to get close to animals, and I take them from close distance with gun or bow... I have taken 200+ yard shots on rare occasions, but for me I enjoy the moment far more when I can see the whites of their eyes... I don't really care what you prefer to do, if you like shooting at 500+ yards that's great for you... just not what I prefer for me... and so the .358 is really an "ideal" cartridge for what I like to do best. If I was hunting goats or sheep it is unlikely that I would choose a .358... but we are talking about a cartridge and whether or not we like it and use it... I do both.

You might want to pay better attention to the wording of a post before going off "half-cocked" again.
 
Whenever .35 cal rifle cartridges come up there is the "pistol plinker loads" brought up, but you can do the same thing with just about any cartridge by using cheap cast bullets. There's even the powder coated ones now that can take more speed.


I am fully aware of this, however with the plethora of 357 bullets available at almost any LGS, from swaged wadcutters to 180 gn jacketed, it is much easier for those who don't wish to cast or those who don't wish to run lead bullets in their bores. It's always easier when the options are right there on the shelf. Also with the moderate case capacity of the 358 Win it is much more conducive to, and less erratic with reduced loads and light bullets.
 
Well done c-fbmi. Very diplomatic.

Agreed.

Having never fired one, there is something i can't quite place that i like about the 358. I think it's the 1800's trapper in me that likes the idea of a larger bullet at moderate velocity.

Here's an interesting chuck hawks article that goes further into detail of what c-fbmi was saying.

ht tp://www.chuckhawks.com/358Win_mystery.htm
 
The thread derailed in another subject that I find very interesting and it deserve it's own thread.

About the 358, it's funny it was brought up because I was thinking about this for the last few days. For some reason slow and heavy is what appeals to me. I wonder why. Probably because of some of the idea around it like less meat damage, better delivery of energy, etc. I simply wonder if this is proven or if this is another myth, like the rounded bullets that penetrate bush better?
 
The thread derailed in another subject that I find very interesting and it deserve it's own thread.

About the 358, it's funny it was brought up because I was thinking about this for the last few days. For some reason slow and heavy is what appeals to me. I wonder why. Probably because of some of the idea around it like less meat damage, better delivery of energy, etc. I simply wonder if this is proven or if this is another myth, like the rounded bullets that penetrate bush better?

No bullets penetrate bush better...... That's a complete myth and has been debunked many times......

The meat damage thing is absolutely true...... While the fast magnum crowd (and don't get me wrong, I own a couple and love them), will tell you that a perfect broadside vital hit will not waste any meat regardless of cartridge (and I agree with them from experience), not every shot is a perfect broadside one unless you decide to make it so...... And anything outside of a perfect broadside hit would involve more meat damage if you are using a faster moving slow pill than a slower moving bigger bore, both being at short yardage...... That has been my experience, and there are plenty of accounts to support it......
 
The thread derailed in another subject that I find very interesting and it deserve it's own thread.

About the 358, it's funny it was brought up because I was thinking about this for the last few days. For some reason slow and heavy is what appeals to me. I wonder why. Probably because of some of the idea around it like less meat damage, better delivery of energy, etc. I simply wonder if this is proven or if this is another myth, like the rounded bullets that penetrate bush better?


Meat damage has 3 factors to it:

Shot placement
Velocity
Bullet construction.

Shot placement is number one.

After that, the same bullet going faster hitting the same spot will wreck more meat than the same bullet going slower.

A tougher bullet will wreck less meat than a Frangible bullet.

Better delivery of energy ? Time to get out the calculator because a faster bullet will often have more energy than a slower, larger bullet. When you end to end a bear with a 130gr TTSX at 3500 fps at close range and it stops like a sack of hammers, I'm not sure if a bullets energy transfer technique matters. :)
 
When I was a kid one gun I really wanted was a 358, haven't got around to it, but might have to change that.
 
Back
Top Bottom