Ruger m77 stainless in 338 or 350 magnum?

bcsteve said:
Barnes manual #3 using X flat base bullets for both.

Using the Hornady 6th Edition manual and their Spire point bullet, they show an 8.2" drop at 300yds and the same 200yds zero for a 0.69" difference in drop. This one compares the 225 Hornady SP IL to the Barnes XFB because Hornady doesn't have a 225gr bullet in .35 cal.

Spitzer, you might be right, I don't have or load for a 338 WM, just going by the reloading manuals and they show max loads at 2800fps.
Click to expand...

Thanks BC, I own three 35's and know how good they are, but I also own the 338's and know that when the ranges start streching on the long side the 338's step in and deliver with their great long range slugs like the 250 Sierra SBT, to get similar performances from the 35's you have to step up to the 250's and get something that can give you more speed like the 358 Norma or STA. With every step away from the muzzle the differences become apparent, maybe were splitting hairs but that's what it's all about otherwise a whole bunch of calibers would be pooled into the same bag being only aeparated by a few inches and a couple hundred foot pounds.
bigbull
 
what would be the recoil diference between a 338 and a 350 magnum,given both using the same rifle and the same bullet[ie 225 gr] weight?
 
I don't have a formula to calculate recoil but for the speeds I posted earlier (2700fps for the 350Rm and 2800fps for the 338 WM) and 225 gr bullets from my Barnes manual it takes on average 65-70gr of powder for the 338WM to get 2800fps and 55-59gr of powder for the 350WM to get 2700fps. You do the math!;)
 
so-without a calculator-does that mean the 350RM achieves about 93% of the velocity of a 338WM with about 85% of the recoil?
The physics of efficiency is a very interesting topic-it takes a certain amount of energy to achieve a given result[ie velocity]-but to move beyond that point might take a disproportionate amount of additional energy,and somewhere in there is the optimum point that achieves a desired result with the least amount of energy expended
 
Last edited:
The physics of efficiency is a very interesting topic-it takes a certain amount of energy to achieve a given result[ie velocity]-but to move beyond that point might take a disproportionate amount of additional energy,and somewhere in there is the optimum point that achieves a desired result with the least amount of energy expended[/QUOTE

"the point of diminishing return" ;)
Click to expand...
 
35's are great. I've got a 356, a 35 whelen and I'm working on having a fine old Belgium Browning in 338 re-barrelled to 358 Norma Mag. If you want practical, go for the 338, if you want to do it right, go with the 35.
 
Seems there's more than a few who like the .350RemMag. A buddy has the 1983 M700 Classic in .350RemMag and I've shot it plenty. Nice rifle/cartridge combo. That said, I have the M77 MkII stainless in .338WinMag and wouldn't give it up for the .350RM. If there is one .35 caliber I want, it's the .358 Norma Mag.
 
I suppose it also includes the recoil factor-how much recoil can someone handle and still shoot accurately?The only bullet that counts is the one that hits the moose where it was intended to hit-the heigth of irrellivence is a flat shooting bullet hitting mud ,or worse-wounding an animal......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom