Jump to content

Now this is something new I could actually get behind!

Buckmaster7600

By Buckmaster7600,
in Rifle and Gun Hunting

 Share

Recommended Posts

Buckmaster7600 Mentor

Buckmaster7600

Posted
Posted

https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2019/01/21/shot-2019-winchester-new-350-legend/

 

A new 35cal cartridge is something that always excites me especially if they base it on a blown out .223 case. Make it straight walled so I can use it in Ohio and I have my next Remington 7600 build idea!

 Ballistically similar to my 35maximum but it’s rimless.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buckmaster7600 Mentor

Buckmaster7600

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Reminds me of the .357 Maximum.  I wonder how it would compare to that old round?
 

Got to be very close, I’m curious what they’re using for powders? I’m getting 3-400fps faster than any factory 450 bushmaster load using H110/Win296 if Winchester isn’t using the hot pistol powders there should be a lot left to get!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marion Proficient

Marion

Posted
Posted
https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2019/01/21/shot-2019-winchester-new-350-legend/
 
A new 35cal cartridge is something that always excites me especially if they base it on a blown out .223 case. Make it straight walled so I can use it in Ohio and I have my next Remington 7600 build idea!
 Ballistically similar to my 35maximum but it’s rimless.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
 
Ohio won't allow bottleneck cartridges?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buckmaster7600 Mentor

Buckmaster7600

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Sounds like an interesting round. I went full-in with the .357 Maximum when it came out years ago because it was intriguing, but I ended up sticking with the .44 Mag for hunting. Keep it simple.

I have 5 guns chambered in 357 maximum 2 revolvers and 3 single shot rifles. I like he round a lot it’s extremely versatile but unfortunately it is a handloaders only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wolc123 Grand Master

wolc123

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, G-Man said:

Like to see the ballistics for it..lot of comparison to .223 and .243. 2 rounds I dont care for at all for deer. So until I see it balistically against other straight walled rounds I'll just observe

Most would agree that the .223 is near the bottom, when it comes to a good deer round, but many folks are really into the .243.  What is your problem with that one?

I now what mine is, and I am guessing your's might be the same.   I was getting sick of lugging my big, heavy, scoped,  Ruger M77,  30/06 around up in the Adirondacks. I came pretty close to picking up a Ruger American .243, the summer before last.   I am sure glad I did not after butchering a couple of deer that were killed with one last fall.   A buddy, who raised beef cattle down at the end of our road, gave me a 2-1/2 year old buck and a 6 month old doe that he killed with his .243 on opening weekend (his family don't care for venison).

The buck was struck twice, once on a hip and another on the neck, just forward of the shoulders.  Both bullets remained in the carcass.  After trimming away all the bloodied meat, I was only able to salvage around 50 pounds.   I did not weigh or get a chest girth measurement of that buck, but it looked like it field-dressed 140 - 150 pounds.   Fortunately, the little doe fawn was struck just once, in the heart area, and the bullet passed thru.   I was able to get about 20 pounds from that.   Comparing the meat damage on those deer, struck with high-velocity, small-diameter, light-weight bullets, to those struck with much larger diameter, heavier, and slower bullets (12 ga, hornady SST slug), was like night and day.   I "riddled" my own opening-day buck with three of those, two amidships and one in the neck.  Those three big heavy slugs "wasted" less than a pound of meat total, requiring just a little trimming around the three "pass-thru"  holes. 

So the bottom line on the .243 as a deer round is: It is ok for killing deer, but not so hot if you also like to eat them.  Going forward, I am going with (2) 30/30 levers as my northern zone deer guns (one with a scope and another with fiber-optic open sights for foul weather conditions).  The deer that I have killed up there with my 30/06 have had minimal meat damage, and I am guessing that the much slower velocity 30/30 will be even less.  Hopefully, I will find out this fall.  This .350 legend looks like it would be a good one possibly even "the best".   The closest I will ever get to that will be switching to 170 gr 30/30 ammo after exhausting my current supply of 150 gr.  I am content with a "good" deer round, and ammo cost and availability mean a lot more to me than having the "best".   Not many rounds are cheaper or easier to find than 170 gr 30/30.           

Edited by wolc123
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G-Man Veteran

G-Man

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, wolc123 said:

Most would agree that the .223 is near the bottom, when it comes to a good deer round, but many folks are really into the .243.  What is your problem with that one?

I now what mine is, and I am guessing your's might be the same.   I was getting sick of lugging my big, heavy, scoped,  Ruger M77,  30/06 around up in the Adirondacks. I came pretty close to picking up a Ruger American .243, the summer before last.   I am sure glad I did not after butchering a couple of deer that were killed with one last fall.   A buddy, who raised beef cattle down at the end of our road, gave me a 2-1/2 year old buck and a 6 month old doe that he killed with his .243 on opening weekend (his family don't care for venison).

The buck was struck twice, once on a hip and another on the neck, just forward of the shoulders.  Both bullets remained in the carcass.  After trimming away all the bloodied meat, I was only able to salvage around 50 pounds.   I did not weigh or get a chest girth measurement of that buck, but it looked like it field-dressed 140 - 150 pounds.   Fortunately, the little doe fawn was struck just once, in the heart area, and the bullet passed thru.   I was able to get about 20 pounds from that.   Comparing the meat damage on those deer, struck with high-velocity, small-diameter, light-weight bullets, to those struck with much larger diameter, heavier, and slower bullets (12 ga, hornady SST slug), was like night and day.   I "riddled" my own opening-day buck with three of those, two amidships and one in the neck.  Those three big heavy slugs "wasted" less than a pound of meat total, requiring just a little trimming around the three "pass-thru"  holes. 

So the bottom line on the .243 as a deer round is: It is ok for killing deer, but not so hot if you also like to eat them.  Going forward, I am going with (2) 30/30 levers as my northern zone deer guns (one with a scope and another with fiber-optic open sights for foul weather conditions).  The deer that I have killed up there with my 30/06 have had minimal meat damage, and I am guessing that the much slower velocity 30/30 will be even less.  Hopefully, I will find out this fall.  This .350 legend looks like it would be a good one possibly even "the best".   The closest I will ever get to that will be switching to 170 gr 30/30 ammo after exhausting my current supply of 150 gr.  I am content with a "good" deer round, and ammo cost and availability mean a lot more to me than having the "best".   Not many rounds are cheaper or easier to find than 170 gr 30/30.           

I've seen many deer hit and lost with small caliber bullets. My good friend knocked on right off its feet was getting out of stand deer got up and ran off.. he is an excellent shot and was on cover of national shooting sports mag 2x .. Here there is possibility of bear as well. I saw a bear hit 5 x with .243 at near point blank (less than 20 yards) they penetrated the hide and exploded on top of ribs never penetrating the chest cavity. 

The .350 they compare recoil, ft lbs as less than 30-30 or .243, .223 . But I want is the 100, 200 yrd ballistic data. If it is a 200 , or 500 yards gun ect. 

Recoil is not a concern.. I shoot a 3.5 in 12 ga and nothing kicks harder than that. Not even a .475 h and h mag .. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wolc123 Grand Master

wolc123

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, G-Man said:

 

Recoil is not a concern.. I shoot a 3.5 in 12 ga and nothing kicks harder than that. Not even a .475 h and h mag .. 

My hardest-kicking deer gun is an old Ithaca featherlight,16 gauge deerslayer.   That might weigh 6 pounds with (5) slugs in it and is basically built on a 20 gauge action.  The ammo is loaded up to nearly 12 gauge energy level.   I never notice the recoil when shooting deer with it, but it is rather punishing on the range.  I always use a pin-on recoil pad, that is filled with something like silly putty, when target practicing with it.   It kicks a lot harder than a buddies Ruger #1 458 win mag, that I fired a few times, but of course that gun weighs about twice as much. I don't think many folks understand how much the weight of the gun comes into play with "felt" recoil.   Anytime I hear someone complain about recoil from a deer rifle, I wonder if they have ever had any experience with a shotgun.  That said, my Marlin 512 is rather tame with 3" 12 gauge slugs, but it weighs a lot closer to the Ruger #1 .458 rifle than the Ithaca 16 ga. shotgun.              

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...