Well just reconfirmed my 35 rem

[Roger Allen]

i have a marlin 336 in 35 remington (newer one) that I’ve had for about a year. When I bought it I tried two different molds which were the Noe version of the rcbs 200 gr fn and a Lyman round nose casting a 206 gr bullet (forget the mold code)

After testing it in the spring I settled for the Noe clone mold as it seem to shoot 1 inch at 50 yards compared to the Lyman’s 1 1/2-2 inch groups (also didn’t like how small the Lyman casted and to get around it I had to powder coat it).

I’ve been shooting the rcbs clone all year now open sight off a good bench getting 1 inch at around 50 yards and been quite pleased. Although some days it’s a 2 inch no tobacco day and some days after coffee and a dip it was back to 1 inch.

I like having open sights as my vision is impeccable by the grace of god and it allows me to not add extra weight to my gun when humping it around but figured maybe to do my gun a little justice I’ll just mount a bushnell 1.5-5xwhatever small bell is on the end of that gun; real nice small light weight scope that isn’t ultra powerful and gets me just what I need.

Lined it in at 70 degree sunny weather a month ago and got 3/4 inch off a small round table we have on our deck which is large enough to put a ash tray on it for cigar smoking and a book bag rest, ultimately I was super pleased!

Decided today since it’s 30 degrees I’ll try to shock my scope by moving it from the basement 72 degrees to outside and see if it fogs or changes impact yada yada yada. I shot 4 shells from a old batch that I had left over off the same small table w the same book bag and whola I got a 1 inch group.

Pretty happy w it as it seems my load is unaffected by temperature as is my scope. Very happy indeed. Just letting you all know that I’m pretty much happy right now

 

[Chris]

That is great. What loads are working for you? Plan to hunt with cast at all?

I have an older marlin in .35, my first deer rifle. A pleasure to load for and shoot.

 

[Roger Allen]

I shoot that rcbs clone gas checked w 27 gr imr 4198 w a wolf reg large rifle primer

Bullet sized to .360 2x lubed w alox and jpw

Does pretty good. Wish the gun didn’t have micro grooving but it does great

 

[Bret4207]

The RCBS 35 mould I have also shoots great in my 1950's 336SC. Truth be told, my example is just a good shooter with whatever I put in it so far. Sadly, my eyes are more of a hindrance than help these days it seems. Count your blessings!

 

[Roger Allen]

Yeah when I came up w a load for my 35 rem I ladder tested that Noe bullet w 25.0,26.0,27.0,28.0 gr imr 4198 And I just had to pick from the litter which one id reload for the years to come.

They all shot great. I settled on 27.0 gr bc in dead heat of summer 27.0 didn’t lead with the pressure and velocity but 28.0 started streaking my bore. I’m thinking it really contributed to my bullet hardness. I’ll try 50-50 ww/range lead instead of just straight ww water dropped. Elastic bullets do better than hard bullets sometimes

 

[Bret4207]

I'm kind of a believer in using as soft an alloy as I can reasonably get away with. Straight WW, cut with berm scrap, works pretty good for most of what I do. Gave up on WD some time back. But then, I'm not out to set new velocity records either.

 

[Chris]

Yeah when I came up w a load for my 35 rem I ladder tested that Noe bullet w 25.0,26.0,27.0,28.0 gr imr 4198 And I just had to pick from the litter which one id reload for the years to come.

They all shot great. I settled on 27.0 gr bc in dead heat of summer 27.0 didn’t lead with the pressure and velocity but 28.0 started streaking my bore. I’m thinking it really contributed to my bullet hardness. I’ll try 50-50 ww/range lead instead of just straight ww water dropped. Elastic bullets do better than hard bullets sometimes

Might work better on game, too.

 

[Bret4207]

I did a mess of testing back around 2000/01, somewhere in there, with cast on a horse carcass Chris. At that time I was still a big believer in HARDCAST, thinking harder had to be better because...well, because it just had to be! What I found using everything from the 32-20 to 35 Whelen was that softer alloys at the speeds I was shooting them (max in the 2/2.1K area, just like today) didn't seem to mushroom like a Core-Loct advertisement and harder didn't do a darn thing different as far as penetration went. So I just used WW with a bit of tin if a particular 50 lbs batch seemed to need it, but never more than 1-2%. Once I began to grasp the difference between pot temp and mould temp adding tin mostly went by the wayside too. I've since bumped speeds up into 2.3-2.5K area and still haven't seen any classic mushrooming...but that's probably because I've never recovered a cast bullet from anything that used to be alive at those speeds! What seems to hold true over the years, for me at least, is that anything with a decent flat nose will disrupt tissue nicely if it's moving fast enough. The damage a 311316 at 1800 fps will do on a coyote has to be seen to be believed. It really doesn't seem logical that that little FN should do what it does, they really kill rather well within their range limitations.

 

[Intheshop]

Roger,just gonna say this......

The worst thing I've done to scopes is bringing them IN a warm house from outside when freezing cold/wet from hunting in the rain or snow.

Further,you want to be careful with your front mount on straight tube (no objective bell) scope's,location.Look inside from the Fr to see where the lense and lockrings are.Steel rings,aluminum scope tube,plastic lockrings "can" ( which don't mean will) cause issues if temperature shocked.But until I experience different,it's worse going "in" the house than out.

Moisture is a funny thing,one issue with flip up/off scope cvrs is trapped moisture..... from a wicking standpoint.

 

[Roger Allen]

Ahh, I can see what your saying on the straight tube.....w no bell to be there policing the position of your ring you may position in such a way to crush fit right on the lense.

This scope has a bell on either side of it but I have heard of people crushing the holy goodness out of their scopes w their rings and creating problems w the internals. Maybe someone that can speak on the matter would be kind enough to do so for education purposes.

For years my dads policy was crush fitting. Thank god those were all tascos. I seem to be on the mentality of a few bits up from recommended torque values but not as to create marks, obvious crushing, distortions but I do tend to tighten past the recommended torque values

 

[Ian]

Torque the rings to spec without the scope and mic the ID. This will also tell you if the rings are round or not. Lap "turn in" rings with a lapping tool, and don't be afraid to lap the top half if they are distorted, as most are. Lap the rings if they are too small. Avoid all these troubles by using Burris posi-line rings with the plastic inserts, or by using 30mm rings with 1" insert adapters and scopes with 1" tubes. Torque specifications are developed and published by smart people for a good reason, and should be observed carefully.

 

[pokute]

You mean scopes and rings don't all "just fit"... I thought they were all the same size? Now I'm afraid to look at my daughter's CZ...

 

[Ian]

They're close, usually. Close enough not to dent the tube then torqued? Maybe, maybe not. Close enough to contact the ring saddle more than 80% of its surface area? Probably not. When you account for manufacturing tolerances between different producers and styles of products, then throw coating thickness (blueing, anodizing, paint, etc.) into the mix, the final fit of any given collection of pieces is always suspect.

 

[Roger Allen]

Good info. Do you locktite the screws that secured the scope w the ring portion of you mount? My 700 in 300 aac I torqued those and after 100 shots it had to be retorqued then I checked it again 100 shots later needed to be retorqued

 

[Brad]

Burris Posalign or whatever they call them are the best. I have used their offset inserts to get a rifle sighted in after running out of elevation in the scope.

 

[Ian]

I've never had to retorque a mount or scope ring screw. Always Loctite, always medium-strength, and I always lap the bases to the receiver if both are "round". I also put a very slight countersink around the action holes to prevent metal pulling up and contacting the base, since most base screw holes are very closely fitted to the screws and there's no relief there. After doing all that, I put a very thin, even coating of high-strength threadlocker or bearing mount adhesive on the bottom of the mount so it "beds" the mount to the action when torqued down. The pre-load on the screws and a good fit of everything where there is no settling in later absolutely prevents needing to retorque anything.

If your mounts are getting loose, they are moving and stretching the screw threads. Screws are good for one, maybe two torquings before they fatigue (work harden) and are likely to break in the future.

 

[Ian]

Burris Posalign or whatever they call them are the best. I have used their offset inserts to get a rifle sighted in after running out of elevation in the scope.

Best rings ever, IMO, whether you need the offsets or not. If you have a Marlin with the famous barrel droop or barrel and receiver pointing in two totally different directions, the offset rings can get a zeroed scope a lot closer to POI and reduce the need for extreme internal adjustments.

 

[Brad]

It was my Marlin 1895 that needed the offset. I couldn't get it to hit high enough at 100. Using the offset inserts I have lots of extra elevation.
If Burris makes the insert rings for the application they are what I buy.

 

[Chris]

I did a mess of testing back around 2000/01, somewhere in there, with cast on a horse carcass Chris.

Interesting you should mention testing, Bret. About 2005 I and another nutcase did a bunch too, but lacking dead horses we used wet newspaper. I would rather use the horse... for realism... but the paper has the advantage that you can easily track the rate of expansion and bullet performance and apply tape measure and camera. My partner in crime actually typed up full reports for posterity.

Long story made short, my results confirm yours regarding bullet design and alloy. WW plus 2% tin performed nicely in .30 and .358 rifles at hunting velocity, made softer with some lead is even better. All the harder stuff did is dig deeper. I shot a buck full length with 410 LBT .45/70 made as hard as an oven could make it and it was really disappointing. Did you know it takes nearly 4 feet of wet paper to catch a hard 45/70 bullet at 1700?

What I learned over time is to soften up my alloy and if possible shoot a decent meplat. Veral is right about the meplat doing the work but I think he is wrong (on lighter game) about shooting hard alloy.

I am about out of WW so I have been using bagged shot to make 92-4-4 alloy ingots. I can push that up or down the hardness scale as needed and make my own WW type alloy. Anymore I shoot softer, like 92-2-2 unless the rifle tells me otherwise. I guess I could use less tin, I just like how they come out.

I only recovered 2 bullets in my life from deer/bear, these .358's just punch through. Over the years I have shot a number of bucks lengthwise and I get 2 holes.

A note for .358 Win. enthusiasts: The Sierra 225 BT @ 2400 made an unreal mushroom and penetrated deeply with like 95% weight retention in paper testing. I killed 6 or so bucks with it and it just hammered them. Worth mentioning. Best looking jacketed bullet of a bunch we tested.

 

[Kevin Stenberg]

Ian it mite make for good reading if you did another thread on Proper scope installation with pictures and text. Including ring identification.