350 Legend

[CZ93X62]

That patent war continued well past the end of WWII. It added two new players--Bill Ruger/Alexander Sturm in 1949 and Gaston Glock in 1985. These later-arriving competitors just about destroyed Colt and have crippled S&W. S&W did themselves no favors with some of their engineering changes in recent years, done in an effort to keep up with Ruger. S&W will lose that race, and decisively. They already lost to Glock, both in court and in the market. S&W has a bad habit of chasing arcane niches when pressured with market competition, instead of continuing with the designs that built the company originally. Colt was saddled with a mechanism that required skilled hand-fitting to construct and gunsmiths in the aftermarket to keep them running. That worked OK in 1920, but the "neighborhood gunsmith" concept was in decline by 1970. Colt's Mk III, Mk V, and Anaconda lines were good, simple designs that were strong and durable--but they arrived 25 years too late.

 

[Pistolero]

IMO, and with some modest experience, the new M&P S&W autos are really decent designs. IMO, they
are superior to the Glocks. It seems that Glock has largely bought their way into the LE market with
extremely low prices, and have had to cover a few serious problems like the .40 blowups. I never knew
what to make of the reports and internet chatter, until I saw a copy of a letter from the top dog in
the US Federal Police force to Glock asking for an explanation of why their Glock .40s were blowing up
so often, 100% with factory, jacketed ammo? Apparently, Glock got serious and fixed that issue, and I am
not qualified to say what it was, but apparently it is gone now. The Glock grip angle and trigger
have kept me from being able to appreciate them, although it is clear that (except for the .40 issue)
they are reliable guns.

I am a S&W revolver fan, even current production, and very much the old girls, which I own more than
several. Agree on Colt's ....nice in many ways, but tend to require more frequent 'smithing to keep them
running. Fortuntely, I can do that work my self, so not so bad.

But Ian is right. Those guys were pretty hard headed. I have to laugh that my old Police Positive is
in "Colt .38 New Police" cartridge. Otherwise known as .38 S&W, which Colt was NOT going
to put on their guns, so they invented a "new caliber". Lots of hard headedness out there in
the gun industry.
But the oddball diameters came about from a bunch of "good idea, given the situation" sort of
things. Very strange end results, though. .44=.430 (ish) and .38 = .357 (ish). pretty weird in isolation.

Bill

 

[462]

When handling various sub-compact pistols, for my hopefully approved carry license, if the S&W Shield had fit my hand better I would have bought one. As it was, the Glock 27 was much more grip friendly, as was the Springfield, but with Glock's Blue Label program (veteran) the Glock came in at a lower price than the Springfield and S&W. Easy choice.

 

[Ian]

Hey......all this chatter about handguns got me thinking about the .350 Legend in one. I wonder what existing platform could handle it?

 

[RBHarter]

I knew all of the stuff about assorted cartridges that appear to be misnamed . The 44s were .440ish until the 44 Russian and their need for an inside lubed bullet .
I was just exaggerating for the pointless point of illnamed cartridges .

The 45/44 thing is actually a very interesting story of evolution from 1710 cap and ball through the super mag and rifle cartridge we built a pistol around without a rifle 2000ish . (460 that's actually a 452 .....)

 

[david s]

Isn't the 40 cal actually the 40 S&W with SAMMI? You don't see the S&W on anything but Smith and Wesson guns.

 

[RBHarter]

Hey......all this chatter about handguns got me thinking about the .350 Legend in one. I wonder what existing platform could handle it?

An FA for sure , since they come in 30-30 and 45-70 .

 

[RBHarter]

The 40 is kind of all alone . The sister mag that came first is the 10mm . I think the XD40 I had was marked 40 S&W if not it seemed pretty obvious .

 

[Tomme boy]

Found a box of brass at the range today. Had one round that was a misfeed and damaged the tip. The guy would not shoot it as he thought it would be dangerous. That will be used as a sight in round.

I see people all the time that will drop a round and not pick it up. They all say I'm not putting that in my gun!. I pick them up and wipe them off and put them in a box when I get home. I have shot hundreds of 556 and x39 from people like this. Hey, free ammo right?

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

I loaded up a box with a ladder loading of 1680 & my 230g NOE bullet. Started at 20g as I had zero pressure with Maxi @ 20g went to 22.5g no appreciable pressure signs and just cracked into 1700fps. I did not shoot for accuracy.

Shot the Maxi to 22g with same and I can go
More but accuracy was real good @ 21.5 & 22 velocity is 1760-70 so within my target vel.

Out at 100 its doing under 2”. 4x Leupold.

CW

 

[fiver]

Hey......all this chatter about handguns got me thinking about the .350 Legend in one. I wonder what existing platform could handle it?

I bet my Dan Wesson in 357 maximum would do nicely.
might not even have to use moon clips or nuthin.

I still don't understand why Winchester didn't just bring out a model 94 in 357 max, include some scope rings in the box, and let the world have at it.

 

[Ian]

I was thinking a Delta Elite with a double-stack magazine, or a Magnum Research som'thin-som'thin'.

 

[Pistolero]

What's the LOA? I had the impression that it was WAY too long for any semiauto handgun.... if I understand
the conversation properly.

Bill

 

[fiver]

not only is that a mouthful it would surely be a handful.
you do know the round is the fastest hardest hitting thing invented since last week?

a little tidbit I found interesting is they had to throw that +.003 tolerance in there to make the round legal to deer hunt with in the straight wall states.
by true definition and state laws the round isn't even technically legal to hunt with if factory ammo is used.
winchester had to be going for another market and kind of got one of those leaning on the doorway well you know if we done this instead of that we might could have sold more rifles moments.

 

[Pistolero]

Why not legal with factory ammo, fiver??

 

[Ian]

Not full .35 caliber.

 

[fiver]

yep, it's only 355 not 358.
they opened the throat with the +.003 spec so they should take a 358 bullet just fine.

I kind of want one of these, and have since the 223 case blow out version was introduced.
I even have a 250gr 35 cal. saeco cast bullet I seated in a 223 case, jeesh 12-13 years back when i was thinking about doing this just before that round was brought out, kicking around here somewhere.

 

[Ian]

The challenge is getting a .358" cast bullet into a case with .012" thick walls and a .354" body diameter at the shoulder. Even blown out straight (.377") there just isn't enough room. I think THAT is why the Legend has a larger case head than .223.

So....why not a .338 on a shortened .223 case?

 

[fiver]

338 would work, so would a 323 for most things.
the 35 just had the advantage that die sets could be put together from various bits and pieces of what I already have on hand, or ones I could modify myself from stuff on hand.

the problem I could see right off was head spacing.
slamming a tiny straight wall 11 or 12 thou case mouth forward in a rifle just didn't give me a whole lot of warm and fuzzy.

IMO.
the 350 went to the bigger case head so they could taper the case more and use that taper as an aid in controlling the forward momentum of the case into the chamber.
they also went to 355 to gain a bit more taper just for that reason.

 

[Tomme boy]

I was looking for barrels last night and I can not remember who made it, but they had a 358 Legend so you could use all 0.358" bullets. It also said not to use the 350 rounds in it as the bore and groove were spect for the 0.358"

Found it. https://www.kakindustry.com/ar-15-parts/upper-parts/barrels/358-legend