350 Legend
- Thread starter Tomme boy
- Start date
Tomme boy
Well-Known Member
I am in Iowa so that is one of the cases we can use. The 450 Bushmaster is too much recoil for me. I do not like shooting any of my shotguns. The recoil really messes with my back. If I didn't have all the injuries I would stay with the 12ga.
Going in for the 3rd surgery next month. Hopefully the last.
Going in for the 3rd surgery next month. Hopefully the last.
wquiles
Well-Known Member
After reading the articles about the 350 Legend, I am far more excited to try the .375 Winchester instead:
Remembering the 375 Winchester ...
Very few Marlins were chambered in it, but a good 336 and a trip to JES can fix that
Will
Remembering the 375 Winchester ...
Very few Marlins were chambered in it, but a good 336 and a trip to JES can fix that
Will
Gary
SE Kansas
Why all the negative verbiage concerning the 350 Legend? I think it will prove to be a solution for those in states that only allow straight walled cartridges over a certain caliber to with which to hunt Deer; and provide another mild recoiling option. After shoulder reconstruction I have started over again beginning with Air Guns and now back to mild recoil 30-30. If you don't have limitations such as those and wish to blow away anything that resides in North America, you have my blessing. Would I have a rifle in 350 Legend, CERTAINLY, but only if the better half will let me.
I have a 336 that is ~ 50 yrs old and hasn't even had a full box of Winchester/Western's down her bore; maybe.......
I have a 336 that is ~ 50 yrs old and hasn't even had a full box of Winchester/Western's down her bore; maybe.......
Last edited:
wquiles
Well-Known Member
I think it is mostly us making fun of the whole "Legend" branding, and their marketing claims "fastest this and that, blah, blah ..." in which they clearly went over the top and plain exaggerated ....
Truth is that given the hunting laws in some states, the 350 Legend and 450 Bushmaster make sense, given how the laws were written.
For "me", after reading all of the articles and comparisons, the 35Rem, 357 Win, and even the 38-55 would be what I would like to experiment with next, with cast loads of course. I have a mint 45-70 Marlin (JM stamped), but would love something smaller/lighter next .....
Will
wquiles
Well-Known Member
I have one of those, and I love mine. It is so freaking effective it makes you wonder why it is only a recent invention
CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
This is something I did not mention, but might be option if you haven’t purchased yet. I have seen a couple videos with folks having barrels with throats opened to accept larger bullets as well as barrels chambered on real 357/8 bores.
As I mentioned, I’m having luck sizing jackets down a little. Easy likely because the jackets are thin & cores soft.
My issue with reg 9mm slugs is there profiles are made for feeding. Not so much for hunting profiles W/ larger meplats.
Running lead “only” is how I justified it to myself. As like most reloaded I feel Winchester shot themselves in the foot going with a ett bore When clear as can be states with these new cf restrictions name a few criteria and 35 or specifically a couple say 357 minimum. HOW HARD would it really have been?? Mentality of young folks today is all I’m gonna say...
I’m a long time maxi shooter, I was ecstatic to read of this caliber, and every bit as deflated as I learned of the stupidity in its design.... But yea, I did still buy one, so there is that!
CW
Last edited:
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
For something like 4 or 5 states, maybe I underestimate and it is 10 or 12 states, the "Legend" is useful.
For the rest of the country.....meh, 6 to 10 other solutions that have been available for 100 years. It is a niche cartridge,
solving a problem created by politicians writing funny hunting rules in a few states.
The cherry on top is the silly "Legend" monicker, which is snicker worthy on day one. In maybe 30 years of service
it could earn it. Now, like the punk gunslinger on the old western showing up in town, telling everyone that "I am a
legendary gunslinger, call me Kid Legend."
A bit tiresome right off the bat, no matter how good it may actually be.
Bill
For the rest of the country.....meh, 6 to 10 other solutions that have been available for 100 years. It is a niche cartridge,
solving a problem created by politicians writing funny hunting rules in a few states.
The cherry on top is the silly "Legend" monicker, which is snicker worthy on day one. In maybe 30 years of service
it could earn it. Now, like the punk gunslinger on the old western showing up in town, telling everyone that "I am a
legendary gunslinger, call me Kid Legend."
A bit tiresome right off the bat, no matter how good it may actually be.
Bill
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
Yeah, not the first time that marketing Suits missed the mark. 2 of GM/Chevrolet's faux pas were the "Nova" ("doesn't go", in Spanish--this cracked folks up in SW USA and Mexico) and "Camaro" ("shrimp", in Spanish--a thing that goes fastest in reverse).
Also not the first time that gunmakers chased niches to comport with regulation vicissitudes. Inline muzzle-loaders......using saboted pistol/revolver bullets to "make regs" for alternate or extended BP/ML seasons. GAMERS--they too need lodgement in Dante's 9th Circle.
Also not the first time that gunmakers chased niches to comport with regulation vicissitudes. Inline muzzle-loaders......using saboted pistol/revolver bullets to "make regs" for alternate or extended BP/ML seasons. GAMERS--they too need lodgement in Dante's 9th Circle.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
I get it that if you live in one of these states, this may be a really good choice for deer hunting,
esp if you don't like the thumping a 12 ga slug in a light pump gun provides at both ends.
It will be interesting to see how deep the market winds up being. Perhaps there is an untapped
need for an intermediate bore cartridge for ARs that I don't perceive. In history, the levergun
was displaced in hunting by bolt guns, probably because folks learned to like bolt guns in
their military service. Perhaps the Modern Sporting Rifle is poised to overrun the bolt guns
as hunting rifles in the same way. Leverguns are not gone, but are less common.
We could have done with a more modest name, perhaps "9mm Winchester Straight" or even
just "9mm Winchester Rifle"
esp if you don't like the thumping a 12 ga slug in a light pump gun provides at both ends.
It will be interesting to see how deep the market winds up being. Perhaps there is an untapped
need for an intermediate bore cartridge for ARs that I don't perceive. In history, the levergun
was displaced in hunting by bolt guns, probably because folks learned to like bolt guns in
their military service. Perhaps the Modern Sporting Rifle is poised to overrun the bolt guns
as hunting rifles in the same way. Leverguns are not gone, but are less common.
We could have done with a more modest name, perhaps "9mm Winchester Straight" or even
just "9mm Winchester Rifle"
RBHarter
West Central AR
Win didn't want to have the 280/7mm Express/mag/08 thing like Remington has , there is already a mass of ignorance with the 9x 17,18,19,21,23,25 , 9mm Win Mag , 38/357 , 357 Sig , Auto mag , and the Desert Eagle .
Wow that made my head hurt ......
As far as groove dia fupaux we need only look as far as Rugers x39 with .308 groove ....... Nevermind that industry can't decide what dia a 7.62 should be so bullets are some place between .308&.314 .
For our use we are all aquainted with the 9mms found to be .354-358 and we have the 35/38 cal designations that are someplace between .357&.361 except for the 38/55 which is .375 and all of the 375s that are actually bigger than the 38s . Then we have 36&44 cal pistols that take 38&45 cartridge conversion cylinders which squeezes one in the forcing cone and let's the other rattle like a hotdog in a hallway . Why is a .426-432 dia bullet a 44 ?
Our purposes , it runs on basically 357 max data . What a boon for us , someone did all the leg work for a standardized cartridge and load data so we can get a GM 357 gunsmith round blank barrel and a Savage Axis center feed 223 and in an afternoon have a bolt action 357 max for about $400 .
Yes the name is stupid but so is 25-45 Sharps .
Wow that made my head hurt ......
As far as groove dia fupaux we need only look as far as Rugers x39 with .308 groove ....... Nevermind that industry can't decide what dia a 7.62 should be so bullets are some place between .308&.314 .
For our use we are all aquainted with the 9mms found to be .354-358 and we have the 35/38 cal designations that are someplace between .357&.361 except for the 38/55 which is .375 and all of the 375s that are actually bigger than the 38s . Then we have 36&44 cal pistols that take 38&45 cartridge conversion cylinders which squeezes one in the forcing cone and let's the other rattle like a hotdog in a hallway . Why is a .426-432 dia bullet a 44 ?
Our purposes , it runs on basically 357 max data . What a boon for us , someone did all the leg work for a standardized cartridge and load data so we can get a GM 357 gunsmith round blank barrel and a Savage Axis center feed 223 and in an afternoon have a bolt action 357 max for about $400 .
Yes the name is stupid but so is 25-45 Sharps .
Gary
SE Kansas
Thought I had a 357 Max upper but the guy backed away from the trade. I was going to trade a H & R 22 Hornet SS barreled Handi Rifle for a 357 Max upper but the guy wanted a 20" barrel instead of the 22" barrel. I told him he could cut off a couple of inches, but he didn't think that would be right. I'll keep looking.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
RBH--
The reason a ".426-432 bullet is a .44" is that the original cartridges were externally lubricated with heeled bullets
like the only surviving member of that clan....the .22 LR. When externally lubricated bullets became a problem (grit, lint)
manufacturers went to inside lubricated bullets, in the same cylinders. So now the bullet is smaller, while the case is
still an actual .44 diameter (or .38 diameter).
Remember, at each step, the folks at the time were solving a particular, current, local problem. They had no long term
goals, didn't know where it would all wind up. It evolved and is odd. But each step made sense in isolation.
So here is the thinking of a guy in about 1866 or so:
I have a .44 Colt 1860 Army, only 3-4 yrs old, but I want cartidges. OK, how to most cheaply do that? Cut the back off the cylinder
and make a rear section with firing pins, and put rimfire cartridges in it....the only kind of cartridges that existed. How
big do I make these new rimfire cartridges.....well, the cylinders are .451-.453, so let's ream them a touch for consistent
diameter and to smooth them up, since inside smoothness was unimportant to a muzzle loader cylinder, to say .460 and
have .457 cartridges. And these .457 soft bullets will fit fine down the barrel which used .451 diameter
round balls. That works, and upgrades my only a few years old expensive revolver to cartridges. A step forward.
And a few years later....people are complaining about grit and stuff sticking to their goopy externally lubed rimfire
bullets. So, some guy says, let's put more of the bullet inside the case with grooves to hold lube. Problem solved.
Oh, the accuracy went all to hell? Hmm. Bullets now too small? OK, we'll step the cylinder to fit these new smaller bullets.
The next problem solved.
And we wind up with "44 caliber (which was really .45)" as .430ish. And .38 caliber, which was really about .375, is
about .357ish. All through the same step by step problem solving. .375 muzzle loading cylinders "cleaned up" to
.385ish, for .380 OD cartridges, originally heeled with .380 bullets, fine for barrels for .375 round balls.
I have examined an old Colt . 38 Colt caliber revolver, and it had straight thru chambers in the cylinder. This, with hollow
based bullets was apparently sort of satisfactory, but within a few years the chambers were stepped to better match a
bullet which fitted inside the case., and barrel diameters reduced, too.
And the resulting drop in bullet diameter due to inside lubrication means that the ".44" (which was really a .45) is dropped
from .457 case OD to a .430ish bullet (.013 ish case wall thickness). The .38s, starting with a .380 case OD, winds up with
.357 ish bullets, leaving about 0.011ish case wall thickness.
And a few years later, in 1873, Colt invented a REAL .45 with normal inside lubed bullets, so the case OD had to be .480 for
a .454 bullet.
And the .44WCF (.44-40) used a very thin necked .443 case OD, and that produced .426 bullets. So they were sort of
following the same rimfire concept that the case OD was the caliber, even when switching to inside lubed bullets
was changing the reality from under that paradigm. Case necks are only about .008, and are easy to crunch in loading.
And the .44 Henry, a Civil War rimfire cartridge, had . 446 bullets and .44 cal external case, heeled bullets. It was following
the rimfire std set by S&W with the first cartridge ever, the .22 RF (now short).
This I have learned because long ago I asked the same question. "Why in the world is a .44 .430 diam and a .38 .357 diam?"
Bill
The reason a ".426-432 bullet is a .44" is that the original cartridges were externally lubricated with heeled bullets
like the only surviving member of that clan....the .22 LR. When externally lubricated bullets became a problem (grit, lint)
manufacturers went to inside lubricated bullets, in the same cylinders. So now the bullet is smaller, while the case is
still an actual .44 diameter (or .38 diameter).
Remember, at each step, the folks at the time were solving a particular, current, local problem. They had no long term
goals, didn't know where it would all wind up. It evolved and is odd. But each step made sense in isolation.
So here is the thinking of a guy in about 1866 or so:
I have a .44 Colt 1860 Army, only 3-4 yrs old, but I want cartidges. OK, how to most cheaply do that? Cut the back off the cylinder
and make a rear section with firing pins, and put rimfire cartridges in it....the only kind of cartridges that existed. How
big do I make these new rimfire cartridges.....well, the cylinders are .451-.453, so let's ream them a touch for consistent
diameter and to smooth them up, since inside smoothness was unimportant to a muzzle loader cylinder, to say .460 and
have .457 cartridges. And these .457 soft bullets will fit fine down the barrel which used .451 diameter
round balls. That works, and upgrades my only a few years old expensive revolver to cartridges. A step forward.
And a few years later....people are complaining about grit and stuff sticking to their goopy externally lubed rimfire
bullets. So, some guy says, let's put more of the bullet inside the case with grooves to hold lube. Problem solved.
Oh, the accuracy went all to hell? Hmm. Bullets now too small? OK, we'll step the cylinder to fit these new smaller bullets.
The next problem solved.
And we wind up with "44 caliber (which was really .45)" as .430ish. And .38 caliber, which was really about .375, is
about .357ish. All through the same step by step problem solving. .375 muzzle loading cylinders "cleaned up" to
.385ish, for .380 OD cartridges, originally heeled with .380 bullets, fine for barrels for .375 round balls.
I have examined an old Colt . 38 Colt caliber revolver, and it had straight thru chambers in the cylinder. This, with hollow
based bullets was apparently sort of satisfactory, but within a few years the chambers were stepped to better match a
bullet which fitted inside the case., and barrel diameters reduced, too.
And the resulting drop in bullet diameter due to inside lubrication means that the ".44" (which was really a .45) is dropped
from .457 case OD to a .430ish bullet (.013 ish case wall thickness). The .38s, starting with a .380 case OD, winds up with
.357 ish bullets, leaving about 0.011ish case wall thickness.
And a few years later, in 1873, Colt invented a REAL .45 with normal inside lubed bullets, so the case OD had to be .480 for
a .454 bullet.
And the .44WCF (.44-40) used a very thin necked .443 case OD, and that produced .426 bullets. So they were sort of
following the same rimfire concept that the case OD was the caliber, even when switching to inside lubed bullets
was changing the reality from under that paradigm. Case necks are only about .008, and are easy to crunch in loading.
And the .44 Henry, a Civil War rimfire cartridge, had . 446 bullets and .44 cal external case, heeled bullets. It was following
the rimfire std set by S&W with the first cartridge ever, the .22 RF (now short).
This I have learned because long ago I asked the same question. "Why in the world is a .44 .430 diam and a .38 .357 diam?"
Bill
Last edited:
Ian
Notorious member
If Sam Colt hadn't been so arrogant and short-sighted as to have laughed Rollin White out of his office in about 1856, much of the conversion confusion would have been avoided. If Smith and Wesson, who didn't laugh at White's patent offer, had been able to buy Colt's rights to the revolving cylinder, things really would have been different. Early cartridge and gun development was nothing more than a patent war for decades, each manufacturer hamstrung in some way by another's better mousetrap.