I think 275 or so up to 280 in a lead core bullet might get stabilized. Over that is a crap shoot. With monometals I'm thinking you need around 250 gr or shorter. All you can do is try them and see. Have fun testing. Be Well, Packy.

My Whelen with a 24 inch barrel only gets 2200 with 275 grain Woodleighs.

The reasons Nosler does not make a 250 grain Accubond is because such a bullet is too long for the standard 1:16 twist.

The 225 grain Accubond did catalogue job on cow elk at 75 yards.

Thanks for sharing your info. I have so many medium bores I am a medium bore whore. I can't decide which gun to use when deer season comes. BE WELL, Packy.

Got my 350RM Encore barrel. Man is it nice! Can't wait to get her up and running.

Waiting on dies to make some brass, so I don't know chamber length yet.

i did play around with a tight patch and a cleaning rod and I believe its a 1:12 twist barrel. If for sure isn't 1:16. I keep measuring between 11.5-13 based on number of revolutions.

So I've been working up initial test brass for my T/C Encore barrel.
I tried without neck turning but the necks were too thick, and basically line to line with the SAAMI chamber dimensions.
So I invested in a turning set up and I am now where I need to be, at least to start.

Made a test piece of brass and split the neck to check for seat depth limits. Doesnt appear that I have any.
Playing with both a 225gr Nosler AB and a 225gr SGK, I cannot get either one to touch the lands, and that bullet OAL way past 3.100".
I have also done a tight patch twist check and its somewhere I really believe its 1:12, might be 1:14 but I think 12. Its definetly not 16.

So I am going to do some initial brass testing with 225gr bullets. I plan to use H4895 or H335, as I love Hodgdon powders and have both on hand.

Eventually I certainly want to play with 250gr-280gr bullets now that I believe my barrel will support it.
275gr Woodleigh looks interesting.

Anybody have any good Hodgdon recipes for the 275/280 gr bullets? I also shoot some IMR and Alliant powders as well.

Thanks all. I am getting excited!

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
One of my favorite cartridges; I have 4 of them. One long action, original 700, one custom Model 70, one Model 7, and one Ruger 77; long action, tang safety, in a boat paddle stock.

Must be a beast in that model 7!

The 660 is a well thought out rifle, too bad it's so damn ugly.

Dave

Pretty is as pretty does. If it doesn't shoot and kill game it is ugly to me. I like the longer heavier barrel of my 673 over the 600 both of them in 350 Rem. Mag. But I can see either killing anything I aim at. Be Well, Packy.

The snow is finally fading and the temperature was a warm 48° today, so I finally got out to the range to test my new Encore 350RemMag barrel. Shot 5 or 6 old stock factory Remington 200gr Core Lokt, and it looks to group around 1.25MOA, I am sure it will shrink with some handloads.

Then I tried some of my formed brass, and the results weren't so good. 51gr H335, 225gr SGK and nothing even resembled a pattern out of 6 shots. I am talking 15+ inches bad, and like more than a foot lower that were the 200gr group was. The interesting thing, is the three 225gr bullets that did hit the target were perfectly round holes, no signs of any tumbling. I believe this to be a 1:12 twist barrel capable of the bigger bullets.

Also, shot #5 was a click with a light primer strike! So evaluating my brass when I got home, I see my shoulders were NOT consistent. My process was this, Federal 300 Win Mag brass, Redding 350RM trim die, trimmed with a hack saw, deburr & chamfer, 350RM FL die, Hornady trimmer to proper length, deburr & chamfer again. Of course the shoulders don't come out with perfectly sharp corners, more like the Weatherby radius, not quite that severe though.

So in measuring my fired brass with a shoulder bump comparator, the factory Remington measures 1.785-786, 3 of my reformed FC brass measure 1.784-785, and 3 other of my reformed brass [including the click misfire] measure 1.770. Way short, obviously wasn't seating hard [or close] up against the barrel shoulder. The 3 with the high shoulder fireformed nicely with nice sharp transitions, the fired short length shoulders are still "round".

So my question is this, what the heck did I do wrong in forming the brass from 300 Win Mag?
What in my process was inconsistent that would cause 3 of 6 cases to be shorter than the others?

This was my very first time forming brass from something else, so I am very anxious to learn something here.

Lube on the case where the new shoulder is being formed. . Only thing I can think of that would make resized brass shorter than others. I've made a lot of 350 brass out of various mag parents; no issues except for thick necks which some of my 350 rifles will not take.
Or the brass made from the 300 brass is thicker and the shoulders somehow get folded back.
As for that 350 in the picture being a beast; it is essentially the same as a 600; it has a 600 barrel and stock. Model 7 action. It's not bad.
Now, forming brass is not very hard; for this is it simple; run the brass into a FL die; trim; that is it. And neck ream/turn if necessary for your rifle.
No special dies needed.

quote:

Originally posted by packrattusnongratus:
Pretty is as pretty does. If it doesn't shoot and kill game it is ugly to me. I like the longer heavier barrel of my 673 over the 600 both of them in 350 Rem. Mag. But I can see either killing anything I aim at. Be Well, Packy.

What's the barrel length on the Model 673 in .350RM?

I'd love to have some of that Nosler brass, but until I find some I'll just enjoy the learning process.
If anybody knows of any Nosler 350RM brass that could be had, I'd be interested.

The process of forming the brass really wasn't that bad, a little time consuming maybe, but all things considered it was fairly easy. I think repeatability may come with experience. Even neck turning wasn't too bad, also a learning experience. They all chambered and extracted very easy.
The key takeaway I believe was do some measuring up front to ensure I am firing a good case and not a short one.

Of the standard belted magnums, which one is the shortest? Is it a 338 Win Mag?
I considering getting some 338 cases for my next attempt, the idea being the starting neck is closer to the final neck, and although trimming off a bunch, maybe the overall starting thickness might be more appropriate.

Its hard for me to say anything about the accuracy of the 225s when figuring out after the fact that the case shoulders weren't consistent.
I for sure will try and load up some 225s on the next round with some R-P factory once fired.

7 rem mag, or 338; same thing; neck diameter of the parent is immaterial because none of it remains anyway. I find that some makes of 7mm are thinner and work better than 338. I do not make cases from 300s because you are making a neck from body meat; too thick. With the 7mm and 338 you are making necks from shoulder meat.

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

quote:

Originally posted by packrattusnongratus:
Pretty is as pretty does. If it doesn't shoot and kill game it is ugly to me. I like the longer heavier barrel of my 673 over the 600 both of them in 350 Rem. Mag. But I can see either killing anything I aim at. Be Well, Packy.

What's the barrel length on the Model 673 in .350RM?

Model 673 is 22 inches long.

Model 660 is 20 inches long.

Model 600 & Mohawk is 18.5 inches long.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

quote:

Originally posted by packrattusnongratus:
Pretty is as pretty does. If it doesn't shoot and kill game it is ugly to me. I like the longer heavier barrel of my 673 over the 600* * *

What's the barrel length on the Model 673 in .350RM?

Model 673 is 22 inches long.
Model 660 is 20 inches long.
Model 600 & Mohawk is 18.5 inches long.

Thanks for the follow-up info, Cougarz.

Reason I asked is, an acquaintance at the local Club has a 673 in 350RM, which he might be willing to part with. I doubt if he's put 20 shells through it.

I've read up on the 600 models. I've always wanted one in that caliber with its compact, 18.5" carbine configuration, but without the drawbacks of the trigger-recall issue or the plastic vented rib and plastic tigger guard. (I see where Heritage Arms makes steel replacements for those parts).

Seems to me the simpler solution would be to obtain a 673 and cut the barrel back to 18.5"/19". Then you'd have essentially the same 350RM carbine, but on the modern Model 7 platform (without a defective trigger unit).

Don't know if the 673's laminated stock weighs more or less than a 600's, but they're probably close enough to be a wash.

I have 350s with barrels from 24 to 18 inches. They react exactly as you expect. It's physics.
My favorite is the Ruger 77, long action, tang safety, with boat paddle MK2 stock, with 22 inch barrel. No heavier than the 600; actually I like them all.
Laminated stocks are all birch, and weight slightly more than the 600s; they are beech and walnut, with very thick slabs used in the laminate.

I have a Model 70 I might sell....

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:

I have a Model 70 I might sell....

Sent you a PM

Which prompted me to post it on AR classifieds with pictures.

Dpcd, A few month ago I had an awful time getting my Ruger 77 to feed 350RM cartridges with NF bullets.I sorted it out finally by converting to a DB magazine. Have you ever run into that problem? Thanks, Brian

No, but I don't know what an NF bullet is.
All modern rifles use sheet metal mag boxes with the feed lips part of the box. Did you try bending/tweaking those?

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I have 350s with barrels from 24 to 18 inches. They react exactly as you expect. It's physics.
My favorite is the Ruger 77, long action, tang safety, with boat paddle MK2 stock, with 22 inch barrel. No heavier than the 600; actually I like them all.
Laminated stocks are all birch, and weight slightly more than the 600s; they are beech and walnut, with very thick slabs used in the laminate.
I have a Model 70 I might sell....

Thanks for the info!

DPCD. NorthFork Bullets.
The problem was with the standard Ruger magazine.
When I converted to the DB magazine yes I had to tweek/bend the lips a bit. Thanks, Brian

Never used them.
Standard magazines can be tweaked to make them feed. I do one a month at least.

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

quote:

Originally posted by packrattusnongratus:
Pretty is as pretty does. If it doesn't shoot and kill game it is ugly to me. I like the longer heavier barrel of my 673 over the 600* * *

What's the barrel length on the Model 673 in .350RM?

Model 673 is 22 inches long.
Model 660 is 20 inches long.
Model 600 & Mohawk is 18.5 inches long.

Thanks for the follow-up info, Cougarz.

Reason I asked is, an acquaintance at the local Club has a 673 in 350RM, which he might be willing to part with. I doubt if he's put 20 shells through it.

I've read up on the 600 models. I've always wanted one in that caliber with its compact, 18.5" carbine configuration, but without the drawbacks of the trigger-recall issue or the plastic vented rib and plastic tigger guard. (I see where Heritage Arms makes steel replacements for those parts).

Seems to me the simpler solution would be to obtain a 673 and cut the barrel back to 18.5"/19". Then you'd have essentially the same 350RM carbine, but on the modern Model 7 platform (without a defective trigger unit).

Don't know if the 673's laminated stock weighs more or less than a 600's, but they're probably close enough to be a wash.

I have had a model 660 that I stupidly sold. I liked it a lot. Now I have a 673 which I like a lot.

I've shot a couple 600's but didn't care for the muzzle blast. For some reason a couple more inches makes a big difference in blast to me.

All of these models have had trigger recalls as some point. I don't worry about it and have never had a problem. I just keep them clean which I believe along with playing too much with the trigger adjustment was the root of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

quote:

Originally posted by packrattusnongratus:
I have shot the 350 RM in Remington 600 and 673. I'll take the 673 any day if I can choose. I like the extra steel and sight radius on the 673. At least the 673 seems a little longer. I love the Scout rifles though. My Steyr runs most any 308 stuff well. I would like to set up a 350 as a Scout. Be Well, Packy.

Easy, just set up a 600 as it was originally designed. Long before Cooper copied the idea.

Love the Rem 600 carbines. No boogers at all on the .350 Rem.Mag model.

Best bear medicine to take with you into the Alaskan bramble bush.

I will be the 1st to confess that the "scout concept" of scope mounting is a VERY good idea. With both eyes open + quick target aquasition I use it to shoot skeet w/ my scout modified Krag. I don't get them all but I do get a lot.

I shoot with both eyes open with my current .350 which has the scope in the conventional position and I'm right handed / left eye dominant.



I don't see how the position of the scope on the rifle would make any difference other than reducing the field of view when mounted forward. But I can't say I've ever seriously tried a scout rifle either.

In the end we each like what we like, as it should be.

Did the same on a FN Safari ,good choice

The so called "scout" rifle concept the the DUMBEST thing to hit the shooting sports since electric primers. (remember those?).
(cougar is right)
Of course, Remington made one, which is in those ads, but Jeff Cooper says he invented it, just so he could sell magazine articles.
It's definitely a bad idea. Anyone who "thinks" they are faster than a conventionally mounted scope, needs to go back to scope school.
The field of view is so small, that target acquisition is no faster, and usually slower. And yes, you can keep both eyes open on rear mounted optics as well.
And Yes, I own one like that. It was a fad, not a good one, and it's time, dubious at best, is long gone.
The 350 Mag, however, is a great round, far flatter and more versatile than most realize, and if someone made brass again, could be more popular. I've built several of them. And brass is not all that hard to make from 7mm mags. Just have to neck turn or ream.

Thats another beauty of living in this country, having a difference of opinion is O.K. I have many rifles scoped traditionally but FOR ME the scout concept gives me faster target acquisition + peripheral view in its particular use.

quote:

Originally posted by NormanConquest:
Thats another beauty of living in this country, having a difference of opinion is O.K. I have many rifles scoped traditionally but FOR ME the scout concept gives me faster target acquisition + peripheral view in its particular use.

What's interesting to me, is that the Remington ad in A.J.'s post above dates from the late 1960s. IER "Scout" scopes, as we know them today, weren't around back then. Nor was Col. Jeff Cooper writing about them in Guns & Ammo magazine during that period.

That Rem 600 carbine the hunter is holding likely had a EER pistol scope attached in a custom (one-off) forward mount.

quote:

I don't see how the position of the scope on the rifle would make any difference other than reducing the field of view when mounted forward. But I can't say I've ever seriously tried a scout rifle either.

quote:

The so called "scout" rifle concept the the DUMBEST thing to hit the shooting sports since electric primers. (remember those?).
(cougar is right)
Of course, Remington made one, which is in those ads, but Jeff Cooper says he invented it, just so he could sell magazine articles.
It's definitely a bad idea. Anyone who "thinks" they are faster than a conventionally mounted scope, needs to go back to scope school.

I built two "scout rifles because it was the simplest/cheapest solution to mounting scopes on non drilled actions.

A 95 7x57 and a 03 30-06,.

For a well trained person are they faster then a well/properly/fitted rifle with a conventional mounted scope no. Just as fast yes, faster than a conventional improperly mounted/fitted scope rifle combo yes

Are they useful for killing things yes.

The 03 is my favorite in the thick stuff bear/hound hog rifle. I have made some very difficult running shots with it.

But than I have done the same with conventionally fitted/properly mounted scopes.

The key to good scope use is fitting/mounting and lots of practice.

I like the concept and it works for me. I don't see how some can't see how it works. You have to train yourself for it to work. If after that you don't want to use it OK. But don't be ignorant and say it doesn't work. Go to Scoutrifle.org if you want to read more. Don't waste your time on the spacebook page for the Scout Rifle. Be Well, Packy.

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

What's interesting to me, is that the Remington ad in A.J.'s post above dates from the late 1960s. IER "Scout" scopes, as we know them today, weren't around back then. Nor was Col. Jeff Cooper writing about them in Guns & Ammo magazine during that period.

That Rem 600 carbine the hunter is holding likely had a EER pistol scope attached in a custom (one-off) forward mount.

Don't forget the trainload of Winchester 94's that used a forward mounted scope where the rear sight would be. I think the mount was from Bsquare or Bushnell maybe? (edit 4/5/21: they were Leupold Detacho(?) mounts).
Here's a photo I found one the web of something similar.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Adams:

What's interesting to me, is that the Remington ad in A.J.'s post above dates from the late 1960s. IER "Scout" scopes, as we know them today, weren't around back then. Nor was Col. Jeff Cooper writing about them in Guns & Ammo magazine during that period.

That Rem 600 carbine the hunter is holding likely had a EER pistol scope attached in a custom (one-off) forward mount.

Don't forget the trainload of Winchester 94's that used a forward mounted scope where the rear sight would be. I think the mount was from Bsquare or Bushnell maybe?

Here's a photo I found one the web of something similar.

Nice vintage Scout set-up right there!

Yes of course we had 94s and 600s in the 1960s with pistol scopes mounted; no one called them Scout rifles then. And on the 94 it wasn't done to be cool; it was the only place to put a scope without drilling. I put a Williams 5D peep sight on mine; (anyone know why it was called 5D? Same reason Motel 6 was Motel 6; for you young guys. )
No one used a bolt action East of the Rockies back then anyway. Maybe a $9.95 Sporterized Mosin or Enfield is all I ever saw. Most were Win 94, Marlin 336, Rem 740 and 760. Had an Uncle who used an M1 Carbine; I told him it was not powerful enough for deer but he was never sober enough to hit one anyway. Sorry, not germane.
I still can't fathom why someone would want to sacrifice a Much wider field of view, trading that for a much smaller one; keeping both eyes open works with both scopes.
Still don't like it, and I have one.
It is a solution to a nonexistent problem.
Like the German ZF41 Kar98k sniper rifle. They didn't call that a Scout rifle either. Just a misguided attempt to put a scope on a rifle in the wrong place.
Sure, some have trained themselves to use them. I get it.

Really wanted to grab a Remmy 673 in .350 Rem Mag a few years ago, but not only can't you find the ammo anywhere, you can't handload for it either as nobody's making .350RM brass anymore.

Yeah, .35-cal/.358 bullets you can find, but no brass nowhere. Nor dies either. Very sad.

The genius of the .350RM is that it packed .35 Whelen ballistics into a compact, handy, quick-to-point, 6.5lb carbine. This combo was always intended for short-range work - in the bramble bush and thick alders and dark timbered areas where shots will rarely exceed 50-75yds.

Unfortunately too many Fuddleys in the late '60s and 1970s just didn't get the concept or the 'looks' of the Model 600, or for that matter understand the 'niche' that a short-action magnum cartridge and a 19" barreled carbine were intended to fill.

They were too busy watching the latest episode of Lost in Space or Batman. Very sad.

As a kid in the 70s, I was sure the world had gone to crap when a friend of mine showed up at the ranch with the ugly plastic thing of a rifle. I must of been born a fuddley

Not true; Norma sells brass, and it is easy to make from 7mm mag brass. No need to avoid the 350 Rem Mag. No need to saddle it with a short action or short barrel either; most I build are on long actions and 22-25 inch barrels. Yes it gives ballistics far better than it looks; it is very efficient.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Not true; Norma sells brass,

Try finding it now. Unobtainium.

quote:

and it is easy to make from 7mm mag brass. No need to avoid the 350 Rem Mag.

True, and there are several YouTube vids on that process. But 350RM brass is only 'easy' to make from 7mmRM brass IF you can find 7mmRM brass and IF you can find the conversion/forming/trim dies. Heck, try calling LEE Precision to get a factory crimp die in 350RM. Good luck on that! You won't even get the dial tone. LOL!

quote:

No need to saddle it with a short action or short barrel either; most I build are on long actions and 22-25 inch barrels. Yes it gives ballistics far better than it looks; it is very efficient.

Yeah I agree on LA vs. SA. builds. With the LA you can use the heavier and/or longer bullets that are otherwise hampered by the 2.800" length of the 600's/660's internal magazine.