Not that the 358 needs any improving, but has anyone done it? If so, how much did it improve it? Lou

[ 11-08-2003, 04:50: Message edited by: DOCTOR LOU ]

I tried it ont the computer, and came up with 1 more grain of wate, which equals about .85g of powder.
Don't bother. If you're shooting REALLY light bulelts, you could stand to move the shoulder forward, maybe gain three or four grains.
I think Winchester was already trying to max out the 308 case when they made it.
Compare it to the 243 and you'll see what I mean.

Winchester recalled all of the M 70's made in .358 Win due to a headspace problem. One would surmise that was because the chambers were sloppy? I have not read of a recall of M 88's so chambered for instance and the .358 Wins shoulder seems as able to hold headspace as some others like the 9.3-62 etc. An improved chamber might provide more headspace control if indeed it's a problem. The gun writer Ed Matunas wrote that the .358's shoulder was inadequate.

If the magazine can be made to work a larger case is in order if one wants more capacity. There is the .284 case and the .350 RM.

I would sure like to know the date that Winchester recaller the .358 M70s? It would make it easier to research the problem and see if there really was a recall.
I know several gunwriters, including jack O'Connor weren't too thrilled with the .358, as I have four different rifles chambered to the rounds, and as I have never had any problems with headspacing, methinks there is a bit of urban legend here. Probably based on comments made by some of the "egg-spurts" like Mr. Matunas. Now, I can see where there might be a problem with "push feed" rifles like the tang safety Ruger M77, and in slipping the extractor claw over the rim might just push the shoulder back a hair, but I have two of those rifles and it ain't happened yet. My Browning BLR and Savage 99 don't do that either. So where's the problem. I seriously doubt that Winchester screwed up a whole run of rifles in one caliber.
I did hear that Winchester recalled a bunch of unsold rifles because they were not selling and I've also heard of people sending them back to be rebarrled to something else because they did not like the recoil. But I haven't herd the one about bad headspacing.
Paul B.

From Roger Rule's "The Riflemans Rifle" pg 96 "Somewhat like the .35 Rem. and more like the 300 Sav. it's short case shoulder (.096") proved a problem in the M 70. The case taper had even less slope than either of the earlier cartridges, and many were driven forward into the chamber causing misfires and extraction failures. Winchester offered a distributor recall of the 2000 .358 rifles....."

It goes on to say no records show how many were returned but this makes it the 5th most scarce of the standard chamberings.

Ed Matunas wrote that if one dropped a .358 Win cartridge into the snow that the chambered cartridge may not fire due to the shoulder.

How he came up with this I do not know.

Winchester may have offered to recall them, but they certainly didn't contact all the buyers with a recall of the sort issued today.

I had one of the original 200 factory-chambered .358 pre-'64 FWs made for sale in Canada...which incidentally were made in 1959, not earlier like the 1,800 made for the U.S. market were. I was never contacted or made aware of the recall.

When I had some financial problems and sold the rifle to a twit in Superior, AZ, he apparently decided it was a fake because the serial number was 464647 (1959)and took the barrel off and made his own fake on a 1955 action.

How do I know...because in a later deal he traded me back a nice little .243 Win pre-'64 FW, in trade on my pre-'64 Model 70 Target in .270 Win.... The ".243", when I logged it, happened to be SN 464647.... Lack of research and or trust made him both a faker, and lost him a LOT of value in his gun.

AC

It's already been improved, it's called the 35 Whelen

Allen, that's true, but it takes a little work to get the Whelen to feed properly in a Sako AII action.

Ed Matunas was a Winchester employee or a consultant for a while. I would expect his remarks to be a rehash of the official word out of Olin/Winchester.

I have been shooting the .358 Win since 1966. The first rifle that I got, a 99F, has been shot and hunted by far the most. It always was hard on brass as it would get insipiant head separations quite soon. I just kept culling the brass and shooting away. Then one day at the range it misfired. The round was loaded with new .358 WW brass and the primer pocket had been depth qualified. The primer was a CCI 200.

Upon investigation I concluded that the firing pin did not hit the primer hard enough. This was reported here and the thread may still exist.

That's when I got a no go headspace gage and found that the rifle had excessive headspace. From memory I would guess that it's .005" over the no go gage. This, along with the new brass, deep primer pocket and a somewhat short primer was the cause of the misfire.

I now make brass for that rifle only from miliary 30-06 cases and have a dedicated FL die for the rifles handloads.

These military 06 cases seem as if they are going to last forever and not only that but the rifle is shooting better than it ever has.

My conclusion is that the shoulder is just fine on the standard .358 Win. The other two rifles have never had any problem.

the ONLY way to make it better would be to make it on a x57 case, and AI it...

jeffe

DR. LOU: I take it that you're considering building a .358 on a medium-length Sako. Should make a nice rifle. Although Winchester made its chambers too large and/or its ammunition too small, there is no problem with the .358 cartridge per se. Since you are going custom anyway, an "improved" chamber would give you some minor benefits such as slightly less brass stretching and a tad more powder capacity, but I wouldn't spend a lot of extra money for the difference.

If you're looking for still more power from your Sako action, you could build a .35-284. The .284 case will work, apparently without much in the way of modification, in the medium Sako (Browning Safaris in .284 were built on this action and functioned flawlessly). You will loose one round of magazine capacity to the fatter case, but that still leaves you four. The .35-284 is very, very close to the .350 Remington magnum and perhaps a grain or two short of the Whelen when used in a short action.

Good luck and have fun!

Stonecreek, I have a custom Sako AII aready chambered for 358 Win. that works just fine as is. Just thought I'd see if was worth improving. I don't think it would take much to catch up to the Whelen.

Everybody, thanks for the information. Lou

[ 11-11-2003, 23:01: Message edited by: Dr. Lou ]

Hello!

If you want to improve your .358 win, why dont you just let a proper gunsmith rechamber your gun to the eccellent .350 rem mag.
I had one buillt on a Rem 673 ( org a .300 rsaum)
with a 24 inch.Lothar Walther barrel.
Getting 2600+ fts with 250 grs Swift A-frames.
Perfect medicine for big Norwegian moose.
I recon,for all american big game too!

My opinion, if what you have is reliable, do not change it. No noticable difference in performance should be expected.

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/358_wcf.htm

Perhaps the above link will give you loads that improve upon yours and you will have what you NEED in that rifle.

Funny, one reason I built a 338/06 years ago was 1-I liked it, and 2-I heard the Whelen had headspace issues.

I bet if the 358 had any issues, it was due to tolerances in the factory chambers vs ammo, as I would presume if I had a current browning or custom chambered 358, and I load my own as I would always PARTIAL SIZING my brass, I really don't think I would expect any misfires.

Just my hunch.

Thanks for the great info. Lou