I have been trying to find as much to read on the 35 Whelen and 358 STA since those are my two projects at the moment.

Guys Winchester-Western chambering the 375 HH killed a lot of 358 near stomping/fully Cape buffalo competent cartidges.

In the US we had the 350 Griffin and Howe which has been reported upon here. Simply, a 375 HH necked to 358. The stats are 275 grain bullet at 2600-2700 fps.

After 350 Griffin and Howe there was the 350 Mashburn from the 40s or 50s. A truly 1980-1990 looking cartidge. The cartridge is a 375 HH with a 30 degree shoulder. The 358STA has a 35 degree shoulder. A 250 grain load at 3,080 fps for over 5k foot pounds seems to be the most common vintage load. Mashburn also had a 350 Short Magnum which is almost identical to the 350 Norma Magnum.

There is a 350Apex Magnum that appeared maybe in 1950. The case is belted but shorter than the 338 WM and 350 Norma. I have not determined what the specs are.

Someone has bought the Mashburn name and is loading the 350 Mashburn. They are selling on Gunbroker.

We cannot forget the 35 Newton. A case that was decades ahead of its time. The 35 Newton today or a 358-375 Ruger certainly is a 275 grain bullet launcher at 2700 fps.

P.O. Ackley had a 358 Ackley Improved Magnum. This appears to be near twin to the 350 Mashburn.The 350 Ackley Improved is an Ackleied 375 HH. He listed 93-95 grains of period 4831 under a 250grain bullet for 3,000 fps. The cartridge could easily handle 275 and 300 grain bullets.

The 350 Norma Magnum is most often loaded with 250 grain bullets at 2600 fps. I have seen reports of 2700 fps. Either way a 275 grain load will do 2500fps. The cartridge was released in 1959 as a counter to the 338WM. Norma engineer, Kvale had been experimenting with shorted 300 HH necked to 8mm Bullets when, according to Phillip Massaro, American friends convinced him to abandon the euro 8mm bullet for the 358caliber bullet. I wonder who those influential Americans were? Obviously, Winchester and the 338 WM beat back the 358 Nolser. Honestly, being centered around a 250grain bullet, I would prefer an equal case with a 338. The 338 WM had a slow start. The 350 Norma seems doomed from conception.

Of course, the 350 Rigby Rimless. In classic loads the cartridge is the sister to the 35 Whelen, but that case can be used to match any of the big 358s.

I know some guys are using longer actions and magazine boxes to load the 350 Remington Magnum to with 275-300 grain bullet to 2350-2400 fps. Remington always was too smart or too stupid for their own good, with stubby rifles/actions, ugly or weak rifle pressure, and stupid twist rates.

I know there is a 350 Barnes Super Magnum a modified belted Magnum Case at 2.85 inches.

There is something called the 350 African Express, but I have not found out too much about that one.

I have not forgot about the 358 Winchester. I just do not see it as being in the same class as these cartridges.

This is e summary of my study. Please, those with more knowledge add to what I have given.

Then we have the various improved versions of the 35 Whelen that are 270grain bullet launchers in the 2500 plus feet per second cartridges. The most common being the 35 Whelen Ackley Improved and the 35 Whelen-Brown.

Maybe we can bring the 358 caliber to the level of popularity and respect it deserves.

I think Kvale's book is available in English.

He was a popular and well known hunter in his time.

This might be your post and I missed it .....The 358 STA is blown right out. From memory it is .505 at the shoulder.

They were a little bit of a cult calibre in Australia many years among a group of shooters. All made by the same gunsmith/barrel maker and were 1 in 14 twist and 357 groove. The reason for the .357 was the gunsmith recommendation. He had held the view for years that accuracy was better across a wide range of loads with a barrel that was .001 or .0015 undersize.

I was able to work up loads using unfire formed 375 brass that would shoot to the same point as full loads in the fireformed brass. Basically using 200 grain bullets in necked down 375s.

However, in the end I just necked up 340 Wby brass. Actually a 340 case is almost the same capacity as a 375 (Winchester brass) fire formed becuse the walls of Weaherby brass are much thinner.

As a side not on a switch barrel bench style gun I compared the 358 to the 338 and 375 all with same barrel make and same contour. If you took the most accurate loads from either then much the same. However, the 358 was much better when measured across lots of loads. I belive the 1 in 14 twist was the reason. Maybe also the .357 barrel but not sure.

The 358STA is an improved cartridge with a 35 degree shoulder. The shoulder is .502.

https://www.cartridgecollector.net/35-mashburn-magnum

quote:

I know some guys are using longer actions and magazine boxes to load the 350 Remington Magnum to with 275-300 grain bullet to 2350-2400 fps. Remington always was too smart or too stupid for their own good, with stubby rifles/actions, ugly or weak rifle pressure, and stupid twist rates.

When Remington designed the .350 Rem mag they accomplished everything they set out to do. The idea was build a small carbine length gun that was lightweight, powerful and handy. From the start it was intended for 200-250 grain bullets which it handles very well. Oh sure some of the more modern long for weight bullets like the Nosler Accubond 250's don't work but given the intended platform a 250 grain round nose is better all the way around anyway. Unfortunately with the long range craze going on now many good round nose bullets have fallen by the way side.

The model 600 action certainly does not lack in any way in the strength department in comparison to any other bolt action out there. Yeah sure if I was going to build a rifle in .350RM today I would use a new Winchester short (WSM) action because it gives a bit more room but my M673 Remington does everything I need it to do thank you very much. If I wanted to use 300 grain bullets I'd get a .358 Norma or the like which can shoot them at meangful velocities but that's a completely different gun for a different purpose.

I just finished up barreling a 35-284

I once owned a rifle made by Fred Wells. He necked down a 375 to 358 and called it the 35 Wells Magnum.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
I once owned a rifle made by Fred Wells. He necked down a 375 to 358 and called it the 35 Wells Magnum.

Was it any different than the 350 G&H? Shoulder diameter/location?

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:

quote:

I know some guys are using longer actions and magazine boxes to load the 350 Remington Magnum to with 275-300 grain bullet to 2350-2400 fps. Remington always was too smart or too stupid for their own good, with stubby rifles/actions, ugly or weak rifle pressure, and stupid twist rates.

When Remington designed the .350 Rem mag they accomplished everything they set out to do. The idea was build a small carbine length gun that was lightweight, powerful and handy. From the start it was intended for 200-250 grain bullets which it handles very well. Oh sure some of the more modern long for weight bullets like the Nosler Accubond 250's don't work but given the intended platform a 250 grain round nose is better all the way around anyway. Unfortunately with the long range craze going on now many good round nose bullets have fallen by the way side.

The model 600 action certainly does not lack in any way in the strength department in comparison to any other bolt action out there. Yeah sure if I was going to build a rifle in .350RM today I would use a new Winchester short (WSM) action because it gives a bit more room but my M673 Remington does everything I need it to do thank you very much. If I wanted to use 300 grain bullets I'd get a .358 Norma or the like which can shoot them at meangful velocities but that's a completely different gun for a different purpose.

I know Remington accomplished what they wanted. They accomplished what they wanted with the 35 Whelen. Loading the Whelen to low for bolt action pressure for slide and semi automatic actions. The worse sin was sticking the 35 Whelen with a 1:16 twist. The 350 Remington was chambered in a stubby, recoil enhancing, weird looking, rifle without the capability to load high SD bullets for big animals namily moose and brown bear was still stupid. A good idea, poorly executed. I had forgot the 225 grain 358 Accubond will not work through the 350 Remington and 600. Because of Remington’s choice of 1:16 twist barrel for the 35 Whelen Nosler will not offer a 250 grain Accubond. The 350 Remington was meant to kill moose, bear, elk. The standard cartridge is lacking compared to its contemporaries designed for the same task being the 338 WM and 375 HH. If one wants a cartridge to keep against these two it has to match these two. It would be very hard to load a 225 TSX to full velocity in a 350 Remington and 600 carbine.

The 6mm Remington: Good idea poor twist rate initially nearly killed the cartidge lost the war to the 243 Win;
280Remimgton: Good idea loaded to poor pressure initial, below the 270 Winchester. Then the renaming fiasco;
35 Whelen: Good idea problems outlined above;
350 Remington Magnum: Good idea problem is as rifle was designed one can not use SD bullets of 4th generation (Bonded core) that match a 375-300 grain bullet or 338-225/250 grain bullets. The rifle was ugly and died effectively killing the 350 Remington as a mainstream cartridge. The little short rifle kicks more than it should. A longer magazine and a rifle meant to handle the recoil produce should still give one the benefit of a short action. Sometimes with powerful cartridges you just have to have a little weight and LOP.
6.5 Remington Magnum: Good idea should have been what the 264 Win Mag was. Sadly, Remington stuck a fast stepping round into a very short barrel carbine. I bet it was loud.
8mm Remington: Good idea split the 300 WM and 338 WM with a flat shooting lighter recoiling alternative. Poor execution initial loading of 220 grain bullet at 2900 fps was not better to the 300 WM.

The idea is always good. They fumble on the one yard line.

The 25/06 Remington they got right out of the gate.

If a 35 Whelen reamer is used to initially create a 358 STA Chamber then finished with a 7mm STW reamer you will end up with a 25 degree shoulder instead of the standardized 35 degree shoulder.

I like 35 calibers a lot; I have at least 8 of them.
I have a 350 Rem mag on a short action M70; those are much longer than a 600; but I also have others on long actions, which are much better than a 600 for seating bullets out and using that powder space.
Practically, there are three best choices for a good 35 caliber; 35 Rem, 35 Whelen, and 358 Norma. Any others are hampered in some way; dies or brass.
Now, if you want to make brass for the 350; that is good and is actually my favorite. I have 4 of them and have built a few more.
My favorite 350 is a long action, tang safety Ruger 77, on a boat paddle stock. No it is not factory in that configuration.
Will the 35 come back in popularity?
No. American shooters are not all that savvy; they are fad driven. All but AR members.
Here is a 350 I built on a 7:

I know the 35 is not coming back. The trend is less is more, “What is the smallest caliber/cartidge I can get away with.”

I just found all the 375 HH equivalent the 358 cartridges that were put in the dust bin of history by Winchester and he 375 HH and 338 WM to be a historical interest that deserves a book about it.

I also see the relative failure of milder 358 cartridges to be due to the cartridges not equaling or being more than the 375 HH or 338 WM. The 358 Bore was seen as the American alternative to the 375 HH. The few cartridges that almost made it the 35 Whelen, 358 Winchester (not really), 350 Remington Magnum, 350 Norma did not really get to that level of performance. I submit that is why they did not really make it in the market place. The 338 WM did, and won the market from the 358s.

If Winchester would have chambered the Model 70 in these early equivalent 358s (350 GH, 350 Mashburn long or short, 350 Norma like cartidge) instead of the 375HH was or 338 WM, then our cartridges and perception of the 358 would be entirely different.

The 358 is now seen as a deer and 250 yard elk rifle doing nothing the 338WM does not do better so buy a 338 WM or 375HH.

quote:

Was it any different than the 350 G&H? Shoulder diameter/location?

Not sure. It was a collector piece, so I never fired it. Interesting build...it was a mannlicher rifle but with a full 26" barrel. It used one of Fred's worked-over Mauser actions, with a great piece of wood.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

I also see the relative failure of milder 358 cartridges to be due to the cartridges not equaling or being more than the 375 HH or 338 WM. The 358 Bore was seen as the American alternative to the 375 HH. The few cartridges that almost made it the 35 Whelen, 358 Winchester (not really), 350 Remington Magnum, 350 Norma did not really get to that level of performance. I submit that is why they did not really make it in the market place. The 338 WM did, and won the market from the 358s.

The 338 really pulled it altogether. Rifles being same weight and price as the 7mm Remington and 300 Winchester. The 375 recoil can be a fair jolt in rifles of that weight.

375, notably the M70 are much more expensive than 338. Velocity for an equal SD bullet is close to a 270. The 200 grain 338 same as 135 grain 270 and the 225 grain same as the 150 grain 270.

Lever actions calibres aside, I think the 338 Winchester would dominate the over 30 calibre stuff.

I guess I never saw the need for a 338 Win Mag. I have a 375 Weatherby that only weighs 7 1/2 lbs with scope and a 270 Win. I know lots of folks just love the 338 though. A 350 Rem Mag in a BLR intrigues me and I may have one built. Always wanted a BLR, just didn't want a 30-06 or a 300 Win Mag in a lever action rifle. A 350 Rem Mag, now that would be something

The 350 Norma would work threough a BLR.

Nice idea!

I kind of see that anything more than a 35 Whelen is just recoil and diminishing returns.
I am biased, I admit. I think the 35 Whelen and the grand pappy 350 Rigby are ideal for 95% of my hunting needs but I do love so many other carts.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
I kind of see that anything more than a 35 Whelen is just recoil and diminishing returns.
I am biased, I admit. I think the 35 Whelen and the grand pappy 350 Rigby are ideal for 95% of my hunting needs but I do love so many other carts.

I used to think the 350 Rigby would make some sort of come back given the 416 Rigby and CZ.

quote:

350 Remington Magnum: Good idea problem is as rifle was designed one can not use SD bullets of 4th generation (Bonded core) that match a 375-300 grain bullet or 338-225/250 grain bullets. The rifle was ugly and died effectively killing the 350 Remington as a mainstream cartridge. The little short rifle kicks more than it should. A longer magazine and a rifle meant to handle the recoil produce should still give one the benefit of a short action. Sometimes with powerful cartridges you just have to have a little weight and LOP.

Well that's strictly an opinion.

There where no 4th generation bullets (?) in the mid 1960's and no Accubond so that's a mute point.

Recoil? I had a model 660 with a twenty inch barrel and didn't find the recoil objectionable. I didn't like the 600 only because of its muzzle blast due to its 18 inch barrel. Amazing what a couple inches makes. It's legendary kick seemed mostly in the pens of the gun writers back then, anyone I ever met never really commented on it.

Yup the rifle certainly looks different but it doesn't bother me. It makes for interesting conversation amongst the young guys. Older folks where I live know exactly what it is. In fact it's had a kind of cult following here for hunting elk in heavy timber since it came out. Just try to find one even back in the 1970's for less than $1000. They are still quite common even today with older hunters. I'm always amazed how often I see one.

When Remington first introduced the 600 they gave one to Clayton Mack a well known grizzly guide in British Columbia at the time to try out. Word has it he was quite satisfied so it being not up to the job simply isn't true. It's funny how people today think they need ever more powerful cartridges to hunt with. I'd use a .350RM today for anything in Nort America and not feel under gunned. It's really just as effective as a .338 but doesn't have the range but then we get into a different rifle for a different purpose again. Besides how far away are you going to shoot a grizzly or moose anyway?

Bottom line is the .350RM was really ahead of its time. Look at all the much newer short mags that have come out. They all share pretty much the same magazine restrictions when compared with standard length cartridges. It's just the price you pay for a shorter, lighter, handier rifle. Like them or not they owe their beginning to the .350 & 6.5 Remington magnums.

The 35 Whelen delivers virtually the same original ballistics but in a smaller and cheaper package. I would love a matching trio of 275, 350 and 416 Rigby rifles for a Safari, but I am not that wealthy in expendable cash at the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
I kind of see that anything more than a 35 Whelen is just recoil and diminishing returns.
I am biased, I admit. I think the 35 Whelen and the grand pappy 350 Rigby are ideal for 95% of my hunting needs but I do love so many other carts.

I used to think the 350 Rigby would make some sort of come back given the 416 Rigby and CZ.

But loaded up a 350 Rigby would be about like a 350/375.

If I had the money I would have a 300 H&H and 375 H&H and from H&H

A blank cheque to Weatherby for a 30/378 and a 378.

Then as my main shooting rifles a pair of 300 Wby D'Arcy Echols Legends.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
But loaded up a 350 Rigby would be about like a 350/375.

You are most correct and without a belt. That is why I included it in my big cartridge case list.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
But loaded up a 350 Rigby would be about like a 350/375.

You are most correct and without a belt. That is why I included it in my big cartridge case list.

Not sure but I think 350 Rigby can be made from 375 H&H and belt turned off. That would have been like the early days and making 416 Rigby from 378s or 460s.

Its interesting that pre 378 all Wby calibres were H&H based but the 465 H&H bolt cartridge is 378 based.

Would you consider the 348 Winchester a 35 caliber cartidge?

California Rigby necked the 348 Winchester to true 358 caliber and called it the 35 Rigby.

Superior still catalogs the 35 Rigby.

Neither are true, blue Dangerous Game cartridges, but still respectable.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
I just finished up barreling a 35-284

I currently have a .35 Whelen in a Ruger No. 1. Let's stretch the .35-284 you mention a bit. I would like to see a .358 on Weatherby's RPM case. They have neglected that bore size thus far just like the .264 before the RPM.

i have a 35 wheelen ai that was built by hal hartley in the mid 50's i've shot moose and elk with it. that round does all i would ask from a 35 if i need more than that i'll use a biggergun

Im not a fan of the 35 caliber particularly but Ive seen the 358 Norma perform on cape buffalo and its damned impressive, Ive often thought of building one, but Im a fan of the 9.3x62 and 93x64, and Ive performed wonders with the .338 Win. over the years, but the 358 Norma just might be a bit better, at least on paper, Just my two bits, doubt if there is a dimes worth of difference in any of them, but I believe wildcats today are an expensive waste of time..

.35 Caliber? Hmmmm....

I have a .35 Remington, a .358 Winchester, a 9X56 MS, a 9X57 Mauser, a .35 Whelen, a .35 Brown Improved Whelen, a .358 Norma Magnum, a .35 Newton, a .350 Rigby Magnum and a .35 Griffin & Howe Magnum. If it hadn't been for the fire in Lon Paul's workshop, I would have a .400/.350 Rigby as well.

I've never tried one of them out on dangerous game, but I have no doubt that they would perform as designed.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Im not a fan of the 35 caliber particularly but Ive seen the 358 Norma perform on cape buffalo and its damned impressive, Ive often thought of building one, but Im a fan of the 9.3x62 and 93x64, and Ive performed wonders with the .338 Win. over the years, but the 358 Norma just might be a bit better, at least on paper, Just my two bits, doubt if there is a dimes worth of difference in any of them, but I believe wildcats today are an expensive waste of time..

I do like the .35's and I've had the itch for a .358 Norma for years too. To me at least it makes the most sense and I don't mean to take anything away from those who prefer something like an STA or any of the other faster ones.

I even have a rifle for the project, an M70 Winchester in .300 WM, a cartridge that I just never warmed up to. It would be a simple rebarrel and maybe some feeding tweaks to get it done.

Does the body politic consider the 348 Winchester Centerfire a 35 caliber cartridge?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Does the body politic consider the 348 Winchester Centerfire a 35 caliber cartridge?

It is a 34 bore

Man, it is close. .2 hundreds of an inch. I was tempted to argue it was the 358 Whelen equivalents in a lever action.

I accept the position of the majority for the sake of unanimity, the Court if 35 Caliber must speak with one voice.

I think I read somewhere that the .358 Win was the replacement for the older .348 Win so close enough I guess.

I wish I had bought one of only 18 made model 70 super grade 358 STA .I bet it's worth way more than 1200 I could have bought it for .I wish that cartridge had made it .

One just sold on Gun Broker. The list price was 3,600 US.

I have read 90 were made. I did not buy it because I saw it more as a collector piece than hunting piece.

The wood on those rifles was light and gorgeous.

Mine is all done, but the stock which hopefully will be here before August.

I was lucky enough to buy a .358 STA through Gunsamerica that was one of 58 commissioned by A-Square guns through the Winchester Custom Shop. It has an absolute stunning red Walnut stock that glows when the sunlight hits it and it is also stainless steel. I have hunted with it in Africa, Alaska, and Alberta and treat it like all my other hunting rifles, the dents to me representing another adventure recalled.
When I received the rifle it had a gift certificate from A-Square for a free box of cartridges. When I check into it A-Square was temperarily out of business. I got all my brass stamped STA for loading from Superior Ammo years ago and have enough to last me and mine a lifetime. I have another STA with a composite stock and when I hunt with my son or grandson and we use both STA's I pack "Big Red" which I call the Winchester and my partner packs the other. If it gets dents or dings I want to be the one to put them in it. The STA is an awesome chambering indeed for hunting the larger game of the world. Good shooting.

I wish I had bought the USSR/Winchester. I was just too scared of the perceived fragility of the walnut stock.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I wish I had bought the USSR/Winchester. I was just too scared of the perceived fragility of the walnut stock.

Do you remember a time when all stocks were wood?

I am just old enough to do so.