"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"
It would seem taking on .357 max is near glock fanboy levels but not quite 45vs9mm....
I agree with you, but you might be wasting your time....
350 Legend
- Thread starter Snipe
- Start date
It would seem taking on .357 max is near glock fanboy levels but not quite 45vs9mm....
I agree with you, but you might be wasting your time....
I am not sure I would try to push a 180 gr to 2400 fps from a max even in an Encore.
Code:
Cartridge : .357 Maximum (SAAMI)
Bullet : .357, 180, Hornady HP/XTP 35771
Useable Case Capaci: 28.670 grain H2O = 1.862 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.200 inch = 55.88 mm
Barrel Length : 20.0 inch = 508.0 mm
Powder : Hodgdon H110
Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms
-01.4 101 28.60 2393 2290 70997 3902 100.0 0.949 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-00.7 102 28.80 2407 2315 72750 3912 100.0 0.940 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
[/FONT]Geezerbiker,
I am one of the owners of the 357AR Max you were talking about. It took me a while, but now I kind of think I halfway understand why they did what they did with the 350L.
The design of the round/gun is not bad. They did a poor job of "selling" the 0.355" bore and a bunch a factory ammo has been piss poor for quality. This round deserved but did not get better than normal control of case length with headspacing on the mouth.
I am one of the owners of the 357AR Max you were talking about. It took me a while, but now I kind of think I halfway understand why they did what they did with the 350L.
The design of the round/gun is not bad. They did a poor job of "selling" the 0.355" bore and a bunch a factory ammo has been piss poor for quality. This round deserved but did not get better than normal control of case length with headspacing on the mouth.
Nathan,
I was following the 350L closely when it came out. There is a Facebook group that had lots of postings about new Winchester FMJ ammo with inconsistent case lengths including measurements well over the specified max and well under the specified min. And yes this poorly made ammo did cause problems with failures to fire and with signs of significant overpressure.
The other brass problem I know of is what I would call a combination gun / brass problem. Without good published info (and go / no-go gauges) on how to build a 350L AR, brass with a "low web" can have "unsupported" case walls just above the web if the barrel has too much of a bevel / roundoff at the chamber entrance. This did lead to case blow outs.
For my gun (357AR Max), I made all of my own brass from 223/5.56. Part of the challenge with the 357AR Max is that brass gets shorter when a converted case is first fired in a 357AR Max chamber. Getting good batches of brass with correct case length was a PITA.
Again, I feel that the 350L and the 357 Max can be very good guns. I am a fan of both. My involvement with the Max goes back to the 1980's, and my involvement with the equivalent of the 350L goes back to just before the 350L was introduced. I do understand some of the challenges and shortcomings associated with these guns and prefer to neither "sugar coat" nor "bash" them.
I was following the 350L closely when it came out. There is a Facebook group that had lots of postings about new Winchester FMJ ammo with inconsistent case lengths including measurements well over the specified max and well under the specified min. And yes this poorly made ammo did cause problems with failures to fire and with signs of significant overpressure.
The other brass problem I know of is what I would call a combination gun / brass problem. Without good published info (and go / no-go gauges) on how to build a 350L AR, brass with a "low web" can have "unsupported" case walls just above the web if the barrel has too much of a bevel / roundoff at the chamber entrance. This did lead to case blow outs.
For my gun (357AR Max), I made all of my own brass from 223/5.56. Part of the challenge with the 357AR Max is that brass gets shorter when a converted case is first fired in a 357AR Max chamber. Getting good batches of brass with correct case length was a PITA.
Again, I feel that the 350L and the 357 Max can be very good guns. I am a fan of both. My involvement with the Max goes back to the 1980's, and my involvement with the equivalent of the 350L goes back to just before the 350L was introduced. I do understand some of the challenges and shortcomings associated with these guns and prefer to neither "sugar coat" nor "bash" them.
stagpanther
New member
I for one had a gun blow up for this very reason. The problem was corrected by the barrel manufacturer.
Brass strength hardness wasn't the issue UncleNick (I think)
(Note Starline & Winchester are about the same)
Rather, the problem is/was/appeared to be overly-long Bolt face-to-Chamber distance,
combined w/ thin case web floor that led to some interesting "belted" cases upon firing/extraction.
NOTE: Starline case
(Lil`Giun didn't help)
.
(Note Starline & Winchester are about the same)
Rather, the problem is/was/appeared to be overly-long Bolt face-to-Chamber distance,
combined w/ thin case web floor that led to some interesting "belted" cases upon firing/extraction.
NOTE: Starline case
(Lil`Giun didn't help)
.
I wonder. It appeared to me from your photo that the Starline web is thinnest, but Nathan reported it clearing up his problems with the thicker (in your sample) Winchester brass (post #29). My table is for .308 Win brass, which I mentioned because the table is an example of possible head hardness variation. The big names, like Winchester and Remington, are known to contract out brass at times, so there's no guarantee the hardness relationship for the 308 Win measurements I showed are representative in any other particular lot.
UncleNick, I call this conundrum the Yul Brynner Problem.
Right up there with the UV Catastrophe before Max Planck
(and why, gentle readers, the Sun really is black)
.
Right up there with the UV Catastrophe before Max Planck
(and why, gentle readers, the Sun really is black)
.
stagpanther
New member
There were two principal problems associated with the original roll-out of the legend that me heavy and I got deep in the weeds with. The first was the support to the head of the brass--much like the problems of 9mm brass being supported in a pistol--the top of the web would often be left unsupported outside the chamber. The second issue was that the original SAAMI specs "allowed" for a total headspace stacking of tolerances up to .01". PTG was the first to release headspace gauges that allowed for a max of .007" as I recall. My inherent beef with the 350 L is that it shares many of the same basic design characteristics of the 9mm Luger--but obviously runs at much higher pressures. I've split lots of 9mm cases easily at only about 3 to 4 K psi past it's max pressure rating.
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
I haven't looked lately, but the original chamber spec submitted to SAAMI IIRC had a total headspace from bolt breech face to case mouth of .01"--which allowed for some of the issues associated with the case head having inadequate support in some of the earlier cartridges and barrels. So, some of the original no-go gauges (of which I still have a set somewhere) could give you a "false positive" of the bolt not closing at .01" headspace. PTG's no-go would close at around .007"--meaning, essentially, they recognized early on the problems with the original "over spaced" headspace setting. I was tipped off to this by a well-known manufacturer of custom rifles who discovered the same problem early on. Just like with the initial roll-out of the 224 valkyrie (another magical mystery roller coaster ride I took), hardware was being sold to "unfinalized" specs. Then there was the issue of "cam-locking" the bullet to the case mouth with some cases that were too long and with a chamber with a steep step down in the throat just after the case mouth--again, my memory is fuzzy but I think meheavy ran into this (?).
Last edited: