357 Maximum

I've wondered the same thing for several years now. If we had one there would be no need for the .350 Legend. The max does everything better and components are much more available.
 
Because it is too long for the regular revolver caliber lever actions like Marlin 94 and Winchester 92 and short and small for a .30-30 action.
It would take an all new or heavily modified action for a niche round, no payoff to the makers.
 
The reason is .35 Remington,

a distinguished cousin of the .30-30 firing a .358 bullet from a bottle neck cartridge introduced in 1906. Check out it's ballistics. Word from my dad was that .35 Remington was what you wanted for hunting mule deer in Northern Pennsylvania. When I was a kid in the '60s it seemed like we'd see mule deer fairly often. In other words, .35 Remington pushes a 200 grain bullet fine and dandy for hunting in the woods.

Sure, you can push a .357 Maximum to meet or even beat it, but that's because the .357 Max is rated at 40,000 psi and the .35 Remington at 35,000 psi on account of .. guns that may have been made more than 100 years ago.
This does not account for the lower pressure cartridge being easier on the gun and being pleasant to shoot while still affording the opportunity for the hand loader (knowing their modern rifle) to make the "+P" load.

Reloading for bottle necked cartridges isn't hard and the reason rifles went to bottle necked cartridges is they have proven themselves for superior performance.
 
Last edited:
Another reason is that the bullets currently available for use in the .357 Magnum and .357 Maximum are pistol bullets designed for velocities much lower than can be attained with the .357 Magnum let alone the 357 Maximum. As an example, I have 2 Rossi .357mag leverguns; a 20" carbine and 24" rifle.

Using Lil'Gun powder which produces peak pressures considerably lower than the SAAMI spec 35,000psi and a jacketed 158grn bullet, I've chrono'd 1,952fps MV (measured at 15ft from muzzle) from my carbine and 2,009fps from my rifle. Those velocities are significantly higher than the bullets were designed for.

Even shooting 180grn or 200grn hardcast bullets at velocities in the 1,600 - 1,800fps range is significantly high for the bullet designs.
 
Generally speaking the heavier (158s etc.,) jacketed bullets will still perform well, even when overdriven by carbine velocities. JSP usually a bit more controlled than JHP at the higher speeds.

Bullets like the 125gr JHP are optimized for handgun use and are (generally) seriously overdriven by the 500+ fps a carbine can add. They are going too fast and often "explode" rather than expand. And, of course when they do that, you don't get proper penetration, either.

Hard cast slugs, not intended to expand, don't care much how fast they go, within their ability to survive going down the barrel intact. Not being meant to expand they don't care if you drive them faster from a carbine, they just go deeper when they hit.

The reasons you don't see a ,357 Max carbine is that the .357 Max is a niche round, won't fit in the standard pistol length levers, and as mentioned is short for the longer actions. There's no consumer demand, mostly, I think, because if you're carrying a rifle, and you want more performance than the regular pistol calibers, you simply carry one of the slightly larger rifles, in a rifle caliber.

I don't know much about the .350 Legend, but I understand its a rimless case, intended to work in the AR action. You won't see a .357 Max AR-15 because the action (and in particular the magazine) are very poorly suited to rimmed cases.
 
I have no use for the .350 Legend, but apparently someone has decided that the cost to invest in guns and ammo is worth it. There are a lot of people lining up behind the Legend (I'm not one of them) and are willing to spend the money. There's no reason to compare the .357max to the .358 Rem. One is a handgun round and the other is a bottle neck rifle round. Many states are allowing straight walled cases to be used for rifle hunting and the .358 Rem doesn't meet the spec's....it's out. Tooling costs for a new receiver aren't as high as you'd think. If they can make a whole gun for the Legend, they can retool for a Max. Everyone wants the "new toy" and that's the Legend right now. Had they came out with a .357max gun there would be a line to get one of them also. In fact, the fact that it could chamber and shoot the already existing and popular .357mag wouldn't have hurt a thing.
 
Another reason is that the bullets currently available for use in the .357 Magnum and .357 Maximum are pistol bullets designed for velocities much lower than can be attained with the .357 Magnum let alone the 357 Maximum. As an example, I have 2 Rossi .357mag leverguns; a 20" carbine and 24" rifle.

Using Lil'Gun powder which produces peak pressures considerably lower than the SAAMI spec 35,000psi and a jacketed 158grn bullet, I've chrono'd 1,952fps MV (measured at 15ft from muzzle) from my carbine and 2,009fps from my rifle. Those velocities are significantly higher than the bullets were designed for.

Even shooting 180grn or 200grn hardcast bullets at velocities in the 1,600 - 1,800fps range is significantly high for the bullet designs.
Click to expand...
A certain somebody once told me they were thinking about producing a 358 legend barrel (it seems to me KAK isn't going to revive that) and I suspect there would be significant demand if they did, though I suspect some experimentation would be needed with throat/freebore designs to adapt to the rather limited lower weight range 358 bullets available. I definitely would not use the same kind of rifling as the .355 legend. My 350 legend I shot today using power points (which are actually just under .355) showed signs of copper fouling.
 
Last edited:
.358 Rem.
Click to expand...

No such critter, that I know of. .35 Remington and .358 Winchester, the .35 Rem is from 1908 and was the large bore (.35 cal) in the old line of Remington rounds, which were a .25, .30, .32, and .35. They have head sizes smaller than the .30-06 size. The .358 Winchester was introduced in 1955, and is essentially a necked up .308 Win. It is somewhat more powerful than the .35 Remington.
 
Jim Watson said:
Because it is too long for the regular revolver caliber lever actions like Marlin 94 and Winchester 92 and short and small for a .30-30 action.
It would take an all new or heavily modified action for a niche round, no payoff to the makers.
Click to expand...
Not true, the winchester 94 was chambered for 44mag, the 357max is no problem for either a win 94 or Marlin 336 size gun.

It is a basic supply and demand problem. Too many cartridges out there right now.

The 350 legend is more for bolt action and semi auto, which are more popular than levers. So; kinda apples and oranges. The legend is allowed in some shotgun only zones with a scoped modern style rifle.

The 35 Remington worked in all 3 types and did a great job. Why we dont see more of that is a bit of a mystery to me.
 
Last edited:
Not true, the winchester 94 was chambered for 44mag,
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. The only one of those I ever shot had some peculiarities in operation, it had to be loaded RIGHT. Sales were low. So while it would be physically possible, it obviously didn't look like a viable product to management.
 
Because it is too long for the regular revolver caliber lever actions like Marlin 94 and Winchester 92 and short and small for a .30-30 action.
It would take an all new or heavily modified action for a niche round, no payoff to the makers.
Click to expand...
We have built two 336s in 357 Maximum for the same customer. No more. The cartridge is too narrow for the lifter of the 336, and too long for the 1894 to handle. You have to replace the magazine tube, modify the lifter, modify the loading gate, modify the bolt face, and then deal with the feeding issues that come with a long, skinny cartridge. If you want a 35 caliber lever gun that's not a 35 Rem, use a Marlin 1894 in 44 mag and make a 357/44 Bains-Davis. It's a really straightforward modification: new barrel and chamber and done. Modified a Marlin 1894 30+ years ago along with a Ruger Redhawk in 357 for the same customer to 357/44 Bains Davis. Not near as much hassle as turning a 336 into a 357 Maximum.
 
Mike, we used to see these big goofy deer in the woods. My dad said “mule deer”. Reading up on it, they must have been elk.

That’s one of the problems with oral history... people tell ya stuff that’s wrong! Thanks for the correction.
 
Scorch said:
We have built two 336s in 357 Maximum for the same customer. No more. The cartridge is too narrow for the lifter of the 336, and too long for the 1894 to handle. You have to replace the magazine tube, modify the lifter, modify the loading gate, modify the bolt face, and then deal with the feeding issues that come with a long, skinny cartridge. If you want a 35 caliber lever gun that's not a 35 Rem, use a Marlin 1894 in 44 mag and make a 357/44 Bains-Davis. It's a really straightforward modification: new barrel and chamber and done. Modified a Marlin 1894 30+ years ago along with a Ruger Redhawk in 357 for the same customer to 357/44 Bains Davis. Not near as much hassle as turning a 336 into a 357 Maximum.
Click to expand...
I looked up the 357/44 Bains Davis rd in Wikipedia and it's impressive with a max pressure of 42,000psi. Further, I looked up the rd on Hodgdon's Reloading Manual site and they have loads for it.

However, their data doesn't make sense to me as they show a load with a 158grn Hornady XTP bullet out of a 10" pistol barrel, max load of 21.0grns of H110, producing 1,604fps.

The problem is when you compare that to their 357Mag data using the same powder and bullet: 158grn Hornady XTP bullet out of a 10" pistol barrel, max load of 16.7grns of H110, producing 1,591fps, they show that the Bains Davis rd only produces a 13fps increase with 4.3grns more H110 powder.

Something doesn't seem right about their data.

I'd love to see performance information out of a levergun and using a generous load of Lil'Gun instead of H110 as I've found that Lil'Gun comes alive in longer barrels. I've chrono'd my 158grn 357mag loads using Lil'Gun out of my 24" Rossi at an astonishing 2,005fps!
 
My dad said “mule deer”. Reading up on it, they must have been elk.
Click to expand...
I lived in Pennsylvania when I was young, and my whole family is from there. When I was a kid....many, many years ago, a lot of old timers used to say that the deer in PA were "mule" deer. This myth goes back to a time when Pa. had almost no deer at all. Back in the early 1900's the deer herd in Pa. was nearly entirely wiped out by market hunting and no game laws. My grandfather remembered when he was a kid on the farm that it was a rarity to see a deer track in the woods and even rarer to actually see a deer. This is in places that fifty years later became overrun with deer. The PA game commission brought deer in from Michigan and stocked them back in the 1920's. Those "mule deer" were Michigan deer. When I grew up in Pa. back in the 1950's and 60's it was incomprehensible that there was a time when deer were scarce in that state. It was literally overrun with deer in my younger years.
 
NSB, thanks for the history lesson, I learned something new today!
sorry for the thread drift.
Stinky, I recall the elk reintroduction talk but don't know what became of the plan, it would be cool to have elk back in the New England states again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top