Has anyone ever tried...

M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Necking up the .308 Winchester to take a .375 bullet?

I know that's done with the .30-06.

I'd think it would give you a cartridge very close in performance to the 9.3 or 10.15x57 Mauser cartridges.
 
The main problem is that expanding the neck of the .308 to take a .375 bullet would leave a very small shoulder which would not give adequate case support when firing. This would lead to misfires and headspace problems, and the .35 Remington has these problems if everything is not exactly right. The 9.3x57 has, in fact, a minimal shoulder and I think is just about the limit that direction. I am not familiar with the 10.15x57, but it would, I think, have no almost no shoulder. Of course with a rimmed or belted cartridge, those problems go away.

Jim
 
Jim,

I'd think that the .308 necked up to .375 would leave about as much neck for headspacing as the .375-06 has, and that's been show to be enough, especially if you use the "Improved" version with the 40-degree neck angle instead of the .30-06's 17-degree angle.

I know that the 10.75 (not the 10.17 as I had typed) had headspace problems not unlike the .400 Whelen, so yeah, I recognize that it would be a no goer...
 
I've got the .358. Positive headspace, no problems. I've only read about the .375 and 400 Whelen but would imagine no headspace problems with a 40 degree and blown-out taper. Still don't know what the point would be, though. The .358 does 90% of what a .375 would do. Didn't the 376 Steyr go Tango Uniform recently?

Anyway, let me rant about the .358 for a moment. I've got FOUR of them. Love the round. My beef is that you buy a heavy round such as this for close-in brush type work, correct? If you do this, follow-up shots are pretty important, right? Then why are you buying a gun that recoils as heavilly as the .358? That was the main argument agains the .350 RM and we see where that and the .358 have gone. If the .358 is a marginal, why would you want to get more of a bad thing?

Dismout soap-box. I'd really stick with the .358. It has the advantage of a factory loading and cheap dies.
 
Badger,

A friend of mine had one of those shorty Remington carbines (600? 660?) in .350 Remington Mag.

It was absolutely VICIOUS with full-power ammo.

He simply loaded it down to between .35 Remington and .358 Winchester, and had one hell of a deer rifle.

But, if I needed a short, powerful rifle for packing around in bear country, the .350 Rem. Mag. in one of these rifles would get serious attention.
 
Badger. The .358 is not just a short range round. It is good out to over 250 yards, and let's face it, most big game is still taken at under 200 yard, contrary to what the "egg-spurts" in the gun rags say. With my handloads, and a 200 gr. Hornady spire point, I'm sighted in 3 inches high at 100 yards. That makes me good to 250 yards, and maybe a bit more. If I want to go to a 250 gr. bullet, I use my 35 Whelan.
I don't necessarily find the recoil of a .358 to be that bad. Of course, I've mounted my Ruger 77 in a McMillan synthetic stock that fits me and it has a decent recoil pad.
Try a Pachmeyer Decelerator pad. I put one on my .338 Win. Mag. and it's really tamed that rifle down. They really do work. Now, I plan on putting one on my .375x338 Mag. Can't argue with success.
Paul B.
 
358 and 30-06 seem to have about the same recoil impulse to me. I agree, the 358 is good at long range, but I bought it for knocking down moose without as much damage to the meat as the 300 was giving me. At longer ranges, no biggie so I'd use the 300. My 358's are all sighted in at 100 yards.

Never had to load down my .350 as I've got a quartet of 358's for that niche and a 35 remington if I need another (which my wife tells me I DON'T!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top