Whatever happened to the .350 RM?

L

ligonierbill

New member
Yeah, I'm bored. But here is a round that "seemed like a good idea at the time" and has disappeared. I do notice that folks bid up any of the Remington 600 series that show up on Gunbroker, so somebody still likes it. Chuck Hawks liked it. Anyone shooting it?
 
Whenever someone starts a thread about guns you wish you hadn't sold, I always list my Remington 600 350 Magnum carbine. It had the laminated Tiger wood stock. Fast handling woods gun. Very good looking. An old friend of mine in Alaska bought it from me and still has it. It has taken a number of moose, caribou and a few bears.
 
This cartridge is still listed in the 2015 SAAMI standard. When one falls significantly out of favor, as, for example, the .357 Maximum has, it gets dropped from the standard listing (the Maximum was in the 1993 standard, but is gone from the 2015 standard), meaning, mainly, the industry is no longer maintaining a supply of reference cartridges in that chambering for ammo manufacturers to use to calibrate their pressure measuring instruments. So the 350 RM is still out there and being purchased in enough quantity for there to be interest in it being maintained. That doesn't mean a high volume manufacturer is currently producing new guns in it, though.

This article shows Remington tried to revive interest in it in a version of the Remington 600 about ten years ago, but I don't see the cartridge listed in their current list of available chamberings.
 
What happened?

It wasn't different enough to be worthwhile.

The few people that did buy in then fell into two categories:
1. Liked it.
2. Pulled the trigger and discovered that .35 caliber rifle cartridge recoil is a very special thing.


It's like the classic tale of the "[Brand X] .458 Winchester, like new, one round fired."
A lot of people like the idea of big, fat, and/or heavy projectiles being launched at respectable velocities. Not many of them like their introduction to the accompanying recoil, however. Thirty five caliber rifle cartridges have a recoil impulse that is surprisingly more unpleasant than most shooters expect. .35 Whelen, .358 Winchester, and .350 RM, they're snappy and sharp. If the shooter is recoil sensitive or has poor technique, they're going to be uncomfortable and unhappy. In light rifles, like the Remington 600, that snappy recoil is exacerbated and amplified.
 
Franken is pretty much spot on--except I personally have a very fond spot in my heart for the 358 projectile. :) I have both the 35 whelen and 358 win, and they both are the hardest hitters of any of the cartridges derived from their parent cartridges the 30 06 and 308 win that I have.
 
There's a special place in my heart for them, as well.
I am currently building my second (possibly, arguably, third) .35 Whelen, and I am a big fan of my brother's .358 Win.

But they do have some "special" recoil.
 
The .350 Remington Magnum out of a model 600 will kick the sh..snot out of you. I've GOT a .458, and I shoot it more...(though to be fair its not shot with elephant loads..;))

The .350 has the same powder capacity as the .35 Whelen and will deliver identical ballistics. However, when you put that punch in a rifle that goes less than 7lbs well, there's no free lunch. :D

You can make some great "light" loads using .357 pistol bullets, but about nobody does...

I wanted one ever since I saw a Wally Tabor film where he took it to Africa and saw it literally blow a 600lb "antelope" off its feet at close to 200yds.

The big problem with the .350 Rem mag is Remington. Nobody but Remington ever made ammo or BRASS....and Remington doesn't support the round to any real extent anymore.

You can make brass from the larger magnum cases, but only serious enthusiasts are willing to consider that.

Generally speaking the short carbine barrels limited the performance and people wanting .35 Whelen power found it simply easier to just go with the Whelen and the action length needed for it. And, the bigger heavier rifles helped tame the recoil a bit more, as well.

Something like a new version of the 600 or model 7 with a good muzzle brake would be cool and wouldn't kick bad, but I wouldn't want to be within a dozen yards of anyone (but me) shooting it! :rolleyes:
 
The 35 Whelen, and 350 RM both give recoil numbers exactly the same as 300 WM while offering less penetration on game than 30-06 or 300 WM. Not to mention greatly reduced effective range.

Over the years the 35's popularity fluctuates between almost dead, to a handful of hunters who swear by it. Most who try it end up swearing at it and conclude that if they're going to get 300 WM recoil they may as well get 300 WM performance.
 
Don't forget it's sibling, the 6.6mm RM.
Oh, too late... ;)

There are also a few wildcats based off the 350RM case. Most notably the 25-350.
 
What happened?
It wasn't different enough to be worthwhile.
The few people that did buy in then fell into two categories:
1. Liked it.
2. Pulled the trigger and discovered that .35 caliber rifle cartridge recoil is a very special thing.
Click to expand...
Yep, I will second that. Magnum recoil out of a 6-1/2 lbs rifle with a 20" barrel is . . . remarkable! I know I made several remarks after shooting my friend's 600 in 350 Rem Mag about 1980. It looked good on paper, but with the short barrel, velocity wasn't up to claims. At least when Remington came out with the Guide Gun in 350 Rem Mag they put a longer barrel on it and put it in a substantial stock. I have put brakes on a couple of the Guide Guns to tame them a bit more.

No matter how people squawk about how much they want medium bore magnums, very few really want medium bore magnums after shooting them a few times! And very few show up with money.
Don't forget it's sibling, the 6.6mm RM
Click to expand...
That's the 6.5 Remington Magnum, and it's a pretty good cartridge but Remington decided to put a short barrel on that one, too. The 264 Win Mag put that one to sleep. Again, velocity claims didn't stand close scrutiny from shooters with ballistics tables.
 
I think the big reason neither the 6.5 and .350 didn't become more popular was Remington, once again, misreading the buying public at the time.

600 carbines in standard calibers were moderately popular though many were turned off by their (for the time) radical styling. But in proprietary Remington magnum rounds they "fell short" of what the buying public wanted from a "magnum".

The .350 matches the .35 Whelen, which puts it a little ahead of the .358 Win and more than the .35 Rem. and .35 cal slugs hit like the hammer of Thor.

One hears how it was Remington's decision to go with a short barrel "killing" the 6.5 and so on. Nobody seems to mention how it matches the well respected 6.5 Swede in short barrels and in a short action.

That was the point, one most of the public missed, they weren't "magnums" to compete with the ,264Win 7mm, .300s., or the .358 Norma, and weren't meant to be. They were magnums to deliver the power of well established standard rounds in a short action carbine.
 
I wonder if it may have turned out differently if Remington just named it the "350 Remington" and left out the Magnum reference?
 
I wonder if it may have turned out differently if Remington just named it the "350 Remington" and left out the Magnum reference?
Click to expand...

MAYBE, maybe the .350Express or something like that. but, probably not. Using the long established "Magnum" case head size (complete with the needless belt) it was going to be called a "magnum" whether Remington put that in the official name, or not.
 
Probably would have been more successful if they had left off Remington. Like 44 AMP said, with the belted case it was going to be a magnum either way.
 
I just checked my manuals, and only Hornady and Nosler still list the round. Nosler tested the 350 RM in a 22" bbl vs. the Whelen in a 26" bbl. Under those conditions, the old wildcat runs away from the upstart. Hornady's test is more interesting, as they tested the 350 RM in a 18 1/2" Model 600 vs. the Whelen in a 22" Model 700. In this case, the two rounds were identical in performance.

I have never owned or, if memory serves, fired any 35 bore rifle. And several posters have suggested I would indeed remember firing one. Just an interesting round, and were I a carbine guy, I might see if could find one.
 
Nosler tested the 350 RM in a 22" bbl vs. the Whelen in a 26" bbl. Under those conditions, the old wildcat runs away from the upstart.
Click to expand...

Under those conditions, there's a good chance it would "run away from" itself. :D

I looked in some older manuals, and the results are consistent, .350 Rem Mag and .35 Whelen both throw 250gr bullets in the 24-2500fps range with barrels 22" (whelen) and 18.5" (.350 Rem). Allowing for differences in individual rifles, that approximately equal.

Stretch the barrel out to 26" and you'll see a noticeable performance gap, but not very many people hunt big game with 26" barrel rifles these days.
 
ligonierbill said:
Yeah, I'm bored. But here is a round that "seemed like a good idea at the time" and has disappeared. I do notice that folks bid up any of the Remington 600 series that show up on Gunbroker, so somebody still likes it. Chuck Hawks liked it. Anyone shooting it?
Click to expand...
I have a 600 and a 700 Classic. I never shoot them anymore.
 
We who shoot the mighty 35's know better. :D Sometimes, there's more to a cartridge than just it's bitty groupie factor under perfect conditions--which is where the magic of the 358's come in. I don't expect it to shoot sub-MOA all day and night long blindfolded, though you can develop very good loads for it, and I have come up with some nice one-hole capable loads. This load I just shot in my 358 win AR in mid-day gusty conditions with a hoe-hum flat base spirepoint, but it's going to get awfully close to the POA and it's going to hit with a lot of energy and make a big hole.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 47.7 2520 200 gr interloc 358 win.jpg
    47.7 2520 200 gr interloc 358 win.jpg
    175.7 KB · Views: 331
Probably would have been more successful if they had left off Remington. Like 44 AMP said, with the belted case it was going to be a magnum either way.
Click to expand...
Back in the 1960s, EVERYTHING was a magnum. 222 Remington MAGNUM, 256 Winchester MAGNUM, 22 Winchester MAGNUM Rimfire. I can keep going if you want. Magnum was kind of the catchword for guns in the 1960s. Look at the 1960s rounds that didn't have "magnum" in their name but had real potential: 284 Winchester, 6mm Remington, 222 Remington, 224 Weatherby, 225 Winchester, etc. Hard to say what would have happened, but some with the "magnum" title survived in spite of their performance. Remington's problem was (is) that they came up with ideas, threw them out there, then moved on to more things and forgot to do their marketing homework.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top