Found my .35 Remington load!

[coyotejoe]

I've been doing a bit of experimental work in trying to "up-grade" the .35 Rem. I started with 180 Speer FPs and Remington 200 RNs.  My "goal" was to get the 200 grains well over 2200 fps and the 180s close to 2400 fps. Velocities were recorded by a ProChrono digital unit set 15 feet from the muzzle and groups were shot at 50 yards. It has been very windy here for several weeks so I felt that 100 yard shooting would be a waste of time. The rifle is an old Remington 141 pump with a 1.4-4x32 Bushnell Banner in Williams side mount. Its' barrel length is 24"
 I first tried Winchester 748 powder and found it just a bit slow for max loads, the case just won't hold enough to produce the velocities I had hoped for. With a heavily compressed load of W748 I did get 2219 fps with 200s and 2239 with 180s. Groups for both bullets ran from 1.2" to 2.5" at fifty.
 I then went to Hodgdons BLc-2 and got the 200s up to 2235 fps and 180s did only 2220 with the same max load, which was about 10% over Hodgdon's listed max but velocity did not reach the claim for Hodgdon's data. I learned about the difference in powder lots. I had a partial can of BLc-2 for many years, its a powder I don't really use. With the old powder, 39 grains drove the 180s to 2066 fps, where as it took 42 grains of the new lot to reach 2040 fps! The lightly compressed max load gave a very encouraging 0.7" group of five with the 180s and not so awful 1.2" with the Remington 200 grain roundnose.
I then tried Alliant RL-7 which I had at first dismissed as too fast burning. Lyman lists a max of 33 grains with a 200 grain bullet. That gave me 2164 fps, about like Lymans data and an 0.8" group. One grain more gave 2235 fps but the group opened to 1.2" which is still not horrible. I took the 180 Speers up to 35 grains for 2382 fps and groups of 1.3" and 1" even.
  I also played a bit with some Remington 180 grain HP pistol bullets. 12 grains of Unique gave 1485 fps and a 1.8" group. 25 grains of Alliant 2400 did 2180 fps and a 1.2" group. One could hunt deer with that bullet.
  Then I found the load!  I finally managed to find three boxes of the new Hornady Leverevolution 200 grain plastic tip spirepoints. The velocity from my rifle was not quite up to the claimed 2225 fps, but not so far off at 2192. The group was one hole measuring and honest 1/2" CTC. I'll continue to play around with loads but for hunting it will be the Hornady factory load for me.

[MSP Ret]

Great read for all of us .35 Remington fans. I have a ,357 Mag H&R Handirifle barrel being rechambered to my all time favorite deer caliber right now, the old tried and true .35 Remington. You stated in your last paragraph: "Then I found the load!", well buddy what was that load!!!??? Please don't keep us in the dark, share, thats what this forum is all about ....<><...

[Lone Star]

You stated in your last paragraph: "Then I found the load!", well buddy what was that load!!!??? Please don't keep us in the dark, share, thats what this forum is all about..

He said that his load is - the new Hornady factory Leverevolution ammo.   

He might be careful with that old M141, those rifles are not nearly as strong as a modern Marlin M336.  Hot handloads will shoot them loose.....

.

[coyotejoe]

He might be careful with that old M141, those rifles are not nearly as strong as a modern Marlin M336.  Hot handloads will shoot them loose.....

.
[/quote]
  I have to wonder as to your basis for that statement. Not to argue but just to ask. It would appear to me that the Remington 141 should be a much stronger action then the Marlin 336.  I know nothing about the steel and heat treatment but it certainly is a stronger design. The Remington bolt locks directly to the receiver at the front end versus the Marlin which locks at the rear with a separate locking bolt sliding in receiver mortises. The Remington bolt locks by tipping up at the front similar to the way a Savage 99 tips up at the rear. And anyone who has ever examined the two rifles would have no doubt that the Remington is a beautifully machined piece of work compared to the rather sloppy work on any current Marlin.
  I personally believe the "rumor" that 141's are weak stems from "know-nothing" gun writers who read somewhere that .35 Remington loads are kept light out of deference to some old pump and auto rifles in that caliber. And since these know-nothings couldn't think of any old rifles but Remingtons they assumed that must be the weak link.  I believe the "weak" old pumps and autos referred to were the "Standard", some of which were convertible from pump to auto but were rather a turkey.
  I don't see how the M-141 could be weak unless the steel is putty, by design and workmanship it should be quite strong, but if you have first hand knowledge to the contrary, not just quoting some gun writer, I would certainly appreciate hearing about it.
  Oh, and I might add, in the event of a blown primer or case head I'd feel much safer with the solid reciever back of the Remington than with the Marlin firing pin staring me in the eye.

[insanelupus]

Coyotoe Joe,

I have an early model (1935) Remington 141 as well as a 1980 production model Marlin 336, both in . 35 Remington.  Inspection of my two rifles leads me to believe that the Marlin is a stronger action than the Remington.  To each his own I suppose and I won't argue that point.  We all know the dangers of exceeding loads listed in manuals and those that do so run the risks associated with it. 

I am curious why the arbitrary benchmark for the 200 grain bullet of 2200 fps and such strict adherence to the same.  Specifically, with a group measuring .8" (at 50 yards) and falling short of the 2200 velocity by 36 fps, why didn't you just stop there?  My Remington has open sights and honestly, with that platform, I'm quite happy with a 2-3" group at 100 yards (again with open sights).  My Marlin with open sights tends to turn in a better group, around 1.25-1.5".  I understand having a benchmark for velocity and perhaps it's the goal itself you are chasing.  But practically speaking, 36 fps (2164 vs. 2200) makes lilttle difference with most cartridges, especially the 35 Remington and sacrificing accuracy for another 71 fps, hardly seems worth the effort.  Is it just the goal you set you are trying to get, or is there another reason?

[coyotejoe]

Yes, the 2200fps was an arbitrary goal, and certainly close is close enough, still it was my goal to equal or exceed 2200.  If I had stopped when I got a satisfactory group I'd not have even gone that far.  I just have always been curious as to what the .35 Remington could do when given half a chance.  You will note that I said I had already settled on the Hornady ammo, thus any farther load development will be purely an academic exercise but isn't that what handloading is all about?  I doubt that any of us reload with the idea of saving money, we just spend more so we can shoot a lot more.  For that matter, I never had any real NEED for a .35 Remington rifle in the first place, I already had more than enough guns forty years ago--but you can never have too many guns nor shoot too much!

[Lone Star]

...I have to wonder as to your basis for that statement. Not to argue but just to ask. It would appear to me that the Remington 141 should be a much stronger action then the Marlin 336.  I know nothing about the steel and heat treatment but it certainly is a stronger design....

Actually from an engineering standpoint (my standpoint) the 141 is slightly inferior in design.  The force vectors are slightly better in the Marlin and there are fewer stress risers.  But the biggest issue to me is the metallurgy.  I haven't tested the M141's steel (that is 'destructive' testing on a collectable rifle) but modern Marlins are trough-hardened....the older M141s may not be as well hardened.  Too, damage to poorly-hardened steel is cummulative - you can get away with exceeding the steel's strength until one day a crack lets go.

It is your rifle of course and you are the one who has to assess the risk, I was simply issuing a warning to you.   Another thing to remember - there are far more Marlin M336s in use than there ever were M141s, and failures with the former are extremely rare and explainable.


.

[35Rem]

I emailed Hornady about using the round in older rifles. no answer. It's been over a week.

However, the box states for use in rifles originally chambered for the cartridge.  No notes about old guns at all, so.....one would assume it;s ok.  I don't think this is high pressure stuff, but I don;t know.

[coyotejoe]

Well, now that I've settled on the Hornady as my big game load, I'm playing around with pistol bullets at .357 velocities for inexpensive plinking and lots of fun. They feed through the Remington OK except for the last round. The OAL must be quite short to fit the chamber throat and the Remington follower shops short of pushing the last round far enough to the rear to be lifted up under the extractor so it just rattles around and jams the action. All feed OK so long as there is more than one in the mag. The 180 grain Hornady spite points feed fine but cost a lot more than Remington 158 or 180 grain hollow point pistol bullets and thus defeat the purpose of cheap plinking.