Author Topic: 350 Rem Mag (Read 1820 times)

reelhook · « **on:** December 28, 2003, 06:17:54 AM »

Who owns one and who can tell me anything about this cartridge. I want to use 225 gr. bullets- any Ideas?
Reelhook

onesonek · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2003, 08:35:50 AM »

Give or take it's the ballistic twin (short action) vs 35 Whelen (long action). Developed in "64" along with it's sibling, the 6.5 Rem. mag. It (they) didn't fair well with the press. As being belted, and called mags, the 350 wasn't pushing anything near 3000 fps, and the 6.5 was contending against the hot .264 Win mag.
The "magum" craze was already under way. But the light weight short action was up comming. I think Remington was trying to capitalize on both, but the 350 and 6.5 were alittle ahead of there time, as we now see.
As for a two gun, big game hunter on the North American continent, one really wouldn't need anything else. The 6.5 is a dandy deer round. The 350 with a 225 gr. bullet at medium range is about all one would need in the "Lower 48", for larger game. And I wouldn't feel too under gunned with a 250 gr. NP on bears.
I think Remington's idea was good, just bad timming. Had they forgot the belt, and put an un-rebated rim back on the .284 Win., well, who knows

We could've had a RemChester 40 years ago :wink:

Lawdog · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2003, 01:25:19 PM »

onesonek,

Everything you have said is very true. Only thing I would add is the rifle that Remington chose, the M660 and M600, were considered by many at that time to be just plain ugly. I worked in a sporting goods store at the time Remington introduced them and I only sold one in the whole time I worked there. The owner finally got his supplier to take them back as un-sellable. That vented rib caught on the brush, people didn't care for the bolt handle and many other complaints. I believe that Remington should have just brought out both the 6.5 and the .350 in their M700's using a 22" barrel and they would have done much better. Lawdog

onesonek · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2003, 03:27:01 PM »

Very true, over sight on my part.

kciH · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2004, 10:17:05 AM »

Remington has had the wisdom to reintroduce both these cartridges recently. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that they have reintroduced them in a rifle that many today will consider just plain ugly. I applaud the longer barrel and the M7action, but the looks are certainly not for everyone. At least I haven't heard any gunwriters biching about the bullets having to be seated too deep in the casing as yet. It would be great to see them evaluate a cartridge on what it will do, with factory loads, in an available rifle... instead of daydreaming about how much better they can handload the round in a long action rifle. Another great cartridge, the .284 Winchester, was killed by rifle availability and gun scribe idiocy.

Reelhook,
I shoot a .35 Whelen AI, basically the ballistic twin to the .350 Mag as onesonek pointed out. I can't see where you'll be dissapointed with the rifle unless you are recoil intolerant. The recoil is managable, but it's is certianly there. Depending on the rifle you purchase it shouldn't be a big issue. I had the opportunity to shoot a Remington M7 KS in this chambering one a few occasions, it weighed in at about 6.5 lbs with a compact scope mounted, it was BRUTAL from the bench. If you want a light one, by all means get it, you carry it alot more than you shoot it.

Dennis Andersen · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2004, 03:44:06 PM »

I have a 35 whelen in a Ruger 77 and a 350 Rem in a clasic. I know they are supposed to be ballistic twins, but the Rem recoils way more than the Ruger. Must be stock design.

reelhook · « **Reply #6 on:** May 26, 2004, 10:06:48 AM »

I finally got my 350 from Bullberry- it is 21.5 inches with their brake-what a pleasuure to shoot. 40 rounds from the bench and no problems plus it shoot about 1" for 3 shots. Oh yea- it an encore
reelhook

onesonek · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2004, 12:53:23 PM »

Drilling Man · « **Reply #8 on:** May 27, 2004, 02:08:18 PM »

Where i lived in Alaska, those short Remingtons were quite popular!! Wasn't hard to sell one at all!.

I had a 350 rem mag for some time, and shot some moose with it. It did a pretty good job, but i never liked those belted cases. Not that there's a problem with them, i just didn't like them.

I ended up building a .338/06 imp., that i still have to this day. I shot 13 big game animials with the 338 the first 3 years i hunted with it, includeing moose, deer, brown bear, caribou and others.

I think the biggest reason i liked the 338 over a 35 cal was bullet choise, but that's not a problem today. With proper bullets, it will made a fine round today, for any animials in the U.S. of A.

Drilling Man

ratherbefishin · « **Reply #9 on:** August 03, 2004, 06:28:54 AM »

I know Remington is making a 350 magnum in their 673, are there any other rifles chambering it?

45LC-Man · « **Reply #10 on:** August 05, 2004, 03:04:31 PM »

Both Ruger (M77R) and Remington (CDL) just re-introduced it this year.