Had Not Heard of This
Brian T
[subject]
Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 13:55 (619 days ago)
I used to say the .350 was just a rimless .357 Max
WB
[subject]
Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 14:39 (619 days ago) @ Brian T
But the bullets are funky. I think they originally spec. .355-.356 9mm ( the cases are based upon “un-drawn” 9mm pistol brass) then someone found that many states stipulate .357 as minimum hunting caliber. Whoops!!! I found some 145 gr. FMJ factory pulled slugs showed 0.354”!
They are dodgey on the actual bullet specs but generally say .357. I’ve been shooting .358” through my AR. I used 200 gr. RNGC and started with my old favorite .357 Max. powder charges of 1680 and 4227. Velocity was right where I wanted to be, better even, from the 16”. Bested the .35 Remington. The 200 gr. Ran right at 2050-2100 fps! The .350 is longer than the .357 Max.
Checking some published load data I was like 2 grs. over maximum pressures! Yikes! I sure couldn’t tell by primers or anything else. They shot great!?
It still is a bit strange but in actual shooting it performs well. It complies with the straight walled cartridge hunting rules in many states which is why it was developed. In my mind it always reminds me of the .352” .351 WSL for the 1907 semi-auto rifle.
Tits on a chicken. Why on earth would S&W
Gary Reeder
[subject]
Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 16:30 (619 days ago) @ WB
put this funky cartridge in a 6 lb revolver. It is the same revolver the 500 S&W is chambered in and the 460 S&W too. I realize the rationale behind it as the cartridge is longer than a standard cylinder, but why put a hemi engine in a Volkswagen bug? Money talks.
It is funny how money talks these days. This cartridge holds 2 grains more powder than the 357 Maximum yet they claim it to be the all time greatest hunting cartridge. Look at the new 30 Super Carry cartridge. They come right out and say it, that it has less power than the 9mm. Yet several big gun companies are already jumping on the band wagon and chambering it in their pistols. Money talks.
I am all for new cartridges that actually have a reason to be. Like the 9X23 Winchester. A great cartridge. More power than a 9mm or 38 Super yet no gun company jumped on it and started chambering it in their pistols. Why? Because not enough green backs were passed around to the right people.
In this industry, more than in most other companies, money talks.
The above comments were put here by a grumbling old fart that has a problem with tits on a chicken.
I agree it's really goofy for a HUGE revolver
WB
[subject]
Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 16:41 (619 days ago) @ Gary Reeder
Not to mention it headspaces on the case mouth. Maybe they intend to use moon clips? I can't see it but I wish them the best.
I like the idea of a .32 Super. It's right close to standard 9mm performance but even less recoil and that case head is very small surface area so the actual forces imparted on the face of the slide at higher pressure is small. Just not as much inches for the pounds per sq. inch. Fractionally speaking. Honestly it's about the same power as the ancient .30 Mauser from 1898.
Now the Tokarev is another kettle of fish. 85 gr. at 1600 fps+ A 100 gr. should still run 1400+. HOT!
Souls sold on the altar of avarice.
Winnturner48
[subject]
Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 09:54 (618 days ago) @ WB
Not being as technically oriented as the rest of y'all, it just seems like a new thing for people who want cutting edge stuff. They are a gullible lot.
Dang, that thing weighs 4.5 pounds might
Derek
[subject]
Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 12:26 (618 days ago) @ Winnturner48
Think I would rather carry a rifle, something like the Mossberg youth rifle or a Rossi 357 mag carbine.
well, manufacturers have to come up with new products to
WoodyS
[subject]
Friday, August 19, 2022, 08:54 (616 days ago) @ Derek
be able to both fund their company and develop new customers to keep revenue momentum into the future. its getting harder and harder to succeed in America as a business and attain new customers into the shooting world.
I wouldn't think it would sell real well. We'll see
ChrisG
[subject]
Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 19:19 (619 days ago) @ Gary Reeder
I guess
Kinda weird. They should have gone the opposite direction
Keith
[subject]
Thursday, August 18, 2022, 12:41 (617 days ago) @ Gary Reeder
Instead of figuring out how small a cartridge they could fit in the biggest revolver, they should try to see how large a cartridge they can fit in a smaller revolver (and still have six shots)
The L-frame is ripe for a 10mm (magnum) chambering. The 646 is already proof enough that 6 rounds would fit in an L frame sized cylinder. The model 69 is nice, but full-house 44 magnum is rough.
Would love an L frame 41 magnum
Derek
[subject]
Thursday, August 18, 2022, 16:23 (617 days ago) @ Keith
- No text -