.35R to .356W (or .358) conversion

[Marlin Junky]

I've got a '51 vintage 336A in .35 Remington that's in fine shape except for the chamber which looks like it was cut with a dull reamer... it's really bad news. Would this gun be a good candidate for a .356 or .358 conversion and who should I contact to do the work? I want a REAL gunsmith not someone who works for beer.

Thanks,
MJ

P.S. This was supposed to go under leverguns... sorry

[PatMarlin]

This will shed some light MJ:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/375794/site_id/1#import

Ooooh and I forgot about this:

http://www.gunweek.com/2003/feature0301.html



...:drinks: :drinks: :drinks:

[uscra112]

I suppose you could do a conversion if you keep the loading pressures down. The .35 Rem is supposed to be a 35,000 PSI cartridge, no more. I've accidentally gone higher, but my 336 didn't like it. Cases would stick. Not badly, but enough to give me warning.

Both .356 and .358 factory loadings are much too hot for a 336. They go to 2500 fps with a 200 grainer that the .35 Rem only launches at 2050. Which means they're up in 50,000 PSI territory. So DO NOT simply rechamber to .356 or .358!

But if you were to rechamber to .358, and hold the chamber a little short (say .060") so that factory ammo couldn't be chambered, it would probably be all right. Now you HAVE to handload, and you can load only for cast boolits, using .35 Rem load data for the slower propellants, (3031 is the fastest I would ever try with 200 grainers), and/or keep your 200 grain M.V. down to 1800 fps or so, you would probably be safe.

If it were me, and I were a cast-boolit shooter, which I assume you are, I'd run a .35 Whelen Improved reamer in until the shoulder of the Whelen just cleans up the shoulder of the .35 Rem chamber. That will give you a .358-like chamber with a longer neck, but slightly shorter than the .358. Done carefully, a .358 round would not chamber. You will then have to find and shorten a .35 Whelan die to form your brass from .30-06 cases. This being a wildcat, there's no possibility of someone shooting a full-house .358 load in it, and you'll have a nice long neck for your Pb projectiles. And shooting PB, you won't be inclined to get up past 35K PSI anyway.

A very important consideration is that, if you've increased the chamber's base diameter from .457 to .470 by rechambering, you've reduced the strength of the chamber a bit, and you're adding to the bolt thrust with the larger cartridge head. This leads one to want even more to keep pressures down, and this makes a wildcat even more attractive.

Now, finding a gunsmith who understands all this may be a problem. In the current liability climate no-one who has anything worth sueing for will undertake it.

But it's fun to think about.

[PatMarlin]

Poppycock!

Did I just say Poppycock?.. :mrgreen:

The Marlin 336ER was and is chambered for the 356 Winchester, and is the very same receiver used on all Marlin 336's. There's no difference.

[PatMarlin]

I'd call these people for input MJ:

http://www.leveractions.com/

Not to say it would not be a good idea to keep some dummy from loading a hot 356 Win load in a 336, so those chambering ideas would be good for that problem.

[Pepe Ray]

What a great idea!
However one small point,-- if you run the .35 Whelan reamer in only part way you won't end up w/ a base dia. of .470" because of the taper, Right? It should be smaller, I think. Pepe Ray

[PatMarlin]

I've got a '51 vintage 336A in .35 Remington that's in fine shape except for the chamber which looks like it was cut with a dull reamer...

I don't know if I'd be that excited about converting a nice 1951 Marlin though MJ. Maybe a pawnshop beauty would be more of a suitable candidate. Who knows if Marlin goes out of business they could be the next model 94's... :roll:

[Marlin Junky]

I'm going to leave my '51 vintage .35 alone. I've broken 2000 fps with SAECO 352 at 247 grains (checked) and there wasn't the least bit of sticky extraction so the rough chamber is not bad enough to mess with. A new stainless Marlin will have more potential for a power upgrade anyway.

MJ

[PatMarlin]

I would check with the machinist on reaming a stainless barrel though, as I was told once they are harded and can be more risky to convert.

[MT Gianni]

I hear ya MJ there really are no flies on the 35 Rem. Gianni.

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Martin Junky,

You can have a gunsmith take a reamer and "kiss" that chamber gently to clean it up a good bit with minimal cost.

Regards,

Dave

[PatMarlin]

I wanted a 358 Winny real bad, but couldn't bring myself to convert my 336. Just got a bolt action and solved the problem.

[Marlin Junky]

Pat,

That's exactly what I'm going to do but I want a short action M70 or Mauser. Actually, a Mauser with a 3.25" (approx.) magazine box will handle all but the longest pointed bullets loaded in a Whelen, so I may just go with the Whelen. It all depends on what I can find out there, but I am actively looking for something to build a .358 or better on. The .350 is also an option. Also, I want to configure the stock so I can drop in a couple pounds of lead for shooting off the bench and easily remove the ballast for hunting and off-hand shooting.

MJ

P.S. I've been thinking lately about acquiring a .350 even though I've never really cared for the Remington case extraction system and the .350's short neck (I know it's longer than the .35 Rem but I'd be shooting some big stuff from the .350). On the plus side it would be economically advantageous to buy a complete rifle opposed to assembling one from the action up. Does anyone know if that stupid rib on the Remington M67whatever can be unscrewed? 'Nuther question: how long is the magazine box Remington uses for its .350?

[Marlin Junky]

The Marlin 336ER was and is chambered for the 356 Winchester, and is the very same receiver used on all Marlin 336's. There's no difference.

Pat,

I'm sorry but this is not true when you consider the 336's made in the 50's and 60's. Marlin was not that particular about the steel they used back then and fabrication methods/inspection procedures were not as precise/thorough as they were post CNC; i.e., the dawn of modern manufacturing. Are you old enough to remember when the first passenger jets were falling out of the skies? It wasn't because the designs were poor, just the manufacturing methods and it took awhile before the fuselages started coming apart due to fatigue.

MJ

P.S. I skimmed the 24-Hour Campfire B.S. (I think most those guys are drunk) and saw the comments about Nonneman and his Rockwell hardness testing. Well, I'm sorry again, but there's more to strength that just hardness. If Rockwell testing is Nonneman's claim to fame then Nonneman will convert exactly none Marlins for me man. :mrgreen: