.35 Rem vs. .356 Win

[Marlin Junky]

I've been thinking about why the .356 Winchester in the Marlin 336 didn't make it and I've come to the conclusion that if you trim the .356 case to the same length as the .35 Remington, the latter has 95% the volume of the former; and, in an action that will only handle a round just about 2.5" long, the difference between the two cartridges loaded to the same pressure (with all else equal) has to be pretty insignificant. The key here is "loaded to the same pressure". Granted a 50 to 60 year old 336 can't safely equal the velocity of a 336 factory chambered in .356, but a new Marlin XLR in .35 Remington ought to come real close... like within 75 to 100 fps, perhaps.

Any opinions? How many XRL's in .35 Remington is Marlin gonna sell? Any predictions. I think I'm gonna buy two. :-D

MJ

[Four Fingers of Death]

I'm not familiar with the dimensions, but could you rechamber the XRL to the 356?

[Ranch Dog]

I've got a ER and basically, what the 35 Rem can do... the 356 Win can do better. Now don't get me wrong, I love the little 35 Rem and I have three of them but the 356 Win is as different as the 300 Savage compared to the 30-30 Win.

The 35 Rem is a 35.0K CUP cartridge. Granted, that is based on Remington's action choice when they developed the cartridge and the rifles that would shoot it. I load my Marlin's to 40.0K CUPs. The 356 Win is a 52.0K CUP cartridge, boolit for boolit the 356 Win is going to push it a heck of a lot harder.

When talking of Marlins and the two cartridges, I've found the chamber on my 356 Win a lot more cast boolit friendly. It isn't as short as the 35 Rem and it let's me have a lot more options in boolit weight (length).

I love'm both but a 356 Win will trump a 35 Rem every time. My best load in the 20" barreled 336SC with my 180-grain boolit is just under 2200 FPS. My 336ER shoots the same boolit at 2500 FPS. I killed my last desert mule deer with the 336ER at 225-yards but I don't think I would have taken the shot with one of my 35 Rems.

[Ranch Dog]

I've looked for some info I had but can't find it. There is a gunshop converting Marlins from 35 Rem to 356 Win. I had a scanned image of their ad but just can't find it. One of the questions never fully answered was what kind of treatment did the ERs and 375s receive that allowed them to handle the 52.0K CUP.

I would hope the 308 Marlin Express is a success as I hope it will lead to a 350 Marlin Express and that will finally let the ER and 356 Win RIP.

[MT Gianni]

I've got a ER and basically, what the 35 Rem can do... the 356 Win can do better. Now don't get me wrong, I love the little 35 Rem and I have three of them but the 356 Win is as different as the 300 Savage compared to the 30-30 Win.

The 35 Rem is a 35.0K CUP cartridge. Granted, that is based on Remington's action choice when they developed the cartridge and the rifles that would shoot it. I load my Marlin's to 40.0K CUPs. The 356 Win is a 52.0K CUP cartridge, boolit for boolit the 356 Win is going to push it a heck of a lot harder.

When talking of Marlins and the two cartridges, I've found the chamber on my 356 Win a lot more cast boolit friendly. It isn't as short as the 35 Rem and it let's me have a lot more options in boolit weight (length).

I love'm both but a 356 Win will trump a 35 Rem every time. My best load in the 20" barreled 336SC with my 180-grain boolit is just under 2200 FPS. My 336ER shoots the same boolit at 2500 FPS. I killed my last desert mule deer with the 336ER at 225-yards but I don't think I would have taken the shot with one of my 35 Rems.

What he said, goes for me even though mine is a BB94. Gianni

[onceabull]

Guys: Regan Nooneman (sp ??) in Missouri is one well known source for converting Marlin 336s to 356 W. Remember if you use an original 35 remmie barrel you will have a 1:16 twist ,which could be problematical if you are looking to shoot 250 and up boolits.. Onceabull

[Marlin Junky]

I load my Marlin's to 40.0K CUPs. The 356 Win is a 52.0K CUP cartridge, boolit for boolit the 356 Win is going to push it a heck of a lot harder.

...My best load in the 20" barreled 336SC with my 180-grain boolit is just under 2200 FPS.

Ranch Dog,

I'll bet that 180 grain .35 Rem load you mentioned at 2200 fps is doing more like 30K than 40K.

I'm not suggesting you compare an SC to an ER. The ER will take more pressure than the SC. Don't take my word for it, call Marlin. The .35 XLR will handle just as much pressure as the ER and assuming all else equal, will be right on the heals of the ER. If Marlin does come out with a .350 ME or a .358 ME (whatever) it'll probably have approximately the same powder capacity as the .35 Remington.

MJ

P.S. It would surprise me if there are any reputable smiths that will chamber an SC for the .356 Winchester. SC chambers will probably bulge after a few factory rounds of .356. The lock-up design is not the weak link as most suspect... it is the steel Marlin used in the 50's & 60's that restricts these guns to 40K CUP or less.

[NVcurmudgeon]

Guys: Regan Nooneman (sp ??) in Missouri is one well known source for converting Marlin 336s to 356 W. Remember if you use an original 35 remmie barrel you will have a 1:16 twist ,which could be problematical if you are looking to shoot 250 and up boolits.. Onceabull

Onceabull, my 1:16 .35 Whelen handled a Hoch 255 gr. as low as 1400 fps, though I never shot it past 100 yds. Maybe it would have destabilized at longer range? But, what others have said about Lyman 3589 indicates the limit in 1:16 is not much past 250gr.

[Ranch Dog]

I'll bet that 180 grain .35 Rem load you mentioned at 2200 fps is doing more like 30K than 40K.

I have pressure trace equipment and a case full of H335 generates 42.0K PSI or approximately 40.0K CUP. This is my load...

[Lloyd Smale]

no thanks ive seen 3 rifles hes built two in 50 alaskan and one in 32 mag the 32 mag is sitting in my safe and i wouldnt give you a thousand bucks for all three of them. If you want nice rifle work done see Ben Forkin or Dave Clements.
Guys: Regan Nooneman (sp ??) in Missouri is one well known source for converting Marlin 336s to 356 W. Remember if you use an original 35 remmie barrel you will have a 1:16 twist ,which could be problematical if you are looking to shoot 250 and up boolits.. Onceabull

[Marlin Junky]

I have pressure trace equipment and a case full of H335 generates 42.0K PSI or approximately 40.0K CUP. This is my load...

Ranch Dog,

There are four functions on your graph. Which one is the 180 and how much 335 are you using? Is the 180 you're referring to your 359-180-TL? I took a look at your website and your 359-180-TL actually weighs 187 grains... is that with or without the gascheck and what is the boolit's BHN on your plot above? Since you have pressure trace equipment you could provide a wealth of information :-D I've been wondering for quite some time what happens to the pressure curve when boolit hardness goes from about BHN 14 to about 21 through heat treating alone; i.e., all else (including alloy) held constant. Can you provide that information?

How far into the .35 Rem case was the boolit seated when you generated the pressure vs. time function above? According to Accurate Arms, 42K PSI is approximately equivalent to 38K CUP; i.e., there is approx. 10% difference between the two. Are the pressures your software plotted in terms of PSI or CUP?

MJ

[Ranch Dog]

Ranch Dog,

There are four functions on your graph. Which one is the 180 and how much 335 are you using? Is the 180 you're referring to your 359-180-TL? I took a look at your website and your 359-180-TL actually weighs 187 grains... is that with or without the gascheck and what is the boolit's BHN on your plot above? Since you have pressure trace equipment you could provide a wealth of information :-D I've been wondering for quite some time what happens to the pressure curve when boolit hardness goes from about BHN 14 to about 21 through heat treating alone; i.e., all else (including alloy) held constant. Can you provide that information?

How far into the .35 Rem case was the boolit seated when you generated the pressure vs. time function above? According to Accurate Arms, 42K PSI is approximately equivalent to 38K CUP; i.e., there is approx. 10% difference between the two. Are the pressures your software plotted in terms of PSI or CUP?

MJ

MJ... The four trend lines on the graph represent 4 individual shots. Two with one load of H335 and two with a lesser load. The pressure trace gear is that offered through RSI Software and Southwest Products. I have been shooting it for quite a while now. At times, I've gotten frustrated with it but it has evolved into a pretty good product with various updates to hardware and software.

This equipment uses strain gages attached to the barrel above the chamber to report pressure in PSI. I subscribe to the forumulas RSI uses for converting between PSI and CUP (http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf) as I see it used very successfully. I actually have a web page here on gunloads that will do the converting either way based on the formulas in the reference RSI link... Ranch Dog's PSI & CUP Converter (http://gunloads.com/fam/ranchdogmolds/Reloading/PSICUP.htm). Anyway, according to this data 40.0K PSI works out 38.2 CUP. The upper lines on the chart were 39.0-grains of H355 and the lower 38.0-grains.

The TLC359-180-RF weighs 180-grains with a 10 to 1 alloy of WW and Tin. The drawing on the web page calculated a weight based on WW.

I have not done any work with the pressure trace equipment measuring the pressure differences between various alloys and their relative BHN. I wish I had the time to do something like that and may be one day will. There has been a pretty good learning curve with the PT equipment. I've learned not to use it for load development simply because it is too time consuming. I now use Load From A Disk to give me a load and then shoot a couple of traces to confirm the data and then work with just the chronograph to develop the load. I have started to use Tim Myers' (forum member) Precision Records and Ballistics software (http://www.tmtpages.com/index.htm#BPCB) as it has some neat load development tools. I worked through a load of H335 in my 1895MR (450 Marlin rifle) today using his software... it works real good and will have a post in a day or two about it.

[Marlin Junky]

Ranch Dog,

Thanks for the very interesting input. I know I asked a lot of questions but I was wondering if you ever tried AA2520 with that 359-180-TL. If there's enough room in the .35 Rem case (that's why I asked you how deep you're seating the 359-180-TL) you might be able to add another 100 fps with less pressure.

MJ

[Ranch Dog]

MJ... I don't mind the questions. I've never used AA because I have to have everything shipped in as there is no local source within a reasonable drive. I have EVERY Hodgdon powder on my shelf though.

[Marlin Junky]

BTW,

38 grains of DP-74 broke 2000 fps with the SAECO 247 grain boolit from my 24" barrel

MJ

[uscra112]

Rhetorical question:

All these straingage pressure measuring gizmos have to be calibrated before you can believe any "PSI" numbers they give you. How do you do that?

(Rhetorical, because I earn my crusts in the precision measurement field myself.)

[35remington]

It's done with ammunition that's producing a known pressure and using it to calibrate the equipment. Everything has to be related to something to make sure we're measuring correctly.

Sorta like using a standard to calibrate a micrometer.

[Ranch Dog]

Southwest Products (distributed by RSI Software) gages are calibrated at the manufacture and marked with a "Gage Factor" that is used in the Barrel Setup....

http://gunloads.com/fam/ranchdogmolds/Share/Barrel Setup.jpg

As long as care is taken with the measurements for the Chamber Dimension entries, the gage is very accurate with just the Gage Factor entered. The Gage Verification entries are often misunderstood. Factory or reloaded ammo can be used as long as it is the same load each and every time. The entries on this Barrel Setup page is just a place to record the ammo information that is used.

When you are ready to shoot, you shoot one "Verification" round and it is recorded by the software. It's sole purpose is to compare a shot history for strain gage health. Same ammo, should generate the same pressure. I haven't shown it here but there is an Environment Settings Setup so all data is corrected to the standard atmosphere. Here is a screen shot of that single "Verification" round history for my 336SC.

http://gunloads.com/fam/ranchdogmolds/Share/Verification Info.jpg

If the gage is failing, you will see a marked drop or break in the line. I've had that happen as the glue bond fails but unfortunately I don't have one to look at as the gages were replaced and the Verification shot history started again. Like I said this is very misunderstood as you are not correcting anything concerning the data the gage records. Proper installation, properly recorded barrel dimensions, and a properly entered gage factor equals an accurate pressure sample.

There is a data entry block for pressure "Correction Factor" but it is used only under specific circumstances such as when the strain gage cannot be placed directly over the cartridge. A good example is my Marlin 336-44. With the short cartridge in the 336 frame, the gage is a little forward of the desired point. Now here is the kicker... and why you don't use factory ammo to "calibrate" this equipment. Most manufactures don't know or won't tell you the exact pressure their ammo produces. I've spoken to every manufacturer and the only one that I have found to be free and consistent with an exact pressure is the Wisconsin Cartridge Co.. That is what I have used to correct this strain gage placement.

http://gunloads.com/fam/ranchdogmolds/Share/Barrel Setup with correction.jpg

The correction is simple math. What the folks in Wisconsin say it produces vs. what it is producing at the gage. If the gage is over the mid point of the cartridge, you do not use this data block.

[uscra112]

I asked the calibration question because there has been on this thread a (IMHO) somewhat cavalier assumption that because there IS a 336 model in .356, all 336s are safe when chambered for .356. Given that a .358 factory round loaded to 50+K CUP can be chambered and fired in a .356 chamber, I'm not so sure .356 is totally safe in a 336, even if there IS a factory model.

I plead guilty to hijacking the thread, but as I said in my post, my profession is precision measurement, and I can bore you for hours about calibration and certification methods that we are required to perform on the products I work on. So I'm on familiar territory I suggest that "calibration" of the straingage device by firing a "known pressure" load in the back yard range has serious flaws.

EVERY instrumental calibration, no matter what the device is, is done by comparing the instrument to a known standard, be it an artifact or another instrument. The standard artifact is a known quantity because IT has been compared with a universal master kept in a vault by the N.I.S.T. The artifact usually has to be used under certain tightly controlled conditions for its' information to be considered valid.

Now, I ask, do you REALLY know the pressure generated by that "standard load" when you fire it in your gun? No, you don't, unless you are exactly duplicating the conditions that existed when the "standard" data was taken with the maker's pressure gun. Ambient temperature will be a huge factor. I don't see temperature taken into account in the "calibration" presented. Chamber dimensions will be a factor. The throat condition will be a factor. I'm sure we can think of others.

The only positive way to calibrate that strain gage so that you could truly believe the pressure numbers it spits out would be to have that maker's pressure gun right alongside, and fire numerous "standard rounds" in each, all loaded alike and selected from the lot at random, under exactly identical circumstances. We call this a "correlation test". Only then will you know the correlation between the two measurement devices. If there's a difference , we call it "bias", and it's stated as the deviation from the more trusted instrument.

You also need to know the standard deviation of each device, because one of them may be all over the place, so one data point it gives you has a large uncertainty attached to it.

And this calibration by correlation would be valid ONLY for the particular gun that the strain gage is on. Move it to another, and you gotta start all over.

I know the 336 is a good action - I own two, and I wouldn't trade either of 'em for any Winchester levergun they ever made, but it IS a back-locking action, after all. A modern bolt gun it is not.

It's a moot point now - the thread originator decided not to rechamber his old 336, but I stand by my suggestion that rechambering it to .356 would not have been wise. I also want everyone to take with a spoonful of salt any quantitative statements about pressures, when the statements are based only on data obtained by these straingage gizmos. They may be repeatable as all get-out, but you just don't know the bias, so they're really only good for comparing one load with another in the same gun. Which is certainly valuable information, to be sure, but it's not reliable enough to compare quantitatively with data from load tables or even other gages.

BTW I'm also on a tear over these digital powder scales. I've now had two, and neither one of them would hold zero for more than a few minutes if the ambient temperature was changing, (as in the heat going on and off in my work area). The cheap (eBay) one would drift half a grain in the time it took to throw 5 charges. The Dillon one took longer, but it would still drift 2-3 tenths of a grain. I'm back to my tried and true Lyman-Ohaus, and I ain't ever wasting money on another digital.

Cheers! I gotta go to work tomorrow. . . .

[Marlin Junky]

I asked the calibration question because there has been on this thread a (IMHO) somewhat cavalier assumption that because there IS a 336 model in .356, all 336s are safe when chambered for .356. Given that a .358 factory round loaded to 50+K CUP can be chambered and fired in a .356 chamber, I'm not so sure .356 is totally safe in a 336, even if there IS a factory model.

uscra112,

I haven't been able to contact Marlin about the steel/heat-treating process used in their ER (.356 Win) models and find out why they were dropped from production after such a short period of time; however, it is the general consensus among knowledgeable leversmiths that a 56 year old 336, factory chambered for the .35 Remington cartridge, will not handle a factory .356. Some even indicate that an old (e.g. '51 vintage) .35R chamber opened up to accept a factory .356 will swell upon firing the first round of the latter. Therefore, it didn't make sense to me to incur the expense of creating a potentially unsafe situation in order to gain 100 fps which could be the extent of the gain using .356 Win. cases loaded to only 40K CUP. I'm not sure how I feel about the rear lock-up debate because I've heard the weak link is the steel Marlin used in early 336's and not the lock-up design. Obviously Marlin feels strongly enough about their action design to chamber it for a new cartridge, with 10% less capacity, that "approximates" the performance of the .308 Winchester. In order to do that, the .308ME needs to operate in the 50K CUP neighborhood so I am confused about the rear lock-up thing.

Also, I feel your pain regarding the digital scales as I have the most expensive model offered by PACT. Fortunately, my PACT is usually reliable enough after allowing it to warm up for about an hour and even though I recalibrate it about every half hour or so, I believe it is still faster than a single beam balance. The best you can do is keep your scale away from drafts and electrical interference and don't allow static to build up on the lil' plastic pans. Personally, I can't believe PACT doesn't ship their best scale with a brass pan, but I guess they're saving money with the cheap plastic one.

MJ

uscra112,

[Bret4207]

USCRA112- Excellent post. You've put in words a gut feeling I had for years. Too many folks depending on comparative analysis and making a definitive conclusion based on a variable point. Fortunately my hot rodding days are over and loading to the hilt is a thing of the past for me. I still wonder if or how much damage I did to a certain Colt Cobra using a long ago recommended load. Had I had modern pressure equipment and tested it I might have skewed my results based on my beliefs and observations and come to a false conclusion.

[Bass Ackward]

USCRA112- Excellent post. You've put in words a gut feeling I had for years. Too many folks depending on comparative analysis and making a definitive conclusion based on a variable point.


Bret,

I .... don't .... think experienced gun men really believe that what they are reading on anything is truly what is occurring. As an example I quote pressure all the time from Quickload which is probably wrong. It's simply a guide for me. But once calibrated to those components it is scarry predictible if not accurate, so valuable at saving me time and money, that I rely on it. What is key is that I can find where I can push the peak pressure out to the farthest in oder to be as gentle on a cast bullet as possible. Just because you go to slower powders, doesn't always mean this happens.

Same as with a hardness tester. I could care less if my tester is 2 BHN off, just so it is 2 BHN off all the time so I know how to reproduce those same bullets. As an example, if one person out there can shoot ACWW at 3000 fps, it means that hardness isn't the limiter to velocity. It allows you the option to find out why YOU need lino to get over 2000 fps. If this fact isn't important to you, the figures mean nothing. Simply mold hard or HT and accept what your limits truly are. What is the price for your decision? You have to take more steps to HT or more expense to blend up etc.

LLA is my achillies heel. If someone can get 2400 fps out of LLA, then I am simply not matching his technique or my barrels aren't in as good a condition or my bullets are too soft, whatever. That means that 2400 fps becomes a standard to compare my results to. In my case, I couldn't care less if I mastered LLA, so if LLA fails, I go to another lube. What is the cost to me for that attitude? Increased reloading steps and expensive sizing and lubricating equipment that I wouldn't otherwise need.

Loading manuals that were the first tool we had to standardize results across many shooters, and they can be all over the place. Can you trust the pressures they post? That's why loading manuals today have become much more conservative than those prior to the 70s. Just in case someone forgets to start low and come up.

But these gadgets today are simply extensions of yesterdays loading manual that, for some people, allows them to compare or to reproduce things better than guessing.

[Marlin Junky]

But these gadgets today are simply extensions of yesterdays loading manual that, for some people, allows them to compare or to reproduce things better than guessing.

Bass,

That's right. I think it was Archimedes who said it best... "If you can measure it, you know something about it".

MJ

[Bret4207]

Exactly my point BA. Lately there's been a bunch of info on the web from guys who have this program or that gizmo stating their results are "gospel" so to speak. As with so many other tools, without having a common start point the results don't tell the whole story.

I meant no slight to anyones pet program or gizmo. I'd love to have the Oehler personal ballistics lab. But without a common and proven standard to start from some of the info out there will be wrong.

[Ranch Dog]

And that is the MAJOR problem with reloading text. They don't give you atmosphere conditions at which they collected the data. If we assume that they have been corrected to a standard atmosphere, they don't give you the tools (math) to correct the data to the conditions you are experiencing at the time of the explosion. Most data sources don't even bother to explain that the pressure has been taken in a test "chamber" and the velocity information recorded from a specific firearm. The two data sets have nothing in common other than they were both recorded with the same explosive charge.

I don't know if I could ever find textual data that supports my boolits, cases, primers, powders, and firearms in past or current reloading texts. Anything I want to load from using those texts is a crap shoot. These new technologies do use my specific set of conditions (both components and atmospheric) to generate the suggested load and then test it. It qualifies itself in that it is repeatable when corrected for any set of conditions.

There is simply some very basic misunderstandings of the software or equipment. The example above of using a factory load to calibrate the equipment is one. The one thing the pressure trace equipment will show you is just how sloppy factory ammo is.

[Ranch Dog]

All this isn't much different from the period when personal chronographs were introduced. Same types of discussion for and against the use of comparing reloading data. The "new stuff" is just adding to the base of knowledge at the reloaders disposal. I have used the pressure trace gear against published data with the same components expressed in that data and said "crap, I'm not shooting another one". Some of the stuff for the 356 Win and 375 Win is down right scary!

[uscra112]

Well, thanks for the kind words, guys. I wasn't sure but what I might get flamed for being so critical of these gadgets, but I hadda say it.

I don't read modern gun magazines so I don't keep up with what the manufacturers have done in the last 20 years or so. (Same with my motorcycles - it it was built before 1980, I'm an expert. If not, I'm a babe in the woods.) Kinda absurd for somebody who lives on the cutting edge of technology in his professional life, but there it is. I take comfort in the fact that Henry Ford was much the same way.

It doth occur to me that, what with the technology we have today, it would be entirely possible to build a 336 that would stand a 50K+ load with complete safety, and wouldn't appear any different from a 40-year-old model.

The history of firearms is welded to the history of steel quality. And this hasn't hit its' limit yet. Steel today isn't necessarily that much stronger, and it still has the same modulus of elasticity, but it's ever more consistent.

It is also true that machining accuracy and precision are getting better and better.
(BTW accuracy and precision do NOT mean the same thing!)

The ability to non-destructively test parts has grown by leaps and bounds, and the cost has come down dramatically.

We can analyse the reaction of metal to forces using FEA (finite element analysis) on computers today.

With those facts and tools in hand, one can test the action on the computer before ever cutting metal, and be pretty darn sure that you weren't exceeding the limits, given the properties of the metal and the shape with great accuracy.

With NDT (x-ray) being as cheap as it is now, you could test every part to be sure that no flawed steel ever gets assembled into a product. Or even goes to be machined.

The precision of your machining assures you that the actual parts will match the computer model you tested, too. The precision with which you can measure the machining results, (my job) lets you control your machining far better, and lets you identify and remove faulty parts from the production stream, without excessive cost.

Result, every new 336 you make today can have the same safety factors as the old ones did, but at higher pressures, (and would, even if the steel you use has the same formulation and properties as the steel from 1950). Why? Because you've reduced the uncertainty factor in the manufacturing process. Greater uncertainty in days of old forced you to rate your parts to lower standards, because you couldn't eliminate the weak parts from the production stream economically, (if at all). An engineer always has to rate his parts so that the WEAKEST part he delivers to a customer still meets the minimum standard. Especially so with a firearm.

I see this all the time in the auto industry. Engine parts get lighter and smaller, yet are more reliable, and under greater strain, too, than the bigger, heavier parts from the past.

There's an interesting historical parallel to this in WW2 aviation history. The Navy chose the Grumman Hellcat over the Vought Corsair as the primary carrier fighter for the Pacific campaigns, in spite of the fact that the Corsair had the potential to, (and eventually did) outstrip the Hellcat in every measure of combat capability. BUT, it was a very difficult airplane to land on a carrier. They had to have a plane that the LEAST CAPABLE pilots could land safely.

So hurrah for Marlin, and may the beloved 336 live forever.

[uscra112]

Oh, and I'm somewhat delighted at the Archimedes quote - I re-invented it myself early in my machine-tool career, although what I said was "If you can't measure it, you can't make it". I've been drilling this into youngsters, (when they will listen, which is rarely), for years. But I like Archimedes' version better.

[Marlin Junky]

38.5 grains of DP-74 and 38.7 grains of Surplus 2520 (from Pat's Reloading) averaged 2089 and 2124 fps (20 rounds each) from my 24" 336A today with SAECO 352 at 248 grains checked. The boolits weighed a grain more than last month only because they came from a shimmed mold (all else held constant). Accuracy with both loads beat my 2MOA requirement to qualify for further experimentation but recoil is getting up there for a light levergun and it looks like the butt stock at the rear of the top tang is developing a hairline crack. Even though that's all the power this old gun is going to be subjected to, ejected cases seemed fine and I would GUESS the loads are generating right around 40K PSI.

To anyone thinking about a Marlin 336XLR in .35 Remington, I would highly recommend SAECO 352 as their heavy boolit but I don't know how to feel about the .18" (I think) meplat in a tubular magazine gun generating this level of recoil (almost 2500 ft-# ME). I'm seating this boolit to a COL of 2.48" which puts the crimp groove .04" to .05" below the case mouth and the leading band still engraves on the heavy side (at least for me). Even at this seating depth there is still room for 40 grains of DP-74 but my old 336 will never be asked to handle that charge. If I were to buy a new 336XLR in .35 Rem., I would modify the throat to fit SAECO 352 and maybe consider working up to 40 grains very, very slowly. If 40 grains of these propellants behind a 248 grain boolit constitutes a safe load, it would probably beat the Buffalo Bore Heavy .35 Rem. load in terms of ME by about 300 ft-#. I'd like to try this boolit at BHN 12 but I'll probably drop back to 37 grains and wear my PAST recoil pad during testing. My '51 vintage 336A has a hard rubber butt plate and even though I didn't bruise today, I was starting to feel the pain after about 20 rounds.

MJ

[Bret4207]

That's a "whumper" load fer sure. Excellent. I know what you mean about the recoil. My 336SC 35 Rem is the same and between the lack of a pad and the crooked stock and the light weight she lets you know when she says BANG! Thats part of the reason a 180FN at 1500-1600 fps is so much more fun.

[Marlin Junky]

Tpr. Bret,

And the 38.5gr./DP-74 load produced the same case expansion as the 37gr./CanisterAA2520 did last month. I would have no reservations shooting this boolit on top of 39 grains of DP-74 in a newer 336 all day long (with a recoil pad) at least until I got any hot weather pressure signs. Unfortunately, DP-74 looks to be extinct but I'm wondering if it is nothing more than surplus AA2700 or Ramshot BigGame.

MJ

[rockrat]

Using my 336A 35 Rem. and AA2520 powder, I have pushed the J-word 200gr bullets to 2367fps and accuracy was about 1.25". In my 356, which I built on a 444 donor action and used a 23.5" bbl, I could get the same bullet to 2712 fps. With different weight j-word bullets, the speeds between the two seem to average about 300fps difference in the 35 Rem. VS 356 Win. Used H-322 in the 356Win.

[Marlin Junky]

Rockrat,

Who did the .444 to .356 conversion work?

When was your 336A in .35 Remington built?

I'd sure like to have pressure data on your loads. The .356 load sounds like it's exceeding 50K CUP.

MJ

[rockrat]

I believe that my 336A was built in 1955, almost as old as I am.
My 444 was converted by yours truly. I started with low end 358 loads and watching primers and how the lever felt, I went until I felt a slight stickyness to the lever and backed off the powder charge, about 1 grain, and normal extraction. The load breaking 2700fps was the load that had the stickyness to it. The load I am using now only runs slightly over 2600fps.

[Marlin Junky]

Rockrat,

Have you ever determined how many reloads you can get out of your .35 Rem brass if you use nothing but your 2300+ fps load in your 336A? What is it, an "M" gun... Ballard rifled w/o factory D&T, serial number prefixed by an "M" date code, or what? I wouldn't work that pre-444 action too hard but 2300fps with AA2520 and a 200 grain cast boolit shouldn't be too bad (the copper jacketed counter part with the same load should produce more pressure, all else equal of course).

MJ

[6pt-sika]

I have a Marlin 336SC in 35 REM that was made in 1952 . It was also the first lever 35 I ever killed a deer with . And on top of that with home cast bullet and a Lyman peep sight . My second 35 lever deer was killed a year or two after that with a Marlin 336D shooting a handloaded Remington 200 grain Core Lokt bullet . This rifle had a Leupold 1-4 up top .
My latest lever 35 deer was killed this past year with a Marlin 336ER in 356 WIN caliber . In that I was shooting 20 year old Winchester 200 grain factory loads .

And the bottom line is I saw no difference in the effectiveness of the three . All three pretty much dropped the deer on the spot . I mean "how dead can you kill a deer" [smilie=1:

At the moment I still own the pair of 35 REM's and the 356 . And have also added a second Marlin 356 . In the very near future I should have my hands on a new 336XLR in 35 REM . And last but not least I'm keeping my eyes open for an old ballard rifled 336A that's not been drilled and tapped; and chambered for the 35 REM .

I think a pair of 356'a and four 35 REM's should keep me plenty happy for many years to come :drinks:

[Marlin Junky]

There's got to be a few out there that shoot copper patched bullets so I was wondering if anyone has ever gone after Mule Deer or Antelope out west with a .35-336 loaded to the hilt with the Hornady 180 SSP (loaded as a two-shooter).

MJ

[MT Gianni]

1 dead antelope and 3 dead whitetails with the 356 and a 180 Speer fn. Load was AA 2015 from book #1 maxload. Suppossed to be 2700 fps + but I chronographed it at 2655 from my gun. Gianni

[6pt-sika]

1 dead antelope and 3 dead whitetails with the 356 and a 180 Speer fn. Load was AA 2015 from book #1 maxload. Suppossed to be 2700 fps + but I chronographed it at 2655 from my gun. Gianni

I have Speer FP 180 and 220's to try in the two 356's when I get around to loading for them [smilie=1:
Which should be soon as I have just about exhausted all the 20 year old factory loads I had on hand .:drinks:

[Marlin Junky]

What about this idea (hey, it's late and I can't sleep)...

Has anyone ever tried heat treating a Hornady 35-180 SSP in order to harden the core a little so it doesn't blow up when launched at 2400 fps?

Yeah, I know, some of you are probably thinking... hey, take your jacketed bullet nonsense outside :-D

MJ

[MT Gianni]

I understand that most if not all j******d bullets are swedged with pure lead which doesn't heat treat. gianni.

[rockrat]

I would have to drag the 336A out of the safe to check the prefix. It has ballard rifling, but has been D & T'd. That 2520 load is only for what little hunting I get to do anymore, otherwise, its the rcbs 35-200 or a 235gr mountain mould I had Dan cut for me. I don't drive my car at full throttle and I don't shoot my levers full bore either.:-D

[Marlin Junky]

I understand that most if not all j******d bullets are swedged with pure lead which doesn't heat treat. gianni.

At least some jacketed bullets have a bit of Sb. Perhaps the Hornady .35 cal. 180 SSP has none, I don't know.

MJ

[Suo Gan]

Excellent old thread that needs to come back to the top again.