So I want to build a 358WIN scout on a Springfield

[rvpilot76]

Not sure if the shorter 358WIN rounds are going to give me feeding problems with the longer magazine length of my 03A3. I want to stay with the 358WIN over the Whelen, as it's a lot more efficient with cast. Where do I get a scout mount for one of those? I have access to a full machine shop here at work with full CNC machine capability. Maybe I'll just make one! Man, like I needed another project!

Kevin

[PatMarlin]

Oooh good choice!

I've got mine by my side right now. I have a VZ-24 mauser conversion, choate stock, Huber concept "Skeletonized" trigger, Lupy 1.5x5 vari-x III. It's so light, so fast to get on target, so accurate it's now by far my favorite bolt action rifle.

All I need now is a pillar bedding, and it's final..

[Bass Ackward]

I want to stay with the 358WIN over the Whelen, as it's a lot more efficient with cast. Kevin

Kevin,

Lot's more efficient? In what way?

Good choice though.

[Bret4207]

Bass- Be gentle, it's his first time. I'm wondering the same thing though.

I don't think you'll have much feed problem at all with a Whelen. The 358 might take a small amount of tweaking, or may feed just dandy.

[rvpilot76]

Kevin,

Lot's more efficient? In what way?

Good choice though.

I'm going to be using an 18" barrel; I don't think the Whelen, when I use J-boolits, it going to be very efficient with that big case and short barrel. I think I just want to do something different. I've also been reading Paco's articles on the 358WIN, and I think that's the direction I want to take this little project.

Kevin

[Antietamgw]

I've used the Weaver base for the TC Contender for a few Scout applications, mostly on military barrels. Wish they would make a steel one. The TC base is pretty versatile in that you can reverse it to and use proper EER or pistol scopes. I used the Burris base on a 700 barrel one time and that may work out better for you with a sporter type barrel. That base uses a pedestal on the rear, if I remember, and could be fit to most any tapered barrel. 4 screws with the TC base and plenty of contact, 3 with the Burris and less contact.

[Bret4207]

Kevin- No offense intended,. My comment was directed more to BA. He and another poster had a long running 35 Whelen vs 338-06 battle and I was jingling his chain.

I don't know how much more efficient the 358 will be with an 18" barrel, but if you'r ehappy with the idea then go for it!. ANY 35 cal rifle beats none at all.

[cherok9878]

rvpilot, I have a 1903A3 sporter converted to .308. I was having feeding problems with the 308 cartridge. The remedy is simple, load a cartridge of intended use forward in the magazine. Allow enough space to accomodate every bullet combination you think you will load. With a marker draw a line from left ot right or vice versa at the back of the cartridge(primer end). Remove the cartridge follower and follower spring. Most of the follower springs are small enough that you can trim the follower to the length that you marked. If yours isn't simply get a spring for a .338 round attach it to the follower polish everything up. For the space left in the back of the mag well, form a piece of oak wood to take up the space stain it black attach it with a small screw thru the rear mag wall or use a drop of epoxy in the bottom of the mag. Cost of material <next to nothing> feeding and function 100%. The one in my 1903A3, .308 has had thousands of rounds put thru it with never even one failure. The piece of Oak is still black and solid. It has never been removed from the mag well in 20 + years. You could use anything in place of the wood I used. Plastic would probably be less pervious to oil and solvents. One person I described this to used a piece of metal and welded it in place. Just my experience................larry


Of course this is all mute if the case used is of 30-06 length.

[45nut]

There are a few steel contender bases out there by stratton and warne I believe.
I used the weaver 92's on a pair of Mauser's ..look in the center of this pic.
The wood stocked is still a 7x57 and the syn stocked one is a 250 Sav.



And on a Saiga 308 win.

[PatMarlin]

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/358_wcf.htm


...

[waksupi]

I'd go ahead, and try feeding some .358 from the original configuration. You should get a good idea of how things will line up, even though the cartridge won't fully chamber.
The .358 is more efficient than the Whelen, as the available powder space is pretty much perfect for our required velocities. Not overbore.

[RU shooter]

I have often thought of rechambering my Rem. 600 ,35 Rem to 358 Win. But then I thought about it harder and decided aginst it for various reasons like its replacement value which I imagine is fairly high these days. Is the 358Win the same OAL as the parent 308 Win(2.800). ? maybe a 600 or Mohawk rebarreled to 35 If the mag box is long enough to handle it.

[rvpilot76]

There are a few steel contender bases out there by stratton and warne I believe.
I used the weaver 92's on a pair of Mauser's ..look in the center of this pic.
The wood stocked is still a 7x57 and the syn stocked one is a 250 Sav.
And on a Saiga 308 win.

I looked at the Stratton steel 6-hole base. Nice. How do you compensate for the tapered barrel when the base is not tapered?

Kevin

[45nut]

I have yet to run out of internal scope adjustment but you could alway use a shim or two in front. The 7x57 wears the original stepped barrel,the 250 Sav is a midway special.

[rvpilot76]

I am mainly worried about the scope being "tilted", and not being able to see through the center of the scope.

Kevin

[Bass Ackward]

I'm going to be using an 18" barrel; I don't think the Whelen, when I use J-boolits, it going to be very efficient with that big case and short barrel. I think I just want to do something different. I've also been reading Paco's articles on the 358WIN, and I think that's the direction I want to take this little project.

Kevin

Kevin,

I was just curious. Efficient is a term that I always think of as being able to achieve the same velocity with less powder. It is normaly refered to with case volumes in a bore where an underbore is comparred to an overbore and specifically with jacketed bullets.

I look at case volume a little differently with cast. Especially in a bore that will be considered more for hunting, than for general plinking. For cast, I say that the smaller the case, the harder the bullet you need to achieve the same velocity. This is because the smaller case will have to be at a higher pressure to produce that velocity. Same with shorter barrels too.

[Char-Gar]

Harumpff... Ineffecient is not a word that should be applied in this case to the 35 Whelen round vs. the .358. A 18.5" rifle barrel in either caliber is ineffecient.

I recall when it Jeff Cooper began to sit around and muse about the "Scout" rifle notion. He then started to campaign the idea to the gullible. I didn't buy into the notion then and still don't today.

It seems to me the whole notion of a "Scout" rifle is an exercise in ineffeciency. In trying to make one rifle fill a number of rolls, it is an bundle of compromises. Cooper took himself way to seriously as the self proclaimed "Gunner's Guru"... took real balls to do that.

YOu can make a Springfield action feed short rounds, but that is another exercise in ineffeciency. If you want a .358 start with a short action and life will be much simplier and the notion will be more in line with Cooper's original pipe dream.

Scout, schmout... a 24" bbl 35 whelen makes much more sense.

[Larry Gibson]

rvPilot76

I agree with Charger and Bass that the .Whelen is a fine cartridge and not "inefficient". Nothing wrong with the .358 Win either. However on the longer action I would build the Whelen. If you really want a .358 Win go with the M98 Mauser action. I also disagree with the 18" barrel. I have several scout configured rifles and have hunted two and four legged critters in some of the densest forests in the world and never found the short barrel an advantage.
My shortest barreled scout configures rifle is a M94 Carbine with 20" barrel. My Swede and Argy are 24" barrels, the AR is, well an AR with 20" barrel + the suppressor (basicly 21"), the M1A is 26" including the suppressor. I did have an M1A I cut the barrel back to 18" and remounted the flash suppressor to 22". I used that so much I shot the barrel out. I lost 200+ fps, depending on load, cutting off thos 4 inches. I found it no more easier to use than a standard length barrel so when I put the new barrel on it stayed standard length.

The shortest I would go is 20" on a .358 Win but would prefer a 24 or 26" barrel on the Whelen. Besides that on the "efficient" end of actual ballistics the 18' barreled Whelen will be a .358 Win. An 18" barreled .358 Win will be a .35 Remington. You will also have a tremendous amount of muzzle blast to contend with. Heck, when I rebarreled a M91 Argy to .35 Rem I left the barrel 26". I get published .358 Win velocities with 180 and 200 gr J bullets and find the longer barrel not a problem at all.

Larry Gibson

[Paul B]

Chargar said, "It seems to me the whole notion of a "Scout" rifle is an exercise in ineffeciency. In trying to make one rifle fill a number of rolls, it is an bundle of compromises. Cooper took himself way to seriously as the self proclaimed "Gunner's Guru"... took real balls to do that."

I'm not at all sure I agree with that. I'm nor all that sure that the original concept of the Scout rifle is inefficient for what it was designed for, a "general Purpose" firearm for game up to about 400 pounds.

Actually, IIRC, the original scout concept was along military lines, a firearm for a military scout operating ahead of the main body and behind enemy lines to some degree.

I don't agree with the rifle as Steyr put out, one it's ugly as sin, and I feel that any rifle that might be based in part on a military concept, as Cooper originally stated, should have controlled feed, that is, be based on a Mauser or Pre-64 Winchester style action, but that's my thought. I will say this for the Steyr though, it does feel good in my hands and would certainly handle well.

I wouldn't knock an 18.5" barrel either. My pet load for a .308 pushes a 165 gr. Speer Hot Core at 2550 FPS from the 18.5" barrel of my Ruger International and 2610 FPS from a 22" barreled Winchester M70, a whole 60 FPS gain. before you knock those figures, they're exactly the same from some Speer Nitrex ammo I have with the 165 gr. Grand Slam bullets.

Based on my shooting experience with five rifles in .358 Win., there would not be all that great a vleocity loss from an 18" barrel compared to a 22" barrel. I will agree that using a shorter Mauser action would be the way to go, or one of the commercial short actions if one can be found cheaply enough. I have one .308 rifle built on a 1912 Steyr Mauser action that is about perfect for rounds in that class. I have another of those actions that will be used as a donor for either another .308 or if my gunsmith will get the reamer, possibly a .358.

I also have three rifles in .35 Whelen and I like them as well, so no argument there.

For a fellow that eschewed rudeness towards his fellow man, and preferred politeness, at least in print, Col Cooper was about one of the rudest of the gun writing clan I've ever met. Just ask my wife. She never, I mean never swears, but after the encounter with the good Colonel, she actually swore and said, Who does that S.O.B. think he is?" Strong words from my wife, believe me. My answer? "God!" Still, I think in some ways, he did more good than bad in the overall scheme of things. Whether the scout concept has any worth or not may just hinge on what your basic need in a firearm is. I do belive though that the .308 is the perfect round for a scout, and that a scout in .358 just might have a good deal of possibility. Inefficient? I don't think so. At least not yet. If I ever get my hands on one where I can use it for a decent amount of time, then I can make an informed opinion. Until then, I think I'll keep an open mind on the subject.
Paul B.

[Char-Gar]

Paul... You remember correctly. The Scout was intended to fill the role of a miliatry, survival, and sporting rifle. It was supposed to be three or four rifles rolled into one. The result if a series of compromises.

The notion might make sense for a "fellow" who was out on his own in the deep do- do and had to make do with just one rifle for a number of roles.

The reality is that folks that have themn are not that "fellow" and for the folks that have them they are a bundle of compromses.

We don't have to make one rifle do all of those rolls and their are better rifles for each roll.