Little to do other than look at stuff I wish I could buy and to once again throw thoughts together on another wildcat......I'm back to this thread.
The 375 bore wildcat got tossed, at least for now. True, this round necked up would be a <200 yard sledge hammer with the Speer .375 bore 220 grain Hot Core bullet and should run similar speeds.
Running numbers on various larger parent rounds, eh. Should I build a 375 Id just go with this brass.
Perhaps I missed my own information above but velocities shown were out of a barrel barely over 20 inches long. The 'smith said he had to rechamber MINE....twice so it came out over an inch shorter than the second barrel. Both started out as 22 inch before set back.
With 180 grain Speer hot core bullets, even out of the 20 inch barrel chronographed velocities were 2750 ish depending on charge but seemed to be the velocity they grouped best. Not too shabby for a 20 inch barrel I have always felt. One hit just over 2800 fps but bolt lift was a bit sticky so I backed up a bit.
One has to wonder how the end results would look out of a 22-24 inch barrel but velocities and terminal damage leaves nothing to be desired so is all just "paper work" and supposition.
All of the IN wildcats are pretty dang neat. I personally feel that the Indiana regs created rounds and interested many in wildcatting that may not have done so otherwise. The proverbial dark cloud with a silver lining.
Indiana regulations aside, the whole wildcatting thing has me looking at rounds, guns, bullets and what not, somewhat differently these days.
Perplexing facts will pop up if one does a lot of research on rounds. Case in point is the rounds put in what length of action. The 350 Rem mag has a 2.170 brass length. The 6.5x55 Sweedish has a 2.165" brass length but I've yet to see a factory 350 Rem mag in anything but a short action and the 6.5 in anything but a long action.
True, originally the 6.5 was initially loaded with some heavy long bullets yet if one compares bullet lengths in the two calibers, the 358 Noslers and Swifts for example are equally long in bullets that take advantage of the case capacity, efficiency wise.
The 350 mag, while a potent round in itself suffered criticism handed out by those handloading such realizing that the more popular hunting weight bullets were mandatorily loaded with the end of the bullet down inside the powder charge........IF meant to go in the factory magazine.
Like some of the NEW rounds out, manufacturers chambered them all but exclusively in short barreled "brush" guns. Some of the new rounds, although some of us, including me, really like the ROUND, the limiting factors of the shorter barrels and short mag lengths are pushing even these new round into the "also ran" category.
In concept, the idea is sound, but the demand for such is a mere fraction of those buying and loading for hunting, visualizing what MAXIMUM range they would take a shot hunting and whom go to pains to obtain maximum efficiency and accuracy out of said handloads.
It is a real confusing thing to me why manufacturers would create a cartridge then put it within a rifle that does more to diminish the round's capabilities than the same rifle could ever contribute to a hunting situation on the plus side............IMHO!!!
This ailment....and in truth, this is what I view such as, is not limited to "short magnums". Some of the long action rounds suffer something similar in bullet seating. Personally, the rather new 338 Norma Magnum is a smarter choice compared to the longer 338 Lapua. Compare the WSM and SAUM rounds through the Accurateshooter site and yet again, the shorter of the two will get the nod from most as "the wiser choice of the two" when comparing charge to velocity output.
www.accurateshooter.com/cartridge-guides/7mm/All of this would be null and void if manufacturers would make some SEEMINGLY slight altercations to their actions in bolt throw and magazine length and make such only fractions of an inch longer in usable OAL capabilities.
The case length and bullet seating thing became crystal clear to me, strengthening my beliefs when I first loaded the 350JR. Throated FOR the bullets of choice, chambering was not an issue yet loading these same bullets out in the neck only area, left me with a overall length VERY close to maximum OAL the magazine could handle anyway.
While not the case for the shorter 180 grain Speer and I could actually seat is less than full neck length and even though the amount of capacity opened up for powder was small.....it was usable with the powder I was loading at the time. Completely the reverse of what a factory 350 mag case often gives, that of reduced powder capacity with many bullets.
A big thing? Hardly. Important? Only to those wanting to know the whys and wherefores of such things.....or those wildcatting a "new" round (all just about have been done LOL).
A 350 Rem mag or a 338-350 Rem mag would be almost another cartridge .......if chambered in a long action rifle and throated for such bullets as the long Nosler accubond. (OR thrown into a properly chambered Ruger No 1!!) Like the shortened round I decided on, they would push the more popular magnum rounds out there of similar calibers......with less powder burnt and less recoil.
Some would prefer to just buy the full blown magnums out there and "make do" and those factory mags certainly "do" in spades. Those hunters are included in the group that feel "faster is better....phooey on the recoil". Obviously, this is the path most trodden and I have zero problem with such. It just doesn't fit within "my druthers". (you young bucks may not know that phrase).
I am adding this windy post to this thread simply because the title says it all, still for me at least. "All the cool things........"
Recently I expanded upon how I feel the 338 Federal is "under rated"..and while I still feel so, such feeling will not breath life to that round and make it more popular.
However:
A "308 based cartridge" of larger bore than the parent round suffers even more on the ailment mentioned above, that of bullet seating into the powder charge "area". More popular 338 bullets are quite long yet are desired due to their immense ballistic coefficients. The nosler 338, 225 grain Accubond is 1.450" long. A whopper! Yet the .550 BC of this bullet DOES dramatically effect it's performance, both in speed and energy even at medium ranges and starting with a lower muzzle velocity.
The effects of higher BC is not new to anyone reading this. The point is that such long, high BC bullets are subject to even lower velocities due to their mandatory seating depth in a standard round being below the neck bottom.
While I LIKE the 338 Fed. The 200 grain bullets of some companies are about "it" for any kind of optimized efficiency and can still be loaded to magazine dictated length. A huge number of bullets, will not.
Wildcatting has multiple descriptions and opinions on why any such created round is "better". Many, and this group encompasses a LOT of wildcatters, just want something "faster" for all the desired reasons.
In my own case, putting legal limits aside for hunting within Indiana, wildcatting thoughts run more to making a round similar to what is out there but "more versatile" and "more efficient". Like the short barrel "guide" type rifle lovers........I fit within a very small group, relatively speaking.
Long story short (who am I KIDDING? LOL!!) considering the education I have gotten with the 350JR, a 338JR would be a very similar but slightly more potent, more versatile, and longer range round than the 338 Federal. All three "improvements" would be due to a single factor. The ability to load longer bullets seated only within the neck itself and not into the powder charge.
The fun of coming up with a rifle and dies for such is just icing on the cake. (Yes, I feel the rifle build is a huge part of the "fun").
While no "need" for such and no use unless flush one day to travel a bit, such is all just paper work, planning and wishing. Stuck on the back burner till life turns around a bit it is another of my "plans" to do something....someday.
I've said it before and shall again.
"If we are not planning on DOING something in the future.......all that remains is planning to die".
God Bless.
AS always, 2 cents, IMHO.......and just an ol man's ramblings and thoughts.
Steve
