Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles 350 Rem Mag Reduced Veolcity/Pressure Range Results

I went to the shooting range yesterday to shoot 4 reloaded rounds of 350 Rem Mag ammo, using the Speer 220 gr bullet and 60 grains of H4831. In the 2004 Hodgdon Reloading Manual, this load is listed as a reduced velocity/pressure load for the 350 Rem Mag. I used the COAL and other information contained in the Hodgdon Manual.

I achieved an average muzzle velocity of 2,073 fps and a 1.5" group at 100 yards. This load was certainly pleasant to shoot and should work well on deer out to 150 yards or so, which covers the vast majority of the ranges where I hunt. Based on a photo on another web site (35cal.com; Whelen's Northwoods Trails), showing entrance and exit holes from a deer shot with this bullet at 1,950 fps, it should do the job.

I think I'll try this load on deer during the upcoming season. I still have higher velocity loadings available, if I feel the need to use them.

If all I wanted was 2100 fps., I'd use a much faster powder than H4831. It would have the advantage of producing less recoil and muzzle blast.
The old Dupont data I have lists 38.5 grs. of IMR 4227 with a 200 gr. bullet for 2420 fps with a 20 inch barrel. With a 250 gr. bullet, it lists 34 grs. of IMR 4227 for 2045 fps. With IMR 4198, it lists 43.5 grs. with a 250 gr. bullet for 2290 fps. This is alot less powder than your 60 gr. loads. E

Eremicus,

Thanks for the info. The only data of this type I could dig up was from the Hodgdon Manual. I'll take a look at these 2 other powders you mentioned.

My only concern is that the loadings you mention would not (I think) come anywhere close to filling up the 350 Rem Mag case. This isn't a deal breaker. It's just that I've always believed (either rightly or wrongly) that performance tends to be more erratic as the powder loading density lessens. Since I intend to use this for hunting deer, I do not want to have this issue (if in fact it's an issue at all). I'll only be loading these rounds for hunting and I don't use H4831 for any other reloading, since this caliber is the only 1 for which I reload. So, the fact that I'm using 60 grains of this powder does not bother me now. However, if I do start reloading another caliber and start using H4831, I will probably be looking for another such load for my 350 Mag.

Thanks again.

are velocities over 2,000-2100 fps too much for that speer 220?? seems like it could be driven up around 2500 fps w/ ease? im trying to get some info on loading a 200 gr RN bullet for my 350 but im not having any luck. the answers im getting are that the RN bullets wont hold together....?? i dont really want to load 250's for it since i already have a whelen set up for them. any ideas??

ps, sorry if i hijacked your thread

No problem. I don't see how you can hijack a thread that's dead.

The Speer 220 gr is good to at least a MV of 2,400 fps or so. This is based on reading several articles about this bullet, as well on a buck I shot at 30 yards with this bullet for which the MV was around 2,560 fps (small entry in and silver dollar size out). In fact if you get a chance, visit www.35cal.com (at least I think that's the web site address; if not, you can search for 35 Whelen Northwood Trails and it'll come up). This site has bullet tests of most of the cup & core bullets for 35 caliber rifles. I only tested the reduced velocity/pressure load in my 350 Mag using the 220 Speer to save some wear and tear on my shoulder.

makes sense! i enjoy looking at that north wood trails site now and again. its always nice to know there are other 35 cal. enthusiasts out there. what do you have your 350 in? i ahve two remmys and niether of which are to punishing. granted they are a little lighter loads perhaps being factory ammo but i have 7600 30-06's that will belt you harder imo.

ive often wondered why hornady doesnt make a interlok 220/225 RN. seems like that would be one heck of a bullet for the deer/bear woods.

My 350 Mag is a Ruger SS Mk II with a 22" barrel. I suspect the reason that Hornady and other bullet manufacturers don't offer more than they do in the 35 caliber line-up is because quite simply they probably wouldn't sell all that well. Sure, guys like you & I (and other 35 caliber shooters) would try some of them but this certainly wouldn't amount to a steady stream of sales.

If that's a problem, use magnum primers instead of standard primers. That what I do with my reduced loads. They shoot quite well. E

Eremicus,

Thanks again for the info.

Actually, though much of the commonly available data for reduced loads uses faster powders, I have generally found the slow ones to be very "steady" when it comes to getting solid, useful loads at less than full power. And, though they are slower burning which might make one think they will have more blast than quicker powders might, I haven't found that to be true. They simply do their work at lesser pressures (while quicker powders often still reach maximum pressures or close to it for a short duration).

I think it was Ken Waters who published a number of useful reduced loads with the slow powders also. Further, as I recall, he found very good accuracy loads with them in many instances. Extruded/stick powders seem to be a bit more tolerant of working at less than their ideal pressures in more cases than others too. Don't change what's working unless you really feel compelled to tinker.

Klikitarik,

Thank you for the sage advice. I guess that's what I was getting at in my own inexperienced way by referring to reduced loads, using faster burning powders and reduced loading densities and perhaps potentially erratic performance. I will check the Ken Waters loads you mentioned to see if there are any reduced loads, if for no other reason than to have them in my database. However, as you state, I'm not necessarily inclined to "tinker" with the H4831 load I have already listed but I may try something else just to see how it works. After all, that's the fun and benefit of reloading. I appreciate you and the other posters taking time to give advice.

i just got an email back from hornady and they told me i should be able to push the 200 gr rn at a vel of 2900 fps easily w/ no problems. does that seem right?

I've never used the 200gr 35-cal Hornady bullets in either spire point or round nose design. So, I can't answer your question from 1st hand experience. However, I would assume (and, yes, I know what the word assume means) that Hornady knows what they're talking about. After all it is their bullet.

I do remember reading somewhere that the jacket for the Hornady 200 gr Spire Point is relatively thick, more so than the Speer 220 gr. If this is in fact true, then logic would tell me that the Hornady SP could be driven faster. However, I don't know if this also applies to the Hronady round nose design. I hope someone with more experience chimes in.

Yes, that's doable in a 22" barrel, and a rifle with the longer magazine.

The latest Barnes manual shows the 200TSX at 2950 using TAC, out of a 20" barrel.

i hvae no doubt about the velocity of 2900 fps could be achieved. thats actually alot faster then i would like top drive that bullet anyways. my question and the answer i got was about the bullets construction. the rifle im loading for is only 20" barrel by the way. i dont know w/ that hornady rn 200 that i would need a long magazine. w/ a barnes bullet, probably but i w9ould think w/ a c&c bullet i wouldnt have to worry too much.

also i have heard that the hornadys are fairly tough also compared to the speer hc 220. as ugly as it is i may end up trying some this year. lots of good feedback about them