I have a 336 SC at Nonneman's waiting to be picked up. I would expect a rechambered 307 to shoot exactly like it did before being rechambered. The only problem would be if the 'smithing work was poorly done and the chamber was cut wrong, but having spent a few hours with Nonneman and knowing the quality of his work, A+ IMO, I know that isn't going to happen.
FWIW, Nonneman's personal preference is the 30-30AI loaded at max+ pressure. He believes, and is probably right, that 307 brass will be hard to get sometime in the future. My take on this is that since you can use either 307 or 308 brass, if you stick to the 307 OAL specs, what is there to worry about? Same-same regarding the 356 that is also waiting for me to drive down to Maryville, MO, to pick up.
Nonneman is 1 of only 3 'smith who I have used and can recommend without any reservation. The others being Ray Montgomery in Grand Junction, CO, and Ahlman's in Morristown, MN. I think that Nonneman is without peer when it comes to 'smithing the Marlin lever actions, plus he is a really nice guy.
I am a big .307 Winchester fan. For what ever its worth, it is easy to make .307 and .356 brass from .444 Marlin brass. I have compared the cases side by side and there is not difference in load data between the Winchester and formed Marlin cases. The point of impact is different so the brass is not interchangeable in the box of ammunition. I have three .30-30AI rifles and a Winchester .307. I look forward to reading about your experiences with the .307 Marlin.
Edit] I forgot about the attached picture. From the left:.308 Winchester, .307 Winchester, .307-.444 Marlin, .444 Marlin, .356-444 Marlin, .356 Winchester, .358 Winchester]Edit
I have a conversion on the way,supposed to be delivered mid week.I'll let you know.my 2 30-30 AIs are great the newer one with safety will shoot loads that are way to hot with out even a hiccup but groups start to open up so i shoot recomended loads. i think its safer.
I find the .307 considerably easier to work with as a reloading project. The .30-30AI does have thin brass, the case mouth feeling sharp to the finger tips. The shoulder is easy to setback just a little and cause chambering problems. I use a Lyman M die to "condition" the necks slightly and add a very slight bell which helps with bullet seating. Dave Scovill has pointed out in several letters to me that I will be better off with tighter necks and a stronger grip on the bullet. I have experimented a little with this and have not seen a lot of difference in the .30-30AI using extruded powders. With ball powders the M-die does reduce bullet pull and it opens up the groups and extreme spreads a little when chronographing. Based on some comments Dave made to me about this I have purchased a Lee case neck expander and intend to try just a slight bell on the case without opening the neck. Its just an experiment as I am not a fan of most ball powders. I have experimented with various types of brass for making .30-30AI cases. Using cases previously reloaded as standard .30-30's I found case life to be short. Necking up to .32 caliber and forming a false shoulder helped a little but cases life was still short with high pressure loads. Using new brass formed with maximum published .30-30 data to the AI shape I have not encountered any significant case loss to either split necks or broken cases (broken at the pressure ring). Using old .30-30 cases loaded to high pressure you could be assured of cracking or breaking the case at the pressure ring in four loadings.
With the Winchester .307 case it is rare to loose one to any reason. A few will eventualy wear out their primer pockets but it takes a lot of use to do that. I have only had a few split necks with the .307 or the .356. Case life using the formed .444 Marlin cases seemed to equal the Winchester cases after I bought Redding form-trim dies to do the forming task in one pass through the die. Using .308 and .358 brass I had problems with the cartridge stop on the link. It is not quite high enough on my rifles and I could not reliably load more than one round in the magazine and expect it to feed. To rounds in the Winchester would sometimes allow the first to feed and stop the second. Three rounds in the magazine guaranteed the second round would jump the cartridge stop and tie up the action. Reducing the length of the magazine spring might stop this but the brass is so easy to make that if Winchester stops producing it we will have no problems keeping these rifles in ammunition. I will be interested in hearing if your Marlin will feed the rimless cases. Loaded to a COAL of 2.55" I had not problems using my loading data with any of the three types of cases. I believe there is an interest in this type of loading and articles demonstrating simple case forming tasks would be popular. If I interpet Daves comments correctly he does does not believe this to be true. I have a friend who says the secret to writing a popular magazine article is taking good pictures and filling in the blank spots with captions!
My previous Nonneman conversion, 35 to 356, and the stainless 336 in 356 that Bearrr264 built for me feed 358 brass loaded to 356 OAL fine, so I expect the 2 guns that Nonneman currently has will do the same. I'm planning to use the 170 grain Partition in the 307 and the 220 grain Speer FN in the 356 as my primary loads.
I currently have a 307, but it is a pre-WW2 Savage 99H that I had rechambered from 303 Savage. It was a gray rat that had been d&t when I got it, so nothing collectable was harmed in the process.
I beleive when winchester brought out the .307 and the .356, Marlin would only chamber for the .356. I believe Layne Simpson in Rifle magazine said Marlin claimed they would have to use a stronger steel in their barrels if they chambered them for the .307. He didn't explain why, as I remember.
That would probably be yet another example of Layne Simpson writing as an authority on something he hasn't researched in detail and makes up answers to fill space.
260, Layne Simpson seems to have taken some hits recently on the Internet for his writing. I am no judge, as I don�t read most of the magazines he writes for. I believe, with regards to the .307 cartridge, the Winchester Angle Eject rifles and the Big Bores in particular, this may not be a fair assessment. I am a big fan of the .307 Winchester cartridge and I believe the Winchester Big Bore rifle is adequate to the need. The rifle most certainly could be improved and was a contributor to the failure of the cartridge. To give Layne Simpson�s contribution a fair look we must remember the first real review of the .307 was written by him for the 1984 issue of Gun Digest, page 22. He wrote a good one-page review of the rifle and cartridge with some limited loading data. This was a positive, early review of the cartridge and rifle. I believe Rick Jamison�s two-part article on the rifle and cartridge in Shooting Times magazine beat Simpson�s review to the newsstand by a few Months, but I have always believed Simpson wrote his piece first. These two upbeat reviews were followed by a rather negative review written by Edward A. Matunas, who wrote the Winchester Ammunition review for the 1984 Gun Digest, page 245. Mr. Matunas had nothing positive to say about the .307. Typical comments were: "Accuracy and trajectory will be the limiting factor." Ken Waters gave a good boost to the cartridge in his ".307 Winchester Pet Loads", in Handloader magazine, July 1984. Edward A. Matunas took a second and cheaper shot at the .307 in the December 1985 issue of Shooting Industry magazine. On page 77 in his column: "Know Your Hunting Cartridges" Mr. Matunas threw dirt in the face of the .307 and .356 cartridges. While not 100% negative, the column had very little in the way of positive comments on either the cartridges or the lever action rifle they were packaged in. In the May 1998 issue of Shooting Times Layne Simpson wrote a lever action rifle article that has a GREAT quote on page 73: "I consider the .307, by the way, to be the finest deer cartridge ever offered in any tubular - magazine type lever-action rifle." I wish he had thought to write that a little earlier! I wrote USRA about this quote and suggested they use it in their advertising. USRA wrote a very nice reply but did not follow up in their advertising. On page 68 of the November 1998 issue of Shooting Times Layne Simpson stepped up again in his article: "Where Have All the Brush Cartridges Gone?" On page 70 Simpson says: "In my opinion, the .307 Winchester is absolutely the very best deer cartridge ever designed specifically for lever action rifles with tubular magazine." Ken Waters writing in the December 1999 issue of Handloader magazine (#196) wrote an article entitled: "Loads for Lever Guns", page 32. On page 35 Waters wrote: "Accordingly, the .307 Winchester ranks as one of the finest caliber's for lever-action deer and black bear rifles." Ken waters wrote his ".307 Pet Loads, Update" for Handloader #208. Not a lot of new information on the cartridge but still worth having, if only for this quote: "No matter how you look at it, the 307Winchester (and its .356 mate) are the finest cartridges for lever action tubular magazine rifles that have come our way, along with the strong modern Winchester Model 94 Angle Eject that made them possible." Ken Waters, writing in Wolfe Publishing: The Legacy of Lever Guns wrote on page 47: " Pardon me if I don�t beat around the bush, but I consider the .307 Winchester to be the all-time best factory deer cartridge ever developed for lever-action rifles with tubular magazines." I feel Layne Simpson lead the way in praise for the .307 cartridge and rifle combination, followed closely by Rick Jamison and Ken Waters. Those three writers are about the only "well known" advocates for the cartridge and rifle. Certainly they are the only ones who tested the rifle extensively, using a variety of powder and bullet combinations. I cannot comment on the criticism of Simpson�s recent writing. I can say that when he was pretty much all alone he stepped right to the front and praised a cartridge that deserved our attention. I can blame the failure of the .307 cartridge on a lot of things, but not on a lack of effort from Layne Simpson, Rick Jamison or Ken Waters.
In general, I have found Layne Simpson's writing acking in depth of research. As such, I can't bring myself to read anything that Mr. Simpson writes without some degree of doubt.
260 Yours is not the first criticism of this type I have read about Layne Simpson. I don�t read the magazines he writes for so I cannot relate. I hope Layne takes some of the criticism to heart and adjusts his writing. I tend to hunt close in heavy cover and the lever action rifles and cartridges are well matched to this type of hunting. Simpson has written quite a bit about this type of hunting, along with the rifles and cartridges. I am from New Mexico and cannot relate to the �group� type hunting or comradeship that exists in Layne Simpson�s home country, but I can relate to his writing style. I feel comfortable with his past writing and hope he can �win back� his readers. Have you ever written to him?
If it is of any interest Simpson has championed the 170 Nosler for the .307 many times. I have shot quite a few of them in the .307 and .30-30AI. I never found it to have remarkable accuracy, it has been a 2" bullet for me, but I will say it shots consistently and penetrates right along with the 150 grain Barnes X.
[quote]I beleive when winchester brought out the .307 and the .356, Marlin would only chamber for the .356. I believe Layne Simpson in Rifle magazine said Marlin claimed they would have to use a stronger steel in their barrels if they chambered them for the .307. He didn't explain why, as I remember. [/quote
Horkin, I started thinking about what you wrote and looked around a little. I had to read your post several times as your words sure sounded familiar to me. I think the reference you were looking for is from the Questions section of the November 1998 issue of Shooting Times magazine:
�Can Marlin 336 Be Converted From .30-30 To .307 Winchester? I wish to improve the ballistics of my Marlin Model 336 in .30-30 by having it rechambered to .307 Winchester. Would doing so be safe? Vincent G. Gallagher Wayne, PA Several years ago when Marlin decided to build a short production run of Model 336s in .356 Winchester, a company official informed me that the barrels installed on those rifles underwent a special heat treatment that allowed them to safely handle higher chamber pressures than were recommended for barrels used in building Model 336s in .30-30 caliber. Since the .356 Winchester and the .307 Winchester in which you're interested are loaded to the same chamber pressures, I'll have to recommend against the rechamber job."
I really need to look around a little more as my little pea brain remembers similar words by someone else....
As long as the barrel isn't obstructed, I'm not going to worry about shooting my 307 or 356 conversions. As far as Marlin's input, what would you expect them to say? No manufacturer is going to take the risk of saying that any conversion outside of factory specs is safe. Heck, Ruger won't rebarrel a 77 to anything other than the spec that it originally left the factory as, like a 270 to 6.5x55, so what does that tell you?
I agree fully with your view about the conversion of the Marlin rifles. I feel it is 100% safe. Myron Rockett wrote about his .444-308 wildcat more than 20 years ago and he recently posted on Leverguns that his standard Model 94 was still going strong after all these years. I was looking for this quote as I am giving a lot of thought to you comment on Layne Simpson's writing. I know there is an earlier statement in another magazine that is a very close quote to the one I just posted. Just somthing to look at, beats watching tV.
I have a 336c in 35 caliber that I think was made in the late '50s. I've had it since '61 when my dad bought it off a guy who couldn't hit anything with it. It was my first deer rifle and I killed my first deer with it that year. Anyhow, I am intrigued by your conversion to 356 as I've wanted one in that caliber for a while and have had no luck locating one. How well does it shoot factory 356 ammo? I was considering the new Leverevolution ammo, but this looks more interesting. Would you mind giving me the website or address of the guy who did your conversion?
thanks
I didn't understand a word you said, but whatever it was I'm right there with you.
Nonneman doesn't have a web site, that I know of. I have posted his telephone number somewhere in this forum and would suggest that you do a search for it and call him to discuss your interest. You also might want to go over to the Winchester ammo site and compare the 35 to 356. I can't think of anything that you can buy anywhere that will offer the amount/percent of performance increase that a Nonneman 35 to 356 conversion will offer for the price in a tubular magazine lever action rifle.
