Have heard lots of good things about Ramshot TAC in the 350. Finally tracked some down. Going to be giving it a try under 180 grain barnes ttsx and 200 grain tsx. Running the 180s in a Ruger MKII the 200s in a model seven. I am scratching my head as to powder charges. Looked all over the internet and have found lots of contradicting advice. Then the data from Barnes and ramshot really has me confused. Barnes does not have data for the 180s. Ramshot says start of 55.4 max of 61.5. For the 200 they say start of 51.7 max of 58.5. Barnes says for the 200 grain start of 58 grains max of 64. Never seen such a large difference in data.Barnes data is listed as 2008 Ramshot was just emailed to me from them. Has something changed with the powder? Or is Ramshot being very conservative and barnes has done more extensive testing?
Basically I am looking for advice for loads that people have real world experience with. The 180s I want to get as much velocity as possible. The Ruger is a strong action gun has some heft to handle recoil so a hot yet safe load is what I am looking for. The 200s basically a under 200 yard thumper that are a little more shoulder friendly as well as more gun friendly. Thinking Ramshot's data is the safe way to go.
Thanks for any and all advice.
The reason the "data" from both companies is contradictory is because I doubt Ramshot has actually done any pressure-testing with TAC in the .350. If they had, it would be on their website list of loading data. Instead you got it directly from them, and they typically use QuickLoad when they don't have tested data. They are naturally conservative when suggesting QL-generated data, because they've found real-world results often differ some.
I sincerely doubt you're going to get the velocity you're hoping for with the 180 TTSX and TAC, because in the .350 TAC is essentially a very slow-burning, high-volume powder, and you won't be able to get enough in the case. No doubt that's why Barnes doesn't list any TAC data for the 180: The max load they list for 200's, 64.0 grains, is about all that can be stuffed in the .350 case and still seat a bullet.
In my own tests TAC worked well in the .350 with 225 TSX's and 250 Nosler Partitions, but in my rifle the Barnes loads for 225's were too much. Instead I stopped at 59.5 grains, instead of the 62.0 listed by Barnes, getting 2700 fps in the 22" barrel of my rifle. No doubt I could have pushed things a little more, but didn't, partly because 2700 seemed like plenty from a 225.
There isn't any 250-grain pressure-tested data, but 57.0 grain got 2440 fps in my rifle with the Partition, and no signs of excessive pressure.
Good info. I load the 225 TSX in my father's Remington M7 and I think I'm at 60gr of TAC. It is a dang handful in that little rifle, but accurate.
Mule Deer thanks for the info.Case capacity for the barnes charges seemed like it could be a problem.Your info confirmed that. Not the first time barnes has given bad data. Forget the exact load but tried a 358 winchester load from one of their manuals. Reloader 7 was the powder. Tried charging the first case and it would not all fit in the case.
I am thinking 2900 to 3000ish is doable with a 180. With the ruger it has a long magazine and throat. I can go to just about 2.900 so I get a little more powder space.If 59.5 will get a 225 in the 2700 range the Ramshot data of 61.5 will likely get me about where I want to be.
John, What do you feel would be an optimal powder with the 180's?
Thanks, Scott
I did a data search a few years ago when working on .350 loads, and while there wasn't a lot of 180-grain data back then, what there was suggested IMR4895 would get the most zip.
There might be some info on newer powders out now, and more and more data is available on-line so its not as hard to find anymore. The big problem is the .350 isn't all that popular, so companies don't always test every new powder and bullet combo.
What's the practical difference in case capacity between the .350RM and the Whelen?
That's what I was thinking, but didn't have a manual in front of me. Perhaps there is more available 180gr data for the Whelen that could be of use.
Capacity wise and bore wise it is about the same as a 35 Whelen.
Use that data as a start: being conservative and working up.
Just a thought from a guy who had a 350 Rem Mag in a 660 many years ago.
Hit the range today. Did not chronograph but was satisfied with accuracy. The 200 grains tsx with 60 grains went into just over an inch about as good as I can shoot with 5x scope at a 100. Recoil was tolerable no pressure signs.Sighted about 2" high be fine out to 200 without thinking about shot placement. The 180s I tried with 64 grains. Just under an inch again no pressure signs. Should be 3000ish fps. Went about 3 inches high for sight in should be good to 300 yards easy. Hopefully can get another range trip in before season to get a solid idea of trajectory.
mike7mm08
I looked up you requirements on AmmoGuide Interactive and here is what I found the usual applies use at you own risk as I have not used this loading but have used for other cartridges and found to be acceptable
180 gr. no info as no one on here seems to use
200gr. Barnes 25.5" barrel Ramshot TAC 64 gr. full up, 3008 fps
200gr. Barnes 24" barrel Rel.7 51gr.(max) 2884fps
225 Nosler 22" barrel R.S.TAC 64gr.(full( 2861 fps.
225 Sierra 22" Win.748 61.5 (max)(full)2838 fps.As I said above have not used my self so use your discretion.
Hope it helps .
cheers NC
Thanks. That info gives me some reassurance to what I was thinking. I am running the 180s in a 22" barrel. Twenty grains less bullet little less tube I was should be darn near the same velocity of the 200 gr data.