Thanks JWall for the info.

I have shot the 180 grain bullet in my AR 358, and so far they have been the most accurate in that gun but have never fired one at a living animal yet. I have not tried them in the 141. But I think maybe I should. My remaining Remington 200 grainers are the old scalloped nose bullets and I shoot them into about 1-3/8" at 100 off the bench from my 141. But I am thinking about a replacement because Remington is not making them anymore and I have only about 100 left. They do sell a 200 Gr. RN bullet, but it's not the same one. It doesn't have the scallops, the cannelure is in a different place and the jacket is thinner.

I want to try the 220 gr FN in my 358 also. I just got some from a member here on the Fire. I killed deer with them 35 years ago but loaded in a 35 Remington. The bullet worked perfectly from the 35 Rem, and I believe it may be quite good in a 358, but I can't say for sure yet. I tried some 225 Gr Accubonds in the AR and they shot 7". The barrel is rifled 1-14" and I am guessing the BXC on the Accubond is too high for a 1-14. Shot from a friends 35 Whelen (which I made form him) with a 1-12" twist they shoot under MOA

At my age, if I can "marry" each gun to one load and buy 300-500 bullets I bet I will not live long enough to shoot them all up. But I load for acceptable accuracy and then want to make at least 5 kills with any given bullet before I consider the ammo and rifle "married". In my 358 I was hoping for good results with the 225 Partition, but in the last 14 months I have not found even one box for sale. I also have some 225 grain Sierras and they are far shorter then the 225 Accubond, so maybe they will work out well.

But, coming back the the M141, I am going to buy 500 bullets for it and before I do I want to find one I feel will do all I ask of it. The old Remington was such a bullet, but Remington had a goal to destroy everything of any real value they ever produced and push sales of the junk and sub-standard things, and the predictable result is exactly what we've all seen.

The 35 Remington did good work for elk hunters in the woods for many years, and maybe the Speer 220 would do as well as the old Remington bullets but that remains to be seen. It's not all that likely I'd kill any elk with my 35 Rem, (having several other rifles I'd probably take before I took the 141)but I might, and if the bullet expands and hold together on elk the killing of deer is not likely to be much of a problem. 35 are big before the open up and if that 220s only opened up to 40 or 45 cal, they will still do fine. I have killed quite a number of deer and antelope with some 357 magnum handguns and see about 40 killed with 357 Mag carbines and the 357 done fine. The 35 Remington can't be worse if the bullets don't break up completely, which seems unlikely at MVs of 2050 or as low as 1900 if shot with the 220 grain bullets'. With the Speer 180s getting close to 2200 is realistic.

I love learning about different bullets and how they preform and have been interested in those effects since I was a young teenager. Now as an old man I regret knowing I can't shoot enough game or enough different bullets in the time I have left to answer all my questions, but I'll keep doing it as long as I can. I have about 1/2 a century of "testing' behind me and I believe I need about another 100 years of hunting (at the same number of kills I averaged per year in my 20s 30s and 40s) to learn about the bullets that we have now, disregarding what may come out in the future)

I can't get it all done myself so I truly enjoy and appreciate honest and accurate reports form other hunters

Thanks so much for the feedback