View Single Post
Old December 17, 2019, 10:21 AM   #90
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 6,863
I just spent some time putting some dummy rounds together--the problem (IMO) with the chambering became clear pretty quickly. Looking at Hodgdon's data all the cartridge OAL's come in well under the 2.26 spec except for hornady's and winchester's spire points. The overall bullet design must come very close to hornady's or winchester's--specifically the seating depth and distance to base of ogive from the base of the bullet--or else the bullet's ogive can easily jam in the rather short tapered throat when attempting to seat near the 2.26 spec. In my Faxon chamber it doesn't seem to make much difference whether the bullet diameter is .355 to .357--though perhaps it necessitates seating a .357 bullet a tad deeper in order to avoid that jam. At the moment the cartridge appears to be a one or two trick pony if you really want to explore it's potential IMO. I'm just guessing again--but maybe in the development cycle Winchester was faced with a choice of maintaining backwards compatibility to .355 bullets or develop something entirely new. Maybe that's why this appears to be a funky hybrid.

I'm purposely choosing a "problem child" .357 diameter bullet to see what happens for my first reloads. Hornady (factory ammo) brass has a length of 1.701 +/- .001--starline (bulk unfired) has 1.704 +/- .001
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!

Last edited by stagpanther; December 17, 2019 at 10:50 AM.
stagpanther is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02848 seconds with 8 queries