350 legend pistol?
- Thread starter grobin
- Start date
NikA
Hunter
OAL for the .350 Legend is the same as .223/5.56 as far as I know. Hold a AR magazine in your hand like you would grip a pistol; do you think a handgun with a grip that large would be even slightly ergonomic? Remember to add additional thickness for grips and additional length for the frame components to support the firing mechanism.
Well there are lots of AR "Pistols" out there. I've not been particularly impressed by the ones I've fired. So the AR platform would work just fine, a revolver (e.g. BFR) would be interesting! For a semi auto a bill pup along the lines of a Kel Tech or similar very short sub gun might be interesting?
BTW COL for the 350 is 2.260 and for the 223 2.145. So IMHO we would be looking at an AR, or sub gun configuration (bull pup or standard).
BTW COL for the 350 is 2.260 and for the 223 2.145. So IMHO we would be looking at an AR, or sub gun configuration (bull pup or standard).
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
IMHO, practical use is limited to areas requiring the unique features designed into the cartridge.
Based on our experience with the 300AAC, terminal performance of larger diameter lower velocity bullets that allow feeding through AR type actions is dismal. At least 1/2 dozen bullet designs purported to be "suitable for medium game" failed to expand and/or transfer energy sufficient to produce effective kills.
Tom related a recent conversation he had in a gun shop he'd visited on one of his travels. Tom was looking through the inventory of 300AAC ammo in the shop and the store employee proceeded to tell him all the great marketing propaganda for the various types. When Tom responded with a series of dismal results from range and actual field use, the gun shop guy seemed confused by the discrepancies. He'd obviously not seen any of the ammo in actual use. Now, I don't expect every shop to test fire every type of ammo they sell, but I do expect the ammo makers to be honest with their claims.
Based on our experience with the 300AAC, terminal performance of larger diameter lower velocity bullets that allow feeding through AR type actions is dismal. At least 1/2 dozen bullet designs purported to be "suitable for medium game" failed to expand and/or transfer energy sufficient to produce effective kills.
Tom related a recent conversation he had in a gun shop he'd visited on one of his travels. Tom was looking through the inventory of 300AAC ammo in the shop and the store employee proceeded to tell him all the great marketing propaganda for the various types. When Tom responded with a series of dismal results from range and actual field use, the gun shop guy seemed confused by the discrepancies. He'd obviously not seen any of the ammo in actual use. Now, I don't expect every shop to test fire every type of ammo they sell, but I do expect the ammo makers to be honest with their claims.
The 350 and 300 are totally different animals. I agree, the 350 is limited in application and intended for areas that require straightwall cartridges, but good low velocity bullet designs are far more abundant in .357" than .308"
"but good low velocity bullet designs are far more abundant in .357" than .308"
The problem comes with getting those more effective(?) designs to feed through a mag fed semi-auto.
The problem comes with getting those more effective(?) designs to feed through a mag fed semi-auto.
I did see some Winchester(?) factory 170(?) grain ammo that has an interestingly shaped bullet. Very stubby point shape and exposed lead tip. IF this will feed and IF the bullet will expand, this might be a usable load. Problem is, this must be a fairly short (base to nose) bullet which will affect it's performance.
Similar threads
