Lobo....While I did do the workup and design of the .416 Beartooth due to requests from the forum, I have not really gooten into the converting any model Marlin except the .45-70's.
To give you a little background on both the .416 and .375 Beartooth cartridges.
Well before the .450 Marlin came out. Sonny Youngblood and I were playing with the idea of putting Frank Barnes .458x2" on a Marlin 45-70 action. Dummy cases were made up and we found all the feeding worked. About that time the .450 Marlin came out and we shelved the project.
Later the subject came up on the forum and I did the design and pressure work up, based on Marshall suggestion and designed around his cast bullets. Some members on the forum felt I should have moved the shoulders forward to get more case capacity. The entire concept was to have enough neck to cover the lube grooves. Although jacketed bullets can be used, it was cast bullets the design was based on.Both the .375 and .416 Beartooth cartrides will feed through an action that was a .45-70. However, the actions set up for .35 Remington would be too short, etc. Both cartridges have, more or less, died on the vine.
I don't want to seem to dispute the inventor, but I'd like to lead you through my thought processes on the subject. My understanding is that the 336 action will accomodate a cartridge over-all-length of 2.55 inches or a hair more. The C-OAL for the .416 Beartooth is 2.47 inches, according to your drawing. My understanding is the 1895 and 444 actions are 336's modified internally to handle the fatter cases and rims, not a totally separate design.
With those thoughts in mind, I was visualizing a rebore (.058 inches from .358 to .416 inches) and
rechamber on the .35 Rem barrel. Since the Beartooth is fatter than the Rem, the carrier would need to be recontoured or in an extreme case replaced with one intended for the 45-70. I would think that some additional 'tweeking' would be needed, but it seems to me the conversion should work.
Hello Again Lobo....I could well be mistaken on the action that was set up for the .35 Rem. It was my understanding that the internal milling, as well as he bolt face, was smaller. I'm sure some of the fellows here on the forum know. I would also wonder if the heat treat was the same?
Anyhow....I do know that the action and parts set up for the 45-70 work perfect. So is you can replace parts and open up the bolt face, those parts work.
When I first did the work up, I based everything on the .458 Winchester case, but later change to the .350 Rem.Mag. That case is somewhat thinner and needed no reaming and held a little more powder.
Any help I can give, just yell!
Best Regards, James
I had not considered the diameter of the bolt!!!! AAAAAaaaaahhhhggggggg! I know there's not much bolt face left when you sit a 30-06 case against it. The 45-70s may have a bigger bolt (and hole for the bolt) than the standard 336. I'll have to get my caliper out and measure.
I have two .35 cal rifles, and one of them will get reworked to a bigger bore for the times hunting requires more thump. The .416 Beartooth seems so perfect for my 336......thought I had it in the bag!
Thanks for the input......sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees.
Friend Lobo....I have come to the opinion that all of us gun-nuts have only a piece of brain.....The nice thing about the forum is that we all get together and maybe come up with a complete brain!
I think the next thing I play with, wildcat-wise, may be something with a rebated rim like the .284 winchester case?<!--emo&???--><img src="http://beartoothbullets.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'><!--endemo-->?<!--emo&???--><img src="http://beartoothbullets.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'><!--endemo--> Maybe then the .35's may work?<!--emo&???--><img src="http://beartoothbullets.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'><!--endemo-->? Maybe even a Beartooth .357 on a rebated rim for more powder capacity and still have a .357 barrel??? What do you think?
Best Regards, James
A while back "Rifle-Handloader" magazines had a special cast bullet issue, that included an article on the .356 Rimless.....aka wildcat, handloaded .358 Win. I've read and reread that article at least a dozen times with thoughts about what other case would fit the 336 in a gross fashion. Of course with the introduction of 'fat' cartridges lately, I've pondered them; the Rem Ultra, and Win Short Mag. Also along the same lines is Ross Seyfried's .585 Nyati with it's rebated rim to fit the 98 Mauser action.
Anyway......let's see.......dig out the calipers, and measure the space inside the 336......compare to the diameter of existing cases (.284 Win) .....make sure there's enough neck to cover lube grooves....
You've been thinking about this before haven't you?
Where's my 'Cartridges of the World'?
Hmmmmm.....comparison between the .350 Rem Mag and the .284 Win.....case capacities?
Mr. J.G. and the Caliper Kid,
(no disrespect intended)
What do you two progressive thinking wildcatters think of rechambering a BLR-81 from 358 Win to 35-284, 350 Rem Mag, or the "yet-to-be-offered" 35 WSM. With just 20" of barrel maybe it's perfect just the way it is.
In my experience with the BLR's from having a gunshop for several years and doing much gun repair during that time, that I saw quite a number of these rifles in .358 with stress cracks in the rack-and-pinion assemblies. I've sent a number of these rifles back to Browning for repair. All of them in .358 Winchester.
I don't know, as I'm no authority on the strength of these BLR's, but from my past observations, I'd be hesitant to rechamber one of these short-action BLR's to the wildcats you're mentioning.
A forum community dedicated to Sport shooters, owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hand casting bullets, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!