I haven't tried such a bullet in my .35/336 but I've had total satisfaction with the normal 200 gr. slugs. The powder capacitry is small, we really cant' get much more power of any type in there, how much more penetation a 50% increase in weight may gain would likely be lost with decreased velocity. ??

 

I haven't tried such a bullet in my .35/336 but I've had total satisfaction with the normal 200 gr. slugs so I wonder, what performance advantage might you be wanting or expecting from a 300 grainer?

Fun. To get know another aspect of your favorite cartridge. To have another excuse to spend time at the bench. Etc. Mostly to see if it's possible and what it does.

 

Ah. (I re-thought and reworded my response as you were typing.)

 

Ah. (I re-thought and reworded my response as you were typing.)

And...I read a book about brown bears last night. Fell asleep trying to decide what type of load I'd want if I was walking around the bush and all I had was my 336.

 

When it comes to heavier bullets in the 35 Remington, practical realities make themselves known.

Ideally, the bottom of the bullet would be no deeper in the case than the shoulder/neck junction in order to make as little intrusion upon powder capacity as possible. Since the bullet diameter is relatively fat, increases in seating depth results in less powder capacity. The rate of capacity reduction is greater than that of a smaller caliber bullet per a given increment of increased seating depth.

Most 336's have short throats, so the only way to get more bullet in the case without case capacity being lost is with a bore riding type bullet, wherein the full diameter section of .358" is relatively short, and the nose of the bullet which bore rides would need to be about .350" give or take slightly. A cast bullet might fit this description with a relatively blunt nose to insure greater possible weight in a given length.

The problem then becomes one of bullet balance. I have an RCBS 200 FN mould, as well as a lengthened clone 25 grains heavier intended to optimize the cartridge in terms of increasing bullet weight. Since full caliber bearing surface is identical, but the heavier one has more nose length, the shorter RCBS bullet has more accuracy potential and has repeatedly proved it in live fire. It's better balanced......more of its weight is located near the full caliber bearing surface. Since bore riding bullets (both the RCBS and its clone qualify) often don't perfectly bore ride, a little "wiggle" occurs as the bullet goes down the barrel. In a perfect world, the bullet rides exactly on top of the lands and is provided guidance with little loss of potential accuracy compared to an all body or Louverin design. In the real world, and especially in Microgroove barrels, the tolerance often is more loose than that, and the front end of the bullet is not firmly prevented from side to side movement on its journey down the barrel.

This is oftentimes why all body bullets shoot better than bore riders, especially in Microgroove barrels. To the frustrations of many, who supposedly "slugged" their bore and matched the diameter needed with their cast bullet, only to find their long bore rider still doesn't shoot well. This is most of the reason why.

The longer the unsupported nose length is in terms of being imperfectly guided by the rifling in a bore riding bullet, the worse the bullet will shoot. So a cast bullet mould of heavy weight intended for a microgroove 336 .35 Remington would have to be carefully designed indeed. I'd go to a more helpful .352" diameter for the nose of the bullet.

A two diameter jacketed bullet is unlikely. Very few have been used over the years in any caliber, one of the few being the .264 Winchester magnum factory load. Bullets with shorter noses and full caliber bearing surfaces have proven on average more accurate.

Stabilization would be a final and maybe insurmountable problem. Since nearly all .35 Remingtons, to my knowledge, have a 1-16 twist, the relatively low velocities possible with a 300 grain bullet might result in a loss of accuracy and maybe also a loss of penetration. If a bullet has precession (tilts as it flies through the air) short range penetration is often compromised even if the bullet is heavier. The bullet may tumble instead of penetrating straight, especially at close ranges where the bullet has not stabilized, or "gone to sleep." A marginally stabilized bullet flies further before it stabilizes, or it might not fully stabilize at any distance, become progressively worse and eventually tumble as it goes through the air and loses velocity. Velocity loss might be greater than a shorter bullet adequately stabilized even though the longer bullet has a theoretically higher BC.

John Goins (Beagle. The same fella who popularized the term "beagling" a mould) has a few comments about the worth of an extra heavy .35 caliber bullet here. You might want to pay attention to his comments about stabilization, and note that the blunt bullet he speaks of does not quite meet your 300 grain criteria, but it comes quite close. A 300 jacketed bullet, even with a blunt nose, would be longer yet. Longer isn't helpful in a 1-16" twist, and since most bullets used are from 180 to 220 grains in weight, manufacturers like Marlin have little interest or incentive to produce a fast twist 35 Remington. (A correction......that article was written by Shuz, not Beagle. I guess I got confused because he wrote many of the others, and I "assumed").

http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/ByCaliber/The 358009.pdf

The problem with hard cast bullets in the 35 Remington is velocity at the expense of penetration. The lead bullet composition similar to the "hard cast" bullets of heavy weight such as the 300+ grain bullet in the .44 magnum don't hold up well at the 2000+ fps velocities of the 35 Remington. Even BHN 33 bullets, which are considerably harder than most "hard cast" .44 magnum bullets, don't hold their shape, undeformed, at 35 Remington impact velocities at close range. The front end of the bullet shears off and the mostly unexpanded shank, a little over two to two and a half calibers long, remains to penetrate.

The penetration is a little better than the 220 Speer at close range, but only about 10 percent or so.

For those that wish to "emulate" the penetration of a hard cast 44 magnum slug fired from a rifle, it is difficult to do so with the hard cast higher velocity .35 Remington due to this bullet deformation. In actual practice, this is really no great handicap as the bullet still penetrates very well; well enough for any practical purpose. Since it penetrates less, tissue damage is greater in all instances where the internal organs are close to the point of initial bullet impact compared to the hard cast, undeformed .44 slug. So the loss of penetration is compensated for in terms of more damage to what you're shooting at.....asssuming you hit where you're supposed to, and not in the south end of a northbound animal.

I realize some of this will be argued about by the .44 fans, but in a practical sense a .35 Remington rifle is a different animal than a .44 shooting a very heavy bullet. Lower strike velocity of the .44 bullet makes the bullet performance different and the bullet may penetrate relatively unchanged in shape. "Hard cast" doesn't hold up to higher impact velocities of the .35. If the velocity is lower with a heavy bullet in 35, say your 300 plus grains in a non deforming bullet, stability may be a problem and penetration less than expected even if the bullet is going slow enough to avoid any appreciable expansion.

The 1600 fps threshold is often mentioned. Above this velocity bullet deformation even in hard cast is more likely. I've outpenetrated hard cast 225 grain bullets at 2200 fps using a 158 grain bullet at 1600 fps intended for a 38/357 pistol when both are fired from the 35 Remington. While damage was much greater with the 225, the non deforming 158 penetrated quite a bit further.

When we give up bullet deformation to obtain more penetration, we often give up some amount of damage to vital tissues on a well aimed shot in exchange for that penetration. This is not often discussed by the "penetration above all" advocates.

It should be.

In jacketed bullets, it may be that a thick jacketed bullet weighing around 220 grains with a reasonably broad meplat to ensure impact stability driven at 2200 fps would penetrate as well as is reasonable in the cartridge while also having the potential for greater soft tissue damage than a slower bullet that penetrates further. Since that would be a bullet with very low demand likely it will never be made.

 

Very interesting thread 8)

All I've ever used in mine are the various 200gr offerings and a box of 150gr that I bought by mistake. The 150's grouped like buckshot ;D However, every 200gr offering has shot well out of my gun with the Ga Arms 200gr @ 22000fps being the best. A Ga Arms 200gr .35Rem is an amped up Core-Lokt 8)

I would like to try some 220's and 250's out of curiousity whenever I can get some reloading gear. Of course there's nothing in Ga that a 200gr won't put on the ground real quick ;D

 

I have learned a lot from reading .35 Rems posts here on the forum. I will stick to the old reliable 200 grain Core-lokt's. They shoot wonderfully out of my .35 Remington.

Chief

 

When it comes to heavier bullets in the 35 Remington, practical realities make themselves known.

Ideally, the bottom of the bullet would be no deeper in the case than the shoulder/neck junction in order to make as little intrusion upon powder capacity as possible. Since the bullet diameter is relatively fat, increases in seating depth results in less powder capacity. The rate of capacity reduction is greater than that of a smaller caliber bullet per a given increment of increased seating depth.

Most 336's have short throats, so the only way to get more bullet in the case without case capacity being lost is with a bore riding type bullet, wherein the full diameter section of .358" is relatively short, and the nose of the bullet which bore rides would need to be about .350" give or take slightly. A cast bullet might fit this description with a relatively blunt nose to insure greater possible weight in a given length.

The problem then becomes one of bullet balance. I have an RCBS 200 FN mould, as well as a lengthened clone 25 grains heavier intended to optimize the cartridge in terms of increasing bullet weight. Since full caliber bearing surface is identical, but the heavier one has more nose length, the shorter RCBS bullet has more accuracy potential and has repeatedly proved it in live fire. It's better balanced......more of its weight is located near the full caliber bearing surface. Since bore riding bullets (both the RCBS and its clone qualify) often don't perfectly bore ride, a little "wiggle" occurs as the bullet goes down the barrel. In a perfect world, the bullet rides exactly on top of the lands and is provided guidance with little loss of potential accuracy compared to an all body or Louverin design. In the real world, and especially in Microgroove barrels, the tolerance often is more loose than that, and the front end of the bullet is not firmly prevented from side to side movement on its journey down the barrel.

This is oftentimes why all body bullets shoot better than bore riders, especially in Microgroove barrels. To the frustrations of many, who supposedly "slugged" their bore and matched the diameter needed with their cast bullet, only to find their long bore rider still doesn't shoot well. This is most of the reason why.

The longer the unsupported nose length is in terms of being imperfectly guided by the rifling in a bore riding bullet, the worse the bullet will shoot. So a cast bullet mould of heavy weight intended for a microgroove 336 .35 Remington would have to be carefully designed indeed. I'd go to a more helpful .352" diameter for the nose of the bullet.

A two diameter jacketed bullet is unlikely. Very few have been used over the years in any caliber, one of the few being the .264 Winchester magnum factory load. Bullets with shorter noses and full caliber bearing surfaces have proven on average more accurate.

Stabilization would be a final and maybe insurmountable problem. Since nearly all .35 Remingtons, to my knowledge, have a 1-16 twist, the relatively low velocities possible with a 300 grain bullet might result in a loss of accuracy and maybe also a loss of penetration. If a bullet has precession (tilts as it flies through the air) short range penetration is often compromised even if the bullet is heavier. The bullet may tumble instead of penetrating straight, especially at close ranges where the bullet has not stabilized, or "gone to sleep." A marginally stabilized bullet flies further before it stabilizes, or it might not fully stabilize at any distance, become progressively worse and eventually tumble as it goes through the air and loses velocity. Velocity loss might be greater than a shorter bullet adequately stabilized even though the longer bullet has a theoretically higher BC.

John Goins (Beagle. The same fella who popularized the term "beagling" a mould) has a few comments about the worth of an extra heavy .35 caliber bullet here. You might want to pay attention to his comments about stabilization, and note that the blunt bullet he speaks of does not quite meet your 300 grain criteria, but it comes quite close. A 300 jacketed bullet, even with a blunt nose, would be longer yet. Longer isn't helpful in a 1-16" twist, and since most bullets used are from 180 to 220 grains in weight, manufacturers like Marlin have little interest or incentive to produce a fast twist 35 Remington.

http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/ByCaliber/The 358009.pdf

The problem with hard cast bullets in the 35 Remington is velocity at the expense of penetration. The lead bullet composition similar to the "hard cast" bullets of heavy weight such as the 300+ grain bullet in the .44 magnum don't hold up well at the 2000+ fps velocities of the 35 Remington. Even BHN 33 bullets, which are considerably harder than most "hard cast" .44 magnum bullets, don't hold their shape, undeformed, at 35 Remington impact velocities at close range. The front end of the bullet shears off and the mostly unexpanded shank, a little over two to two and a half calibers long, remains to penetrate.

The penetration is a little better than the 220 Speer at close range, but only about 10 percent or so.

For those that wish to "emulate" the penetration of a hard cast 44 magnum slug fired from a rifle, it is difficult to do so with the hard cast higher velocity .35 Remington due to this bullet deformation. In actual practice, this is really no great handicap as the bullet still penetrates very well; well enough for any practical purpose. Since it penetrates less, tissue damage is greater in all instances where the internal organs are close to the point of initial bullet impact compared to the hard cast, undeformed .44 slug. So the loss of penetration is compensated for in terms of more damage to what you're shooting at.....asssuming you hit where you're supposed to, and not in the south end of a northbound animal.

I realize some of this will be argued about by the .44 fans, but in a practical sense a .35 Remington rifle is a different animal than a .44 shooting a very heavy bullet. Lower strike velocity of the .44 bullet makes the bullet performance different and the bullet may penetrate relatively unchanged in shape. "Hard cast" doesn't hold up to higher impact velocities of the .35. If the velocity is lower with a heavy bullet in 35, say your 300 plus grains in a non deforming bullet, stability may be a problem and penetration less than expected even if the bullet is going slow enough to avoid any appreciable expansion.

The 1600 fps threshold is often mentioned. Above this velocity bullet deformation even in hard cast is more likely. I've outpenetrated hard cast 225 grain bullets at 2200 fps using a 158 grain bullet at 1600 fps intended for a 38/357 pistol when both are fired from the 35 Remington. While damage was much greater with the 225, the non deforming 158 penetrated quite a bit further.

When we give up bullet deformation to obtain more penetration, we often give up some amount of damage to vital tissues on a well aimed shot in exchange for that penetration. This is not often discussed by the "penetration above all" advocates.

It should be.

In jacketed bullets, it may be that a thick jacketed bullet weighing around 220 grains with a reasonably broad meplat to ensure impact stability driven at 2200 fps would penetrate as well as is reasonable in the cartridge while also having the potential for greater soft tissue damage than a slower bullet that penetrates further. Since that would be a bullet with very low demand likely it will never be made.

John,

This just might be the most interesting thing I've read in awhile. It's obvious after-the-fact, but I wasn't thinking about the need to maintain velocity in order to maintain balance given the 1-16 twist. The load I was dreaming of would be slow, around 1600 fps. And since the whole purpose of the thought experiment is penetration, it wouldn't do to have the bullet tumble.

I'd be curious to experiment with two things: 1) a hardcast bullet designed specifically for this purpose, choosing the optimum weight for that reduced velocity (1600 fps or so) while maintaining as much (balanced) momentum as possible, and 2) getting my hands on that thick jacketed bullet you mentioned that no one will ever produce.

Do you think our imaginary 220 at 2200 fps is better than the 250s on the market at whatever velocity LVR will deliver them? For the definition of "better" let's assume the scenario that got me thinking about the extreme end of heavy bullets in my 336: you hear some crashing of foliage and huffing and puffing and look over to see a charging brown bear; the only thing in your hand is your 336--choose the load you'd prefer to fire.

Thanks, once again, for you insight.

 

Lever101,

Read the section on cast bullets in this article.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/fryxell/35_remington.htm

I am currently playing with the 245gr Saeco bullet in my 35 Rem. I don't have anywhere near enough shooting with this to form a solid opinion, but this bullet shows promise. I can say from the shooting/reloading I have done the Saeco is prolly the heaviest practical bullet you can use in the 35rem. The bullet profile allows for an OAL that functions through the rifle and the base barely goes below the shoulder giving you close to full powder capacity. I have two batches loaded up now and I am hoping to get out this coming week. All my shooting thus far has been reduced loads, but it's been enough velocity to stabilize this bullet in a 1-16" twist. My plan has never been blistering speed, just good accuracy at around 1600fps.

 

Hawk Precision can make you a .358 225gr Flat Nose with a jacket thickness of .035 to .050, but they are custom ordered. You can get their round tip bullets in thick jackets too. However, I am not sure you would see any measurable differences on game between them and the 220 Speer. Most who have used the Speer 220 say it is a very tough bullet, better suited for hogs/elk/bear. I believe in having fun though! Go for it, just give us a report!

 

I don't think I'd exceed City Slicker's bullet weight. 300 grains is really pushing it, and I don't think impact stability would be good.

Imagine you've got two hard cast bullets. One weighs 220 grains, the other 280. Both are identical as to meplat; the only difference is the heavier bullet is longer.

Assume also they are both well stabilized.

There is no reason to believe the heavier bullet would necessarily do more damage at the same speed; since meplat is the same, the only thing the added weight would do would be to penetrate further. It would not make a bigger hole in tissue reasonably close to the entrance hole if velocities were identical. While it might be traveling faster than the lighter bullet after a certain amount of penetration, as the bullet loses velocity the hole it makes is smaller and smaller the further it penetrates.

So that brings us back to the question......what value is speed in a nondeforming bullet?

The heavy bullet of 280 grains yields 1,592 ft. lbs. The lighter bullet has 1,250.

Now let's compare that to the 220 at 2200. That's 2,365 ft. lbs. That's 50 percent more energy to destroy tissue, more velocity to turn bone into secondary fragments and fling those fragments further, and certainly sufficient penetration to do the job. Is it enough for a brown bear? Most people would tell you "no" but since you gotta dance with who brought ya, and a .35 is all I had, a fairly broad meplat 220 would be how I'd go. Not quite as wide as Ranch Dog's 190, but wider than the RCBS 200 FN. But with a heavy jacket, turned in at the base to reinforce the end of the bullet and prevent deformation.

I'd rather have a 20mm cannon. But 2000-2200 fps is typical velocity with the African calibers using solids, and there must be a reason a bullet of that velocity range is commonly used, rather than something even heavier going only 1600 fps. My guess would be that enough velocity is needed to give the gun reasonable range, and the velocity combined with a nondeforming bullet probably maximizes the capability of the bullet to penetrate at somewhat longer ranges while not going so fast that the bullet comes apart on the tougher resistance. That's assuming a solid of conventional rather than monolithic construction.

At bear coming at you is not impenetrable, and it is my thinking that excessive penetration and needlessly low velocity is of no value when you're shooting at the front end of a bear. Higher velocity projectiles have the capability to damage tissue not directly in the wound track. Heavier, slower bullets, less so.

 

it is my thinking that excessive penetration and needlessly low velocity is of no value when you're shooting at the front end of a bear. Higher velocity projectiles have the capability to damage tissue not directly in the wound track. Heavier, slower bullets, less so.

I walked away from my computer last night reading your mind. My thoughts weren't as eloquent as these sentences, but as I brushed my teeth I figured this would be your response. Then I found myself agreeing with what I figured you'd say. Then I wondered why I couldn't come to it on my own. Answer: because learning isn't like that. It's a conversation.

Although, I'm not sure any penetration would be excessive, as you never know what you might accidentally hit on the far end. But the point is well taken. Given the trade offs the cartridge requires, velocity is more important. And a 220 is a fair-size hunk of lead. I sure do like my 220 Speers.

Maybe I should poney up the money to try some of the premium jacketed bullets. There're not necessary for the elk I hunt. But it'd be interesting, nevertheless. The guy I bought the 336 from some years ago threw in his dies and some hand-loaded hardcast 250s. I shot them out for the brass. Kind of wish I would have studied those rounds a bit as I did it.

I think most people would prefer high velocity for an encounter like this, but to them high velocity is 3,000+fps. Hell, that's what I'd want. It's just fun to think about what our 336s are capable of. Mine kind of feels like a part me.

For anyone following this thread here's some pics of a few of the bullets discussed. I'd be curious to see that optimized 225 RCBS clone. And any others people think are worth mentioning for the heavy end of the .35 bullet spectrum.

From left to right: LBT 358-180-WFN, the LBT 358-200-LFN, the RCBS 35-200-FP, and the Saeco #352 (245 grain FPGC)

Jacketed: The 180 Speer FP, the 200 Sierra RN and the 220 Speer FP

Ranch Dog's TLC359-190-RF (meplat=0.256)

 

lever101,
I don't know as if I would spend the money on premium heavy weight jacketed bullets for a 35 Rem. I think as 35Remington alluded to, the velocity attainable with the 35 would pretty much render them solids. You would be better served buying a mould and casting something a little softer.

Although, I'm not sure any penetration would be excessive, as you never know what you might accidentally hit on the far end.

I think this is where the true benefit of shooting heavier bullets comes into play. You really never know at what angle or what bones might have to be broken when you make the shot.

I hope to do some shooting later this week. I will keep checking on this thread and up date my results as I go along. However, like all good threads...they are useless without pictures. So here is what the bullets I am using look like cast and loaded.

 

I hope to do some shooting later this week. I will keep checking on this thread and up date my results as I go along. However, like all good threads...they are useless without pictures. So here is what the bullets I am using look like cast and loaded.

The 250s used to get 1900 fps before LVR. I'd be curious to know how much more velocity they get with LVR, if any. The pressure is so low with LVR, you might get more out of it. If you haven't tried it, it's worth the time and expense of working up a new load--as case life is just about forever. It's somewhat hard to believe just how different it is, pressure-wise. A new category.

Do keep us posted as to what you find with the loads on your bench. Those are some big bullets. Looks like a lot of fun.

 

Okay so I made it out to the range this morning with my 35rem and some heavy bullets. Before I share, my lawyer from the esteemed firm of Shyster&Shyster PLC, said you guys should use this info with caution. He said, while they make a living chasing ambulances, he didn't want to chase yours.

I had a very mild load of 23 grains of RL-7 and a little hotter load of 27.7 grains of IMR3031. Both of these loads pushing the Saeco 245 grain GC cast bullet.

The IMR3031 load was the winner, but not by much. I don't think it is a fair comparison until I boost the RL-7 load to the same levels as the 3031. Neither one of the loads had any wild flyers or showed any signs of instability. I may speed up both loads a little just to see what happens.

Here's a picture of the rifle that did the shooting and the target with IMR3031.

 

Thanks for this. That's a nice group at 75y. Did you chronograph them, too? Where was the point of aim?

Keep us posted as you play with the load.

 

lever101,
The point of aim is dead center of the bottom of the blue sticker. The sticker measure 2" x 3". So for causal shooting, I know as long as I am in the blue I am no higher than 3" at 100yds. This load needs to move a 1/2" left but elevation is good at 75yds. I did not get out the chrony today, because I was at a supervised range. It can be a hassle. As time permits, I will go to the other conservation dept range I use that is unsupervised and more relaxed. The target backstops are usually pretty rough, but I'm just gonna shoot at the berm.

 

I'd love to see what that 245 grain boolit would do in my 356W Marlin. Also I just piicked up 2 boxes of new old stock Hornady 250 grain round nose bullets to try in my 35 Rem. and the 356 W. If they work well I just may go back and pick up the other 2 boxes! LOL

T-o-m

 

Great topic... Some pretty interesting info and observations.

My mind is made up about one thing... For this coming lion season, I will be packing the .35 Remington loaded with the RCBS 200 gr FP-GC (heat-treated to a BHN of 22), loaded to ~2,160 fps or so. Penetration will not be an issue, and unless I smoke through some heavy bone, entrance and exit wounds shouldn't be an issue either. Provided I can actually bag a long tail, I think the pelt will be in pretty decent shape for a wall hanger with this rifle/cartridge/load combination.

 

That load is not going to feel good to the lion.

 

How about the lyman bullet 358627 boolit. It is a 228 gr. gc boolite, lubed and checked, in semi-wadcutter shape. Western bullet co. sells them and the punch of a swc (wide metplate) vrs round nose should be a smasher. It is sure shorter than the speer 220 gr. thus leaving room for more powder. It sure flips deer over from a .357 max. rifle. Have fun and bangaway.

 

35 Marlin lever action.
280 grain (I used 265 for the next season)
Hits like a tank shell.
Heavy round, expect a bit of bullet drop.
When I was 13 I shot a whitetail deer in PA, clean hit behind the front shoulder, maybe 100 yards out. The deer spun around... It did a complete 360 and landed on its side! My older brother was with me and couldn't help but shout four letter words. After all was said and done, the general consensus was, "impressive."
I would use that round against anything that isn't armored with total confidence.
I've never hunted bear, but I would wager the effect would be devastating with the same round.
Side note: if your gun is light, it will kick like a 50. Mine was well weighted so it was tolerable, at least enough to use for another season before I bought a second rifle.

 

35 Marlin lever action.
280 grain (I used 265 for the next season)
Hits like a tank shell.
Heavy round, expect a bit of bullet drop.
When I was 13 I shot a whitetail deer in PA, clean hit behind the front shoulder, maybe 100 yards out. The deer spun around... It did a complete 360 and landed on its side! My older brother was with me and couldn't help but shout four letter words. After all was said and done, the general consensus was, "impressive."
I would use that round against anything that isn't armored with total confidence.
I've never hunted bear, but I would wager the effect would be devastating with the same round.
Side note: if your gun is light, it will kick like a 50. Mine was well weighted so it was tolerable, at least enough to use for another season before I bought a second rifle.

What bullet and powder are you using? Interested in learning more about your development.

 

@LeadByExample89 welcome to MO from Midcoast Maine. I am also interested in what find with that load.

 

There can be serious consequences about breaking the laws of physics.

AC