A fun thread, what wildcat do YOU wish was mainstream

[Will Henry]

All -

First, I apologize IF the multiple responses I previously sent had strayed from the intended focus of this post!

I know this will sound fairly radical, but....MY vote for a wildcat to be made mainstream is ( my ) “.22-35Remington “

This wildcat was my idea for an .224” cal wildcat w/ ideal case capacity
for propelling 55gr varmint bullets in an anti-groundhog role’.

I designed .22-35 in Oct 1975. At the time, in .224” cal, factory chamberings that might be encountered in new or used rifles were mostly
.222, .222 Mag, .223, .224 Weatherby, .225 Winchester, .22-250; and .220 Swift. .22-35 case capacity promised performance that would eclipse the first 6 cartridges listed. Moreover, with its 1.920” case oal and thoughtful reloading, .22-35 could rival performance of a .220 Swift ; while doing so with notably shorter cartridge oal. This characteristic is even more beneficial when use of today’s long VLDs is anticipated.

. 22-35 utilizes the same case aol, major case diameters, and shoulder location of the parent .35 Rem case. The biggest changes being the neck down to .224” calibre.... and the wildcat’s 26* shoulder angle. Major case’ diameters of the parent .35 Remington case are large enough to give a final case capacity positioned between a .22-250 and a .22-250AI.
The .22-35 design accomplishes this without having to “blow out “ case’ shoulder diameter .

The area covered by the wildcat’s 26* shoulder provides more powder space than would use of a sharp “ Ackley Improved “ shoulder angle, and the 26* angle is easily formed. Case neck length is greater than one calibre.....more than adequate to accomodate use of longer VLD bullets just mentioned.

.22-35 Remington is .308 bolt face compatible. My rifle’s Wichita WBR1375
bolt action is configured w/ an M-16 style extractor, and I never experienced a failure to feed or extract loaded .22-35 cartridges; or fired cases.

I wrote P.O. Ackley, inviting him to comment on my wildcat’s design.
Ackley replied in a letter dated 10 Apr 1975, wherein he said.....
....” Dear sir: The .35 Remington should make a good .22 calibre cartridge when necked down to take the smaller bullet. “ “ We did a little work on this case necked to 6mm for use in a 141 Remington rifle. But we couldn’t get the thing to feed properly so we gave it up “. [ Note: Remington 141 was a pump action rifle that fed cartridges from a spiral fluted magazine tube, a feature intended to keep cartridge’ bullet tips from setting off the cartridge immediately ahead in the magazine; when the gun was fired .]

I took Mr. Ackley’s positive comment as a good passing grade on my .22-35 wildcat design !

Having said all that, do I really think .22-35 would ever stand a chance of supplanting .22-250 as a factory cartridge ? Unfortunately, no.

That does not take away anything from this wildcat’s marvelous capabilities, however.


With regards,
357Mag

I can recall an article describing this cartridge; in Gun Digest, perhaps? Early to mid-seventies. Was that you? WH

 

[357Mag]

Will Henry -

Howdy !

i authorized a short article on my .22-35 wildcat, that did get printed in
“Precision Shooting “ magazine in late 1977, if I recall the date right.

In the article, I talked about my first range trip w/ the new rifle.....
a local area benchrest match sponsored by Fred Sinclair; that took place
@ the “Blue Creek “ range just West of Wiltshire, OH.

While I was doing initial fire forming on my newly-formed wildcat cases....
not watching wind flags..... shooting in cold, blowing snow conditions....
I managed to shoot what would have qualified as 3rd place.

I said it “would have been “ a third place finish, but my “ varmint rifle “ was something like 8oz above the class wt limit. At the time, my first iteration of the rifle was: Wichita WBR1375 single shot benchrest action,
1.375” 24” straight bull SS Hart 1-14, Bishop walnut/walnut laminate
heavy target style stock w/ 2.75” wide for end and high comb; a 2oz trigger converted by Ken Burns; and a 24X Leupold in B&L rings and Weaver bases.

Even though I understood My gun was too heavy to be legal for the class,
I was extremely proud to have eeked-out such good groups @ 100.
Especially considering that I was going up against regular benchrest shooters, shooting full tilt bench guns, chambered in .222, .222 Mag; and old tyme 6X47. This included Fred Sinclair, himself a small group world record holder and NBRSA Hall of Fame’r; and Fred’s wife Becky, her being a formidable shooter in her own right.

My .22-35 Remington fire form load was a chuck full case of IMR4350.... which I believe was 43.0gr under custom 52gr FB HP’s from Ron Fifer; and CCI LR Match. I had done all the brass prep and reloading tricks I could, to prep for the competition.

To my knowledge, no highly distributed gun magazine ever ran an article on the .22-35 Remington. And, as you likely know.... at the time ....there was a benchrest wildcat already out there already called“ . 22-35 “.
That one ( I believe ) was based on .222Mag w/ a 35*shoulder angle. But, by that date it was on its way out; as the .22PPC had debuted the year before. So, with full knowledge, I went ahead and named my wildcat “ .22-35 “; anyway ! That decision has never been criticized.

As an aside -
No .35 Remington-based wildcats are mentioned in Ackley’s 2 vol treatise
“ Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders “. This was somewhat of a surprise, as Ackley himself had wildcatted .35 Rem down to 6mm; and other of his wildcats were described in his handbook.

I DK whether any of this helps ?


With regards,
357Mag

 

[antelopedundee]

I'm more in favor of the reverse here...do away with Lapua 6.5-284 brass and make straight 284 already, PLEASE!!!! Why are we sitting on our thumbs on this? Can't ask Lapua anymore, did that like a hundred times now. These days, no reason why necking-up process needs to be implemented. Perhaps Peterson brass will take up the slack with its 284 brass.

Why not just offer both? Necking down 2-3 calibers is a PITA when it shouldn't really need to be done.

When something like .25-06 cases are made by a number of manufacturers why can't some enterprising individual or company order 100,000 of them unstamped and just neck up and headstamp them as 6.5-06? Assuming that they'd sell to you or even stamp them for you.

 

[coldboreshot]

Why not just offer both? Necking down 2-3 calibers is a PITA when it shouldn't really need to be done.

When something like .25-06 cases are made by a number of manufacturers why can't some enterprising individual or company order 100,000 of them unstamped and just neck up and headstamp them as 6.5-06? Assuming that they'd sell to you or even stamp them for you.

I wish Lapua would offer both but in the end, for the discipline I shoot, it appears Peterson has the proper caliber in brass that I use. That will save much in altering 2 calibers.

 

[antelopedundee]

A lot of these things are more alike than they are different, especially when it comes to performance on game which is what the majority of rifles are sold for. A 6.5mm 130 grain bullet with a mv of 3100 fps cares not which cartridge or rifle got it there. Factors like barrel life probably don't mean squat to someone like Remington unless it is way low for some reason or other.

 

[406pat]

Why not just neck down and improve the x54R case? After all, there is Lapua brass available and I'm sure it's much easier to source than 307 Winchester. I like the premise though, to modernize the Mosin...

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Necking down and improving x54r means custom reamer and custom dies but you get to use Lapua brass. Go with necking down the .307 and you can use stock reamers and dies, but you have to source the brass. Hornady and Winchester are about the only manufacturers I know of.

 

[Brians356]

I’m thinking of the 270 Winchester necked up to 30 cal. Loaded with the newest powders and bullets -
It would probably do anything the newer hot shot cartridges can do and then some.
Gary

Nice, but it'll never best the venerable 30-06.
-

 

[spitfire_er]

I'll vote the 280 RCBS. One of the most versatile rounds IMO.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

I'll vote the 280 RCBS. One of the most versatile rounds IMO.

What does it offer over the ackley version? What problem did the 30deg shoulder solve that was the downfall of the 40deg?

 

[Will Henry]

Will Henry -

Howdy !

i authorized a short article on my .22-35 wildcat, that did get printed in
“Precision Shooting “ magazine in late 1977, if I recall the date right.

In the article, I talked about my first range trip w/ the new rifle.....
a local area benchrest match sponsored by Fred Sinclair; that took place
@ the “Blue Creek “ range just West of Wiltshire, OH.

While I was doing initial fire forming on my newly-formed wildcat cases....
not watching wind flags..... shooting in cold, blowing snow conditions....
I managed to shoot what would have qualified as 3rd place.

I said it “would have been “ a third place finish, but my “ varmint rifle “ was something like 8oz above the class wt limit. At the time, my first iteration of the rifle was: Wichita WBR1375 single shot benchrest action,
1.375” 24” straight bull SS Hart 1-14, Bishop walnut/walnut laminate
heavy target style stock w/ 2.75” wide for end and high comb; a 2oz trigger converted by Ken Burns; and a 24X Leupold in B&L rings and Weaver bases.

Even though I understood My gun was too heavy to be legal for the class,
I was extremely proud to have eeked-out such good groups @ 100.
Especially considering that I was going up against regular benchrest shooters, shooting full tilt bench guns, chambered in .222, .222 Mag; and old tyme 6X47. This included Fred Sinclair, himself a small group world record holder and NBRSA Hall of Fame’r; and Fred’s wife Becky, her being a formidable shooter in her own right.

My .22-35 Remington fire form load was a chuck full case of IMR4350.... which I believe was 43.0gr under custom 52gr FB HP’s from Ron Fifer; and CCI LR Match. I had done all the brass prep and reloading tricks I could, to prep for the competition.

To my knowledge, no highly distributed gun magazine ever ran an article on the .22-35 Remington. And, as you likely know.... at the time ....there was a benchrest wildcat already out there already called“ . 22-35 “.
That one ( I believe ) was based on .222Mag w/ a 35*shoulder angle. But, by that date it was on its way out; as the .22PPC had debuted the year before. So, with full knowledge, I went ahead and named my wildcat “ .22-35 “; anyway ! That decision has never been criticized.

As an aside -
No .35 Remington-based wildcats are mentioned in Ackley’s 2 vol treatise
“ Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders “. This was somewhat of a surprise, as Ackley himself had wildcatted .35 Rem down to 6mm; and other of his wildcats were described in his handbook.

I DK whether any of this helps ?


With regards,
357Mag

Yeah, 1977 could be I guess. So, a bit later than I remembered, different source, it's a wonder I remember my own name! If a person had a whole bunch of 35 Rem brass, this would be one way to use it. Of course, he could save a lot of money by just giving it away! WH

 

[Tommie]

What does it offer over the ackley version? What problem did the 30deg shoulder solve that was the downfall of the 40deg?

Maybe the 30 degree feeds smoother? Dunno. I never had issues with 40 degree cartridges feeding correctly but have heard some folks complain about it.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Maybe the 30 degree feeds smoother? Dunno. I never had issues with 40 degree cartridges feeding correctly but have heard some folks complain about it.

I dont like 40deg personally but most of these wildcats solve no problems which is what a wildcat was supposed to do

 

[riflewoman]

Dusty’s right. A wildcat is supposed to fill a hole in the cartridge lineup. So just where is there a hole nowadays? From 22 to 338 there isn’t one.

 

[Tommie]

Kinda disagree. Some non-standard cartridges solve a problem instead of filling a performance void. One example: the 22-250 AI solves a major problem. The standard chambering’s brass grows terribly. Switching to the AI chambering all but eliminates case stretch.

I’m not tooting the Ackley Improved horn. Just pointing out a sometimes overlooked feature of wildcat cartridges.

 

[spencerhenry]

I don't particularly want my wildcats standardized.
One reason I like them is the brass forming. I like the fact that very few people have one, let alone know what it is.

It would remove the mystique for me.

 

[Evan]

Kinda disagree. Some non-standard cartridges solve a problem instead of filling a performance void. One example: the 22-250 AI solves a major problem. The standard chambering’s brass grows terribly. Switching to the AI chambering all but eliminates case stretch.

I’m not tooting the Ackley Improved horn. Just pointing out a sometimes overlooked feature of wildcat cartridges.

Or like a 22 Grendel. If you've got a PPC bolt face and want a 22BR type performance, then a 22 Grendel is the answer. The two are very very similar in all other aspects though.

 

[jonbearman]

The cartridge I thought that would have been crazy fun would be the 50 bmg necked to 22 cal like some crazy writer did after the weatherby being necked to 22. The author shot it and it was way over 5000 fps.

 

[jonbearman]

Another one instead of the 5.7 Johnson spitfire would be a straight 6mm Johnson type cartridge. its a pip squeak but if loaded right it would be a cheap way to fire the 6mm type cartridges using way less powder using a fairly steep shoulder 40 degree's. Then chambered in a rifle with a short barrel like 18 inches would make a cool truck gun.

 

[Will Henry]

Kinda disagree. Some non-standard cartridges solve a problem instead of filling a performance void. One example: the 22-250 AI solves a major problem. The standard chambering’s brass grows terribly. Switching to the AI chambering all but eliminates case stretch.

I’m not tooting the Ackley Improved horn. Just pointing out a sometimes overlooked feature of wildcat cartridges.

My standard 22/250 doesn't stretch brass to any significant extent. In fact, it's nice being able to put a washer under the lock ring to neck size. The taper on the case makes this possible. When neck sizing, case stretch is virtually non-existent. WH

 

[PRR1957]

I'm more in favor of the reverse here...do away with Lapua 6.5-284 brass and make straight 284 already, PLEASE!!!! Why are we sitting on our thumbs on this? Can't ask Lapua anymore, did that like a hundred times now. These days, no reason why necking-up process needs to be implemented. Perhaps Peterson brass will take up the slack with its 284 brass.

FYI. Peterson does make 284 Win cases.