Southern Michigan Wildcat

brant89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
200
Location
Southern Michigan
Last year, rifles meeting certain requirements were legalized for deer hunting the the limited firearm zone in southern Michigan (previously shotgun/muzzleloader/handgun only zone). The requirements are basically the same as the previous handgun requirements: min bullet diameter of .35, min case length of 1.16", max case length of 1.8" straight-walled only. I recently read on a forum (haven't personally verified this) that tapered cartridges are considered straight-walled as far as this regulation is concerned. So my question is this, what kind of velocities might one expect to achieve by cutting a .300WM case down to 1.8" and TAPERING the body down to accept a .358 200gr GMX bullet? Also, what problems might one encounter in doing this? Would there be any advantage over current 450BM offerings?
 

MudRunner2005

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
14,708
Location
Alabama

brant89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
200
Location
Southern Michigan
I am familiar with the new laws and what would be legal. The 350 Rem mag is bottlenecked and would not be legal, I was more or less referring to a straight taper from the case head to the neck. The 357 Maximum is something I haven't seen before though. I'm not sure if the added case capacity or shape of a tapered case would be enough to realize any increased velocity. The ultimate goal would be to be able to get enough velocity to take advantage of the higher BC rifle bullets, but it doesn't sound like the DNR left us a lot of wiggle room. Indiana has a similar law but they left out the straight-walled part which led to the creation of the 358 Hoosier and similar wildcats.
 

MudRunner2005

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
14,708
Location
Alabama
I am familiar with the new laws and what would be legal. The 350 Rem mag is bottlenecked and would not be legal, I was more or less referring to a straight taper from the case head to the neck. The 357 Maximum is something I haven't seen before though. I'm not sure if the added case capacity or shape of a tapered case would be enough to realize any increased velocity. The ultimate goal would be to be able to get enough velocity to take advantage of the higher BC rifle bullets, but it doesn't sound like the DNR left us a lot of wiggle room. Indiana has a similar law but they left out the straight-walled part which led to the creation of the 358 Hoosier and similar wildcats.
I know the .350 RemMag would be illegal, it has a COAL of just slightly over 2", that's why I said the caliber you described sounded like a SHORTENED .350 RemMag. The the .300WM cases are based off of .300 H&H Magnum cases, which is larger in diameter than .35", so no unless you're loading .50 caliber+ sized bullets in it, it's going to be bottlenecked.

Couldn't you just use a .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, or .460 S&W and be done with it?
 

brant89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
200
Location
Southern Michigan
According to your definition (case head larger than bullet diameter) I guess a 40-65 and 9mm Luger are bottleneck cartridges as well. And yes, I could get any of the cartridges you mentioned, or if I wanted the maximum effective hunting range using a currently available cartridge I could use a 450 Bushmaster as stated in my original post, but this post is about pushing the limits and creating something new.

I see there is some truth to the reading comprehension comment in your signature.
 

MudRunner2005

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
14,708
Location
Alabama
According to your definition (case head larger than bullet diameter) I guess a 40-65 and 9mm Luger are bottleneck cartridges as well. And yes, I could get any of the cartridges you mentioned, or if I wanted the maximum effective hunting range using a currently available cartridge I could use a 450 Bushmaster as stated in my original post, but this post is about pushing the limits and creating something new.

I see there is some truth to the reading comprehension comment in your signature.
Slightly larger is one thing. Most semi-auto pistol calibers HAVE to be tapered for proper extraction in automatic cycling weapons. So 9mm Luger is not relative to this conversation.

40-65 is on a whole different playing field. Yes, it is technically a bottleneck caliber, without defined shoulder dimensions.

If you don't want advice from someone trying to help you, don't ask for it on a forum.
 

brant89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
200
Location
Southern Michigan
I do want advice, but I would like it to pertain to the questions I asked. I did not ask for advice about Michigan hunting laws from someone who has likely never hunted here ever, and I certainly didn't ask for sarcastic replys like "A quick google search...". No **** Sherlock, if Google had produced answers I wouldn't have posted the questions to begin with. All I want to know is what kind of velocities might be attainable and if there would be any difficulties in reforming brass to the shape I described. If there are any potential gains to be realized I will consult a MDNR officer on the legality of such a cartridge. So if you have any idea what kind of velocity or performance characteristics such a cartridge might yield then I'm all ears, otherwise I will wait for someone with experience in creating new wildcats to respond with something useful.
 

Varberger757

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
622
Location
Norway, Buskerud
I believe the 444 Marlin would be too long.
Yes, precisely. That was the answer @MudRunner2005 gave me concerning my proposal, and he was also delivering a solution about what to do with the .444 Marlin, so that it would meet the requirements of Michigan laws. He can't do more, can he? In your last post you are getting kind of offensive, and that won't help at all! It was you asking for advice, nobody else ...
 

MudRunner2005

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
14,708
Location
Alabama
I do want advice, but I would like it to pertain to the questions I asked. I did not ask for advice about Michigan hunting laws from someone who has likely never hunted here ever, and I certainly didn't ask for sarcastic replys like "A quick google search...". No **** Sherlock, if Google had produced answers I wouldn't have posted the questions to begin with. All I want to know is what kind of velocities might be attainable and if there would be any difficulties in reforming brass to the shape I described. If there are any potential gains to be realized I will consult a MDNR officer on the legality of such a cartridge. So if you have any idea what kind of velocity or performance characteristics such a cartridge might yield then I'm all ears, otherwise I will wait for someone with experience in creating new wildcats to respond with something useful.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Allow me to reiterate that...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
 

brant89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
200
Location
Southern Michigan
@Varberger757 I did not see his reply before I posted so my apologies. And yes, he could do more. He could cut the sarcastic arrogance. When replys are laced with sarcasm they typically aren't received well. I have to admit, this is the first time I've had to deal with this much attitude on this forum.
 

MudRunner2005

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
14,708
Location
Alabama
@Varberger757 I did not see his reply before I posted so my apologies. And yes, he could do more. He could cut the sarcastic arrogance. When replys are laced with sarcasm they typically aren't received well. I have to admit, this is the first time I've had to deal with this much attitude on this forum.
None of my replies (other than the one before this one) were meant with ANY bit of sarcasm. I cannot help how you perceived them. It's not my fault you took them as sarcastic or arrogant, when they were not meant to be. So for that, I am certainly not apologizing. If I had done something wrong, I would. But I did not. You were the one being a gigantic ***** by assuming I was being sarcastic, when I was simply trying to help.

Good luck on your endeavor (not being sarcastic).
 

Trending threads

Top