Talk:.350 Legend

Suggested Changes
The first paragraph of the History section reads like an advert. for Winchester and adds nothing to the article; I suggest the article's author remove it. I don't want to be so presumptuous as to remove the paragraph myself.

This article would be greatly helped by having a photograph of the .350 Legend cartridge and a line drawing of same with angles and measurements shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.164.163 (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the article reading like an advertisement for Winchester, it parrots Winchester's deliberately misleading description of the cartridge's caliber as ".03570 - .0030" when it's really only 0.355 caliber. The first section says, "Ohio's Deer Hunting Regulations allow the use of a straight-walled rifle cartridge with a minimum caliber of .357 inches (9.1 mm). Consequently, the .350 Legend is a legal hunting rifle cartridge there." That's not true, as the .350 Legend has a true diameter of .355, not .357 (as any gun or barrel manufacturer will tell you, or anyone who has measured the .350 Legend bullets), so how can the .350 Legend (which is .355 caliber) possibly be legal under a law that requires a minimum caliber of .357 inches? The specifications in the Wikipedia article repeat Winchester PR department's disingenuous, misleading description of its caliber as ".03570 - .0030". I realize this is what Winchester claims, but that seems to be a deliberate misinformation campaign by Winchester in order to try to keep the cartridge legal in states like Ohio, because Winchester doesn't want to admit their mistake in designing the cartridge as .355 caliber instead of .357 caliber. It is just as dishonest to call the caliber ".03570 - .0030" as it is for me, a 5' 9" man, to claim that I'm "6.0 feet tall -3.0 inches." Just because Winchester deliberately misstates the caliber of its cartridge does not mean that Wikipedia should copy the corporate PR releases that deceptively call it ".03570 - .0030." Instead of parroting the PR Department at Winchester, the article needs a new paragraph on the (well-known) controversy over Winchester designing the cartridge as 0.355 caliber instead of 0.358 like other rifle cartridges such as the .35 Remington -- see https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/whats-going-on-with-350-legend/ --, and about Winchester's misleading, disingenuous claim that the cartridge is ".03570 - .0030" (like me saying I'm "6.0 feet tall -3.0 inches) when it's really just 0.355 and therefore does not meet hunting regulations in states like Ohio.

Incorrect information
2/9/2023 - The very first paragraph “Ohio” stating that 350 Legend is .350 inch is false in accordance with a manufacture such as Winchester. There is no reference sited for validation of the claim.

This should be removed from the page. 24.210.54.112 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever claimed that the .350 Legend is .350 inch. The .350 Legend is .355 inch, not .350 inch, not .357 inch. Winchester manufacturers its .350 Legend ammunition with bullets that are .355 inch in diameter, and that is a true fact. Not .350 inch, not .357 inch, but .355 inch. Furthermore, the paragraph does indeed cite a reference as validation for the fact that the bullet diameter is .355, reference #6, and there are plenty of other sources that could be cited to validate the fact that the bullets are .355 in diameter. Gato63 (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

350 Legend is a .357-.358
Incorrect info about here about bullet diameter. A lot of incorrect published data on internet as well. Look up load data from ammo manufacturers such as Hornady. It is not .355 such as a 9mm luger but a .357 such as 38 special and 357 mag. I own a S&W 350 Legend revolver and also reload my own ammo. Load data dictates a .357 projectile is used in this round per ammo manufacturer’s instructions. I’ve also fired .357 Magnum ammo through it. No squibs or other issues. 2600:100F:B1BC:1FB7:5467:C516:6135:B1F5 (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

that's not a 223 in the picture. it's a 222
that's not a 223 in the picture. it's a 222 68.53.44.15 (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)