Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
The .357 mag carbine not withstanding. I was reading an article on the new .338 Marlin express and one of the guys from Marlin being interviewed stated the historical lack commercial success was part of the reason for not making their medium bore a .35.
The same can be said for 6.5mm cals. Both are excellent bore diameters, IMO.
The same can be said for 6.5mm cals. Both are excellent bore diameters, IMO.
My first attempt at an outdoors website: http://www.diyballistics.com
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
i think it's the popularity of the .30 caliber. it was the first smokeless round and the military standard for 70 years. the 30-06 has alltherange and power for any north american game,anything above that is overkill. with that said, the .356&.348w.c.f.'s are my favorites.
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1263
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:57 pm
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Well, let's see------ I've got a 35 remington, 2 .350 remington mags and a 35 whelen. Looks like there doping fine around my house
-
- Levergunner 2.0
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:19 pm
- Location: Western ND
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Sure like my 1895 Winchester in 35 WCF. Bunch on Gunbroker.
Behind every sucessful rancher is a wife with a job in town.
- Old Savage
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 16793
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Recoil and range.
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
The .35 Rem. never did as well as it should partly because the factories insisted on loading it to truely anemic pressure levels. On paper it did not look as formidable as the .30-30 despite a larger, heavier bullet. Loaded to equivalent pressure levels, the .35 Rem. far surpasses the .30-30 in killing power. If you disagree, try the Speer 220gr flat point at 2200fps. Another reason is until somewhat recently there was never a good, suitable bullet selection for the higher performance .35s. The biggest reason may be American shooters love affair with the .30 cals. The .30-30 always did a great job for America's number 1 game animal, mister white tail. Properly loaded and at suitable ranges the .30-30 does quite well on Elk and even Moose. There may be better cartridges for America's larger game but the .30-30 has killed plenty. Now for the history of the .30-06......... 1886.
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Cause it wasn't called a 35-35,
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
One of those hummm what if questions.oldmax wrote:Cause it wasn't called a 35-35,
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
As I own and shoot a 35 W.C.F. in a M. 95 Winchester. The 35 W.C.F. "kills at both ends" as they say, and that may be one reason it never became more popular. A 348 M. 71 can also bring tears to you eyes. The 30/30 is adequate for 99% of the common game available in the U.S. and pleasant to shoot. Ammo was inexpensive and available in every wide place in the road. Many calibers that Winchester and others brought out over the years were to fill a "nitch" in the market, and to have something "new" to sell. Firearms are lifetime tools that normally don't wear out and need replacing. If we were not tempted with the newest whiz-bang cartridge or gun, they would have gone out of the business years ago. Dozens of calibers and cartridges have similar ballistics to each other and most all will get the job done if used correctly for their purpose. Today, almost all auto manufactures use the same technique to fill the market with their product.
-
- Member Emeritus
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:29 pm
- Location: Mountains of West Virginia
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Hi All,
I've got a Marlin 336 in 35 Rem....first rifle I ever bought (about 1971), and a custom Mauser in .358 Norma. If I'm big game hunting, I've got one of these with me!!
I've got a Marlin 336 in 35 Rem....first rifle I ever bought (about 1971), and a custom Mauser in .358 Norma. If I'm big game hunting, I've got one of these with me!!
Lobo in West Virginia
Old List Veteran..Five Years..Five Hundred Posts
Old List Veteran..Five Years..Five Hundred Posts
- El Chivo
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3652
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:12 pm
- Location: Red River Gorge Area
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
probably because of type of game. If you could hunt Cape Buffalo around here, everyone would have 375's and 45-70's. When buffalo roamed the prairie, the calibers were big.
I think the point about the military round is a good one, too. Guys who learned to shoot in the service would be comfortable with what they were used to and not likely to think it ineffective.
I think the point about the military round is a good one, too. Guys who learned to shoot in the service would be comfortable with what they were used to and not likely to think it ineffective.
"I'll tell you what living is. You get up when you feel like it. You fry yourself some eggs. You see what kind of a day it is."
- marlinman93
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
- Location: Oregon
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
My personal opinion is it never got enough variety in loads and bullet selection. That's probably because they chambered it in lever and pump actions that are particular about OAL of the cartridge. If they had offered it in bullet weights of 160-210 grains and higher velocities for the lighter weight bullets, then I think it could have been more successful. As it is those who have appreciated and enjoyed it are mostly reloaders.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Kind regards,
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
-
- Levergunner 1.0
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:55 pm
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
I just Gotta reply...
Don't have an answer....but I'm becoming a .35 addict. It all started with a 336 in .35 Remington last year. This year I began looking for a Whelen......... Well, I HAVE to start reloading now because my girlfriend just bought this for me on gunbroker yesterday (I bid, she's paying...for valentine's day.)
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =121801585
I was going to take my 458 Lott up to Canada next year, but I think this will be a much handier little rifle. I'm planning on loading 225g Barnes TSX's to around 2500fps. I have lots of .308 brass, so if I can't locate any .358 stuff I should still be okay. With the powders and projectiles that are available today, I think this will perform as well as the original Whelen did when it was originally introduced. I'm calling this my "Poor Boy's Little Safari Rifle".
"Poor Boy", because if you think I got out of it easy....ask me AFTER the cruise I'm taking her on later this year.
I'm still keeping her though!!!!!!
Anyone else shoot a 358 Win?
Mike
Don't have an answer....but I'm becoming a .35 addict. It all started with a 336 in .35 Remington last year. This year I began looking for a Whelen......... Well, I HAVE to start reloading now because my girlfriend just bought this for me on gunbroker yesterday (I bid, she's paying...for valentine's day.)
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =121801585
I was going to take my 458 Lott up to Canada next year, but I think this will be a much handier little rifle. I'm planning on loading 225g Barnes TSX's to around 2500fps. I have lots of .308 brass, so if I can't locate any .358 stuff I should still be okay. With the powders and projectiles that are available today, I think this will perform as well as the original Whelen did when it was originally introduced. I'm calling this my "Poor Boy's Little Safari Rifle".
"Poor Boy", because if you think I got out of it easy....ask me AFTER the cruise I'm taking her on later this year.
I'm still keeping her though!!!!!!
Anyone else shoot a 358 Win?
Mike
Sit tall in the saddle, hold your head up high, keep your eyes fixed where the trail meets the sky, live like you ain't afraid to die and don't be scared, just enjoy the ride. "The Ride" performed by the very much missed, Chris LeDoux.
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Mike, you may have to rethink that 225 TSX load. That is a very long bullet and when loaded into a 308 length case so that it fits in a max 2.90 maagazine it will have close to half of the bullet inside the case. A 220 Spear is pretty much made for this case or you could use the Nosler 225 partition as well. Both are very good tough bullets. For accuracy the Sierra 225 BT is tops, but not as tough.
Good luck with that beauty, If it shoots as well as my Ruger Hawkeye .358w you will love it.
Good luck with that beauty, If it shoots as well as my Ruger Hawkeye .358w you will love it.
JP_TX
444 Marlin
444 Marlin
-
- Levergunner 1.0
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:55 pm
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Thanks JP! I'll look into those bullets too! I was thinking the TSX would work okay because Conley Precision has a load made up with it going about 2550 fps. I'm hoping with Ruger re-introducing the 358 in their Hawkeye, the 358 will make a small comeback, or even better, Hornady, Remington and Federal will come out with factory loads. We can only dream right?
Thanks again!!!
Mike
Thanks again!!!
Mike
Sit tall in the saddle, hold your head up high, keep your eyes fixed where the trail meets the sky, live like you ain't afraid to die and don't be scared, just enjoy the ride. "The Ride" performed by the very much missed, Chris LeDoux.
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Mike, your welcome. I don't know your reloading set up but from my experience with the Ruger, you can load the bullet out further than the cannalure if you use a Lee factory crimp die. The throat on my hawkeye and my Mark II 350 RM are both very generous. The limit on the COL is the length of the magazine rather than the lands of the bore. If you are looking for heavy loads, the Speer 250 spitzr is a peach. It loads up to 2390fps (probably 2400 with a little cheating) and it will give you more range and energy as well.
Anyway, it's all good shooting a .35 and good fun too. Enjoy.
Anyway, it's all good shooting a .35 and good fun too. Enjoy.
JP_TX
444 Marlin
444 Marlin
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Hmmmmm , they do pretty well at my house !
I have four Marlin's in 35 REM , a pair of Marlin's in 356 WIN and two more Marlin's in 357 MAG . In the past I had a Ruger 77R in 358 WIN , a Remington 700 Classic in 35 Whelen and a Remington 673 in 350 REM MAG .
I can't say I was overwhelmed by the 358 but I liked the Whelen and the 350 well enough .
I have four Marlin's in 35 REM , a pair of Marlin's in 356 WIN and two more Marlin's in 357 MAG . In the past I had a Ruger 77R in 358 WIN , a Remington 700 Classic in 35 Whelen and a Remington 673 in 350 REM MAG .
I can't say I was overwhelmed by the 358 but I liked the Whelen and the 350 well enough .
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
I have 3 .35 Rems...
Sincerely,
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Horsepower junkie huh?6pt-sika wrote: I can't say I was overwhelmed by the 358 but I liked the Whelen and the 350 well enough .
I like the short action better than the horsepower. I love America.
Kind regards,
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
There was a disconnect between the modern urban masses and those who actually built this country, shot the deer, and fed their families for hundreds of years. They older generation never knew that their slow truck and "underpowered" rifle were not enough. It took the mass gun media to tell them that over and over, and paper ballistics only confirmed that the gun writers were correct. The 35 Rem. was perhaps one of the main victims to this new philosophy. I fell victim to all this as a young man. In choosing between the 35 Rem. and 356 Win. I stared at the ballistics. Had to have the powerhouse 356 Win. or I didn't have a real gun. My Grandfather by comparison hunted deer with a 32/20, but I wasn't going to listen to anyone. After coming to my senses, I loaded the 356 Win. down to 35 Rem. levels and never felt the need for anymore. But you can't tell that to someone who is convinced they have to have high velocity and tons of energy. The mass media has over all helped turn us into a performance driven society...from cars to guns and computers and, much like scantily clad females dancing in front of us, we as men have a weakness for such things. Now the older I get, the more I realize how smart my Grandparents really were.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
If you think a .35 kicks too much, you are not shooting your 45-70s and .444s enough
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First
Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
-
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 4559
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:52 pm
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Concise and spot on!Old Savage wrote:Recoil and range.
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
C. Cash wrote:There was a disconnect between the modern urban masses and those who actually built this country, shot the deer, and fed their families for hundreds of years. They older generation never knew that their slow truck and "underpowered" rifle were not enough. It took the mass gun media to tell them that over and over, and paper ballistics only confirmed that the gun writers were correct. The 35 Rem. was perhaps one of the main victims to this new philosophy. I fell victim to all this as a young man. In choosing between the 35 Rem. and 356 Win. I stared at the ballistics. Had to have the powerhouse 356 Win. or I didn't have a real gun. My Grandfather by comparison hunted deer with a 32/20, but I wasn't going to listen to anyone. After coming to my senses, I loaded the 356 Win. down to 35 Rem. levels and never felt the need for anymore. But you can't tell that to someone who is convinced they have to have high velocity and tons of energy. The mass media has over all helped turn us into a performance driven society...from cars to guns and computers and, much like scantily clad females dancing in front of us, we as men have a weakness for such things. Now the older I get, the more I realize how smart my Grandparents really were.
I think you nailed it with your assessment of our tendency as a society to gravitate toward maximum power. The reason I like a lot of the older calibers is the fact that they seemed to have been designed to do a job while consuming as few resources as possible (or perhaps that was just a side effect of the available technology). Unfortunately, many of these cartridges and the guns that shoot them are now highly difficult to obtain. I would really like a .22 hornet or 25-20 for small game hunting and plinking. Hornet options are pretty limited and a Marlin in 25-20 will really set a person back. Some people have asked me why I would want a .22 hornet over a .223. My answer is that I can load it so that it can take small game without turning it inside out. Sometimes it's nice to shoot a round that has more power than a .22 rimfire, but doesn't burn a metric ton of powder and have a report that is nearly as lethal as the bullet.
My first attempt at an outdoors website: http://www.diyballistics.com
- O.S.O.K.
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 5533
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:15 pm
- Location: Deep in the Piney Woods of Mississippi
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
I think this just comes down to ignorance. I don't mean to be insulting to anyone. I mean it in the most technically correct usage of the word.
The vast number of rifle buyers over the years have been predominantly hunters. These are people that have only a few guns that are tools to get game. They are not gun junkies or collectors, etc. - like many here.
They simply were more aware and comfortable with the well known 30 calibers and the .270 Win that was touted by popular hunting/outdoor mag writers over the years.
They weren't aware of the ballistic and terminal ballistic advatages of the other calibers out there that were slower or more slender than the more well known calibers.
I think if the caliber wasn't the fastest or most well known, then it only sold to those who took the time to learn about them....
The vast number of rifle buyers over the years have been predominantly hunters. These are people that have only a few guns that are tools to get game. They are not gun junkies or collectors, etc. - like many here.
They simply were more aware and comfortable with the well known 30 calibers and the .270 Win that was touted by popular hunting/outdoor mag writers over the years.
They weren't aware of the ballistic and terminal ballistic advatages of the other calibers out there that were slower or more slender than the more well known calibers.
I think if the caliber wasn't the fastest or most well known, then it only sold to those who took the time to learn about them....
NRA Endowment Life
Phi Kappa Sigma, Alpha Phi 83 "Skulls"
OCS, 120th MP Battalion, MSSG
MOLON LABE!
Phi Kappa Sigma, Alpha Phi 83 "Skulls"
OCS, 120th MP Battalion, MSSG
MOLON LABE!
- Griff
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 21016
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 pm
- Location: OH MY GAWD they installed a STOP light!!!
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Because there's a perfectly good .30 caliber round that performs all necessary functions asked of it.
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93
There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93
There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
+1 I love my .358, but a good .308 is just as good.Griff wrote:Because there's a perfectly good .30 caliber round that performs all necessary functions asked of it.
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
the .338win mag is a good example of this. sales were lagging in the 1970's, until the gun writers convinced us all that north american dangerous game suddenly became immune to the 30-06. what worked worldwide for 60 years was bouncing off of game, hunters everywhere were being charged, mauled, and eaten alive. this one sorta worked in reverse. the 30-06 was regulated to 130lb broadsided doesized game shot at 30yards. the .338, after awhile wasn't enough, and bigger magnums were introduced. i think this soured a lot of hunters. they quit the arms race and went back to the 30-06. the 35's were never hyped like the .338 was. there was an old saying that guys who hunt with the 30-30 don't read gun magazines, if they did, they would know better.
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Not exactly , I like the 243 WIN , 7mm-08 , the 260 REM and the 338 Federal .Tycer wrote:Horsepower junkie huh?6pt-sika wrote: I can't say I was overwhelmed by the 358 but I liked the Whelen and the 350 well enough .
I like the short action better than the horsepower. I love America.
Never cared much for the 308 WIN or the 358 WIN .
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
That 350 sure is a rocket.
Kind regards,
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
- AJMD429
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 32800
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
- Location: Hoosierland
- Contact:
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
I overheard a guy here in Indiana when they started the 'pistol caliber rifle' deer season, debating whether or not the .44 Mag would be 'enough for deer' so he elected to get a Handi-rifle in .500 S&W instead... I almost advised him he should get a .500 Nitro Express, because I'd heard some of the deer just don't drop with a solid hit from the .500 S&W.C. Cash wrote: But you can't tell that to someone who is convinced they have to have high velocity and tons of energy.
Last edited by AJMD429 on Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.
Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.
Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
- AJMD429
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 32800
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
- Location: Hoosierland
- Contact:
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Who, us...?O.S.O.K. wrote:They are not gun junkies or collectors, etc. - like many here...
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.
Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.
Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Where as I on the other hand would be more inclined to say what in the world would you want a 223 forJason_W wrote: Some people have asked me why I would want a .22 hornet over a .223.
The 223 , 308 and 06 all fall in the same category for me !
That category being "Not needed here !"
I'd rather have a 204 then the 223 , a 260 then the 308 and a 280 then the 06 .
I've had a fair share of accurate 223's , 308's and a couple 06's . I just never cared for them
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
A 350 REM MAG in all honesty is nothing more then a short action 35 Whelen . And with the short barrels they used on the 600's , 660's and 673's a bit of velocity loss might even make it less then a 22" barreled Whelen .Tycer wrote:That 350 sure is a rocket.
It's kinda like I've been wanting a 6.5mm/284 or 6.5mm REM MAG in a nice short action rifle . But in reality they're nothing more then a 6.5-06 and you can't seat the bullets out enough to get full usage of the powder capacity in the 284 or REM MAG case . So for the informed the plain vanilla old 6.5-06 is the easiest and best way to go . Although the thought of a 6.5mm WSM has me thinking a good bit lately . And it just so happens I am about to start working on a load in none other then a 6.5mm WSM for a friend in the very near future . Now if I got a nice used Remington Model 7CDL in 270 WSM and rebarreled to 6.5 WSM that just might be the ticket . Of course I don't need it , but what difference does that make
I suppose what all this boils down to is who cares what someone likes all that matters is whether or not the person that paid the bill was satisfied
Last edited by 6pt-sika on Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
AJMD429 wrote:I overheard a guy here in Indiana when they started the 'pistol caliber rifle' deer season, debating whether or not the .44 Mag would be 'enough for deer' so he elected to get a Handi-rifle in .500 S&W instead... I almost advised him he should get a .500 Nitro Express, because I'd heard some of the deer just don't drop with a solid hit from the .500 S&W.C. Cash wrote: But you can't tell that to someone who is convinced they have to have high velocity and tons of energy.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
What 45-70's and Triple Duece's kickBlaineG wrote:If you think a .35 kicks too much, you are not shooting your 45-70s and .444s enough
That ones news to me
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Love my 356 Win Model 94, Marlin, Mossberg would do well to make a run of these....handloaded with the newly available 35 cal Leveroution (sp) 200 gr. they would make a great hog and deer gun . I chrono my 200 gr. RN bullets at 2330fps. Love it...afish4570
afish4570
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Yep!Griff wrote:Because there's a perfectly good .30 caliber round that performs all necessary functions asked of it.
In 1895, with the .30-30 and the .30-40, and again in 1906 with the .30-06 the deal was sealed that when it came to rifles we were going to be a .30 cal country. They got the jump on everybody else and the gap never was able to be closed.
A lot of good rifle cartidges have come along since the early 1900s, but do they really do as much and do it as well as the .30-30 and the .30-06 do?
~Michael
- Old Savage
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 16793
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
How much power do you need to deliver and what delivers it at the longest range with the least recoil. That is what the public at large is going to go for.
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
If all you are hunting for here in Texas is our little tiny deer with the outsized antlers, then you don't need anything much bigger than a .223. A .35 caliber would probably do too much damage to these little critters here. On the other hand, I do know one man I used to work with who uses a 7mm Mag on them and is strangely proud that he gets only part of the backstraps and the hindquarters to eat. Nothing against the .35 caliber, but I have just never shot one except in .357 Mag.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
- El Chivo
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3652
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:12 pm
- Location: Red River Gorge Area
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
I remember Hobie posting that it was well known that the 32 Special was hard to handle compared to the 30-30, if that was the general consensus then the 35 would scare a lot of people away.
At the time these were being developed, didn't Britian use the .303 for all their colonial conquests?
At the time these were being developed, didn't Britian use the .303 for all their colonial conquests?
"I'll tell you what living is. You get up when you feel like it. You fry yourself some eggs. You see what kind of a day it is."
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
agree with AFISH. hornandy should have come out with a 180&225 grain gummies in the .356wcf instead of the .338 marlin. add in a buffaloe bore 250 grn hardcast flatnose, and the .356 would be ready for anything. i like new calibers, but HATE when the factories and custom loaders abanden a perfectly good cartridge and introduce one with identical ballistics. whatever the .338 can do, it aint enough to justify it's introduction, while making the .356 obsolete.
- O.S.O.K.
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 5533
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:15 pm
- Location: Deep in the Piney Woods of Mississippi
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
The .356 Win is obsolete? Don't let my Marlin 336 in that caliber hear that!
NRA Endowment Life
Phi Kappa Sigma, Alpha Phi 83 "Skulls"
OCS, 120th MP Battalion, MSSG
MOLON LABE!
Phi Kappa Sigma, Alpha Phi 83 "Skulls"
OCS, 120th MP Battalion, MSSG
MOLON LABE!
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Pillar, contrary to most peoples belief the 356 and 35 Rem. are fairly mild in the recoil dept. compared to 3006's especially with the 180 gr. load. I think less meat is lost on the smaller deer cause the bullets don't react as explosively. However the penetration,trajectory and knockdown power are adequate forMod 200 yd. shots at deer at any angle. My partners wife shoots a 243 BLR and shot the 356 Win. in a 94 Win and said the recoil was less than she expected. Really a rimmed 308 necked up to a 358 cal. while the 243 is a 308 sized down to 244 cal. Bullet is 200 gr. compared to 100 gr. with similar powder charges so you will get a reasonable increase in recoil but not punishing at all. IMHO it is a balanced cartridge much underated but is great for eastern deer, bear......afish4570
afish4570
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Maybe he said it but I don't agree with it !El Chivo wrote:I remember Hobie posting that it was well known that the 32 Special was hard to handle compared to the 30-30, if that was the general consensus then the 35 would scare a lot of people away.
I shoot quite a bit of 30-30 , 32 Special and 35 REM and NONE of them have much if any recoil !
And with that being said I presonally do not think the 356 WIN has much recoil or the 358 WIN . The 350 REM MAG is not bad at all and the 35 Whelen isn't noticable until you step up to the 250 grain bullets .
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
Well now lets seetman wrote:agree with AFISH. hornandy should have come out with a 180&225 grain gummies in the .356wcf instead of the .338 marlin. add in a buffaloe bore 250 grn hardcast flatnose, and the .356 would be ready for anything. i like new calibers, but HATE when the factories and custom loaders abanden a perfectly good cartridge and introduce one with identical ballistics. whatever the .338 can do, it aint enough to justify it's introduction, while making the .356 obsolete.
I have no less then a PAIR of Marlin 336ER's that are in 356 WIN and I now have no less then a PAIR of Marlin's that are in 338 Marlin Express !
So based on what you say I should be at an impass trying to decide which is better
But I've already killed something with each of the 356's one with a jacketed bullet and the other with a cast bullet !
So then lets throw in some more things ! I have no less then FOUR rifles in 33 cal ! A 33WCF that came out long before the 356 WIN was ever thought of ! I have 338 Federal which is none other then the old 338-08 that Ken Waters wrote about 10 years ago and now I have the lever version of the 338 Federal in the 338 Marlin Express . Pretty much the same deal as Winchester did with the 358 WIN and the 356 WIN .
You know it's great if folks want to resurrect old cartridges and it's great when the gun and ammo companies come up with seemingly new cartridges . I still say as long as it draws people to buy from the manufacturers and keep them in buisness the bottom line is it benefits us all
Who knows maybe Hornady in their infinite wisdom will see fit to make the Leverevolution ammo for the 356 WIN and 375 WIN ! Lord knows I'd purchase a box or two of each just to try on paper and some poor unsuspecting deer
But make the 356 ammo at about 190 and the 375 ammo with about a 225 grain bullet
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
- El Chivo
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3652
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:12 pm
- Location: Red River Gorge Area
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
I think the context was, such was the opinions among the adults when he was a kid. I didn't mean to say that's his opinion now. We're talking about the bottleneck 32, as opposed to the 32/20.6pt-sika wrote:Maybe he said it but I don't agree with it !El Chivo wrote:I remember Hobie posting that it was well known that the 32 Special was hard to handle compared to the 30-30, if that was the general consensus then the 35 would scare a lot of people away.
I shoot quite a bit of 30-30 , 32 Special and 35 REM and NONE of them have much if any recoil !
And with that being said I presonally do not think the 356 WIN has much recoil or the 358 WIN . The 350 REM MAG is not bad at all and the 35 Whelen isn't noticable until you step up to the 250 grain bullets .
But dude, you're just tough. I went shooting groups with my 35 Rem in the summer, wearing a t-shirt. I was getting nauseous from the recoil. On the other hand, when I fired it at a deer in the field, wearing a vest, I didn't feel it at all.
"I'll tell you what living is. You get up when you feel like it. You fry yourself some eggs. You see what kind of a day it is."
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
the reasn for the .356 was to extend the range and power of the win94, marlin36. the cartridges you mentioned were and are great. they are chambered in either modern box magazine levers, or 1886 sized base rifles. it would be interesting to compare ballistics of the .338 marlin and a .356 with a gummy bullet from 20"barrels. i like all the rounds you mentioned. i hope the .338 makes it big.
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
What I said was that some "experts" said the .32 WS was "more powerful" and "killed quicker" than the .30-30. I also said that around here the .32 WS was the "experts'" gun. That was based on the idea that the "experts" were more knowledgeable, not that they handled recoil better.El Chivo wrote:I remember Hobie posting that it was well known that the 32 Special was hard to handle compared to the 30-30, if that was the general consensus then the 35 would scare a lot of people away.
At the time these were being developed, didn't Britain use the .303 for all their colonial conquests?
Sincerely,
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Re: Why don't .35 cal rifle historically do very well in the US?
You should know better than to even think that I said that!6pt-sika wrote:Maybe he said it but I don't agree with it !El Chivo wrote:I remember Hobie posting that it was well known that the 32 Special was hard to handle compared to the 30-30, if that was the general consensus then the 35 would scare a lot of people away.
I shoot quite a bit of 30-30 , 32 Special and 35 REM and NONE of them have much if any recoil !
And with that being said I presonally do not think the 356 WIN has much recoil or the 358 WIN . The 350 REM MAG is not bad at all and the 35 Whelen isn't noticable until you step up to the 250 grain bullets .
The .35 Rem does have more recoil in like weight guns compared to the .30-30 because it has about 38 gr. more ejecta at about the same velocity. BUT it isn't at all bothersome.
Sincerely,
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson