Why didn't Winchester chamber the 35 Rem cartridge?

[86er]

Is it as simple as not promoting a Remington cartridge or is there more to it?

[Hobie]

Maybe it is as simple as preferring the certain handling of rimmed cartridges. Maybe not. I imagine that a list of pros and cons was bandied about at meetings and the .35 Rem simply lost out. It wasn't Winchester, it wasn't rimmed, it wasn't popular enough, it wasn't... well, whatever and it just wasn't put in their leverguns. IIRC it was chambered in the 54 and 70 rifles.

[Modoc ED]

Is it as simple as not promoting a Remington cartridge or is there more to it?

I think it's as simple as that.

[Old Savage]

They did chamber it in the Model 70 and you can read about it in Ken Waters' Pet Loads.

[COSteve]

I'm guessing that with only .003" larger rim dia. than the cartridge base, Winchester may not have felt it's bolt / extractor design was adequate without some redesign. That would have made offering the 35 Rem. more costly.

[Don McDowell]

My guess is no they didn't want to stamp nothing on the barrel that didn't involve wcf.
The other thing is with the shallow shoulder of the 35 rem combined with the rimless case they may have been concerned about headspace issues in the 94.
Given that 35 rifle cartridges have never been particularly successful, and they were producing the 348......and the 35 wcf was somewhat of a flop....

[Sixgun]

My guess is no they didn't want to stamp nothing on the barrel that didn't involve wcf.
Given that 35 rifle cartridges have never been particularly successful, and they were producing the 348......and the 35 wcf was somewhat of a flop....

Thats exactly my guess. Winchester's own 35 caliber did not exactly set the world on fire and they sure did not want a Remington cartridge outdoing theirs. The 1895 could have easily been chambered for the 35 Rem.

In that era, one company did not want to promote another's cartridge unless is was profitable for them or could somehow make hunters change loyalty.

Remington, Winchester, Marlin, S&W, and Colt all had cartridges that were identical to another companies cartridge but was called another name.
Off the top of my head:
Colt had the 38 Colt Special---S&W had the 38 S&W Spl.
In their 14 and 1/2 rifles, Remington called Winchesters 38 WCF the 38-40 Remington
Colt & S&W each had their own names on short 38 handgun cartridges
Winchester had the 40-65, Marlin had the 40-60
The list goes on and on. I have an 1899 Savage (factory letter, made in 1901) that is chambered & listed in the records as a 30-30 but the barrel is properly marked 30 Savage----------Sixgun

[Bogie35]

My guess is no they didn't want to stamp nothing on the barrel that didn't involve wcf.
The other thing is with the shallow shoulder of the 35 rem combined with the rimless case they may have been concerned about headspace issues in the 94.
Given that 35 rifle cartridges have never been particularly successful, and they were producing the 348......and the 35 wcf was somewhat of a flop....

I think you hit the nail on the head, Mr. McDowell.

bogie

[Don McDowell]

Well even a blind hog.......

[kaschi]

Like Hobie said, the Model 70 was chambered for the 35 Remington so it's not like Winchester had a problem stamping "Remington" on a rifle. Another member said that Winchester was already making the Model 71 in 348 so that sounds like a good reason not to chamber the 35 Rem in the 94(plus they were making the 94 in 38-55 for a good part of the early 20th Century which competed against the 35 Rem as far as similar calibers go). Extraction of a rimless casing in the 94 action probably is not an issue. After all, the 1895 was chambered in 30-06 and it extracts just fine using the same setup for an extractor as the 94. I don't know how feasible a rimless cartridge is in the 94 action due to the lower link's ability to control the rounds out of the mag tube into the action. There is a "tit"(for lack of a better term on the lower link that performs this act. A rimless casing would probably not work here. Although.... they could probably have built it up higher to achieve this. But it's hard to say. I always thought a 94 Trapper Carbine in 35 Remington would have been OUTSTANDING!!!

[Mike D.]

Let's not forget the far superior .35WCF that was previously offered in the '95 Winchester. It was, and still is, a very potent round.

[Leverdude]

I'd think the fact that it just wasn't a lever action cartrige might have had something to do with it. Marlin didn't do it until almost 1950. I like it ok & have a couple but it never did anything special for me.
Winchester, just like Marlin, never had much trouble chambering for a cartrige & changing the name a bit to suit them if they chose to do so. 38/55 Win & 30/30 respectively come to mind, 38/55 starting out as a Marlin/Ballard chambering and the 30/30 starting as the 30WCF.

[greyowl]

Maybe it looked like it would cut into interest in the 32 spl.? Since the 32 was very popular in mid-century, when Marlin added the 35 to it's lineup. Just a thought.

[Bogie35]

It was probably because of the increased cost to modify the action to handle the rimless case. Winchester has been all about "the bottom line" for most of the last 60 years.

bogie

[Bogie35]

Sorry. I shouldn't have said that.



bogie

[RKrodle]

I think it may be as simple as a decision, at whatever level, was made not to use a rimless cartridge in the 94 action.

[Hobie]

It was probably because of the increased cost to modify the action to handle the rimless case. Winchester has been all about "the bottom line" for most of the last 60 years.

bogie

That's true. If they didn't think it would sell.

Most companies are all about the bottom line. They have to be to survive. BUT, what that does is get us good product at a good price.

[Bogie35]

The word "survive" is a relative term. To most, it means to keep your nose above water. But to some, it means to keep your multi-million dollar home "well-appointed".

I harken to the year "1964".

Yep. There's a fine line between "Survival" and "Greed".

I guess, when it's all said and done, regardless of "bottom lines" and "survival", Winchester just didn't feel like chambering the 35 Remington in the 94. And in 2006, they just didn't feel like making any more 94's. It's their prerogative.

However, does it really cost so much to manufacture a Model 92 that they have to set the MSRP at $1,029?? Marlin asks less than $600 for an 1894C. Hmmmmmmmm. I think Winchester's idea of "survival" might be a little flamboyant.

bogie

[rhead]

It was probably because of the increased cost to modify the action to handle the rimless case. Winchester has been all about "the bottom line" for most of the last 60 years.

bogie

And when they deviated from that attitude they went out of business. Maybe there is a lesson there.

[Leverdude]

The word "survive" is a relative term. To most, it means to keep your nose above water. But to some, it means to keep your multi-million dollar home "well-appointed".

I harken to the year "1964".

Yep. There's a fine line between "Survival" and "Greed".

I guess, when it's all said and done, regardless of "bottom lines" and "survival", Winchester just didn't feel like chambering the 35 Remington in the 94. And in 2006, they just didn't feel like making any more 94's. It's their prerogative.

However, does it really cost so much to manufacture a Model 92 that they have to set the MSRP at $1,029?? Marlin asks less than $600 for an 1894C. Hmmmmmmmm. I think Winchester's idea of "survival" might be a little flamboyant.

bogie

I think it probably does cost significantly more to build any of Winchesters lever actions than it does Marlins. Likely a big part of Winchesters recent issues was trying to keep the 1894 in the same price range of the 336. All favoritism aside Marlins are just a much simpler action and the various models are really just differing sizes of the same action. Pryor to the 336 a 1894 was just a short 1893 which was a small 1895. The 336 & 1894 still share all the same screws & wood.

I'm not even certain how many different parts are inside a Winchester 94, but a 336 only has 2, or 5 if you count the lever, bolt & ejector.

I dont think deviateing from being about the bottom line pushed them under as much as the realities of current production costs. A 1892 costs what it costs because thats what it costs to build one, a 1894, being at least as complicated cant be profitable to make for $400, least not in the USA. Maybe Rossi could do it.

[Don McDowell]

Back when Winchester sold the 73,92, and 94 they all cost the same from the factory. Should cost the same today. Thing is tho theres a huge demand for the 92's and small supply therefore the double price for a winchester marked 92. Nothing to do with parts.

The Marlin is just as complicated to build as a Winchester and not enough difference in parts, the Marlin is a bigger pain in the butt to barrel.

[Cliff]

35 Remington was brought out in the Model 8 at the request of the Belgium maker of Browning Arms, designed by John Browning. They wanted something to compete with Mannlicher's little carbine in 9X56. Winchester wasn't interested in making a new rifle trying to sell their line of semi auto self loading rifles in 32, 351 and 401 calibers. Winchester had sold bunches of the 35's to Franch in WWI. They tried to push their little self loaders to hunters here in the states but they were not real popular with Deer hunters. I think it was Ken Waters who commented that if they had wanted a .35 caliber lever for Deer they would have gone to the 35-30 based on the 30-30 in the M-1984 model. Of course I could be wrong. Have a good time. ATB

[Leverdude]

Back when Winchester sold the 73,92, and 94 they all cost the same from the factory. Should cost the same today. Thing is tho theres a huge demand for the 92's and small supply therefore the double price for a winchester marked 92. Nothing to do with parts.

I kinda agree, I just dont think they could make a 94 profitably for the price the sold for, if they sold 94's for $7 or $8 hundred like a 92 it'd be prifitable. I dont think however theres a huge demand for 92's. Just looks that way because its not a standard item. If there was a huge demand I think they'd have kept making them. WE want them, but the gun buying public at large is more interested in whiz bang calibres & like to scope things.

The Marlin is just as complicated to build as a Winchester and not enough difference in parts, the Marlin is a bigger pain in the butt to barrel.

This I'm not sure I can agree with. But I dont build guns from scratch either. That said it sure seems a much simpler action with many universal parts. Thats one of the things that got me into rebuilding the Marlins over Winchesters. Its simple to do. John Brownings lever actions were complex machines by comparison. Why is a Marlin harder to barrel?

I keep coming back to the cartrige guides, they control the cartrige by the rim no? Maybe a rimless cartrige like the 35 would have caused trouble in a 94 action.

[madman4570]

I dont think those Winchesters could handle all that power? Ok----Just Kidding!

[Don McDowell]

If the 94's weren't profitable they would of been axed long ago, much like the 73,86,85,71, and 88's were.
The demand for 92;s is big enough that there are 3 offshore varietys from junk to high priced , yet whenever Winchester makes a run of 92's they are snapped up in short order and immediately appreciate in price.

The barrel shanks on the Marlins are a bit of a pain to fit properly.

They just never saw the need to put the 35 remington in the 94. They had to many other cartridges that would compete with it, and used to be companies took pride in their own work, so with the huge feud between Remington and Winchester for Amercia's top rifle, there wasn't going to be much of any Remington stamps on a New Haven buit rifle.

[Don McDowell]

One more hunk of rawhide to chew on....
Marlin didn't put the 35 rem into their rifles until after the 336 model came out, and the waited until 1953, which is just about smack dab on the time line of when Winchester was busy trying to promote the 358. Might be the 35 rem was Marlins way of playing keeping up with the JOnes's?

[Mike D.]

My .35 Rem 336, serial #J54362, was manufactured in 1952, which must've been the first year for that caliber. I got it mixed up with my earlier .30-30.

35M.jpg

[madman4570]

Really the one back in the day I really wanted was the winnie 94 long barreled rifle in 32 Win Special.Some reason that gun floated my boat?

[Leverdude]

One more hunk of rawhide to chew on....
Marlin didn't put the 35 rem into their rifles until after the 336 model came out, and the waited until 1953, which is just about smack dab on the time line of when Winchester was busy trying to promote the 358. Might be the 35 rem was Marlins way of playing keeping up with the JOnes's?

Marlin started in 1950 with the 35. I have 3 from 1951.

JMHO but I think the reason they kept the 94 alive so long after axeing the others was to stay in the game, They were born & raised on leverguns & wanted to keep that reputation. They also realized the positive aspects of having one action for all calibres & put short calibers in the 94, with mixed results. I think if the 92 was just a short 94 they would have kept making them, but making two entirely different actions, each of which was hard to make money on was definately a loseing proposition.

Like you said, they make the 92 in spurts & folks buy them up, that keeps their price high enough to stay profitable. If they made thousands every year they'd flood the market, need to drop the price to move them and start loseing money again.

You can certainly be right about the reason why they never made a 35. I'm not sure why Marlin started but it coincides pretty close with the demise of the 32 special. Maybe they wanted to try something significantly heavier & fatter than a .308. But then again Winchester chambered alot of Model 70's for Remington calibers.

[Bogie35]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why Winchester decided not to offer the 35. It certainly wasn't going to break them one way or the other. Regardless, Winchester is out of the levergun business for all intents and purposes, and it's not because of sad circumstances "beyond their control". It's because of poor management.

When I wanted to buy a 94, each one I picked up looked like it had been manufactured by monkeys. Winchester had no reasonable excuse for offering a product manufactured from such cheap materials and sloppy workmanship. It was pure "sorriness". Now the pre-64's were fabulous, but hard to find in my neck of the woods. In fact, the only pre-64 Model 94's I've ever held in my hands were "not for sale".

That's why I have so little respect for the Winchester of recent years. Although I usually don't condemn mediocrity, I certainly don't see any good reason to vehemently defend it. The "good" Winchester is dead and gone, and has been for many years. I know of only 2 companies who are currently making high quality leverguns in 30-30 (and/or 35 Rem): Henry and Marlin.

Hopefully, when I can afford it again, I will get that pre-64 Model 94 30WCF of my dreams. Until then, I will love and pamper my properly manufactured Model 336 (35 Remington, of course).

bogie

[FWiedner]

I can't add to the history, development, or manufacturing part of the conversation, but I just wanted to say that I have a mid 1980's Model 94 in .356Win and it is a fine piece of machinery.

So there.

[jlchucker]

How about because back in the '50's and '60's they were offering the .358 Winchester caliber? That's actually a pretty good round, too. I can't remember if they offered it in the Model 88 levergun, but they surely were selling bolt action rifles in that caliber. Another reason may be that the Model 94 design doesn't work with rimless cartridges--at least not if the manufacturer wanted to avoid the expense of completely re-engineering and coming out with an entirely new concept in their existing product.

[El Chivo]

I was just perusing Midway and under rifle ammunition, there's one called "35 Winchester".

It looks like a cross between a 35 Rem and a 375 - longer case, 250 grain round nose bullet. $40.00 for a box of 5.

[tman]

I can't add to the history, development, or manufacturing part of the conversation, but I just wanted to say that I have a mid 1980's Model 94 in .356Win and it is a fine piece of machinery.

So there.

+1. too bad the .356 and 35 weren't interchangable. you can always find the 35 rem at dept. stores,but just try finding the .356

[shawn_c992001]

But yet how many Winchester rifles are chambered in 7mm REM. Mag?

[gon2shoot]

Win. didn't offer the 35 Rem. because of the boat. They missed it I love my 336.

[bcp]

All favoritism aside Marlins are just a much simpler action and the various models are really just differing sizes of the same action. Pryor to the 336 a 1894 was just a short 1893 which was a small 1895. The 336 & 1894 still share all the same screws & wood.

Winchester had about the same situation with the 1886 and the 1892 being different sizes of the same design. I always thought the 1894 would have been a better rifle if it was the 86-92 design sized for the 30 WCF family of cartridges.

Bruce