35 remington for Elk ?

[Old Stumpy]

A Marlin in .35 Remington fitted with aperture sights would make a fine 100+ yard deer/elk rifle. Much flatter and more compact than a bolt action with a scope.

 

[Charlie Martinez]

Ive had my Marlin 336 (35 Rem) since 1974 and its one of my keeper, never sell guns. I have only shot hogs at short ranges & for that it is deadly. However it is supposed to be fine for moose for shots up to 150 yards so a smaller animal like an elk should not be a problem within 175 to 200 yards.
I read that Elmer Keith killed an elk with one shot from a 44 Magnum revolver at 600 yards. Anyone else read that article? If it's true the 35 Rem should be able to do at least the same provided the shot landed in the right spot.

 

[eastbank]

my .35 Remington is a early 1941 Remington 141 that is one of the best deep woods rifles made, 12 0z soda cans at 100 yards are easy targets, Remington 200 grain corelocks.

 

[Peakbagger46]

 

[ThomasT]

Rubbish.

A 336 in 35 Remington weights 7 lbs. And half your bolt actions do not weigh less than 7lbs scoped. Such a silly thing to say for no apparent reason.

I don't know about everyone else but I think its pretty bad form to come here and call someone a liar, especially a long time poster like JMR40. If he says he has bolt actions that weigh less than 7 lbs I have no reason not to believe him. I had a Reming 700 mountain rifle in 7x57 that weighed 6.25 pounds without scope. Thats only 1/4 pound more than the model 7 in 7-08 I own.

 

[357smallbore]

75-100 yrds with a good 200grn bullet. And you do your part in placing the bullet in the right spot. Your freezer will be filled for winter!

 

[357smallbore]

I read that Elmer Keith killed an elk with one shot from a 44 Magnum revolver at 600 yards

Old Elmer said he killed a wounded deer at 600 yards with his 44 mag. And it took several hits to drop it.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I don't know about everyone else but I think its pretty bad form to come here and call someone a liar, especially a long time poster like JMR40. If he says he has bolt actions that weigh less than 7 lbs I have no reason not to believe him. I had a Reming 700 mountain rifle in 7x57 that weighed 6.25 pounds without scope. Thats only 1/4 pound more than the model 7 in 7-08 I own.

While I have no doubt that there are bolt actions that weigh under 7 pounds, and that Doc Rock's comment seems a bit rude, I place no specific credibility on any member just because he is a long time poster.
There is nothing in the rules here about seniority. This isn't a labor union.
And, while I am sure that JMR40 is both intelligent and credible, that has nothing to do with how long he has been posting.

 

[TikkaShooter]

Cartridge and rifle are both elk capable. At a minimum, you will want a good aperture sight and lots of practice. There are very, very, few people that can hit with anything like precision beyond 50 yards with buckhorns. An vintage Weaver K-4 or something like it would be a great aid.

You mean a rig complete with the Weaver K-series similar to this:

The scope was added to see horns in thick East coast forests.. It is quite accurate to 100 yards; where we hunted; very few shots, if any were past 100.
Its serial number starts with an R. My father bought a Rem 760 in the early 1960s and even though it was a hand me down; it was my first commercial built deer rifle.
It was quite the deer slayer and in its effective range, I doubt it would have any problem harvesting an elk.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Cartridge and rifle are both elk capable. At a minimum, you will want a good aperture sight and lots of practice. There are very, very, few people that can hit with anything like precision beyond 50 yards with buckhorns. An vintage Weaver K-4 or something like it would be a great aid.

Buckhorns are just open sights, just as the sights on most military Mausers, 03 Springfields, and SMLE rifles. In two world wars I am sure that these open sights on these rifles killed many enemy soldiers at 100 yards and more.

I think that we all know that buckhorn sights killed a lot of game at 100 yards and beyond in the 19th century on up to WW2, before scopes became reliable, cost-effective, and popular.

Saying that very, very few people can use them effectively for hunting beyond 50 yards is completely untrue.
I recall shooting a 2" bench group with a new old stock Polish made Mosin carbine at 100 yards right out of the grease.

What you should be saying is that YOU can't hit anything with open sights.

 

[DocRock]

Buckhorns are just open sights, just as the sights on most military Mausers, 03 Springfields, and SMLE rifles. In two world wars I am sure that these open sights on these rifles killed many enemy soldiers at 100 yards and more.

I think that we all know that buckhorn sights killed a lot of game at 100 yards and beyond in the 19th century on up to WW2, before scopes became reliable, cost-effective, and popular.

Saying that very, very few people can use them effectively for hunting beyond 50 yards is completely untrue.
I recall shooting a 2" bench group with a new old stock Polish made Mosin carbine at 100 yards right out of the grease.

What you should be saying is that YOU can't hit anything with open sights.

Everybody can have an opinion. But don’t tell me what I’m saying or what I mean. I’m saying very few people can shoot iron sights with accuracy. Because truth. There are lots of things people used to know how to do. And don’t now.

 

[Slamfire]

What you should be saying is that YOU can't hit anything with open sights.

I shot a deer with a Finnish M27, distance was probably 45 feet or less. Even though it was close up, I had to use the front sight wings to center the shot because the low light and the dark fur of the deer made it impossible to see the post. A shooter will always see better, be able to aim at something with the cross hairs, and place the shot better than with irons. Not all shots are made with good illumination and contrasting targets. I have shot tens of thousands of rounds in competition with irons and I know that the further the target is from the shooter, the more critical the stock weld and sight alignment are with irons. This takes practice, lots of it. And the further the animal is out, you are basically putting the post in the middle, whereas with a scope, you can see the shoulder, or a patch of white, and aim at it.

I think it is prudent to put a scope on a hunting rifle as you are more likely to place your shot and reduce the animal's suffering.

 

[ThomasT]

While I have no doubt that there are bolt actions that weigh under 7 pounds, and that Doc Rock's comment seems a bit rude, I place no specific credibility on any member just because he is a long time poster.
There is nothing in the rules here about seniority. This isn't a labor union.
And, while I am sure that JMR40 is both intelligent and credible, that has nothing to do with how long he has been posting.

My opinion on jmr40 is based on reading his post over several years and never seen anything he has written that would ever make me doubt his credibility. And I sure wouldn't come here and call anyone a liar. Seeing someone else do that in their post causes me to lose any respect I had for them no matter if they are a new poster or a long time member.

 

[Gordon]

I had to narrow down my .35 Remingtons in last 5 years or so. They were a favorite of mine and I had and used a Model 8 , a model 81 and a model 141 Remingtons, I had a Marlin 336 rifle .35 wit a tang sight that was beautiful from 1960 and a little Texan Carbine that was well used but still printed those 200 Corlokts in 3" with it's open sights at 100 yards . Now a days I have just a Remigton 500 carbine with a 1-4x Leupold and a TC Contender Super 16" with a 2x Leupold LER scope and Pachy grips which are my go to apple orchard Blacktail deer and Hog guns. The 600 bolt gun shoots into less than 1" at 100 yards and is an easy killer to 250 yards and I make "special " loads for it with 180 grain spitzers at 2400 fps in that rifle and 2200 fps in the 16" contender .

 

[Captcurt]

I think that my Kimber Hunter weighed 5 1/2 bare, but that is beside the point. A 35 Rem should have no problem with an elk out to 100-150 yards with a proper bullet. Personally I would want a low power scope for hunting timber. A peep could be a handicap in dim light. JMO.

 

[Captcurt]

my .35 Remington is a early 1941 Remington 141 that is one of the best deep woods rifles made, 12 0z soda cans at 100 yards are easy targets, Remington 200 grain corelocks.

Don't mean to hijack the thread but I love the old Remington pumps. I have a friend who collected them until a couple of years ago. I sold them on GB for him. He had 14's, 141,as well as the old 08's and 81's autoloaders in all of their calibers. COOL!

 

[DocRock]

My opinion on jmr40 is based on reading his post over several years and never seen anything he has written that would ever make me doubt his credibility. And I sure wouldn't come here and call anyone a liar. Seeing someone else do that in their post causes me to lose any respect I had for them no matter if they are a new poster or a long time member.

Well you certainly have the bit between your teeth in trying to stir up trouble. I am fairly certain that if jmr cares to take issue, he is perfectly capable of doing so. In the mean time you may wish to focus on issues that involve you. Good day.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Everybody can have an opinion. But don’t tell me what I’m saying or what I mean. I’m saying very few people can shoot iron sights with accuracy. Because truth. There are lots of things people used to know how to do. And don’t now.

Because truth? Your truth? Got any proof to back up this statement?
Soldiers in two world wars using open sights would have disagreed with you.

And simply because you have not the patience to learn to use open sights does not mean that others have not.
If shooters and hunters were able to use them effectively before WW2 then obviously there is no reason why any shooter or hunter today could not do so.
It isn't that difficult to use open sights, as anyone who target shoots with a handgun will agree.
I learned to shoot with them and I still use open sights effectively.
It ain't rocket science.

And I am not telling you what you are saying.
I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[DocRock]

Because truth? Your truth? Got any proof to back up this statement?
Soldiers in two world wars using open sights would have disagreed with you.

And simply because you have not the patience to learn to use open sights does not mean that others have not.
If shooters and hunters were able to use them effectively before WW2 then obviously there is no reason why any shooter or hunter today could not do so.
It isn't that difficult to use open sights, as anyone who target shoots with a handgun will agree.
I learned to shoot with them and I still use open sights effectively.
It ain't rocket science.

And I am not telling you what you are saying.
I am saying that you don't know what you are talking about.

People used to know how to preserve food by canning. Most American men used to know how to change the oil on their car. The world has moved on Old Stumpy. That you haven’t is irrelevant. And I do have proof. Go to a range and see how many people are shooting open irons. I compete monthly with a Krag and iron sights. I can. Most can’t. What people did in WWII has no bearing on 2019.

 

[Old Stumpy]

People used to know how to preserve food by canning. Most American men used to know how to change the oil on their car. The world has moved on Old Stumpy. That you haven’t is irrelevant. And I do have proof. Go to a range and see how many people are shooting open irons. I compete monthly with a Krag and iron sights. I can. Most can’t. What people did in WWII has no bearing on 2019.

A lot of people still can food as a hobby. And I still change my own oil and filter as many others still do. Consult You-tube.
However these bizarre references are irrelevant to the issue.

And while the majority of hunters do use scopes, this too is irrelevant. I stated that anyone can learn to use open sights effectively and easily and I have proven it by learning to target shoot handguns first before I ever learned to shoot an open sighted rifle. And just because a majority of hunters CHOOSE to use scopes does not mean that they are physically unable to learn to use use iron sights.

The fact that you can shoot well with open sights (as you claim) is also proof that anyone can easily learn to shoot well with open sights.
Your belief that only you can learn to shoot well with open sights while others can not strikes me as elitist and false. It isn't rocket science.

Also when you claim that what ordinary civilian soldier recruits could learn to do well in WW2 has no bearing on 2019 is also false IMHO.
If a man could learn to shoot with open sights accurately then with a minimum of training, then obviously he can learn to do it just as well now.

Unless you are claiming that human beings have evolved so much in 80 odd years that they have lost this ability.

 

[DocRock]

Stop. Nobody can learn to use open sights easily. Read an Army training manual. Look around you. Face the facts. Learning to shoot open sights is hard and takes a lot of practice. That's why most rifles don't even come with iron sights anymore. You are beating a horse so dead it's beginning to fossilize. I understand your forum name.

 

[Goosey]

Stop. Nobody can learn to use open sights easily.

 

[DocRock]

View attachment 862315

Okay. You win. Afterall it was in a movie so...

 

[brewer12345]

I put a vintage 3X scope on Dad's 1958 336 in 35 Rem. Shoots tiny groups at 100 yards. Inside 150 yards I would not hesitate to use it on elk.

As for open sights, I could only get muzzleloader tags for deer and elk this year and my state does not allow any kind of optic for these tags. I have been spending a lot of time learning to shoot charcoal burners and getting used to shooting open sights at 100 yards again with rifles that are significantly less accurate than the 336 or my 30-06. If you are trying to reliably hit a kill zone on a deer or elk, it is simply a matter of practice (ad in my case, an upgrade to the contact lens prescription). As an aside, it seems ludicrous to pour 110 grains of powder into a muzzleloader after settling on a standard load of 4.5 grains of bullseye for 45 ACP, but there it is.

 

[cdb1]

I believe a .35 Remington is excellent for elk within its range limitations.

I haven’t agreed with EVERYTHING jmr40 has posted which is as it should be, everyone is different. But I do believe in the veracity of his posts and it is common knowledge there are plenty of sub-seven pound bolt action rifles around.