Lever action .35 remington

[hurrakane212]

I have had several people reccomend the .35 remington as oppsed to the 30-30 for a lever action gun. My questions are as follow:
How much better is it?
How much is the ammo compared to 30-30?
How widely available is the ammo?
Thanks ~Nathan

 

[epijunkie67]

I have both and have shot both. The 35 remington is a bigger, heavier, slower round than the 30-30 but they are so close that I don't know that you'll find much practical difference. The ammo selection for 30-30 is going to be much much better then for the 35. Not that it's hard to find 35 remington. I buy mine at Wal-Mart But they might have only one kind of ammo for the 35 and half a dozen different kinds of 30-30.

Recoil is about the same for either. To compare rounds I checked the winchester site. They list 5 different 30-30 rounds and only one 35 remington round. I compared the super X power point loads for both guns, 200 grain for 35 remington and 150 & 170 grain loads for the 30-30. The 30-30 rounds had more velocity and more ft/lbs of energy and less bullet drop at every range than the 35 remington.

The only reason I have a 35 is I found it used at a local gun store in brand new condition and it already had a scope on it and the asking price was insanely low. I mean, if you're just going to give them away...

Unless you reload I suspect that ammo selection, availability, and price will almost always be better for the 30-30. The 35 gives you about another 30-40 grains in weight and a 35 vs 30 caliber round at the expense of a slightly lower velocity.

If I were only going to have one lever gun I'd make it a 30-30.

 

[foghornl]

I have shot both a .30/30 and .35Rem Mdl 336 Marlins in a "side-by-side" comparison test, and couldn't tell very much difference in them. Might have just been the particular ammo selections, but to me, the .35 had a little bit of a deeper toned "BOOM!" than the .30/30.

Don't suspect you would find much difference in performance on Bambi out to 200 Yards or so, either.

Probably the largest difference will be in the price of ammo and the number of factory loads available. You can still sometimes find .30/30 on sale for $7 or $8 per 20...not so for the .35

 

[AH-1]

they are very close in performance and 30-30 is alot cheaper ammo to buy.

 

[rbernie]

Epijunkie67 pretty much nailed it. Having said that, I prefer my 35 Remington over my 30-30 for hunting inside of 100 yards or so simply because it makes a demonstrably bigger hole. It just has more SPLAT power. I also handload, which negates much of the advantage (ammo availability) of the 30-30 over the 35 Remington.

I really like the ability to load the same hardcast 180gr-200gr lead bullets in both my 357s and my 35 Remingtons.

 

[JNewell]

For myself, if I wanted to move up from .30, I think I'd go all the way to .45-70. The Marlin 1895 series is built on the 336 receiver, so size and weight are not all that different and the bullet diameter is authoritatively larger.

 

[ArmedBear]

...or get a nice little Marlin 1894C and shoot hot .357 loads for hunting.

Hot .357 loads can give performance in the .30-30/.35 Rem ballpark, at least out to 100 yards where the bullet shape starts to catch up with you, and the 1894 is a wonderfully compact, light gun. Furthermore, it will shoot cheaper ammo for plinking and practice, and it can be paired up with a nice revolver.

Depends what you need, of course.

The new LEVER ammo concept supposedly works the best in .30-30, if you want more distance.

 

[retnav05]

I have a Marlin 336ER in .356 Win. It shoots like a dream and doesnt kick nearly as bad as I thought it would. The 356 is basically a 308 necked up, with a rim. Win came up with the 307 the same year. This gun can take down any game in North America easily, out to 200 yds. I dont know why it didnt catch on. The only downside is ammo is expensive and hard to come by.

 

[GooseGestapo]

There is a noticeable difference in the "put-down" capability of the .35. As for velocity, there is scant difference between the factory loaded 200gr vs. the 170gr (.35 vs .30/30). Especially inside 75yds as has been noted.

I have both, handload for both, and like both.

It has more to do with the firearm they are in than capabilities of the cartridges.

Either (handloaded) are capable of easily putting deer down at ranges far exceeding most hunters/shooters ability to shoot them.

Bullet selection is very critical to either cartridge.

Either the .30/30 or .35 sighted in 2.5" high at 100yds are zero at 150yds and down approx. 4.0" at 200yds; this gives a 200+yd point blank effectiveness to either.

But, the .35 does have more "splat" as another poster noted.

Inside 75yds, the .35 equals my .30/06 experiences (numerous), as well as .338/06, and .45/70.

I wouldn't want to give up either. My .30/30 is a Glenfield 30, and has a half magazine, and weighs approx. .75lb less than my .35.

If I plan on carrying the gun all day stalking/walking up pigs on a river bottom, I might prefer the .30/30.

But, it really depends on which I just "feel" like taking that day!!!!

My .35 loads get 2,300fps w/ a Rem 200gr Cor-lokt. (slightly over book max. loads w/H4895.
The .30/30 gets 2,385fps w/150gr Rem Cor-lokt over 35.0gr of RL-15.
Both have 20" bbl's.

The .35 has a 3-9x scope for "twilight" hunting in afternoon.
The .30/30 wears a reciever sight for speed while gunning running pigs/deer during "daylight" hours. This way, it weighs more than a pound less than the .35.

YMMV