The 336 Club

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mo said:
I'm not certain I'd use a JHP on hogs, especially one going nearly 2600 fps.
Mo, please tell me what your reasoning is.

Oddly enough, I've found a hog hunting article (posted on my Hog 101 page) that claims that high velocity small bullets may actually stop hogs more quickly that large slow rounds, like .45-70 and slugs. The reasoning is interesting.

Not saying I know the answer -- I certainly don't -- but it is intriguing.

That was a comment just upstream in a brief tangent about 300 Blackout compared to .30-30. I commented that the Ruger Ranch -- which shoot 300 BO -- also shoots .223, and that I'm likely to buy one of those to fill an intermediate gap between 9mm and .30-30 in my kit.
 
The only thing I can say for certain about hunting is that there are NO certainties.

Anecdotal evidence based on my own experience suggests that JHP, especially pushed hard may not get sufficient penetration. I've not hunted hogs though I have several friends in Texas that dedicate a good deal of effort to eradicate them. My sample would be limited to Deer, Black Bear and Elk, the later two being able to absorb an impressive amount of punishment before giving up the ghost. In one such instance a friend shot a Blacktail Deer-not big as you know- perfect hit. Unfortunately the (recovered) bullet expanded to about double the caliber - just as advertised - and failed to completely penetrate even one lung. He went far and was difficult to find. This was not the first time but it was the last either of us has ever used them on game again.

My own strategy boils down to this. 1) Find or develop an accurate load with whatever you choose to hunt with, too many guys don't shoot enough, buy a box of whatever and discover that it prints no where near where they expect. 2) Use a projectile that will fully penetrate the critter. Exsanguination is the goal. Two holes bleed out faster than one. I do NOT buy the energy/shock/knock down formulas. I've seen critters absorb solid hits with little reaction, requiring a long track that during the subsequent autopsy (field dressing) amazed me that a critter could go that far with what was left of the vitals.

Two of the three fastest kills I've seen were with arrows. One on a Bear, was NOT a CNS shot but hit him right the offiswitch. The landing gear came up and he fell straight down and never moved again.

Another was when a dear friend and gentleman drew an Elk cow tag. He was well along in years, on his last Elk hunt of his life and knew he'd need help if successful. I was honored that he would share the experience with me. I was however disappointed in his choice of weapons. A 45-70 Sharps, using blackpowder as a propellant for maybe 1250 fps. At the time I was at the peak of my more velocity is better phase. I grew up in the heyday of WunderMags and believed Weatherby to be a divinely inspired man. Anyway, he was successful on the second day, she fell in her shadow. NO tracking required. We were close to camp. I still can't believe how perfectly it all went. It was the beginning of my conversion and from then on I started questioning conventional wisdom and believing what I was seeing with my own eyes.

I could go on and on but will spare you. These are things folks need to experience themselves. Hunting, for me at least, is a primal experience. Rarely has it gone according to any imagined script - a few Grouse and maybe one Deer, perhaps 1% or less of the time. Typically it is 'I was just about to give up' or suddenly, there he was, or... I can't remember a time I had a perfect shot or rest almost always offhand. I've passed on way more shots than I've taken for more reasons than I could possibly list. It's just how hunting plays out.

#3- It is easier to find a wife than it is a good hunting partner.
 
Last edited:
I'm still not clear. Are you suggesting that a 300 blackout rifle will fire .223/5.56?
Oooh, I see. No, no not at all. Sorry for not being more clear. It was probably late when I posted.

Ruger American Ranch is chambered in two calibers: .300 BO and .223. Someone upstream mentioned the .300 BO. I just stated that I wanted a Ruger in .223. I thought about .300 BO for a while, but after reading reviews, it's not that different from .30-30, and in some ways, not as good.
 
I have no doubt that 170's work. They're the king of .30-30. That pic ^ is evidence.
(What a beautiful animal. It must have been good eating. Beautiful shot placement.)

But I have different needs that exist in 125's that I explain in that other thread.

I'll still use 170's, 150's, probably 160's. But the 125's are getting mixed in.
 
I think I'm going to cut my 336 barrel to 18"

I had an epiphany of sorts earlier about this.

I've been pondering whether I was going to go with a 16.5" or 17.5".

336 also comes in 18.5", so that was a thought, too.

But in a flash of insight during afternoon, as I reviewed reading material for an evening meeting,
is that I think the right length for me is probably intermediate between 20" and 16", right at 18".

I'll try to explain my reasoning later, and let you poke holes in it if need be, so I can adjust.

But for now, it occurred to me that the important thing to me is not barrel length per se, but rifle length.
Consistent rifle length for my main rifles (I only have two, but that will grow to three soon.)
 
Last edited:
One of my hunting partners. This one is a 35 Remington.
001F0519-F1E9-4907-97E8-D3D0AB762944.gif

There are more in the safe. All of them wear Skinners. Sent a 336W in 30-30 out to JES and it came back a 356 Winchester :)
 
My pack is an Eberlestock Halftrack.

This is sans .30-30. No longer.

attachment.php
 
Some Mo thoughts:

Prioritize what you need the rifle to do - portability, hunting, zombie killing, target shooting, silhouette matches, wall decoration, collectability ... etc - then find/build that rifle. Compromising is just another way to get a rifle you don't really want.
 
Dragon, that's really a great pic.

What's the pack?

Welcome.


Badlands Tree Stand. I forgot I broke a buckle at end of last season. Luckily it's only for one of the side pockets. I need to send it in to be repaired after this season.
 
Mo, for me, it's portability, hunting and zombies, in that order.

I'm actually excited about the impending mods: 18" plus VX Hog scope.
 
Ooooh, good question.

I'll tell you my thoughts about it -- later (I'm flying out in the morning; relaxing with a beer at my favorite tavern tonight -- and you can help me punch holes in it. We'll see if 16 or 18 wins in the end.

Briefly, for now, looking at Marlins that have an 18 or 18.5 just look "right" to me. The 16.5" just looks a bit short.

And going with 18" will put the 336 within half inch of the total length of my .22. Something appeals to me about that, but I don't know that I can articulate it.

And going with 18 would keep a few extra fps, even though I acknowledge it is negligible.

I'd be interested in here your (plural) thoughts, of course.
 
I've got lever actions in the 16.75" and 16.5" barrel length with youth stocks or 12.75" lop. I would never want anything longer or bigger. It is an absolute delight to handle in the field.
 
Good article.

For handloaders, especially those who use rifles in competitions, there won't be many, if any revelations in the article, as tuning their loads to their rifles and needs is common practice.

Aesthetics is important. That is undeniable, all of my leverguns (22, 32-20, 30-30, 38-55, 45-70) have octagonal barrels, not because they are better, it's because I like the way the look better.

3-Marlin019_zps5798d187.jpg

Another portability option.

1-Marlin016_zps4b995b44.jpg

Marlin 1893, (1905 vintage) chambered in 30-30.

I'll echo Sheepdog's comment, if portability is the virtue highest on the list I'd go as short and light as possible. We are carrying our rifles 99.99% of the time when we're in the field, a light handy rifle's superiority is most evident at those times and assuming the rifleman has gotten his reps, there will be no practical disadvantage in performance.
 
Looking for info. I have 2 Marlin 336s. A 35..336RC , 1967 model, the other is a 1972 30-30. All the 30-30 has 336, there is no other letter on it. Can some one tell me what type it is?
Both have been bloodied more than once, only long guns I have used in years.
Kajun Boy
 
Welcome to THR, Kajun Boy.

I'll defer to others for answers to your questions. Many here are far more knowledgeable than me on those kinds of questions.
 
Mo said:
I'll echo Sheepdog's comment, if portability is the virtue highest on the list I'd go as short and light as possible. We are carrying our rifles 99.99% of the time when we're in the field, a light handy rifle's superiority is most evident at those times and assuming the rifleman has gotten his reps, there will be no practical disadvantage in performance.
You guys have got me re-thinking this issue. I hear you.
 
My 336 arrived in FL today. Took me 5 min to get the shipping box open --
the packer built a good box to get it here safely (w/ the .22); I'll pay the $50 charge.

I used a screwdriver and pliers to get it open (breaking the staples). I had to hold it before beer-30.
It's fine, and ready to rock. It still goes, "Gletch glatch" ... or something similar.

Ammo also arrived. Includes 2 boxes of this.

Range. Next week ..

Then comes the day hike amongst hogs.
 
Kajun Boy, your gun is most likely a 336C. That was the standard model for that time frame. It's the same as the 336RC, but they dropped the R for 1969.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top