That's about the biggest "old wives tale" out there. I sold my .35 after killing enough deer with it to reach the conclusion that it just wasn't quite as effective as my .30-30 and that all the gun pundits who praised it for it's superior killing power throughout the years were just plain full-o-chit .
A 35 caliber, 200 grain bullet moving at essentially the same speed as a lighter and smaller 30-30 bullet "less" effective? Holy defies physics Batman!
I have owned and used both the 30-30 and a 35 Remington. The 35 has consistently put animals down faster and with better blood trails. In fact I would say that the 30-30 is "THE CALIBER" for any skilled tracker looking for a supreme challenge. Never spent so much time searching for deer without a blood trail in my life.
Well Todd, I've killed nigh on 70 deer with the .30-30 and 15 with the .35 and I beg to differ. No question the .30-30 has put them on the ground quicker for me on average, given similar shot placement. Velocity isn't the same between the two {actual chronographed factory load speeds run about 1950 for 200 gr .35's, 2300 for 150 gr. 30-30's and 2100 for the 170's all out of 20" barreled Marlin 336's} and in my experience, the .30-30's bullets just plain expand better/ more dependably {particularly at longer distances}. Blood trails have rarely been needed for me when using the .30-30, as it's been a fairly rare thing for deer to make it out of sight after being well hit. On the few occasions when one has, blood trails have always been adequate. I've yet to lose a single deer with the .30-30 and rarely have I had one travel more than 60 yards after being shot. My .35 punched one too many deer through and through, leaving essentially .35 caliber holes in and .35 caliber holes out, with relatively little damage in between.
