Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters A real writing on the 30-30

moosemike,

Not a big deal, but someday I'd like to see somebody post "SOME gun scribes" say so-and-so. Amazingly enough, despite what some shooters obviously think, gun writers don't agree any more than the members of the Campfire. I've also the same is true of African PH's, Alaskan guides, or any other group of hunters/shooters.

Personally, I haven't found either the .30-30 or .35 Remington significantly more effective than the other. But then I usually haven't found the sometimes amazing differences in "killing power" many hunters find in various cartridges of similar power either. My observation is that if an animal's hit in the right place with a bullet that expands and penetrates sufficiently, it's going to be dead, pretty soon. There probably is a difference in, say, the .270 Winchester and .375 H&H, but I've seen them drop a wide variety of big game both very quickly and relatively slowly. This leads me to suspect quick kills often depend more on the mood of the animal than the cartridge.

1948 336 A-DL.Gonna see how 190 Hawk's shoot.They shoot real good in 303 Savage's.Perfect for the distances I shoot Whitetail's here in the Northeast.Can't test it out in the yard 'tho. [img:center][/img] [img:center][/img]

Ok. Col. Whelen, Elmer Keith, Jack O'Connor, and Col. Askins have all said the .35 Rem.is more potent on deer size game than the .30-30. I know of other lesser known gunwriters who have said it too.

Hmmm...

Well they're all full of shyt as far as I can tell and I'd bet I've shot more deer with a .30-30 and probably as many with a .35 as any of them. I sent my .35 down the road years ago because it didn't do a damn thing the .30-30 couldn't do just as well or better and the .30-30 is easier and cheaper to feed.

Butch, thanks for the link. Fella has to smile a bit after reading some of that.

Up until just recently I had 3 .30-30s. One a single shot, a Model 94 Trapper and a Savage 24. Savage went down the pike a few weeks ago but it was a pretty fair shooter. The M94 is a predictable 1-1/2" shooter at 50 and around 4" at 100. Not terribly precise but more than adequate for the 50 yard or less realm of southern woods shooting. The pile of deer and other critters it has put down would challenge medium size trucks.

The SS is a T/C Contender and it doesn't get loaded hot at all. OTOH, it is stupid accurate for a 5# and change hunting rifle. Started out loading with Hornady ".30-30" bullets years back and eventually asked myself why? Sierra 150 spitzers don't ever go over 1" @ 100 yards, usually hovering around 3/4" for 5 shots. It uses an old El Paso K2.5 scope, a dash of RX15, a plastic stock, and is blessed with dust of newt tail. It sits idle these days as I play around with the Sneezer...but not forgotten. One of these days I need to get serious and see just what it can do...

Blackheart,
I think you're spot on. I went through a ten year period where I only hunted with the .30-30, .32 Special, and .35 Rem. When I got drawn for Moose I took my .30-30 over the .35 because I was more impressed with it. I felt the .32 Special was as good as the .30-30 but with few bullet choices.

I played around with handloading the 30-30 for quite a few years. It was fun, but found that I could not do much better than the cheapest Federal 150 grain blue box stuff out of my 1952 Marlin 336RC. I did find some useful loads using the 125 grain Sierra HP for a light recoiling kids rifle that still kills deer very well. I love the cartridge and feel that as factory loaded it is a very good 200 yard deer gun, maybe a little further.

moosemike,

You got me curious about what older gun writers said about the .30-30/.35 Remington. I'd read some of it before but not for a while. I don't have any Askins books that discuss the subject, but found some other interesting stuff:

In THE COMPLETE BOOK OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS (1965) Jack O'Connor says, "Because of its heavier bullet of larger diameter, the .35 Remington is possibly a bit superior in killing power to cartridges of the .30/30 and .32 Special class." But in THE RIFLE BOOK (1978) he says, "Because of the large diameter of the big heavy bullet, it [the .35 Remington] it kills much batter than cartridges of the .30-30 class." Exactly why he changed his mind so definitely in 13 years is a mystery, because while he used the .30-30 some when young, he apparently never used the .35 Remington on big game.

Maybe Ned Roberts, the inventor of the .257 Roberts, convinced him. In BIG GAME HUNTING (1947) Roberts wrote, "It is unfortunate the Model 64 Winchester is only available in [the .30-30 and .32 Special]; it would be a far better killer on deer and other big game if it was furnished for the .33 W.C.F., .35 Remington or some other similar cartridge developing more killing power."

In Townsend Whelen's THE HUNTING RIFLE (1940), the Colonel lists the 110 head of big game he'd taken to that point--49 with the .30-30 but none with the .35 Remington. He didn't take much more big game during the rest of his life, and that with more modern bolt-action cartridges. I couldn't find any mention in his writing about the .35 Remington being superior to the .30-30, but maybe he did in some magazine article.

Elmer Keith definitely felt the .35 Remington was superior to the .30-30, but like O'Connor apparently never used it himself. Maybe one of the many people he guided used the .35, but if so he doesn't provide any examples. However, I suspect he made the judgment based purely on bullet diameter and weight.

Some of the later references mention the supposed 2200 fps of the 200-grain factory load in the .35 Remington. Today the listed velocity is somewhat less but I have never chronographed any in the three .35's I've owned that beat 2000 fps, and none of the references in my library list any that got 2000 fps either, including Ken Waters' PET LOADS. I have been able to beat 2000 fps with handloads, in one rifle getting about 2150 with 200's, but today suspect the 2200 fps was always BS with factory stuff.

In contrast, all the .30-30 factory ammo I've chronographed in rifles came close to advertised velocities in 24" barrels, and 20" carbine barrels got within less than 100 fps. In an old outside-hammer Sauer drilling I used to own, factory loads came closer to .300 Savage velocities from the 28" barrel. This velocity advantage may be why the .30-30 kills about as well as the .35, despite less bullet weight and diameter.

I couldn't agree more. The 64's are, in my opinion, the nicest looking lever gun ever made. I picked mine up earlier this year. It shoots 170 grain Partitions wonderfully. I haven't hunted it yet but I'll be home next week and will get out for a few days for moose. I'll have to carry it a day or two.

I am also in agreement the Winchester M-64 is the most handsome rifle ever built....such classic lines for any rifle. I like most had to settle for the poor man's model 64...the Marlin 336-A. I just wish Marlin had slimed up the forearms to match the M-64.

Doc

On page 219 of THE HUNTING RIFLE (1940) Townsend Whelen writes " It (.35 Rem) is a good cartridge of moderate power and range for use on all American big game. It kills very well at medium ranges, being in this respect much superior to cartridges of the .30-30 class"

The Colonel has a list called "Summary of game shot at" on page 253. He doesn't list having ever used the .35 Rem on game.

Yeah, I found the list, but not the quote. Thanks!

I suspect a lot of the .30-30/.35 opinion is due to the common problem of gun writers getting some of their opinions from other people!

Actually, you may have provided an idea for an article--one of the reasons I'm a Campfire member. So thanks again!

The underlining is mine.

What I get from this is that O'Connor definitely didn't know that the 35 was better. He didn't have sufficient experience with either to form an opinion. He likely said that after talking with other hunters or writers. How do you say, politely, that he may have been 'talking through his hat'? You gotta fill pages with ink.

It's also wordy. 'possibly a bit superior' sounds indecisive. A guess. Conjecture. He was unsure. Another indication that he was not sure. And "May be superior" would be my choice of words.

Far be it from me to correct O'Connor, but that's what I take away from what he wrote.



Again, I think he was expressing an opinion about something that he never actually tested. He may have said what he said based on conversations with others after 1965. That, or he figured a bigger diameter is better, and ran with it.

Your welcome. I look forward to reading the article if you do write it!

In The Hunting Rifle O'Connor includes the .35 in the list of cartridges he hunted deer with, but I can't recall ever reading where he actually killed anything with one. I also think I read somewhere that he briefly owned a Model 8 or 81, but can't for the life of me remember where.

Edit: Found it, also in The Hunting Rifle in the chapter titled, The Controversial Mediums, page 155. He bought a used Model 8 for $5 and there was $.63 in coin inletted into the stock.

I think it's safe to say that if a person was looking for advice about the 35 Rem, Mr. O'Connor would not have been the person to ask.

A knowledgeable man for sure, but no one can be an expert on every gun and cartridge.

Mr Redgwell, Steve, Esteemed Canadian gunwriter and proponent of the great .303, and all around good guy,

Do you have empirical evidence to substantiate your statement, colored red above, that "no one" is expert on every gun and cartridge?

I am fairly confident that with a quick perusal of today's posts, perhaps those of yesterday also, one might encounter a member or two who knows not only all that, but also more than the majority of scientists on climate, macro-economics, gastronomy, metallurgy, agronomy, and the quality of women seen in the basement.

I wish you a happy fall, hunting season, equinox, and whatever the next Canadian holiday happens to be.

Geno

PS, any new books/literature coming out on your website?