.35 Rem. vs. 30-30

R

rmocarsky

New member
Gunners,


I have both and the son of the owner of the farm I hunt on borrowed my .35 last deer season.

He asked me if the .35 was more powerful than the 30.30, and I replied ``Yeah, but I don't think it is by all that much.''

In fact, just how do the two stack up against each other?

I loaned him the rifle and 200 grain Remington core lokt ammo.

I know many of you are absolute experts on this matter, and I admit that I am not.

Rmocarsky
 
Last edited:
Used to be that the .35 Remington was a little better for critters larger than deer, say Black Bears and such and you got a better blood trail from the .35 if needed. That said, on whitetail deer sized game, it's six of one, half dozen of the other when comparing the .35 Remington to the .30-30 Winchester.

:)

Bruce
 
200 grain bullets vs. 160's out of a 30-30.

I guess it's personal preference but I prefer my .35 Remington to a 30-30 for deer-bear hunting, though a 30-30 is far easier to find ammo for in backwoods "stores", but if your worried about that then your not prepared anyways. :D
 
Yeah, between the .30-30 and the .35 Remington, take your choice. In the .35 Remington I like that 200 grain Core-Lokt ammo, but I don't know if it knocks them over any quicker than the 170 grain from the .30-30. They're both great deer cartridges. Take your choice.
 
I have both & hunt with both. They both will do the job. The 35 Rem is my favorite between the two and I hunt with it more often. Ammo for the 35 is more expensive.
 
Tough choice, the 35 hits a bit harder and may penetrate a bit better but both are fine leverguns for deer hunting. 30-30 is a bit easier to feed but for a hunter who reloads there isn't much difference. I have both, of course. ;)
 
The older guys used to swear the 35 put deer down quicker, but in the real world I seriously doubt there is a bit of difference except in our minds. If you think one is better than the other, then you will shoot with more confidence.

For all practical purposes I think the 30-30 is the slightly better round. The ones I've shot seem a touch more accurate and give a bit more range. There are have been a lot more advancements in .30 bullets giving the 30-30 a slight edge with hi-tech bullets and loads as well. I know Hornady offers their soft pointy bullets in 35 as well, but they just don't help as much as with the .30 cal bullets.

Of course the 35 works great and wins points for coolness. It is a win-win with either round.
 
.35 Remington all the way. I hunt deer with a Remington 760 gamemaster in
.35 rem. I use 150 grain PSP core lokts and it does quite a number on them. The .35 is a great brush gun. It has a big enough projectile going relativley slow, so it doesn't get thrown off path if it hits a twig. I think the 760 and .35 rem go perfectly for hunting in thick woods. Big bullet with power, and fast reloading.

I am not a fan of the 30-30. It just seems to go too slow for a .30 caliber, without the extra punch. Just my take on it.

Antique Shooter
 
In the mountians with laurel thickets and other brush to shoot thru the .35 is the better bullet. The more open country it is a toss up.
 
holy grail

My great uncle and grandad always maintained that the .35 with heavy (200) bullet was a better killer on deer than the .30-30. They used the .35 in 14 and 141 Rems, iron sights, hunting from the ground in woodland. Ranges would have been short, under 100, often half that.

Never killed a deer w/ a .35 myself. I hunted a M94 in .30-30 for a few years, and never had any complaints, all shots 50 yds or less.
 
40 S&W is better than 9mm... oh wait... that wasn't the question ??? or was it ;)

the 35 Remington is going to carry more energy, & if both are fitted with bullets that properly perform for the task at hand, the 35 should more easily put deer down as well...

that's not to say the 30-30 isn't a great woods deer cartridge, just that the 35 "should" be a bit better...
 
As having both and killing deer with each I'd have to give the nod to the 35 for killing power. I like the Hornady Leverevoluton because it gives these two work horses more distance.. You really can't go wrong with either...
 
If you guys can definitively prove which one is best, I can use that info to finally end the argument (aka the 30 Years War) with my Dad. I'm a 35 guy and he's a 30/30 guy. I honestly don't think there's enough difference to pick a winner, but....I'm still a 35 guy. I'm also a Dallas Cowboys guy, and Dad is a Saints guy. I'm a Braves fan and he's a Yankees fan. And on and on it goes. But on caibers, both Dad and I finally became 270 fans, though I had to buy him one to turn him into a fan- but he loves that Ruger Ultralight in 270.
 
Here's data from a ballistics chart I have. These match Remington Core-Lokt specs.

.35 Remington
.......... Velocity Energy Trajectory (based on 100 yard zero)
150 grain bullet:
muzzle... 2300... 1762... -1.5
100 yd... 1874... 1169... 0.0
200 yd... 1506... 755... -8.6
300 yd... 1218... 494... -32.7

200 grain bullet:
muzzle... 2080... 1921... -1.5
100 yd... 1698... 1280... 0.0
200 yd... 1376... 841... -10.7
300 yd... 1140... 577... -40.0

.30-30 Win.
150 grain bullet:
muzzle... 2390... 1902... -1.5
100 yd... 2040... 1386... 0.0
200 yd... 1723... 989... -6.9
300 yd... 1447... 697... -25.7

170 grain bullet:
muzzle... 2200... 1827... -1.5
100 yd... 1895... 1355... 0.0
200 yd... 1619... 989... -8.3
300 yd... 1381... 720... -29.9

*Note: I realize these aren't 300-yard cartridges, but I figured I'd include that distance anyway since I had the data.

The differences aren't huge. The better ballistic coefficients of the narrower .30-30 bullets result in better energy retention and slightly flatter trajectories. If I expected to take longer shots, I'd maybe opt for the .30-30.

It's probably more about one's preference of bullet types. .35 Remington bullets might be a little more jarring and create broader wound channels, while .30-30 bullets of comparable weight may penetrate a little deeper due to greater sectional density.
 
Last edited:
I doubt there is enough difference to matter between the two. Put it where it needs to go and either one should work equally well.

Since brass and bullets are easier to find the 30-30 would be my choice. I used to want a 35 remington in the worst way until I found I can shoot 200gr bullets from my Marlin 94 at over 2000fps and that will match the 35 in energy. The 35 will outpace the 44 but where I hunt and mostly how I hunt a 100 yard shot is a long shot. I love to scout the trails and then lay in wait and make a close range kill.

The 35 may start out bigger but with the extra velocity to expand the bullet that the 30-30 has I would guess in the end the wound channels are close in size.

My pick would be the 30WCF just because componants are so easy to find. I just bought once fired brass and got 500 pieces for less than $40 bucks. Its hard to even find 35 remington brass and when you do it is expensive.
 
Its hard to define "best" in rifle cartridges since animals expire to only one degree of dead. "Better suited" would be a better term to select calibers or cartridges for specific purposes or game and shouldn't be confined to any one round in particular.
 
There is nothing that the 30-30 does that the 35 can't do just a smidge better. Except go easier on your wallet.
 
Last edited:
the .35Rem also makes a bigger hole. Plus you can get it with 15 round magazines :D
 

Attachments

  • DSC08649.jpg
    DSC08649.jpg
    135.2 KB · Views: 280
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top