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 agree. I've got nothing against .35 Rem, but .30-30 factory ammo and reloading components are easier to come by in my area, so I stick to .30-30.
I don't know why both calibers are not more popular today. The younger guys are really missing out thinking they need a super magnum to kill a whitetail. I don't know if they are hunters or just shooter.
Look at how fast this big moose is dumped by a 30-30.
Sometimes it's both (shooters and hunters). Call it caliber creep I guess. In my parts deer rarely get much over 150 lbs, and can/are easily and routinely taken with a appropriate .223 loads. That said, more and more hunters around will use nothing less than .300 Win Mag
. Talk about tearing up perfectly good meat. If it continues this way, in 30 more years we'll be using .30-06 on squirrels, .375 H&H on white tail and .50 BMG on elk
.
I've never been to Alaska, but know people from there. Up until maybe the last 30 years, I hear many of the natives were perfectly content with .30-30 for moose and bear. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Funny how it always comes back to shot placement.
I recall reading a story someplace (I wish I could remember when and where) of a hunting club that studied failures to put down deer and elk and discovered that over 90% of the failed (wounding only) shots were made with hard kicking magnum calibers, such as .300 Win Mag. The conclusion was that poor marksman were trying to make up for lack of skill by adding "horsepower".
Not knocking magnum calibers BTW. I just find it interesting.