356 Winchester vs. 35 Remington


PDA






TexasEd
November 13, 2009, 03:26 PM
I would like to know if there is any real-world differnce between these calibers. I would also like to know if you hunt deer in the Northeast (Vt. NH Me.) and some shots could be over a 100 yards, but are more likely under a 100 yards which caliber gives the best for this application. As a curve ball, I see that the 200 gr. Hornady Rev. 35 Rem. ammo seems to close the distance on the 356. Has anyone used the 35 Rem. Hornady ammo and if so how was it?

If you enjoyed reading about "356 Winchester vs. 35 Remington" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Water-Man
November 13, 2009, 03:42 PM
I can tell you first-hand that .35 Remington 200gr. Core-Lokt works very well on big deer and black bear in the Northeast.

kanook
November 13, 2009, 03:44 PM
I have pondered these two also. The big thing that I come across is I want a Marlin and finding one in 356 is a bit of pocket change.

saturno_v
November 13, 2009, 05:21 PM
The 356 Win, on paper, seems to have significantly more energy...the problem is..where do you find the ammo???

A Fisherman sometimes I shoot trap with, had to stop an angry coastal grizzly with a Marlin in 35 Remington...two shots ans the beast was down for good.

kanook
November 13, 2009, 05:47 PM
For those that cast their own 180 or 200 grain 357 mag it's a good match (for me)

Kernel
November 13, 2009, 11:55 PM
real-world difference between these calibers
One is fairly common (the .35 Rem) and the other is practically non-existent.

ms6852
November 14, 2009, 01:24 AM
I use the .35 rem for deer. Never had a problem that is my brush gun for quick shots since its only iron sights no scope. Hits harder that the 30-30 which is also a great deer gun.

natman
November 14, 2009, 04:22 AM
A 35 Rem launches a 200 grain bullet at 2080 fps.
A 356 Win launches a 200 grain bullet at 2460.

That's nearly a 400 fps difference, which is a lot. The Hornady LeveRevolution ammo splits the difference at 2225.

However, you can buy 35 Rem ammo at any decent gunshop, but 356 ammo is hard to find. Winchester still catalogs it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's on the seasonal list, which means that Winchester loads a batch of it whenever they get a chance rather than continuous production. Also rifles in 356 are collector's items and hard to find.

Runningman
November 14, 2009, 11:12 AM
The main difference aside from the slightly different case dimensions is the operating pressure. The 35 Remington has a SAAMI limit of 35,000 CUP while the 356 Winchester has a SAAMI limit of 52,000 CUP. A friend of mine bought a 356 winchester new back in the early 80s. Its a game killing machine but ammo is very hard to come by these days so he dosen't use it much anymore.

SwampWolf
November 14, 2009, 12:29 PM
Comparing muzzle velocities with 200 grain bullets , the .356 Winchester (@ 2460 fps) is closer to the .358 Winchester (@2490) than it is the .35 Remington (@ 2020). I'm partial to the .35 caliber and I especially like the .358 Winchester and the .35 Whelen for the kind of big game hunting I do: woods and big timber in Michigan and Pennsylania for whitetails.

saturno_v
November 14, 2009, 03:13 PM
However with regular commercial loads, the 35 Rem has basically no ballistic advantage over the 30-30 (muzzle velocity is in the 2050-2080 range vs. 2200 for the 30-30 170 gr., both from 24" pipes) and it is actually a worse performer downrange.
Hodgdon mention a max load for 2110 fps with the 200 gr. 35 Rem out of a 24" barrel.
The 200 gr. 35 cal. bullet has less SD than a 170 gr. 30 cal. pill.

Yes there are some hot rod 35 Rem out there (for example the Buffalo Bore Heavy 35 Rem 220 gr. offering) but there are super hot 30-30 loads too (for example: Grizzly Cartridge 170 gr. partition at 2400 fps)

mete
November 14, 2009, 03:23 PM
I think you'll find many who disagree with that. Everyone who I know who has hunted with both 30-30 and 35Rem will tell you that the 35 is significantly better even though they look the same on paper. The 35 just cuts a bigger hole !!

natman
November 14, 2009, 03:32 PM
I think you'll find many who disagree with that. Everyone who I know who has hunted with both 30-30 and 35Rem will tell you that the 35 is significantly better even though they look the same on paper. The 35 just cuts a bigger hole !!
It's the difference between looking at ballistics charts and hunting.

saturno_v
November 14, 2009, 05:11 PM
I think you'll find many who disagree with that. Everyone who I know who has hunted with both 30-30 and 35Rem will tell you that the 35 is significantly better even though they look the same on paper. The 35 just cuts a bigger hole !!

I'm pretty sure that 0.05" of hole diameter makes a lot of difference...you definitely can see it on a 150 lb animal for sure...to me it sounds like the idiotic nonsense debate of 40 vs. 45....

It's the difference between looking at ballistics charts and hunting.

No, it's the difference between empirical thinking coupled with hunting legends, sprinkled with a little bit of ignorance and rationality and technical approach.

How many hunters have tested the 2 rounds in a controlled environment shooting the same animal from the same distance at the same angle with the same bullet style to verify the difference in effectiveness?? Guess what....not a single one...

Any pubication you read, any knowledgeable person you talk to will tell you that the 30 WCF and 35 Remington belong to the same class, there is no animal that one can take down better or more effectively than the other...period.

natman
November 15, 2009, 04:33 AM
It's the difference between looking at ballistics charts and hunting.


No, it's the difference between empirical thinking coupled with hunting legengs, sprinkled with a little bit of ignorance and rationality and technical approach.

How many hunters have tested the 2 rounds in a controlled environment shooting the same animal from the same distance at the same angle with the same bullet style to verify the difference in effectiveness?? Guess what....not a single one...

Any pubication you read, any knowledgeable person you talk to will tell you that the 30 WCF and 35 Remington belong to the same class, there is no animal that one can take down better or more effectively than the other...period.

I agree that it would be very difficult to conduct true controlled experiments on something like caliber effectiveness. Too hard to get a test subject that would react to being shot consistently, too many variables.

But that lack of hard data cuts BOTH ways. You don't get to claim it bolsters YOUR argument just because you want to.

I'll agree that the 30-30 and the 35 Remington are in the same class. The extra bullet frontal area & weight doesn't magically transform the 35 Rem into a dangerous game round. Just makes it a bit more effective against deer.

The formula for calculating frontal area, area=(.5D)^2*pi, means that area changes according to the radius squared times 3.14. This means that tiny changes in diameter result in large changes in area. Thus the "mere .05 inch" difference in diameter results in a 35% increase in bullet frontal area, a far more significant difference.

If you had to stop a charging bear right now, would you rather have a 308 or a 358 Win? An easy choice in my book.

saturno_v
November 15, 2009, 05:39 AM
But that lack of hard data cuts BOTH ways. You don't get to claim it bolsters YOUR argument just because you want to.


Actually you can test penetration and expansion ratio in a controlled environment with a test medium (not usually a live animal) and smaller bullets of high SD have always showed excellent results, despite what the "bigger is better" people think...my recent post in the hunting section about the test conducted by the US Forest Service (I posted the link to the document) about effective calibers on bear defense shows, for example, that the 30-06 ranked surprisingly high vs. bigger magnum calibers...it is a very interesting read

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=485872

Yes the frontal area increase significantly more than the mere diameter (caliber) increase...but in the grand scheme of things (a deer, a pig or a black bear) the difference between a 30 and a 35 caliber is basically almost irrelevant at best....now if you talk about the difference between a 24 cal. bullet and a 45 cal. bullet we start to get somewhere.....

If you had to stop a charging bear right now, would you rather have a 308 or a 358 Win? An easy choice in my book.

I would probably choose the 358 Win because its significant higher energy (some loading can exceed 3000 ft/lb) and the higher SD for the bullets over 200 gr. (you can load a 358 Win up to 250 gr.) compared to the usual 308 loads.....not necessarily because of its bigger caliber.

However it's interesting that you mentioned these 2 cartridges because in that study I mentioned before (link: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf) if you go to page 7, you'll see that the 308 and the 358 ranked very close (#14 for the 358 Winchester and #18 for the 308 Winchester) on the overall list (33 total ratings of different cartridges some of them in different loads)

On a charging bear situation, the bullet style used, the rifle employed (manoeuvrability) and the shooter (shot placement) would account for all the difference in effectiveness between the 308 and the 358, not the caliber itself for sure....in a charge scenario, contrary to regular hunting, I would say overall penetration (to get to the CNS) is even more important than any small difference in the wound channel (bigger frontal area = more drag).

scythefwd
November 15, 2009, 06:02 AM
Energy transfer will be faster with the larger slug because it has more surface area (both to drag through the wound channel and at impact). The 200 gr round should have a little more kinetic energy due to its weight, but the extra velocity of the 170gr pill might make up for it. I see it like this.. even though the .35 has a lower SD, it is like getting slapped with a book vs. getting punched with the book on end (its a really thick book). There is a little bit of a difference in the way it feels.. but either will do the job.

natman
November 15, 2009, 07:33 AM
I would probably choose the 358 Win because its significant higher energy (some loading can exceed 3000 ft/lb) and the higher SD for the bullets over 200 gr. (you can load a 358 Win up to 250 gr.) compared to the usual 308 loads.....not necessarily because of its bigger caliber.

However it's interesting that you mentioned these 2 cartridges because in that study I mentioned before (link: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf) if you go to page 7, you'll see that the 308 and the 358 ranked very close (#14 for the 358 Winchester and #18 for the 308 Winchester) on the overall list (33 total ratings of different cartridges some of them in different loads)



The higher energy of the 358 that you mention as an advantage didn't come from the energy fairy. :D It came from the higher bullet weights possible with the 358, which is a direct function of caliber.

So in your study the 358 scored higher. Close but higher. Exactly my point.

On a charging bear situation, the bullet style used, the rifle employed (manoeuvrability) and the shooter (shot placement) would account for all the difference in effectiveness between the 308 and the 358, not the caliber itself for sure....in a charge scenario, contrary to regular hunting, I would say overall penetration (to get to the CNS) is even more important than any small difference in the wound channel (bigger frontal area = more drag).

The rifle or the shooter would NOT account for any difference in effectiveness between the 308 and the 358 because they are external factors unrelated to the two cartridges. All else being equal the 358 comes out on top. Which you already admitted in the start of the same post.

I do agree that sectional density is important and that if you are going to go to a larger caliber you will have to go to heavier bullets to maintain it. This will lead to sacrifices in increased recoil and decreased trajectory. But if these sacrifices are tolerable or irrelevant to your hunting style you will be rewarded with better terminal performance.

TexasEd
November 15, 2009, 11:43 AM
How about this... TIME OUT... If wanted to know about the 30-30 vs the 35 I WOULD HAVE ASKED. I get the whole thing with the 30-30 vs 35. It dosn't matter to me, there both good in their own right and they have a following...and thats cool. I am asking about if there is any major differnce between the 356 Win and the 35 Rem...ON GAME, not on a ballistic chart. I that say because I will be shooting more times than not under a hundred yards. Thanks and shoot safe.

natman
November 15, 2009, 01:05 PM
How about this... TIME OUT... If wanted to know about the 30-30 vs the 35 I WOULD HAVE ASKED. I get the whole thing with the 30-30 vs 35. It dosn't matter to me, there both good in their own right and they have a following...and thats cool. I am asking about if there is any major differnce between the 356 Win and the 35 Rem...ON GAME, not on a ballistic chart. I that say because I will be shooting more times than not under a hundred yards. Thanks and shoot safe.

Fair enough. Since the 356 and the 35 Rem will be shooting the same bullets, the 400 fps extra velocity the 356 brings to the party will make a difference on game. That's roughly the difference between a 30-30 and a 308, and yes, there is a difference on game between the two. If your range is short and your game is in the deer / pig class I wouldn't bother with the expense of finding and feeding a 356. However if you are going after elk, I'd recommend getting either a 356 or better yet, a Browning BLR in 358 Win.

saturno_v
November 15, 2009, 01:34 PM
The higher energy of the 358 that you mention as an advantage didn't come from the energy fairy. It came from the higher bullet weights possible with the 358, which is a direct function of caliber.



Energy is a fuinction of weight and/or velocity..increase one of them and the energy will go up accordingly (much more with increase in velocity)

he 358 has higher energy compared to the 308 because of its higher weight and, in some loadings, higher velocity

The rifle or the shooter would NOT account for any difference in effectiveness between the 308 and the 358 because they are external factors unrelated to the two cartridges.

In a bear charge it will make the difference if you will be alive or not...much more than the caliber itself

All else being equal the 358 comes out on top

All else being equal, the 358 has more energy compared to the 308 and higher SD with heavier pills (like the 250 gr.), so yes it comes out slightly ahead and rightly so.

saturno_v
November 15, 2009, 01:37 PM
To the OP


I totally agree with Natman on that, the 400 extra fps, with the same bullet between the 356 Win and the 35 Rem, will give you considerably more energy (about 700 ft/lb more) which will allow you to take longer range shots or to take bigger animals (assuming proper bullet construction)

The problem is finding ammo in 356......35 Rem is everywhere, including Wal Mart (pre ammo crisis)

CZguy
November 15, 2009, 02:10 PM
I totally agree with Natman on that, the 400 extra fps, with the same bullet between the 356 Win and the 35 Rem, will give you considerably more energy (about 700 ft/lb more) which will allow you to take longer range shots or to take bigger animals (assuming proper bullet construction)

Good point, but..................didn't he just say a couple of posts ago that he was limiting himself to under 100 yards.

eldon519
November 15, 2009, 02:14 PM
Yes the frontal area increase significantly more than the mere diameter (caliber) increase...but in the grand scheme of things (a deer, a pig or a black bear) the difference between a 30 and a 35 caliber is basically almost irrelevant at best....

.35-cal has 35% more frontal area than .30-cal. To me that is pretty relevant. People look at how small the numbers are and minimize them based on their absolute value, but even that little 0.05" is a 16% increase.

sig87
November 23, 2009, 11:29 PM
How fare will a marlin 35 kill a deer at

CZguy
November 23, 2009, 11:45 PM
How fare will a marlin 35 kill a deer at

They are generally considered a brush gun (read close range) but the new Leverlution ammo is supposed to extend that quite a bit.

MichaelK
November 25, 2009, 04:21 PM
Another alternative I could suggest to you is a model 1894 in .44 magnum. A .44 can do anything a .35 remington can do and ammunition is even more plentiful.

saturno_v
November 25, 2009, 04:24 PM
Another alternative I could suggest to you is a model 1894 in .44 magnum. A .44 can do anything a .35 remington can do and ammunition is even more plentiful.

In terms of pure power no...the 35 Rem is a 2000 ft/lb cartridge...the Heavt 35 Remington 220 gr. load from Buffalo Bore can reach 2300 ft/lb.

Hillbillyz
November 25, 2009, 05:05 PM
I have dropped two deer at 150 yds. with a Marlin .35 rem and one at @ 125 yards with a Remington 141 in .35 Rem. A good cartridge that doesn't beat you up and does a nice job on deer. Ammunition is available I would vote for the .35.

ratgunner
November 25, 2009, 05:42 PM
I would also vote for the .35 Rem. The .356Win. is pretty much a dead round nowdays anyways.

MichaelK
November 25, 2009, 09:33 PM
In terms of pure power no...the 35 Rem is a 2000 ft/lb cartridge...the Heavt 35 Remington 220 gr. load from Buffalo Bore can reach 2300 ft/lb.
Where are you getting these numbers? What PSI are these loads working at? Looking at my Speer manual, the .35 Remington can safely push a 220 grain bullet to 1900fps. That's 1760 footpounds. My .44 with a 240 grain bullet at 1800 fps is 1725 footpounds. With some of my hot handloads I've pushed a 240 grain bullet at 1900fps. Looks about equal.

saturno_v
November 25, 2009, 11:50 PM
Where are you getting these numbers? What PSI are these loads working at? Looking at my Speer manual, the .35 Remington can safely push a 220 grain bullet to 1900fps. That's 1760 footpounds. My .44 with a 240 grain bullet at 1800 fps is 1725 footpounds. With some of my hot handloads I've pushed a 240 grain bullet at 1900fps. Looks about equal.

I'm getting these numbers from here here:

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=166

220 gr. Heavy 35 Remington from Buffalo Bore, 2200 fps and 2364 ft/lb, yes I suspect they are a bit overpressure but perfectly safe in Marlin lever action rifles.

I run some numbers from the Hodgdon Reloading Data Center for the best SAAMI compliant loads for both cartridges.

A 35 Rem can push a 220 gr. pill at 2010 fps wich equals to 1973 ft/lb.....a 200 gr, slug can be pushed at 2139 which equals to 2031 ft/lb

A 44 Mag fired from a rifle barrel, using the load data from the same source, can push a 240 gr. bullet at 1817 fps which equal to 1759 ft/lb, a 300 gr. pill falls off the cliff, performance wise, reaching only 1473 fps for a muzzle energy value of 1445 ft/lb

A 35 Rem 200 gr. bullet has higher energy and SD than a 240 gr. 44 Mag bullet and carries farther...

MichaelK
November 29, 2009, 02:30 PM
You, you are right about those numbers. But Buffalo bore also make a hot +P load for .44 magnum.
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=9
If you assume you'll add 300 fps out of a carbine, their 1487fps load will be going more than 1700fps in the carbine. That's 2180 foot pounds of energy.

So, does that still make the .44 magnum a viable alternative? I think so.

Lloyd Smale
November 30, 2009, 08:37 AM
Ive shot a few deer with both and the 356 seems to hit them much harder.

LeonCarr
September 5, 2011, 10:50 PM
One of my former coworkers has a Marlin 336 in .35 Remington and a Winchester 94 Big Bore in .356 Winchester. He says the .356 hits much harder than the .35, especially on hogs, but shoots the .35 more because factory ammo for the .356 costs 52 bucks a box where he lives. I told him to buy the reloading dies and we can fix that :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Lloyd Smale
September 6, 2011, 08:57 AM
ive shot many deer and bear and pigs with the 35 rem. Quite a few deer and bear with the 356 too. I can tell you that from my field experince that the 35 rem is a good kill and the 356 is a GREAT killer. It defineatly seems to put more of a thump on an animal.

303tom
September 6, 2011, 09:26 AM
The .356 Win. is faster & a heavier hitter !

CraigC
September 6, 2011, 10:11 AM
I'll take the .356 in a pre-safety Big Bore 94. Always wanted one. As for ammo, I'd just buy 500rds of brass and dies from Midway and call it a day. Add an expander die for using cast bullets.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=1390317274

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=617802

303tom
September 6, 2011, 11:44 AM
I'll take the .356 in a pre-safety Big Bore 94. Always wanted one. As for ammo, I'd just buy 500rds of brass and dies from Midway and call it a day. Add an expander die for using cast bullets.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=1390317274

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=617802
My brother has a Big Bore 94 in .375 Win. it`s a HOG !

GooseGestapo
September 6, 2011, 12:11 PM
Interesting that an '09 post got resurresected.

I too have used both the .35Rem and .30/30. I consider the .30/30 to be "good" and enjoy using mine. But, the .35Rem is undoubtably better. But, they both do work very well. Just the .35 gives a bit more "whack", and the deer react more to the hit. Wound channels are larger and typically deeper with the .35. If you reload, get a .35. If you don't, stick with the .30/30.

I long considered rechambering my .35Rem to .356. It's as easy as running a .358wcf reamer into the chamber and reaming it out.
However, you are then stuck with using .358wcf brass or reformed .308 brass which does work with the .35Rem bolt-head. You can't use .358wcf ammo due to excessive length and pressure for the lever actions.

The "solution" is to load the .35Rem up. The "Manual" data for the .35Rem is much reduced to accomodate some weaker semi-auto actions from the early 1900's that wouldn't even accept some of the "Express" factory loads that Remington offered for non-self feeding actions back in the 1920's and '30's.

With a "loaded up" .35, as the ammo from Buffalo Bore and others show, the .35Rem becomes much closer to the .356wcf.
The .356wcf came about because Winchester felt there was a desire for an "updated" .35. But, because of other market factors, not many rifles were built, and if it ain't available, you can't buy it. Hence, I never saw one before 1998. I saw two .307's,(Win BigBore M94's) both in the hands of very satisfied owners in the field (hunter's I checked) during my career.

The new .338Marlin Express is this idea revisited, but done even better. I've got one, and now no longer feel the urge to find a .356win or build one.
I've also used the .358" 200gr FTX in handloads and don't particularily care for it. It's a bit "Hard" for the .35 and dosen't expand as well as the Remington or Sierra 200gr RN.
I've taken deer as far as 200yds with my .35. Sighted in +3" at 100yds, it (and it's little companion the .30/30) shoot suprisingly flat to 200yds!

LeonCarr
September 6, 2011, 01:16 PM
A .358 Marlin Express would be the bomb.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

tahoe2
February 27, 2012, 02:41 AM
If you reload, the .356 Win is better. If you don't the .35 Rem gets it done. I have a .375 win that I reload for, it hit's hard !!
The .338 Marlin Express looks interesting.

ECVMatt
February 27, 2012, 10:32 AM
I had a Marlin 336 ER in .356 for quite some time. I bought some ammo from CPC and then loaded up my own after that. It was a great round and I enjoyed shooting it. If I were to going to do it again, I would probably go with a .35 Rem and shoot Leverevolution or get some BB ammo. Winchester make seasonal runs of .356 brass, but even then it is hard to obtain. I ended up going to the .45/70 for my close/heavier game rifle and it worked out great. It has a true power advantage over the .356, is easy to load for and I can buy ammo near most places I camp or hunt.

All that said, I do love the 356 and if it is not a pain for you to assemble the components and load I would go for it.

Salmoneye
February 27, 2012, 12:37 PM
The Hornady LeveRevolution ammo splits the difference at 2225.

That is out of a 24" test barrel, and only comes with the FTX bullet...Fine if you hit a deer in the vitals, but do not expect to smash bone on a bear with it...

EDIT:

Note to self: Look at the date on original post before getting sucked in...

Lloyd Smale
February 27, 2012, 01:53 PM
Ive shot a number of deer with both my 35 rem and my 356 big bore. the 35 rem defineately gets the job done at least out to a 100-150 yards. At those ranges though the 356 absolutely hammers them and will add another 100 yards to the effective range of a 35.

If you enjoyed reading about "356 Winchester vs. 35 Remington" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!