when should a gun/cartridge be put up?

[Bezoar]

When should a cartridge thats old and outdated in modern times, but put up from use?
Back in the day, the .35 remington was good for "moose, deer, boar, black bear, etc". Nowadays its "good for deer, boar, and black bear out to 150 yards".
If a gamemaster in 35 rem was good for moose and black bear in 1938, is it still going to be good for moose and black bear in 2007? I ask because i may be ending up with one soon. Always liked the 35 rem from the old books of hunting trips and the likes. Always seemed "right" to want to have a 35 rem in a scabbard in the bottom of your canoe out on the pond.

 

[frogomatic]

My experience tells me it's less about the cartridge and more about good shot placement.

now I can understand hanging up old guns for safety reasons. I can also understand shelfing physically old cartridges, but it seems rarely nessecary to retire a cartridge design.

 

[Bartkowski]

I don't think that the .35 rem should be put away yet, but some people may argue that it should due to the super ultra magnums that we have today.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

I think it has more to do with marketing than anything else.

 

[alucard0822]

Firearms in general have been around for a very short amount of time in the long history of hunting. Technological advancements come and go, but that does not mean a skilled bow or BP hunter will be undergunned compared to someone toting the latest in WSSM fashion. In a lot of ways some of the traditional designs, and older (safe to fire) weapons can be superior to newer ones. Hunting deer with your grampas winchester, jut like he did with the same rifle when he was your age has it's own special feeling. Open sights allow the largest field of view, and have few of the drawbacks of scoped rifles, especially at shorter distances. There are few big game cartridges that have the pedigree of 45-70, 35rem, 7X57 mauser, 30-30, and 30-06.

Hunting is a uniquely personal experience, some people are all to happy to bag a captive corn fed pig at a "hunting ranch", some like to stalk deer on foot, and use a BP handgun. I differ from most in that I consider both hunters, and consider both as an ally in our fight to preserve traditions and customs that predate civilization.

 

[Art Eatman]

Put up? No reason that I know of. About the only thing that's "sorta new" is that more attention has come to the issue of trajectory and remaining energy at some particular distance.

If you're "all married up" to some particular rifle/cartridge combination, you can do quite well on out past normally-accepted distances. But if you don't know the drop and holdover needs, you oughta stay within the more commonly accepted limits. No big deal...

Art

 

[MCgunner]

I haven't "put up" the .30-30 and it was new in 1894. How about the .45-70? If it works, it works. Deer and elk haven't evolved kevlar skin in a century to my knowledge.

 

[buck460XVR]

I don't think a gun should ever be put up unless one wants to save it as a family heirloom or it has become dangerous to shoot. Most popular guns and their collective calibers are just as effective as the day they were introduced.......it's just the hunting situations that have changed to make them less effective. The biggest changes have been in optics and hunting practices. Back in the heyday of iron sights and hunting primarily forested areas, the 30/30 and .32 special were all one needed. The average hunter was only accurate up to the range to where the sights covered the whole game animal. Thus the trajectory and the knock down power of these guns was more than sufficient for the challenge at hand. Even after the great wars when the '06 became available, it was used with iron sights and the ranges these guns were shot at were similar and thus advantages of their trajectory was negligible. It wasn't till the use of good scopes that were accurate to 600 yards and beyond became the norm, that the trend in rifles began to change. Funny how the .357 was enough gun to kill a grizzly till the larger cannons came out......now many consider it inadequate even for thin skinned deer. Much of this comes from the fact that 60 years ago, most folk that hunted grizzlies(or any other game animal with a handgun) were hunters that knew how to hunt and where to place their shot.....and if they missed they accepted the consequences. Nowadays you just need enough money to buy the license and hire the guide and you are a grizzly bear hunter. Be cause of this, most guides want their clients to have enough cannon to down the animal even with a poorly placed shot. Unfortunately this probably endangers them more than the same client using a gun of smaller proportions that he shoots well. Same with elk and other game. Years ago a hunter knew his and his guns limitations and hunted accordingly. Nowadays, many want to go into the woods only as far as their ATV will take them and shoot at the first animal they can see with the aid of 10 power binos. They want enough gun to put that animal down no matter where they hit it and when they loose an animal they tend to blame the gun and go buy a bigger one for next year.

Use your .35 remington wisely and within it's limitations and enjoy it. Pass it on when you do and the legend will live on.

 

[koja48]

Put it up when it becomes unsafe or for sentimental reasons. I "put up" Dad's old .35 Remmie, not because it isn't effective (well, maybe not as effective as it was in his hands, but he was a master), but because I will no longer chance something happening to it . . . it's a legacy to my Kids & Grandkids. I have "put-up" several of mine for the same reason . . . legacy heirloom.

 

[jmorris]

There are more variations of muzzle loaders now than there have ever been. I have however, seen “modern” wiz bang, high speed, low drag super cartridges come and go due to lack of interest/availability. So I guess that’s when they get “put up”.

 

[Clipper]

The only people who would disparage the .35 Rem are:

A) Gunwriters who are dependent on advertiser dollars, who claim the latest hotrocks super-duper-ultra-magnum makes all those old cartridges 'dangerously inadequate'. After all, you can't bring out a new .35 without casting another into disrepute, otherwise, how can you convince them to buy your Lord and Master's newest cartridge/rifle? Remember how the .357 Mag was entirely suitable for handgunning deer until the .454 came along, when it instantly became inadequate, according to the same guys who were killing everything on the continent with it a couple years earlier.

B) guys who measure their manhoods by how big and bad their rifle is, and are convinced they must shoot deer with a rifle more suitable to Cape Buffalo.

C) Sheep, who can't think for themselves and rely on a 'Name' to do their thinking for them.

and D) Idiots.

Shoot, the 30-30 is an icon of American hunting calibers, and kills thousands of deer, black bear, elk and even a few moose, every year, and the .35 will do anything the 30-30 will do, and about 30% better. So if you can shoot it accurately, the only thing I would be trepidatious about shooting with it would be brown bear. My wife has a M-141 in .35, a Savage 99 in .300sav, and I have a M-N as well as a WASR 2. All will work on deer and black bear, but the .35 is both our favorites by far. The only legitimate reason I can see to avoid having any given round that is otherwise capable of doing the job is if range limitations are causing problems. The .35 is and always was a 150-yard cartridge, but in the woods, 150 yards is a looooong way. It's not a beanfield rifle cartridge, but if you don't hunt beanfields...

 

[rcmodel]

The .35 Remington will ruin far less deer meat then a modern Super-Whizzbang-EargaSplitten-LoudenBoomer.

And the deer will be just as dead.
Just not so much bloodshot meat to throw away.
It's a darn good deer round, and always will be.

As long as you can still buy ammo for it, use it.
After that, start reloading for it, and keep right on using it.


rcmodel

 

[alucard0822]

This is one of the oddities of shooting in general, new stuff constantly comes out, all of it is toted as the best, most of it is really old chamerings with a moderate neck up or down, eventually 3/4 of it passes into obscurity and the time honored parent cartridges remain, sometimes as in the leverevolution a cartridge incorporates new technology, and gains new prominence. Especially with handloaders, a chambering like 45colt comes out and gains popularity, then new powders (smokeless) allow supposedly better results from a smaller cartridge (specials and magnums) and the old case fades in popularity, then better design and manufacturing allow a gun to handle the old cartridge with the new powder bringing it back to the forefront, often times with an "idiotproof" change, like a slightly longer case to prevent the new load from being used in the old guns (454 casull), and there you have it, brand new cartridges that are similar to chamerings from over 100 years ago.

 

[rcmodel]

Just venturing an educated guess but:

I predict some of the newest whizzbangs like some of the WSSM and RUM magnum calibers will be long gone before the .35 Rem is really gone from the deer woods.


rcmodel

 

[amper]

Funny, when I read that subject line, I was thinking you meant put up a large quantity of guns or cartridges for a rainy day...no tie like a present, I say.

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

Don't hesitate to use the .35 remington for hunting. It is more than capable with a good shot.

 

[eliphalet]

Unless a gun is retired for sentimental, collectivity or safety reasons and it is a caliber that can be reloaded for, I see no reason to retirement.
Look at the 22 short, it has been 150 years since Smith & Wesson introduced them to America and we're still shooting them.

There was a 30 Newton at the last gun show we went to I wanted, affordability at the moment was why it didn't get a new home.

 

[22-rimfire]

The 35 Rem was a very good cartridge. I always viewed it as a 30-30 with a bit more oomph. The only questions on use of the caliber is range. Another active thread now brings up the old 223 for deer discussion with the usual comments. The 35 Rem sure beats the 223 at reasonable distances. Go for it and enjoy!

 

[skinewmexico]

Those old cartridges don't sell new guns. That's why you need to put it up, and buy something in a WSM, or a 338 Federal, or something like that. It's not about the results on game, it's about what you can tell your buddies......

 

[22-rimfire]

It really is all about selling new guns. Oooh... I feel the urge again. What will it be this time? The 375 Ruger has me a tad interested and I have absolutely no use for the caliber. But it will have to wait until I get the Weatherby Mark XXII bolt.

 

[Pumpkinheaver]

Put the .35 Remington up? Heck I just bought one last week!!! Do I need it? NO, I have a 45-70 for a brush gun . That's the beauty of being an american, we can try a new deer rifle every year if we want.

 

[RyanM]

It's mostly marketing to sell the new stuff. But, people in general "back then" were probably not as opposed to the idea of having to track a wounded animal some distance. People now tend to strongly prefer for the animal to drop dead right where it is, whether it's to minimize the animal's suffering, just laziness, or both. I know several hunters who, if they aren't absolutely positive they can score a clean brain shot, will not shoot.

 

[MCgunner]

People now tend to strongly prefer for the animal to drop dead right where it is, whether it's to minimize the animal's suffering, just laziness, or both.

I've had only a couple of deer go anywhere when shot. Two went about 20 yards from my .30-30 contender, one went a little over a hundred yards with my SKS (7.62x39) and one went about 15 yards (.357 magnum). I had one with a .257 Roberts shooting a Hornady interlock 117 that failed to expand go about 75 yards. That gun, when I was using Sierra bullets (all, but two deer it's ever killed) has nailed 'em in place, the .30-30 has nailed 4 in place for me, the Roberts at least a couple dozen, the .308 6 so far. I shot two with a .357 revolver that dropped dead. I've killed five deer with a 7 mag that were dead right there, but one Javelina I hit too far back went probably 350 yards, bad shot placement, my fault. I shot behind the shoulder like I always do on deer, but got nothing, but guts. I recovered the animal after a 350 yard blood trail in the thorn bushes of west Texas. :banghead: Had to finish it with a .357 to the head.

So, out of all that, one thing sticks out to me, shot placement and bullet performance is more important than caliber. But, yeah, I always want them dead where they're hit. I don't wanna risk losing an animal, ain't lost one yet, knock on wood. I have come close and luck bailed me out on that one shot with the 7.62x39. I sat a couple of minutes after the shot and a driving downpour came and ruined any blood trail.:banghead: It only lasted about 10 minutes. I got out and couldn't find blood anywhere, walked back to my dirt bike and the danged deer was laying next to my back tire! ROFL! I made a solid chest/lung hit on that deer, too, and got a huge exit hole. It happens, I guess. I was using a Sierra Pro Hunter on that thing, 135 grain .308 diameter made for .30-30 handgun hunting. I don't know that a 7 mag would have made any difference on him, frankly, but perhaps. It was a solid hit and gives me pause to use that 7.62x39. Yeah, the 7.62x39 ain't got the snuff a .30-30 has, but most opinions are that it's enough gun and this did dressed about 90 lbs, not exactly one of those 800 lb northern deer I read about. And, like I say, three of those 4 deer I nailed dead in place with a .30-30 was done with a 12" Contender which, if you overlap the ballistics tables, pretty well matches 7.62x39. So, I just think it was one of those things.

 

[akodo]

Three factors here.

Factor One, Retirement. No, the cartridge surely hasn't changed. It works as good as ever, maybe even better as we can design better performing bullets for it to push down the barrel. However, if walking into a gunstore for a brand new rifle there are better choices than the .35 remington. That is why cartridges die. Not because they no longer have the potency they once had, but because somethign else is a little bit better, and every time a .35 leaves circulation, a 308 or a 338 or something else is chosen in it's place. This means when the time comes that you actually break or loose the 35, it's time will have ended. Until then, keep on using it.

Factor Two, knowing what to expect of it. I hear guys talk about taking tremendous shots with the 300 winmag at whitetails. Much beyond my ability to hit at those distances, and much beyond their ability too. I think most people can't judge distances well at all. Still, while a 30-30 dropped plenty of whitetail, it didn't drop many at 300 yards +. So, for some older chambers, we have to recognize that some things more modern firearms can do, cannot be done by their older brothers. You didn't have to tell a hunter in 1951 that a 35 remington vs a moose at 300 yards was a bad choice. He already knew he had to get probably within 200 yards. So when some person adds the caveat that a 35 remington will work fine for moose, as long as you are about 150 yards out, he is simply clarifying what those who have gone before have already known. It wasn't until people started carrying around 378 weatheroniz that people started talking about shooting moose at 400 yards. Of course, the cartridge can do it, but probably the shooter cannot. Hence the imposed limit of 150-200 yards or close for the 35 remington cartridge is usually matched by the shooters inability to reliably hit beyond 200 anyways. But that has always been the case. I have read that until ww2, the 44-40 was the most common deer rifle in the woods. It killed many a deer, and when the 30-30 started taking over, it still killed many a deer. But these were close range deer. No one explicitly stated that the 44-40 was a "good deer gun for roughly 100 yards max" it was just understood.

Factor Three, too much of a good thing. As touched on in the above factor, many rifles can do more than the shooter. My 7mm remington magnum can sure as hell do it's part a lot farther out than I can do mine. But really, if you are a 200 yard shooter, and you get a 200 yard or a 400 yard rifle, it doesn't really matter, you are still a 200 yard shooter. The one problem to this is excessive recoil. Often that '400 yard deer rifle' is a 300-378 or some other real fat potent cartridge that recoils so much it causes problems with the shooter, altering that 200 yard shooter into a 75 yard shooter.

200 yard shooter with a 200 yard gun, say a 257 roberts = 200 yards capable
200 yard shooter with a 300 yard gun, say a 7mm rem mag = still 200 yards capabe
200 yard shooter with a 400 yard gun, say a 300-378 mag = 75 yard shooter

 

[brasskeeper]

Put it up when it becomes unsafe or for sentimental reasons

Good answer