[ribbonstone2]

Really have to ask, "Why?" Do like the .35Rem., have used it for hunting and do find that it does a good job, but it seems a lot of work to re-do a Win. 94 to this roudn when getting a Marlin is so much easier/cheaper.

Changing a Winchester to work with round sother than those that it was designed for isn't just a matter of putting in a new barrel and fitting the bolt face....getting it to feed from the magazine can be a ral pain in the rump.
---------------
Guess the simplest explaintion as to why it was never done is simple...at the time these rounds came out, having your name on them seemed important to the makers (it's why it is the .35 RMINGTON and the .30WCF). they would go to great lengths not to use another companies round (.303 Savage vs. .30-30...25/36marlin vs 25/35...the .32Colt New Police vs. the .32SWL). The real short answer to why no .35Rem, in a Winchester would be "company pride".

 

[ribbonstone2]

Klutz at work...ignore

 

[ribbonstone2]

You know...it DOES ssem odd that Winchester didn't plug that caliber gap with somehing. Not counting the older/longer .35 rounds that wouldn't fit ina 94, there seems to be a big gap from .32Special to .38/55.

Winchester was pretty well married to the rimmed 30-30 size case...from .219Zipper to .375/38-55 it was the same basic case. But given that they did make 22's, 25's, 30's, 32's, (and I guess you cold add in the 7X30 Waters), and .375's on it, it does seem to beg the question, 'Why no 35's?".

Thinking on it...seems they also had .351" or .348" barrels on hand from other rifles in the 1920's to 1940's if they wanted an odd diameter that didn't match other companies rounds. All barrels started (at this time) from a blank, and once the blank is at hand, turning it on existing machines to fit the 94 wouldn't have cost anything more (the nickeled "smokeless" steel is the same).

So...given what they had at hand...why not a .358, .351 or a .348 based on the 30-30 case?

 

[ribbonstone2]

Have used the .351, still have a .401WSL that gets out into the woods pretty often. Not a screamer, but a 200gr JSP .406" bullet can actually make it to 2000fps (a bit less than the catalogued vel., but this is what I actually called my max.) and a 250gr. bullet makes 1800fps pretty easliy.

My solution was to make a die to swage down .410" (.41mag. bullets) and I normally shoot 210gr. JSP .407" bullets at 1950fps and live pretty happy...but all I ever shot with it are the little whitetails we grown here in Louisana, may be a bit lightly jacketed for bigger critters.

Pretty amazing actually form a blow back semi-auto...compares very nicely with the hi-vel. loads used in the 38/55 or the modern .44mag. carbine.

Given that the 94 had been tied to the .30-30 case until recently, and that ALL winchester offered rounds were pretty well tapered, it doesn't seem that anything over .380" is going to work without a rethnk of that passion for tapered cases.

Given that the .444 sized head is now made in the Winchester (which is the same base as the .307 and the .356...and by the way, the old .308 "Power Lever" wildcat pre-dates those two by a good bit), seems that would be the prefered one to diddle around with wildcats.
--------------
Still...the company reasoning for not offering anything between 32specail and .38/55 is kind or bothersome. I for one would have liked to see if a .348X30-30 would break 1800fps with those big 250gr. bullets (if you "k'ed" it, would probably break 1900 at a pressure you could,live with).

 

[ribbonstone2]

I'm not too sure the Winchester has to have a rimmed case...am sure it was designed to have one and the parts as they are currently made work best with one, but if Marlin can get a 336 to work with a rimless round, a Winchester '94 could be made to work that way as well. Have been inside, and it wouldn't be an easy job...and obviously not worth the effort as you'd have to fabricate a new typle of lifter assembly (one that doesn't rely on the rim to act as a stop).

But I was thinking why they didn't make a .35 to compete with the .35Remington. Do believe that a 30-30 sized case could match the ballistics, but for whatever reason, it just wasn't done.

OF course, during the time the '94 was being made, there were other Winchesters to choose from in rounds more epowerful than the .35, and there wasn't a need to fill in the '94. If you wanted more power, could just buy a .348. IF you wanted more power in a '94 action, then you bought a 38/55 (and with Hi-Vel. loads, it was powerful) or in modern times, bought the .375Win.
----------
On the other hand...American made 35's have a kind of curse on them....as current chambers in all rifles go, there just isn't a lot of .35's being done.

----------
Will gree that the .401 is one of the best short range rounds for deer of the "oldies". Doesn't do anything that aRuger .44Carbine can't do, so seriously doubt it will ever make a comeback.

One other thing...all of the original factory bullets I've tried were almost non-expanding. Gave a whole bunch of penetration, but little actual expansion. May be what they were striving for...or it may be that PreWWI bullet designe wasn't all that great when trying for a functioning semi-auto and soft point ammo.

 

[ribbonstone2]

Tell the truth...kind of amazed marlin still has the .35 Rem. in it's line up. If it sells 1:20 against the 30-30, can't proove it by looking at the gun stores or on the tables at gun shows. Guess that would mean that the .307 and .356 had worse sales figures. have to wnder at Winchester's sales figures for that .410version.

I honestly don't see thousands of people lining up to buy a .35version.

Guy...I'm with you on the .35's being better, but you just can't sell folks what they need...just what they want.
-----------
One of the things that was done to shot out .32specials and .30-30's was to rebore to .35 and use the wildcat .35/30-30. Teally won't match the .35Rem. in standard form, would guess an improved version would.

There are still places that will rebore...just not as cheaply as it was done, but still less than a custom barrel fitted to that action (and if the shop works carefully, the blue can be saved).

 

[ribbonstone2]

Yes...do find a good amount of .35Rem. for sale; it's more common on dealer shelves that one would expect. Suspect that a bunch of it gets fired in Rem. rifles, as those old 14's and 141's don't seem to wear out (a bit surprizing, but goes to show a complicated design can still be long lasting if the design is good).

I doubt a gun show goes by without at least one .35Rem. chambered rifle being seen...which is better than some of the more modern replacements. Been a good while between .307's, .356's, or 7mm Waters chambered '94's have been sighted.

OFten have to consider what is still on the ammo production line and what is not. Just how long has it been from the last .32SW chambered revovler ( the short case...not the .32SWL), but ammo still rolls off the production line. Just go down a listing of offerings ans stop and think: "When was the last one of those chambered and boxed up at the factory?"

Is some regional variation...the .32's and 16ga.'s were more popular in the south, so kind of expect to see ammo for them more often.....guess what is on the shelf in Nome just isn't going to match what's on the shelf in Savanna.