.35 Remington

[JiminMaine]

JiminMaine
Is the no. 1 a rebore? If so, what was the original chambering? I would think about having one made myself. Thanks

Both of my Ruger No1 35 Remingtons were re-barrels. My RSI started as a 7x57 and my K1-B started as a 270. Both were done by McGowan's Precision Barrels. I also had them convert a 375 H&H to 454 Casual mag.

 

[2Late45]

Old thread I know, but to the O.P. The Rem. 141 is also a takedown rifle, that's how it comes apart for cleaning.

 

[BearBiologist]

I only used my 35 Remington once on a wild pig. It was in my Contender with a scope. Missed the first shot at 100 yards and took him at 200 in the neck. Dropped him with one shot. About 200 pounds. Consider it really more of a (short) rifle shot than a pistol short.

 

[buckeyeshooter]

I occasionally get a hankering for a .35 Remington. I don't currently own a "real" rifle, only a 10/22, a Marlin 60 and a Rossi 92 in .357 Magnum. Many decades ago, I harvested a few pronghorns in Wyoming with a .243, which is my only experience with bottlenecked rifles other than a few range shares of things like .30-06 and 7.35 Carcarno. (I don't say "hunted" because back then, there were so many pronghorn on the ranch my dad's buddy took us to that you went out an hour before dawn, and 90 minutes later, you had a dead animal. It was a harvest, not a hunt!)

That left me with a liking for flat-shooters, but I also like not buying components. Among other things, the .35 Remington is appealing because plinking ammo could be made with .357 bullets I already have (maybe even hunting ammo: I have a couple of boxes of 180 grain XTPs). Since I live in Seattle, if I was to go hunting (unlikely, but we can dream) on the West side there are some places where the short trajectory of the .35 might make sense, although there are also Mulies in the Okanogon for which it would not be ideal.

I saw a Remington 141 that looked nice on Gunbroker recently, which sold for about $800. I was tempted to bid on it but held back. Then a couple of days later, I was looking at Remiington 8 and 81s and realized that they are breakdown rifles. That's kinda tempting, to be able to fit it inside a backpack and be discrete when transporting it. OTOH, they seem pretty heavy, and it sounds like expected accuracy is "minute of softball" at 100 yards. And, of course, a Marlin 336 would be the "reasonable" choice, and the most abundant, I guess.

Frankly, I'd probably put a red dot sight on it or maybe a low-power scope, spoiling the "vintage" flavor of these rifles, 'cause I'm getting old and squinty.

So, try to talk me in or out of these rifles and this caliber!

If I wanted to be sensible, an inexpensive bolt gun like a Ruger American in 6.5 CM, 7-08, or .270 Win would be the obvious choice, but...

Sorry this has little relevance to Ruger but now that they own Marlin, maybe a 336 in .35 Remmy will be back some day.

As the proud owner of a 1951 vintage marlin 35 remington. I can tell you that handgun bullets are the correct size but not the right construction for the 35. Last time I tried 158 grain xtp's they were flying sideways through the targets. The 180's might work better but make positive they are made heavily or they will be grenades on game. The Remington 150 and 200 factory ammo and any other 200/220 grain have worked fine. Remember you need round noses not pointy bullets if it has a tube magazine.

 

[jerryp5878]

Sorry I missed this earlier. I have a 35 Rem in a Contender carbine. It worked fine on a mule deer buck at about 125 yards (over 10,000 ft elevation) using a 200 gr Hornady Leverevolution. Good luck in your quest.

Jerry