Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I’ve been doing a bit of reading about the 25-35 and it would seem that it wasn’t all that popular for various reasons. So I got to wondering – what was the genesis of this round, and who was the audience Winchester was trying to address? I know when it was introduced, when they stopped chambering guns for it, why it fell short in ballistics to the 30-30, 32WS, etc., but there is little//no information that I can discover on who the target market was?
Anybody know? Was it intended as a varmint/coyote ranch gun?
I can’t find anything definitive on the ‘intended purpose’ either.
Doesn’t make sense that it would have been intended for deer sized game, but apparently (at least one of) the original factory loads were 117 grain, which seems large for varmints.
Nevada Paul
Life Member NRA
John D. said So I got to wondering – what was the genesis of this round, and who was the audience Winchester was trying to address?
Somebody who already owned a .30-30, but still had enough dough to buy another gun; same reason there’s a .38-40 & a .44-40. Same reason there’s now a dozen ballistically-equivalent 6.5 mms on the market. Main purpose of any new cartridge: to sell a new gun.
Maybe you could find some early announcement of the cartridge that claimed some special advantage for it, such as lower trajectory than a .30, but I doubt anyone in 1895 would be spending money on a gun for the principal purpose of dispatching coyotes.
Online
The original factory load is more than adequate for deer sized animals with any modicum of accuracy in the shot placement. Compare it to the 243 Winchester which uses a smaller diameter and weight bullet (100 grain).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
clarence said
Main purpose of any new cartridge: to sell a new gun.
I think that hits the nail on the head….same thing a business does anything….money!
I have quite the distaste for where we are today with the watering down of caliber choices and then not being able to find ammo…..
Bert H. said
The original factory load is more than adequate for deer sized animals with any modicum of accuracy in the shot placement. Compare it to the 243 Winchester which uses a smaller diameter and weight bullet (100 grain).Bert
I once killed a very large boar in Texas with my 25-35 rifle, but it was only at about 50 yards and he dropped in his tracks. Even so, it went through both lungs but did not exit the animal. I would be willing to hunt Whitetail with it, but only for shorter yardage situations (under 100 yards).
With regard to the .243, true, it is a lighter bullet – but it can be driven much faster and is a flatter shooter. I would not hesitate to use a rifle chambered in .243 out to 300 yards or so in a hunting situation. At least, on deer or antelope.
Bert H. said
The original factory load is more than adequate for deer sized animals with any modicum of accuracy in the shot placement.
Why be satisfied with “adequate” when it’s unarguable .30 is a better killer? What did it do better than .30, to justify its creation? Less recoil? Ladies’ rifle, for ex?
clarence said
Bert H. said
The original factory load is more than adequate for deer sized animals with any modicum of accuracy in the shot placement.
Why be satisfied with “adequate” when it’s unarguable .30 is a better killer? What did it do better than .30, to justify its creation? Less recoil? Ladies’ rifle, for ex?
You can apply that same question to the 243 Win versus the 308 Win, or the 25-06 Remington versus the 30-06… but why waste your time and effort bemoaning the fact that they were manufactured? Life is short (and getting shorter for all of us old Pharts)… my advice is stop fretting about old obsolete cartridge chamberings and why they were created… it is water under the bridge!
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Let’s not forget the .25-36 Marlin and .25 Remington. I suspect the target audience was similar. I’ve never owned a .25 Remington but have owned quite a few .25-36’s.
Bert H. said
You can apply that same question to the 243 Win versus the 308 Win, or the 25-06 Remington versus the 30-06… but why waste your time and effort bemoaning the fact that they were manufactured? Life is short (and getting shorter for all of us old Pharts)… my advice is stop fretting about old obsolete cartridge chamberings and why they were created… it is water under the bridge!
Who’s “bemoaning”? But if the maker of a product offers the customer two similar choices, to ask “why” seems like a logical question. Such questions have served as the pretext for hundreds of gun mag articles.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Sometimes I wonder if it was the perception that the 25-35 would be faster and flatter shooting than the 30WCF(30-30) based on the names of the respective cartridges. It just makes sense that a lighter bullet with more powder would shoot faster and hit harder. It apparently didn’t. Still a pretty interesting cartridge and it may indeed have been attractive to the recoil sensitive hunter.
Mike
TXGunNut said
It just makes sense that a lighter bullet with more powder would shoot faster and hit harder.
If designers of the cartridge wished to make that case (quite plausible), it appears they failed to advertise it in any prominent way. Unlike Stevens catalogs, for ex, which always extolled the virtues of their proprietary cartridges. Think back to 1895. (I can almost remember that yr.) Doubt many “average hunters” had ever seen a ballistics chart or subscribed to a shooting publication.
November 7, 2015
Offline
clarence said
TXGunNut said
It just makes sense that a lighter bullet with more powder would shoot faster and hit harder.
If designers of the cartridge wished to make that case (quite plausible), it appears they failed to advertise it in any prominent way. Unlike Stevens catalogs, for ex, which always extolled the virtues of their proprietary cartridges. Think back to 1895. (I can almost remember that yr.) Doubt many “average hunters” had ever seen a ballistics chart or subscribed to a shooting publication.
I think they may have relied on the confusion of the transition from black powder cartridges to smokeless and the misleading names but my memory of this time period, like yours, leaves much to be desired. I think you may be wrong about the reading habits of shooters of this era. After all, Al Gore hadn’t invented the internet yet and Bert was answering all these questions via snail mail.😉
Mike
I was just thinking about how in the Remington pump and semi-auto line, there was the .30 Remington and the .35 Remington. And then you had the .32 Remington to fill that niche in between the two. I was just thinking about promoting the .32 Remington to that market that defined themselves in between the .30 and .35 market. But I think we know that Remington brought out the .32 just as an answer to Winchester’s .32 Special. The early focus of the Winchester’s promotion of their .32 Special highlighted that it was a more powerful cartridge than the .30-30 and was a good ways toward the power of the .30-40 Krag. Remington did not take this tact with their .32.
steve004 said
….The early focus of the Winchester’s promotion of their .32 Special highlighted that it was a more powerful cartridge than the .30-30 and was a good ways toward the power of the .30-40 Krag. Remington did not take this tact with their .32.
It was my understanding that Winchester’s primary reason for introducing the .32WS was to address the concerns of black powder reloaders using cast bullets. The bigger bore and slower twist rate helped reduce fouling. But yeah – they also touted the “more powerful than a 30-30” angle.
TXGunNut said
After all, Al Gore hadn’t invented the internet yet and Bert was answering all these questions via snail mail.😉
Mike
Not so Grasshopper… I was still using a chisel & stone tablets special delivered by Pony Express! Later I did give the Telegraph a try.
Me back in the early days…
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I’ve shot more moose(legally) in the last 40yrs with my 25-06 than I did with my 30-06, and took 6 shots one time with my 300 Win Mag hitting it on the run every shot before it was harvested. Shot placement is crucial but I have no reservations using a 25-35 for deer. Jmo
Rick C
I have a 25 30. Flat shooting and accurate, no recoil. I have never killed anything with it except sillywets and rocks. I wouldn’t hesitate to take it deer hunting with a copper jacketed soft nose 117gr bullet. out to 75 to 100 yards or so. I can’t see any farther than that anyway. But, it’s an illegal caliber in Iowa….too many rules.
Where I live, in south western Ontario We have a caliber restriction, (.27 cal.), because of the population density and all the .303 Enfields being sold for $6.00 after the 2nd w.w.. 25-35 and 25-20 are perfect cals. in the old Winchesters, in order to get them out in the bush. I am not a hunter but I do enjoy shooting these. I don’t know what the thinking was when these guns were built , but they did cover another base in the shooting circles.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Bert H. said
clarence said
Bert H. said
The original factory load is more than adequate for deer sized animals with any modicum of accuracy in the shot placement.
Why be satisfied with “adequate” when it’s unarguable .30 is a better killer? What did it do better than .30, to justify its creation? Less recoil? Ladies’ rifle, for ex?
You can apply that same question to the 243 Win versus the 308 Win, or the 25-06 Remington versus the 30-06… but why waste your time and effort bemoaning the fact that they were manufactured? Life is short (and getting shorter for all of us old Pharts)… my advice is stop fretting about old obsolete cartridge chamberings and why they were created… it is water under the bridge!
That is exactly right. Sorry to dig up an old post but I had to say I like shooting my 257bob and 25-06 more than my 308 and 30-06s. My 25-35 is a dream to shoot and can ring a 10″ plate at 250yrds very consistently. I’m firmly in the camp of the 25-35 was introduced to sell more rifles. But if you are a guy that wanted to do a lot of shooting in a day or wanted something to call a coyote rifle. That is it.
1 Guest(s)
