30-30 quote

jamesinalaska said:

The 30-30 was enough rifle then (even though the 30.06 and 30-40 Krag were available) just as it is enough rifle now.

Click to expand...

Waaay back in the early 80s, I read a magazine article about a guy who took a .30-30 on an African safari and took quite a bit of larger game animals with it. The gist of the article was that within its range, the .30-30 was capable of taking any game in North America, and quite a bit of other game around the world.

But "good enough" and "best" have some wiggle room between them, and that's the space that most of the caliber debates seem to take place in.

Around 1900, the .32 Winchester Center Fire (aka .32-20) was considered a deer cartridge. Currently, .32-20 is considered far too weak for such use.

However, if it used to take deer, it still should, right? What is not mentioned is how many deer were wounded and got away. I think the same can be said for the .30-30 and moose.

One also notes both deer and moose are not considered 'dangerous' game in the same sense as lion, Cape Buffalo and elephant. A wounded deer will not typically attack, like a Grizzly Bear.

I prefer a bit more 'margin for error' with rifles for dangerous adversaries, be they game or belligerents.

My major complaint about the .30-30 is I do not really admire lever guns. Nor is the Savage 340 really compelling. I have a Savage Sportster in .32-20. It is trim and fun to shoot. But I wouldn't use it on deer by choice.

Older generations have always done things in a less than optimal manner, at least judged by current standards.

Interesting bit of history. The 30-30 was once considered to be a lot more than we consider it now. Years ago someone looked up reports on big game tags that were filled in Oregon, or Washington State, ( forgot which), in the late 1930's. Hunters were told to report what cartridge they used. I was amazed at all the elk tags that were filled with 30-30's in those pre-WW2 times. I'm sure most of those elk taken with 30-30's were in the timber and not too far away and while I'd never elk hunt with my 30-30 it's neat to know that within a certain distance limitation it could still be done.

I'm of 2 minds on the 30-30. It works and always has. And sometimes we over think rifle cartridges. Virtually every cartridge from 26 caliber on up that has come out since smokeless powder will kill every animal in North America. It just comes down to effective range and how much recoil the shooter is willing to tolerate. It was like a 300 WM compared to the common cartridges used in 1895 when it came out. It shot flatter, penetrated deeper, and offered better accuracy.

On the other hand the 30-30 was a step backwards when it came out too. The 6.5X55 and 7X57 predate it by several years, have similar recoil and offer far greater bullet penetration on game, better accuracy, and hold up at longer ranges. And it is only 8 years younger than our 30-06. It's often stated that the 30-30 has killed more game than any other cartridge. It is also often stated that it has wounded and left un-recovered more game than any other cartridge. I believe both to be true.

It is what it is. Used within it's limitations it will work. I own several and occasionally hunt with one. When I feel like hunting with a handicap

Archie said:

My major complaint about the .30-30 is I do not really admire lever guns.

Click to expand...

Blasphemy!!!! It’s the most beautiful rifle design ever created!!! Just my opinion of course.

My son took a mature cow elk with a .30-30. DRT

I've always been a .30-06 guy, but if a .30-30 was all I had, I would feel very well armed with it.

We’re a long ways from the dire necessity our parents (I’m over seventy - my Dad was a depression era kid, and really did have days when a single meal, without meat was all that was there...) faced.

I don’t wish hard times on my kids (or grandkids) or anyone else’s - but it’s certain they will come again. When they do a 30-30, and a few shells to go with it will certainly take whatever game is available... At least that’s my take on it.

Whenever I hear about “the greatest generation” I think that they had no other choices.

I have this dream that one day I will walk into LGS and there will be 20ga-20ga/.30-30 drilling for sale in fine gun section.

I’ve always loved the .30-30. We don’t get to take deer in Ohio with anything but straight-walled cartridges, but I’ve hunted with my trusty Marlin Up North in Michigan. I was the only one in camp without a bolt gun, but felt no disadvantage. In that thick woods, I’d rather not have anything else.

That statement is being judge by todays standard and not when it was made. The 30-30 was hot stuff when most other loads were black powder. It worked and people used it for good and bad. Just like today. Anything can be killed with it but there are better choices today. But it will still work if used appropriately.

I have a little Savage 23C in 25-20. I have always wondered how it would do on game larger than, say, a raccoon or a possum. I reload for it using a 60 gr Hornady JSP flat point. Pushed by 12 gr of 4227 IIRC. I think it gets around 2200 FPS, again, going on memory. I know it will put a bullet completely through a treated lumber 4X4 and in inch into the next one.

Last fall I had the opportunity to shoot an enormous 14 pound beef roast before it was cut into smaller roasts. Long story short, the bullet completely penetrated 12" of roast and buried itself in the mud, where it was recovered, having mushroomed perfectly. It weighed 56 grains.

So is it a deer rifle? I don't think so. But it could do the job, I think, if called upon.

At the dawn of smokless powder sporting cartridges, the 30-30 was considered adequate for anything up to and including bears. And the 35 Remington, why, that was the hammer of THOR!

I don't think the game animals have gotten any harder to kill.

tark said:

I have a little Savage 23C in 25-20. I have always wondered how it would do on game larger than, say, a raccoon or a possum. I reload for it using a 60 gr Hornady JSP flat point. Pushed by 12 gr of 4227 IIRC. I think it gets around 2200 FPS, again, going on memory. I know it will put a bullet completely through a treated lumber 4X4 and in inch into the next one.

Last fall I had the opportunity to shoot an enormous 14 pound beef roast before it was cut into smaller roasts. Long story short, the bullet completely penetrated 12" of roast and buried itself in the mud, where it was recovered, having mushroomed perfectly. It weighed 56 grains.

So is it a deer rifle? I don't think so. But it could do the job, I think, if called upon.

At the dawn of smokless powder sporting cartridges, the 30-30 was considered adequate for anything up to and including bears. And the 35 Remington, why, that was the hammer of THOR!

I don't think the game animals have gotten any harder to kill.

Click to expand...

I love my 25-20, shoot squirrels with it and other small game and varmints. Once I killed a wild turkey with it, but I have no plans to use it on anything larger.

A few years ago, though, I read this story about a family homesteading in Alaska. Every year, they'd look out the window and see a moose in the garden, which they needed for meat. They had two riles, a 25-20 and an Enfield .303. They learned that when they shot the moose in the lungs with the Enfield that he would run way off in the brush to die. Tracking him, cutting him up, bringing the meat back through the thick brush was an awful job, but when they shot a moose with the 25-20, he just stood there grazing, not knowing he was hit, until he ran out of air and died in the garden, where they could get to him easy.

Archie said:

Around 1900, the .32 Winchester Center Fire (aka .32-20) was considered a deer cartridge. Currently, .32-20 is considered far too weak for such use.

However, if it used to take deer, it still should, right? What is not mentioned is how many deer were wounded and got away. I think the same can be said for the .30-30 and moose.

One also notes both deer and moose are not considered 'dangerous' game in the same sense as lion, Cape Buffalo and elephant. A wounded deer will not typically attack, like a Grizzly Bear.

I prefer a bit more 'margin for error' with rifles for dangerous adversaries, be they game or belligerents.

My major complaint about the .30-30 is I do not really admire lever guns. Nor is the Savage 340 really compelling. I have a Savage Sportster in .32-20. It is trim and fun to shoot. But I wouldn't use it on deer by choice.

Click to expand...

Most hunters believed in getting in close when hunting.
Now it's about how far away can I shoot it.
I would rather use a 30-30 at 100 yds than a 30-06 at 400...
Tracking game for a distance was considered acceptable. Now we want as close to instantaneous death as possible.

Not many used/trusted scopes back then either.

I don’t mind hunting with one. Im not one of those guys who likes a giant scope either.....or a bolt action anything. Lever guns fit really good into my tastes....as well a pumps and semis.

I’m personally not a fan of hunting at such a distance you need a forward spotter to call in your shots like an artillery strike, but it’s all the rage today. If you have the skill and equipment to kill ethically, that’s really all that matters.

Now for the not tracking game part, nothing’s worse than putting a soon to be fatal shot on a deer or other critter and having it run far enough to be shot and claimed by another hunter... well losing and wasting it altogether is worse, but you get my drift. Having your animal drop in a reasonable distance (or right away) is certainly desirable.

The .30-30 has always been enough for just about anything in NA when used within its limitations. Others, like the ‘06 and .270 were improvements 100 odd years ago. Nothing has changed since then but the ad copy for the latest and greatest.

Stay safe.

Perhaps it’s my lousy long distance eyesight and my lack of trust in optics, which is probably mostly due to my limited use with scopes, but I appreciate the 30-30 cartridge. I also like the .308. I have never been one to aspire to long range hunting. As a kid growing up in Pennsylvania I had the good fortune to learn from good and ethical hunters that one should always be sure of their shot. I have also helped more than one self described hunter track wounded game because they took a shot that was outside their control or abilities.
I no longer hunt deer but if I decide to do so again more than likely I will do so with one of my trusty 30-30s.

The key is knowing your own abilities with the gun and ammunition that you choose. If I have any doubts I do not take the shot. I have let many animals go because I wasn’t sure of my shot. And, I am the type of person that if I wounded an animal and it got away I could not forgive myself.
I know that I am very good with my 30-30s with iron sights out to 150 yards on targets so I am totally confident with game to 100 yards.

I am going off on a tangent...Apologies.

If I lived back in the early 1900’s I am sure I would have thought the 30-30, or the .30 WCF, was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I would have believed the sports periodicals touting it as a big game cartridge in a new big game gun, both products of the latest in technological advancement. AND because those really cool advertisements from Winchester told me so!

One of the things that is indicative, to me, that advertising, machismo, hype...whatever, plays a big part in ammunition and it’s use is that guys that will look down their noses at rounds like the 30-30 will gladly tout other rounds for self defense, like; 7.62x39 or .300 Blackout as being superior. Oh sure, they are pointy while the other is flat, but in regards to power? They are similar. The 30-30 just doesn’t have a “super cool Lego’s for men” delivery system. (this is humor - not insult...my humor may not be your humor )

I was going to talk a little more about advertising, machismo and hype in regards to other rounds like 6.5 Creedmore vs .308 and some rounds from the past that were the “latest and greatest” thing until another “latest and greatest” thing came along (some fat little magnum cartridges of the 90’s come to mind) but this isn’t about all those. It’s about the humble yet lovable 30-30.

One thing that I do find fascinating about the 30-30 cartridge and numerous evaluations of it are those that write about it “with authority” yet make statements that show obvious signs that the author discounts the round as a thing that needs to be disdained or set aside as an old round that granddad used to use, as if that is a bad thing. Why do these writers write about things they obviously have no appreciation of? Do they fear that the lowly 30-30 will somehow rise up and knock their prized round from it’s perch? Silly!

Something quite a few folks forget is that the 30-30 was never a round adopted by the military. Oh sure, it did see some use by the military (look up “spruce guns”) but the round was not developed by or for the military. Many of the most popular cartridges in use today all over the world started off in military use. For a cartridge to remain as popular as the 30-30 has been over the years and to not have been used by the military says a lot about this round.

I like and appreciate the 30-30 for what it is.
The 30-30 is adequate for medium game. It has moderate speed and power and low recoil. The guns it’s used in make for fast follow up shots. Overall the 30-30 is a pretty decent and useful cartridge.

I was going to post some videos I found online that I found when I searched “30-30 vs 308 vs 30-06”. I decided against that. You can seek them out if you wish.
There’s a guy that did videos of those 3 rounds firing at various things, cinder blocks, cast iron skillets, water jugs... All very entertaining but the thing that kind of baffled me was that the 30-30 went through more water jugs than the .308 or the 30.06 but when it came to cinder blocks the .308 and 30.06 clearly had more power. I thought about this quite a bit and concluded that perhaps the 30-30, because of it’s configuration and speed is better suited for soft target shots like heart and lung shots versus shots where more bone is encountered, like shots that take out an animal’s shoulders. Regardless, interesting videos to watch. AND please do not think that I am trying to say that I think the 30-30 is superior to the .308 or .30.06. I am not saying that!




Here is an interesting historical article I found online about the 30-30.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/3030history.htm

This has to be one of the more ridiculous articles I have ever read regarding the 30-30 cartridge and it’s from Winchester’s own blog.
https://winchester.com/Blog/2016/05/30-30-misconceptions-through-the-years

Pat Riot said:

Perhaps it’s my lousy long distance eyesight and my lack of trust in optics, which is probably mostly due to my limited use with scopes, but I appreciate the 30-30 cartridge. I also like the .308. I have never been one to aspire to long range hunting. As a kid growing up in Pennsylvania I had the good fortune to learn from good and ethical hunters that one should always be sure of their shot. I have also helped more than one self described hunter track wounded game because they took a shot that was outside their control or abilities.
I no longer hunt deer but if I decide to do so again more than likely I will do so with one of my trusty 30-30s.

The key is knowing your own abilities with the gun and ammunition that you choose. If I have any doubts I do not take the shot. I have let many animals go because I wasn’t sure of my shot. And, I am the type of person that if I wounded an animal and it got away I could not forgive myself.
I know that I am very good with my 30-30s with iron sights out to 150 yards on targets so I am totally confident with game to 100 yards.

I am going off on a tangent...Apologies.

If I lived back in the early 1900’s I am sure I would have thought the 30-30, or the .30 WCF, was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I would have believed the sports periodicals touting it as a big game cartridge in a new big game gun, both products of the latest in technological advancement. AND because those really cool advertisements from Winchester told me so!

One of the things that is indicative, to me, that advertising, machismo, hype...whatever, plays a big part in ammunition and it’s use is that guys that will look down their noses at rounds like the 30-30 will gladly tout other rounds for self defense, like; 7.62x39 or .300 Blackout as being superior. Oh sure, they are pointy while the other is flat, but in regards to power? They are similar. The 30-30 just doesn’t have a “super cool Lego’s for men” delivery system. (this is humor - not insult...my humor may not be your humor )

I was going to talk a little more about advertising, machismo and hype in regards to other rounds like 6.5 Creedmore vs .308 and some rounds from the past that were the “latest and greatest” thing until another “latest and greatest” thing came along (some fat little magnum cartridges of the 90’s come to mind) but this isn’t about all those. It’s about the humble yet lovable 30-30.

One thing that I do find fascinating about the 30-30 cartridge and numerous evaluations of it are those that write about it “with authority” yet make statements that show obvious signs that the author discounts the round as a thing that needs to be disdained or set aside as an old round that granddad used to use, as if that is a bad thing. Why do these writers write about things they obviously have no appreciation of? Do they fear that the lowly 30-30 will somehow rise up and knock their prized round from it’s perch? Silly!

Something quite a few folks forget is that the 30-30 was never a round adopted by the military. Oh sure, it did see some use by the military (look up “spruce guns”) but the round was not developed by or for the military. Many of the most popular cartridges in use today all over the world started off in military use. For a cartridge to remain as popular as the 30-30 has been over the years and to not have been used by the military says a lot about this round.

I like and appreciate the 30-30 for what it is.
The 30-30 is adequate for medium game. It has moderate speed and power and low recoil. The guns it’s used in make for fast follow up shots. Overall the 30-30 is a pretty decent and useful cartridge.

I was going to post some videos I found online that I found when I searched “30-30 vs 308 vs 30-06”. I decided against that. You can seek them out if you wish.
There’s a guy that did videos of those 3 rounds firing at various things, cinder blocks, cast iron skillets, water jugs... All very entertaining but the thing that kind of baffled me was that the 30-30 went through more water jugs than the .308 or the 30.06 but when it came to cinder blocks the .308 and 30.06 clearly had more power. I thought about this quite a bit and concluded that perhaps the 30-30, because of it’s configuration and speed is better suited for soft target shots like heart and lung shots versus shots where more bone is encountered, like shots that take out an animal’s shoulders. Regardless, interesting videos to watch. AND please do not think that I am trying to say that I think the 30-30 is superior to the .308 or .30.06. I am not saying that!




Here is an interesting historical article I found online about the 30-30.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/3030history.htm

This has to be one of the more ridiculous articles I have ever read regarding the 30-30 cartridge and it’s from Winchester’s own blog.
https://winchester.com/Blog/2016/05/30-30-misconceptions-through-the-years

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head with the first few paragraphs.

I would say a 30-30 at 150 yards is more lethal and creates a larger wound channel than some 6.5 mm at 800 yards, and yet today, 2000 yards is like the old 1000 yards in terms of bragging.

Cup and core bullets stop expanding below 1800 fps, so for ethical hunting, take a look just when the bullet velocity drops below that. It is in the range of 300 yards for standard velocity rounds. I just used a ballistic calculator for a 30 caliber 165 grain bullet, 2800 fps, BC 0.400. The bullet is 1900 fps at 400 yards, 1778 at 500 yards. In my experience vendor BC's tend to be a bit optimistic, and in fact, I am not getting 2800 fps with any 165 or 168 without case head expansion and blown primers in my 30-06's. I stick to loads just above 2700 fps, same with my 270 Win. I can't push 150's faster than 2700 fps in my 270 Win without blown case heads.

Anyway, hunters such as the Eskimos hunted everything with their 30-30's, they got up close, put the bullet where they were aiming, waited after the shot, and then walked up to the dead animal. The shooting community has been sold on Kinetic Energy and thus, increasing velocity as a measure of lethality for over a half century, but KE does not kill. Blood loss kills. Make a large enough through hole and the animal will bleed out. You use the 30-30 at distances where the bullet expands and makes a though hole, how fast it kills depends on shot placement, and outside of the central nervous system, that means blood loss.

A facillicy that I observe all the time, is moderns projecting back today's technology. Alexander the Great did not have a cell phone, nor are those B&W moving pictures of him, that you see as retrospectives, real. Camera's and film did not exist 300 BC. Prior to WW2 and even after, scopes were uncommon on hunting rifles. Scopes were expensive, finicky, I think the average pre War scope was long, I am not exactly an expert on all of them, but post WW2, scopes started being made compact and "affordable". This is in today's money, an $819 rig, with scope and mount. At $77.00 that was expensive, M70's were running about $105. So the scope cost you almost as much as the rifle.



What the typical hunting rifle had was a set of iron sights





I earned my Distinguished Rifleman's Badge with an M1a and iron sights. I have a reasonable idea of the limitations of irons. People get to be small around 300 yards, you can center hold on a human silhouette at 300 yards. The rattle-battle targets are a WW1 brodie helmet shape at 300 yards and a human silhouette at 600 yards. With those things I used a six O'Clock hold as they were not large enough for a center hold with the post. I tried center hold at 600 yards and it did not work for me as I could not tell where the center was. I did not see a head at that distance and the whole thing looked like a tiny rectangle. At 1000 yards, you approach the round bull with a post, and the whole target would disappear. I used a frame hold on the 12 X 12 foot target. I aimed below the target because I could not see it otherwise. Iron sights limit the distance at which you can actually aim at a shoulder, or behind the shoulder. At some distance the animal is an irregular blob. Which is actually all to the good. It is good because that means hunters have to get up close instead of flinging a bullet at insane distances. I do recommend lining up a bead front sight and a Lyman 48 on something deer sized, above 100 yards, and that target will look awfully small. Might be just the size of the bead!



So, back in the day, with irons, hey a 30-30 is just fine. Right? Because you are not shooting at ridiculous distances. However, when shooters started mounting scopes on rifles, I think a delusion set in. That is, if shooters can see see the animal at distance, they think they can hit the animal at distance. Marksmanship is just a matter of how much you spend on your equipment, right?

Long Range won't rob you of a kill if you buy a Weatherby. You need all that horsepower because you are tossing rounds at distances that you should be using artillery.



If you regularly shoot in competition you begin to understand the limitations of your ability to hit anything at distance. Sure, your 6 X 24 or 36 power scope allows you to see way, way, out there, but the ability to see at distance has exceeded the ability of shooters to hit anything, but the berm, at those distances. Planet earth is a big target if you are on it. But, don't fool your self into thinking just because the moon is sharp and clear in your scope, that you can plant a hit on the thing.


Poor bears. there are 55,000 grizzly bears in North America and everyone wants to kill one. Lets say, how long is a population of 55,000 bears going to last against 300,000,000 armed, predatory, and fearful people? Not long I expect. But, if you are going out of your way to kill bears, then a 30-30 is not going to be the best choice. Might take a 20 mm machine cannon instead.



Then it will be a fair fight.

Slamfire said:

Poor bears. there are 55,000 grizzly bears in North America and everyone wants to kill one. Lets say, how long is a population of 55,000 bears going to last against 300,000,000 armed and fearful people? Not long I expect. But, if you are going out of your way to kill bears, then a 30-30 is not going to be the best choice. Might take a 20 mm machine cannon instead.

.

Click to expand...

I never could understand the obsession some fol]ks have with killing bears.

My father taught me that ethical hunters don't kill anything they aren't going to eat. Most folks don't eat bear meat.

I have some ethical problems with killng jiust for the sheer fun of killing.

cheygriz said:

I never could understand the obsession some fol]ks have with killing bears.

My father taught me that ethical hunters don't kill anything they aren't going to eat. Most folks don't eat bear meat.

I have some ethical problems with killng jiust for the sheer fun of killing.

Click to expand...

Most people don't have the right woman cook bear or coon. Done right it is amazing. Done wrong, it's a terrible greasy hunk of meat.
My mother is one of them. I love bear meat.

Bear is on the menu for my brother up in Alaska (along with caribou, moose, and others...) but you have to be selective... He only uses it for roasts and stews (and only during the time when they’re feeding on berries..). He keeps an eye out for a young black bear during that time.

Note: they’re leading a full bore subsistence lifestyle...

As far as bears go, where he is (upper Mat-Su area off the Glenn Hwy...) grizzly bears have learned to associate the sound of a rifle shot with a feeding opportunity. So you might just have to defend yourself from something you don’t plan on eating at all (understatement...). For that reason he uses a 375 H&H in the field... Certainly more than you need (if you discount moose..) but very handy if a grizz is incoming flat out in heavy alder thickets where you won’t even have a shot until it’s much too close. At least that’s what he says.... All of my hunting was for two-legged animals - all those years ago.

cheygriz said:

I never could understand the obsession some fol]ks have with killing bears.

My father taught me that ethical hunters don't kill anything they aren't going to eat. Most folks don't eat bear meat.

I have some ethical problems with killng jiust for the sheer fun of killing.

Click to expand...

I will bet most of the bear killings are for Chinese medicine. Gall bladders, bear bile, bear paws.

Detailed Discussion of Bears Used in Traditional Chinese Medicine

From tiger paws to bear testicles,

This has to be one of the more ridiculous articles I have ever read regarding the 30-30 cartridge and it’s from Winchester’s own blog.
https://winchester.com/Blog/2016/05/30-30-misconceptions-through-the-years[/QUOTE]

What part or parts do you find ridiculous?