30-30, brush, and LEVERevolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

bdg146

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
289
Location
Pennsylvania
I guess I have a multi-part question.

First, the 30-30 has been known to be a great brush caliber. It just seems to be something that's understood, without hearing much about it. Is it necessarily true that brush is likely to deflect a 30-30 round less than another round, such as .270? If so, why? Less velocity? The bullet shape (often flatter at the point)? My gut feeling is that it has to do with bullet shape, but not sure that's necessarily true.

So all that being said, i picked up some LEVERevolution rounds a couple weeks ago. I haven't shot them yet, but they're generally more pointed than a regular 30-30 round, which is understandable since that's sort of the purpose behind them.

My final question is, do the LEVERevolution rounds, due to their shape, make the 30-30 lose some of the properties that make it brush-friendly?
 
All bullets will hit WAY farther than POA if they hit anything much thicker than a leaf. It's considered a good brush caliber because it's chambered in lever guns and doens't kick much, so follow up shots at easy.
A single shot .30-06 and a single shot .30-30 could both be good brush guns, however, I'd take the '06 since it's more powerful.

HB
 
bdg146


Yes, the main reason for more resistance to deflection for the 30-30 is because of its traditional rounded or flat nose.

I susspcet that the leverevolution spitzer bullet would increase the "deflection factor" in a heavy brush environment...however this is exactrly the purpose of these bullets in the first place..to make the venerable 30 WCF perform as decent long range rifle rather than just a short distance tool.

Use the appropriate bullets for the environment.

Keep in mind that once the tip break away, the leverevolution is just an hollow point bullet....so expect less penetration compared to, let's say, a Winchester Silvertip 170 gr. load.
 
A brush gun is one that is light and handy to carry into the brush. It is quick to shoulder and fire as well.

ALL bullets will deflect when they hit brush, branches, etc. Some will deflect more than others. How much? You never know, so don't try to shoot through stuff when you are hunting. The animal deserves better.
 
The myth of certian bullets or cartridges being mire suited to shooting through brush is just that A MYTH

I'll outline some of the reasons why.

1. All bullets deflect when they hit something, the farther the impacted twig is from the target the greater the potental for deflection.

2. A brush gun is a handy carbine that you don't care bout the finish, is quick to use, has the power to anchor game in one shot and offers a quick followup. NOTICE. I say brush GUN and not caliber

3. And this is the biggie, IF YOU DONT HAVE A CLEAR SHOT YOU SHOULDNT @$&/%# SHOOT! (see rules of gun safety)
 
Any bullet that hits brush will be deflected. There is absolutely no truth to the myth of round nose bullets working better.
 
Any bullet that hits brush will be deflected. There is absolutely no truth to the myth of round nose bullets working better.

Spitzer bullets, on average as rule, will deflect more than round nosed or flat nosed.....it is absolutely true...yes you can have the circumstance where a particular spitzer will go along and a flat nosed will be deflected...so many variables, angle, velocity, type of obstacle, etc....again, we are talking on average..The Army did an entire study on the subject in the early 60's, several deflection tests...

Another aspect to take in consideration is that slower velocity bullets, typical of traditional brush guns, will have less chance to explode if they hit a twig, leaf, etc...I witnessed personally .223 bullets coming apart after hitting a blade of grass...I bet a 30-30 bullet would have marched on.....
 
Thanks for the replies. After thinking some more, my basic understanding of physics leads me to believe that on average a spitzer bullet will deflect more. However, it would depend on so many variables that it wouldn't be reliable to think a rounded or flat nose can shoot through brush better.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about shooting through a clump of brush. That's irresponsible, and I fully understand that. I'm simply talking about hunting in woods. We don't have fields where I hunt. Clearings are few and far between. If you hunt in woods, no matter how hard you try to avoid it, you will likely hit a tiny twig at some point that you had no idea was even there.
 
The slower velocity may have some merit, but I'm not buying that round nose bullets are any better. There is some evidence to suggest that the large amounts of exposed lead on the flat or round noses may actually catch on brush and deflect more easily than pointed bullets.

I don't trust any bullet to shoot through brush. I shoot accurate rifles through openings in brush.
 
bdg146

I think you got the concept..regardless of the merit of the round nosed bullets ss. spitzer when it comes to resistance to deflection, your goal should always be a clear shot without even a leaf or a blade of grass between you and the target, no matter the cartridge you are firing....
 
Right. The answer to my question, regardless of what it was, wasn't going to change whether or not I'd take a shot. It was more or less just a curiosity that entered my head as I was looking over the LEVERevolution rounds.

To put my physics thoughts into words, basically if you have a bullet hit a twig, the force on the bullet should be normal (perpendicular) to the surface of the bullet. Since a spitzer bullet is pointed, a larger proportion of that force will be perpendicular to the flight path of the bullet (which is what causes deflection). Compare that to a rounded bullet, where a larger portion of the force will be parallel to the flight path. So, in theory, on average a rounded bullet should be slowed more but deflected less than a spitzer. My understanding of physics is fairly meager though, so who knows.

Thanks again to all the responses.
 
Last edited:
To put my physics thoughts into words, basically if you have a bullet hit a twig, the force on the bullet should be normal (perpendicular) to the surface of the bullet. Since a spitzer bullet is pointed, a larger proportion of that force will be perpendicular to the flight path of the bullet (which is what causes deflection). Compare that to a rounded bullet, where a larger portion of the force will be parallel to the flight path. So, in theory, on average a rounded bullet should be slowed more but deflected less than a spitzer. My understanding of physics is fairly meager though, so who knows.
You are correct, a wadcutter or HP would be best, though I haven't a clue what kind of difference it would make. If the quarry is at a close enough range and the obstacle was small enough (I wouldn't shoot through a tree ;)) then I see no reason why you shouln't take the shot with LeveRevolution or any other suitable hunting ammunition. Personally I really favor the LeveRevolution rounds...especially in .45-70Govt. :)
 
Yes, the main reason for more resistance to deflection for the 30-30 is because of its traditional rounded or flat nose.
Any bullet that hits brush will be deflected. There is absolutely no truth to the myth of round nose bullets working better.
Spitzer bullets, on average as rule, will deflect more than round nosed or flat nosed.....it is absolutely true...yes you can have the circumstance where a particular spitzer will go along and a flat nosed will be deflected...so many variables, angle, velocity, type of obstacle, etc....again, we are talking on average..The Army did an entire study on the subject in the early 60's, several deflection tests...
If memory serves me correctly, one of the gun rags did a test on this many years back (maybe in the early 90's?). They made fixtures with dowels in them, of varying diameter, into which they shot RN and spitzer bullets. They tracked the bullet deflection, and reported the results.

The conclusion was that there was no measurable delta between the amount of delection demonstrated by a spitzer shaped bullet than there was from a round nose bullet.
 
IIRC, it was in the American Rifleman's "Dope Bag" that I read of a brush deflection test.

A target was set up behind some twig-to-thumb sized brush. Various rifle rounds were fired, from 6mm to .45-70. Some spitzer, some round- or flat-nosed.

Everything deflected to some extent. The variance mostly seemed to be a function of the distance between the limb hit and the target, as Krochus said in his point #1.

My conclusion is that there is no such thing as a "brush bullet", but there is such a thing as a "brush gun": Short, light, handy and suitable for getting quickly on target at relatively close range. The cartridge depends mostly on what game is sought, so the cartridge could be anything from .22 rimfire to 4-bore omigod.
 
Basic physics would indicate that the weight of the bullet is going to matter.

A 17 grain rim fire is going to deflect much more than a 240 grain 44 mag when encoutering a deflecting object directly in the path. That is basic physics so these statements need to be qualified for at least a constant bullet weight.

I think the same is true of velocity. Projectiles at lower velocity are more likely to deflect, where as projectiles at higher velocities, will more likely crash through or penetrate the item.

Finally, a fangable bullet (or even hollow point) may come apart upon encountering a branch while a solid bullet or one with a full metal jacket would likely crash through the branch, although some develection will occur.


I also think the shape of the bullet will matter, but to a lesser degree. A hard nosed but very angled bullet is more likely to deflect off of a branch where as a flat nosed bullet may be more likely to crash through the branch, and while losing velocity, carry onward in a straight line.

I think that one would have to look at what the 30-30 was being compared to at the time the 'myth' or 'truth' developed. Was it being compared to a 22 magnum? Or a 45-70? Usually, when you say it is a good brush gun the next questions should be compared to what?

That is my 2 cents.
 
Tha attached was snipped from http://www.chuckhawks.com/woods_rifles.htm (fwiw).

What kind of bullets do African hunters using dangerous game rifles shoot, where penetration through several feet of flesh, bone (and even brush) is at a premium? Large caliber, long, heavy (thus higher sectonal density), round nosed, heavily jacketed (aka 'solid') bullets, fired at moderate velocity, sound about right?

lpl
======

Brush-Bucking Calibers and Bullets

I have read about several "brush-bucking" tests in which the authors tried to determine empirically what sort of bullet is most likely to penetrate brush and reach the target (usually a deer silhouette). The test conditions were all different, ranging from firing bullets at a target placed some distance behind actual heavy brush, to intentionally shooting through limbs, to firing into a box filled with equally spaced wooded dowels of fairly large diameter.

One important variable in such tests is the distance the target is placed behind the "brush." Another is the diameter and hardness of the simulated or real "brush." A leaf is different from a twig, which is different from a branch, which is different from a rigidly held wooden dowel. Real brush has a lot to recommend it and is probably the test medium I would choose, but the biggest problem with using real brush is that all bullets cannot hit the same amount of brush at the same angle, skewing the results. I suspect that you would have to fire an awful lot of bullets into real brush to get statistically valid results.

Unfortunately, the results of the tests I have read about varied widely. I have never constructed such a test myself (although I have been tempted), as I am not sure what the test conditions should be. I suspect that the results of my test would be no more reliable than previous tests. Most authorities have concluded that a large caliber bullet of great sectional density gets through brush the best. Cartridges like the .458 Winchester Magnum are frequent winners. That makes sense to me.

Jack O'Connor, in his Gun Book wrote about the results of such a test that he spent several afternoons conducting with a variety of calibers and bullet weights. O'Connor shot at a 3' by 4' outline of a deer through a heavy screen of natural brush. His results indicated several things. One was that, as logic suggests, the farther behind the brush the target was placed, the safer it was. At 6' the "deer" was liable to be hit; at 20' the "deer" was pretty safe.

O'Connor tested a variety of calibers from the .220 Swift to the .375 H&H Magnum, including the standard one ounce 12 gauge shotgun slug. This latter projectile proved to the best brush-bucker of them all, as it is stabilized by its weight forward design rather than by spin. Even the 300 grain Silvertip bullet fired from the .375 Magnum showed considerable deflection in O'Connor's testing. The .35 Remington's 200 grain RN bullet often found the target, but frequently hit sideways.

The worst caliber for penetrating brush was the .220 Swift loaded with a 50 grain Spire Point bullet. It almost never made it through the brush intact. (No surprise, as this bullet is designed to break-up against light resistance.)

Fairly light (for their caliber) high velocity bullets such as the 87 grain .250-3000, 100 grain .257 Roberts, 130 grain .270 Winchester, and 150 grain .30-06 spitzers also faired poorly in O'Connor's brush tests. The 100 grain .250 bullet was better than the 87 grain bullet, but still not very good at getting through the brush. The 117 grain RN .257, 150 grain RN .270, and 180 grain RN .30-06 bullets all gave O'Connor a much improved chance of hitting the target in their respective calibers.

He rated the .300 Savage with a 180 grain RN bullet and the .35 Remington with a 200 grain RN bullet as "good." The best results with any rifle caliber used in O'Connor's testing were obtained with the .348 Winchester using a 200 grain Flat Point bullet. O'Connor summarized his results this way: "I found that the higher the bullet velocity, the sharper the point, the thinner the jacket, the lighter the weight, the greater the deflection."
 
The bottom line is, there is no bullet that will consistently buck brush and hit a target on the other side with a reasonable amount of accuracy. Shooting through brush should never be attempted, because you are more likely to wound the game instead of missing it altogether. I passed up shot on a buck last year that my brother killed. He was up the trail about twenty yards and had a clear shot. The ten point scored 159 6/8 and had 13" g2s. Do I wish I would have killed it? Absofreakinlutely. But if I would have shot through the brush, neither of us would have got it.
 
In reading some Hornady material quite a while ago, they were talking about the 30-30 round nose. Was basically the best choice because of the way it's loaded (through the side) and reduced the risk of hitting the primer of the round in front of it. A pointed bullet pushed in hard (in theroy) could hit the forward primer like a firing pin. I'm sure there are many arguments fore and against. But the article showed no difference in blistics regarding deflection. For what's it's worth.
 
A question about hunting with the .30-30 in brush situations....

The big advantage of the Leverevolution bullets is that they loose their velocity more slowly due to being more aerodynamic. So they can be used to take longer shots. However if you're in a fairly tight brush situation where any clearings are measured in just a few yards it seems like all your shots would take place well within 100 yards and possibly the majority within 50 yards. So at that point would the Leverevolution rounds have any advantage over the more classic round nosed .30-30? Perhaps carry a few Leverevolution rounds that can be loaded over top of the other rounds for a longer shot if it comes up? That's one point where the side loading lever gun really shines.

I'm curious because for giggles I'm going to try setting up my old Glenfield(Marlin) lever gun with a scope and try it in metal silhouette shooting at my club. I was thinking that I'd use the cheaper round nose for the closer in shots and then shift to some Leverevolution reloads for the longer ones to limit the drop. The long final round is at 300 yards. The other thought I'm also playing with is to load up my .30-30 casings with .308 boat tail spitzers and just load one round at a time to avoid the issue of setting off the primer in the magazine.
 
The Hornaday Leverevoltion .30-30 does not distract from the 'brush' gun concept, the new round only adds range to our .30-30's.
I have used them and they do work. ANY improvement is good and they are good.
 
I think the same is true of velocity. Projectiles at lower velocity are more likely to deflect, where as projectiles at higher velocities, will more likely crash through or penetrate the item.
I would surmise that it would be just the opposite, as it is less likely to be deformed when it enters a different medium such as a small branch. :)
 
Is it necessarily true that brush is likely to deflect a 30-30 round less than another round, such as .270? If so, why? Less velocity? The bullet shape (often flatter at the point)? My gut feeling is that it has to do with bullet shape, but not sure that's necessarily true.
It is not true. The .30-30 does no better in brush than any other cartridge -- which is to say, pretty badly.

In the '70s, the NRA did an exhaustive study about "brush penetration." They concluded that high velocity, high stability (fast rate of spin) and bullet construction were the keys to shooting in brush. And although all cartridges tested did poorly in brush, the best was the .30-06 Armor Piercing round -- which is hardly suitable for hunting.
My final question is, do the LEVERevolution rounds, due to their shape, make the 30-30 lose some of the properties that make it brush-friendly?
No. To the extent the .30-30 is "brush-friendly" the key is that it is short and light, making it easy to carry and maneuver in the brush. In other words, "brush-friendly" is all about carrying, not about shooting through brush.
 
As stated earlier, the LeverEvolution was developed to allow a spitzer type bullet to function safely in a tube fed, lever action gun. A few quick google searches will show you the huge difference in bullet drop over range, increasing the effective range of your 30-30 to well past 200 yards.

Again, do some research on your LeverEvolution and you may be surprised. I have yet to see any for sale in my neck of the woods, but out of curiosity I read up quite a bit on it and while it is a substantial improvement to the 30-30 round, Hornady seems to have still used some "creative marketing" with it. For example, the LeverEvolution is a 160 grain bullet, while most (if not all) of the other factory 30-30 loads are either 150 or 170 grain bullets. So naturally, in their marketing, Hornady compares their 160 gr. to everyone elses 170 gr. bullet. Also, and I apologize in advance for not having the links to the reviews where I read this, but Hornady's bullet trajectory/ballistics numbers come from a 24 inch barrel, while everyone else uses a 20 inch barrel, which is the common length of a 30-30 (at least mine is). This extra barrel length gives Hornady better numbers for velocity and energy. Again, the LeverEvolution round is still a noticable improvement, but Hornady seems to have slanted the numbers even more in their favor.
Here's a link to some ballistics numbers.... http://www.chuckhawks.com/leverevolution.htm

One thing in the Chuck Hawks article I noticed is that at the time, the Hornady round was the only 30-30 available with a boat-tail profile. This is not true anymore, Federal's Fusion ammo has a boat-tail design as well, and has numbers nearly as impressive as Hornady's. While the Fusion still has the traditional 30-30 flat tip nose on it, the 170gr. bullet has only 7.7 inches of drop at 200 yards, and the 150 gr. 6.5 inches at 200. I think it would be interesting to see an apples to apples comparison of LeverEvolution to Fusion, same bullet weight, same barrel length, and see how much of the improvement and difference is attributable to the boat-tail design they both share, and the soft spitzer tip of the LeverEvolution.
 
The .30 WCF (.30-30) was originally developed with a 160 grain bullet. In the LeveRevolution, the 160 grain bullet develops more muzzle velocity than the 170 grain bullet, and retains that velocity better than the 170 grain bullet as it goes downrange. All in all, it's just about the ideal bullet for the .30 WCF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top