2100 fps with a low sectional density bullet designed for expansion at pistol velocities? That should turn out well.
I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of comparing the ballistics of a 16" 30-30 to a 16" 450 Bushmaster. Does that mean that a 16" AR-10 chambered in 45 Raptor or 500 Auto is "better" than a 16" AR-15 450 Bushmaster??
I'm talking about the premise that the cartridge and ballistics alone makes the AR a viable hunting rifle. I've carried them hunting and they're ungainly and unwieldy, and there's just no good way to carry them, and those aren't unfounded slights. (That's probably why you gravitate towards bolt rifles, isn't it?)
I'm not sure where you got your information, but the 350 Legend, 400 Legend, etc. were/are being developed for use in states where straight-wall cartridges are required, not because people are tired of the 30-30.
35W
I’m not sure I need more sectional density when I can get expansion to 3/4”, smashing a shoulder traversing diagonally through a whitetail and dislodging the rear offside quarter. All with a projectile that isn’t known to be overly tough. That was one of my own experiences with the 450BM and 250gr FTX.
Your right comparing 450 Bushmaster to 30-30 isn’t a great comparison given the disparity between the calibers, but in my mind my use of the 30-30 in the past would have been for the same purposes.
A better comparison would be the 30-30 to the 350 Legend closer in caliber.
In regards to those newer Legend calibers being developed for straight wall states your right. However, their use is much more common than that these days especially the 350 Legend and 450 Bushmaster.
And if a majority of the people shared in your personal beliefs about hunting with an AR I doubt the designers of said cartridges would have bothered keeping the COAL suitable to an AR STANAG mag length. Manufacturers saw there is a desire in the population to use the AR platform for hunting in wider uses than down south hunting hogs that has been done for 25 years. These cartridges get the performance of the AR15 straight into direct competition to older effective cartridges such as the 30-30 and 45-70 within certain parameters which are not restrictive.
Now I share your sentiment that I don’t particularly care for hunting my style of hunting out west here with an AR. I find their hard edges, protruding grips, cold aluminum not enjoyable. However, if I were hunting in areas down south for hogs and what not, I can’t see a better platform for it.
I was never one to state the 30-06 is dead, in my mind that was never the case. It fits too wide of a role in the hunting realm, and is never a bad choice for a hunter to select. The 30-30 doesn’t fit this, it’s good for dear and bear at closer distances <150-200 yards. And many of the lever guns hit harder with their recoil than many other hunting platforms due to their diminutive size and thickness at the buttstock.
In regards to my comment on the 30-30 being a dying cartridge, I’ll stand by that. No doubt the cartridge itself will be around for quite sometime in the future but that has to do with sheer quantity of firearms out there that shoot it. I bet if one could query the amount of new rifles sold in 30-30 it would be paltry.
And none of the above discusses the new generations bent towards new and not old tech; with no thought on past performance, good or bad. Just look at the march of all the firearms away from blued and steel to cerekoted and carbon fiber/polymer. From iron sights only (win94) to no iron sights and picatinny rail for optics. From long 26-30” barreled magnums to 20-22” shorter action efficient cartridges. From fastest velocity for the cartridge to heavy for caliber high BC loads. And not to forget the long ago switch from round nose to spitzer projectiles.
All of the above doesn’t bode well for long term viability of the 30-30 maintaining its stature in what people choose to continue to buy, reload, and ultimately use.
