Weak kneed factory 30-30 ammo "where's the beef?"

[R.W.Dale]

I had a real eye opener at the range today while chronographing various loads. The real shocker was when I ran some 170grn Remington factory loads through my Savage 340 with a 20" barrel.

Shot
1. 1863 fps
2. 1879 fps
3. 1828 fps
4. 1838 fps
5. 1888 fps​

Now before you say I was getting erroneous readings I had also chronographed some remington bulk .22LR ammo. Remington claims 1280 fps for the 36grn HP ammo. I got

1. 1250
2. 1222
3. 1243
4. 1240
5. 1268​

It would appear as though those threads that place 30-30 in the same class as .357 magnum carbines could be very factual.

A max load of H-335 under a sierra 150grn FP according to Hodgon yields 2308 FPS I averaged a respectable 2240 fps. I wonder what's up handloads appear to be fairly close to claimed velocities in the manuals so why are these factory loads almost 300 FPS slower than the mfg's claims

 

[ZeSpectre]

That is interesting. I have nothing but subjective feeling to go by (no chrono) but I had one box of 170gr Remington that felt a LOT weaker than the next set of 20 I shot. I do wonder sometimes but not enough to actually buy a chrono and test

 

[trueblue1776]

Strange, my personal data for .30-30 puts the sweet spot at around 2150fps. It's hard to believe factory ammo would be so weak.

Perhaps the .30-30 is in the same category as .45-70, the cartridge is so old, manufacturers significantly reduce charges to avoid the possibility of blowing up an old firearm that wasn't built for modern pressure.

 

[McCall911]

Several years back I saw one loading of 170 grain .30-30 at an advertised muzzle velocity of 1965 fps, a good bit lower than what I was used to seeing. I was thinking it must have been out of a 16 or 20-inch barrel, but I guess I was wrong.

So I'm with trueblue1776. I think that ammo must be loaded lighter for older guns.

 

[C.F. Plinker]

Last August I ran some Remington 170 grain ammunition over the chrono and got 23128, 2120, 2123, 2142, and 2137 fps. This was with a Winchester 94 having a 20" barrel. It looks like there can be significant differences from lot to lot.
I used this as a control group for my workup of loads with 760 and Varget. At 50 yards the overall group with factory was 3.38 inches (center to center), the best 4 were 2.88" and the best 3 were 1.56". My final loads were below these velocities but I cut the group size down by about 1/3 with both powders.

 

[bigmedicine]

This is exactly why the 30-30 is a cartridge that begs to be reloaded.
As of late, I have really fallen for most of the bullets from Barnes. They have one of their X bullers (the X-Flat Nose = XFN) that you can shoot with IMR 4895 at a comfortable/safe loading at 2200 fps. I am not going to give up my 30-06 any time soon, but the "old" 30-30 with that loading can drop just about anything you want to.

 

[Geno]

Did the box say something like "Reduced Recoil"?

 

[R.W.Dale]

Did the box say something like "Reduced Recoil"?

no

 

[bigmedicine]

Thinking about your original question, maybe the Ammo companies have recently been stung by folks in a similar fashion to the 45 Colt - people shooting the big/heavy stuff for the Ruger/TC that don't belong in their model. Maybe they just got tired of being sued because of stupidity that they just tamed down some of their rounds the could be used by old guns. Not a data driven observation, just a thought.

 

[rangerruck]

sounds right, a 150 grn 3030 round, through a 24 inch bbl is about 2300 fps. so 170 grainers through a 20 inch bbl, would net under 2000 fps, for sure.

 

[Charles S]

This is exactly why the 30-30 is a cartridge that begs to be reloaded.

I agree. Unfortunately one cannot achieve the 30-30s true potential unless you they choose to use supper premium ammo (Hornady) or re-load.

When you reload - I really don't mean hot rod, just load to what the cartridge was designed you can produce some very accurate ammo that shoots flatter and hits harder than factory ammo.

I love the 30-30. It is a great cartridge and is really quite easy to load for.

 

[jefnvk]

I'm with the group that says any cartridge over 60 or 70 years old is gonna be downloaded to lessen the risk of an old gun failing.

 

[wally]

I'm with the group that says any cartridge over 60 or 70 years old is gonna be downloaded to lessen the risk of an old gun failing.

Know what the 06 in .30-06 is from? Certainly not being downloaded.

--wally.

 

[trueblue1776]

But...

I've seen load data for .30-06 that explicitly says not to use in a 1903.

 

[McCall911]

Know what the 06 in .30-06 is from? Certainly not being downloaded

.

You do have a point, wally.

And the Remington advertising I've read all says 2200 fps for their 170-grain .30-30 ammo. The light-recoil stuff has a 125 grain bullet instead of the 170, if I read right.

So I'm guessing it might have just been a bad batch of ammo. That's getting to be pretty common lately among that pricey factory ammunition.

 

[treeprof]

Bear in mind that, if you look at the test data details, most of the .30-30 factory specs (incl. Remington's) are derived from 24" test bbls, whereas most of us shoot 20" bbl (or shorter) guns chambered in .30-30.

 

[daniel (australia)]

Unlike the .45/70 and .45 Colt the .30/30 has always been a smokeless load, so there's no need for manufacturers to load it down to black powder ballistics to suit older firearms. The rifle designs for .30/30 haven't changed much, and even at full whack the pressures are pretty mild anyway. As long as the rifle in question is in serviceable order there should be no issue at all.

I certainly have no reservations about loading to full strength (but no more than that) for my "Special Smokeless Steel" Marlin 1893 model, which was made only four years after the .30-30 was announced. She still shoots well too

 

[R.W.Dale]

Back to the original topic, Today I chronographed some of the loads discussed above. The only difference than before is I put the chronograph 100yds away (at considerable financial risk I might add).

The 170grn Remington ammo that chronied 1850 FPS at 15" from the muzzle averaged an abysmal 1675 fps at 100 yards for 1059 ft lbs of energy at that range. Those numbers are literally 100yds down range from where they claim on Remington's ballistics chart

The 150grn Handload fared somewhat better, from a 2300 fps muzzle velocity it was down to 1900 FPS at 100 yards. And was packing 1202 FT lbs of energy at that range

 

[aspade]

That 170 gr load only dropping off 175fps in the first 100 yards works out to a BC of around 0.4 which would suggest a bad reading on one end or the other.