[saturno_v]

We beat this horse so many times I know, but I will ask your comments and opinions about a specific claim..

An Alaskan old fisherman was involved in a discussion with others about the venerable "thutty-thutty" capabilities...I witnessed similar situations over and over we already discussed this in the past...

Many said that you reasonably need a 375 or bigger in case of an "involontary" date with a Grizzly....

The old fisherman said no way....he claims that people substitute power with lack of shooting skills and wounding a charging Grizzly with a 458 will not do you any good....he said that the 30 WCF with proper bullets is all you need, he rather have a handy lever action rifle (fast repeated shots if you get the chance) than a slow bolt action.....he admit the 45-70 pack way more punch but he think is wasted energy and hard on your shoulder....he carries an old Winchester 94 in the woods...

If you run the numbers, he claims that the 30-30 has still more muzzle energy than a 454 Casull (considerate an adequate bear defense gun), better sectional density (better penetration) and better retained energy downrange..

Then, and here things got interesting, he made a specific claim.

Accordingly to him, few years ago they shot in self defense a big coastal grizzly with a 30-30 with partition bullets and one of the shot engaged the skull frontally (lenghtwise) and penetrated all the way just short of exiting the body!!! So a 30-30 round was able to travel lenghtwise into the grizzly and almost exiting...shooting distance under 30 yards....

What do you think?? Is credible/possible??

[308sc]

doubt it!

[Strongbad]

Did he have a plastic wrist bracelet on? You know... the kind they give you in the mental hospital?

[jmr40]

There was a test done by the Alaska Fish and Game dept years ago that pops up on the net ever now and then. They concluded that the 30-06 was the best gun for close range performance if I remember correctly. The bullets from more powerful rounds did not hold together at 15 yards as well as the slower 30-06 which penetrated farther and recoiled less. I don't recall if the 30-30 was tested.

With modern bullets the results may very well be different today but I think a slow moving 30-30 will penetrate further than many give it credit for. Given a choice I would prefer something bigger though.

[saturno_v]

The 30-06 will take a grizzly for sure, many Alaskans know that...

In Siberia they take big brown bears with the 7,62X54R...

[_N4Z_]

Of course placement is king. I recall there was a semi famous person from the great white north who used 30-30 to bag an impressive amount of Brown. He was well known for these exploits, and I cannot remember his name now... :banghead: Certainly somebody here can help me out on this???

Seems that I remember reading the key was hitting the animal in the shoulder to immobilize, and then following up with a coup de grace shot.


In the end I think this guy was finally killed by a Brown.

I personally would opt for a lever (Browning) in 30-06.

[Shawnee]

I wouldn't be so fast to doubt the story of the 30/30 bullet traveling the length of a Griz... especially at that range and realizing that it met with the most resistance at entry and then probably very little resistance after that. My guess is the slug could have traveled along the spine (bullets are known to follow bone sometimes) which would mean its' passage may have been relatively easy. Doubt it was the 150-grainer.
Have read many times that the 30/30 was pretty much the standard rifle for Eskimos and some other northern types - who used them on everythi9ng including Griz, Browns, and Polar Bears.
Good question though. If I still had a 30/30 I would shoot it into some 2x4s or something at 30yds. just to see what happened.

:cool:

[Frog48]

he admit the 45-70 pack way more punch but he think is wasted energy and hard on your shoulder

I'd rather have a sore shoulder, rather than get ripped to shreds by a Grizzly...

he rather have a handy lever action rifle (fast repeated shots if you get the chance) than a slow bolt action

If you want hard hitting AND really fast follow-on shots, .50 Beowulf from an AR would do the job.

[cracked butt]

he said that the 30 WCF with proper bullets is all you need, he rather have a handy lever action rifle (fast repeated shots if you get the chance) than a slow bolt action

Leveractions can be faster than a bolt action when it comes to relatively low powered and short pistol cartridges, but not so much when it comes to full power rifle loads- of which the 30-30 barely scratches the bottom of the spectrum of.

If we are talking about antiquated guns firing antiquated cartridges, I'd feel much better armed with a SMLE in .303 than a winchester 94 in 30-30.

[JesseL]

If you run the numbers, he claims that the 30-30 has still more muzzle energy than a 454 Casull (considerate an adequate bear defense gun), better sectional density (better penetration) and better retained energy downrange..

This part is definitely true. Even the most monstrous of handgun rounds (fired from handguns) aren't all that spectacular compared to average rifle rounds (fired from rifles).

[saturno_v]

Leveractions can be faster than a bolt action when it comes to relatively low powered and short pistol cartridges, but not so much when it comes to full power rifle loads- of which the 30-30 barely scratches the bottom of the spectrum of.


While the 30-30 is not longer an impressive powerhouse, sorry but about 2000 ft/lb still sound like a full power round to me...

[ArmedBear]

I'd feel much better armed with a SMLE in .303 than a winchester 94 in 30-30.

Having said .303 sitting in a safe next to a little straight-grip lever gun (a Marlin, not a Winchester, but same concept), I'll take the lever. Unless I have a fixed bayonet, the big, heavy English gun is quite a hindrance compared to a quick little carbine.

Of course, there are lever guns made specifically for bear defense, too. Having seen a .45-70 do its thing, I'd feel adequately armed with one.

But the .30-30 is no slouch before the bullet slows down. The .30-06 is considered a highly effective round at 200 yards, where it has about the energy a .30-30 has at the muzzle.

[saturno_v]

A typical 30-30 bullet at 500 yards (way over its practical range) retains more energy than your average 45 ACP pistol at the muzzle...

At 300 yards (again, past the practical "thutty-thutty" range) the energy is still greater than a 41 Magnum revolver at the muzzle...with the Hornady leverevolution the energy, always at 300 yards, is basically the same of a heavy 44 Magnum load from a long barrel wheel handgun.

The venerable 30 WCF is no joke, I bet with hardcast bullets is capable of doing interesting things....

The .30-06 is considered a highly effective round at 200 yards, where it has about the energy a .30-30 has at the muzzle.


A typical 30-06 has still significantly more energy at 200 yards than a 30-30 at the muzzle, some loads a lot more...

Some Hornady 30-06 ammo have more energy at 200 yards than an average 303 British load at the muzzle....

Bullet construction, however, probably counts even more than just energy numbers...

[ArmedBear]

Some Hornady 30-06 ammo have more energy at 200 yards than an average 303 British load at the muzzle....

Well yes.

But there's such thing as hot .30-30, too. So I was comparing factory standard loads.

[Shawnee]

"...about 2000 ft/lb still sound like a full power round to me..."

You betcha it is, Saturno ! That is a whole passle of "swat" !

:cool:

[asknight]

I don't know anything about shooting bears, but I can say with authority that the thutty-thutty will push a Federal 170gr JFP through a whitetail from brisket to butt from 50-150 yards leaving a nasty exit wound.

[RaspberrySurprise]

I'll take my wasr-10 kinda like a modern 30-30 and built with the climate in mind.

[1911 guy]

I've never wandered very far in brown bear country, but I do know that the most impressive handguns out there don't hold up to rifles we consider marginal. The classic example is the .44 Magnum. The ol' .30-30 has got it all over the .44. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the old guys claims. Hunters were killing big animals, including brown bears, before the cartridges we consider "normal" for big game were even invented.

[336A]

It seemed to work for this guy.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/3030again.htm

[Ash]

We have gotten a bit far into the bigger is better world. Yet, some of these older rounds are certainly competent and have proven themselves consistently. Now, if the guy was saying M1 Carbine I would say nay, but a 30-30 carbine at short range will beat all the bear caliber revolvers out there. If a bear caliber revolver is suitable, then a 30-30 should be more so.

It is amazing what the generations did before us with so many firearms that we consider virtually unusable today. Tougher guys, I suppose.

Ash

[CZguy]

It is amazing what the generations did before us with so many firearms that we consider virtually unusable today. Tougher guys, I suppose.


Yep ;)

[jwkeene]

While a 30-30 is more gun than folks give it credit for, I seriously doubt that a 30-30 penetrated a large bear's skull, went down the neck, through the vitals and lodged in the rear end unless it was a very small bear. While the ammo companies have had a lot of time to figure out good 30-30 bullets, that is 6 to 8' of penetration. Maybe a fluke shot that didn't hit any bone other than the skull but doubtful.

That said, I would much rather have a 30-30 carbine than a handgun with a hostile bear coming my way. The only advantage to the hangun other than ease of portability would be if I screwed up and let the bear get too close in the first place so that I was already getting chewed or about to get chewed.

Jim

[ants]

One of my bullets travelled the length of a deer's body, between the skin and the meat, in that thin layer of fat above the backstrap. I wouldn't doubt that it could do the same in a small bear. I just hope the bear is dead before the bullet gets to the butt.

That's why I always take fat guys on a bear hunt. I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun the fat guy.

[paintballdude902]

most alaskan guides tell people to take the rifle they are best with

my dad to a sporterized 03 in 30'06 for both sheep and bear this was back around 59-62

ive been told for my hunt next summer to take either a .30-06 or a .270 and to get to know it first

im fine taking my .30-30 for black bear here but i still prefere my .45-70 which im debating taking to alaska

[CZguy]

most alaskan guides tell people to take the rifle they are best with

Most Alaskan guides tell people to use punctuation. :D

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

What are you planning on taking with the .45-70?

[Eric F]

I think a 30-30 is more than able to kill a grizzely, however it would not be my first pic and it most cretianly did not go through that much bear even with a partition. I shot a deer full on in the chest with a partition in a 30-remington(30-30 by remington cut for an auto loader) and the bullet never got past the heart and lungs.

[Racktracker]

Even though I have never taken so much as a gopher with a 30-30, I still have a very hard time believing it could penetrate a grizzly, bigger than a cub, from stem to stern. The bullet would have to be a solid or non expanding to get anywhere near that kind of penetration, especially after encountering bone.

I have, however taken many deer, elk and antelope with a 30-06. In my experiences a 150gr psp out of a 06 will penetrate ~36" if no heavy bone is hit. Since the 06 packs considerably more punch than a 30-30, I would suspect the 06 will also provide greater penetration.

[saturno_v]

I don't know anything about shooting bears, but I can say with authority that the thutty-thutty will push a Federal 170gr JFP through a whitetail from brisket to butt from 50-150 yards leaving a nasty exit wound.


I shot a deer full on in the chest with a partition in a 30-remington(30-30 by remington cut for an auto loader) and the bullet never got past the heart and lungs.


Something is wrong here :D:D:D Either someone of you doesn't know how to shoot or he was using butter bullets!! :neener::neener::neener:

Is not the first time I heard of deer, even a big one, blasted at respectable distance from front to end with the 30-30...

I do not hunt but I witnessed myself 4 by 4 obliterated in half with one shot at 100 yards with regular commercial (Federal) 150 gr soft point loads in 30-30...

[Yellowfin]

A salient point that may have been unspoken but I hear mentioned all the time is that a .30-30 has more chance than anything of killing whatever the beast in question may be because they are handy enough to always have on hand. They get to where the situation is; they don't sit at home. Whoever is carrying one likely has done so for decades--and EVERY DAY AND EVERYWHERE of that time. Penetration and all that makes for interesting bed time stories but bringing the gun to the fight trumps all. I'll take 100 years of field testing over lab results any day of the week.

[SlamFire1]

Have read many times that the 30/30 was pretty much the standard rifle for Eskimos and some other northern types - who used them on everythi9ng including Griz, Browns, and Polar Bears.

I read a 30's vintage American Rifleman article. The writer had gone to Alaska and brought his 30-06. He went seal hunting with the Eskimos. In this period of American history, the 30-06 was considered, especially with the military staff at American Rifleman, "the round", and about the most powerful round the average guy could afford. A box of rounds for a 375 H&H were probably a weeks pay for most people.

The Eskimos had 30-30's. Why? That is what the Trading Store carried. The Trading Store had also convinced the Eskimos that octagonal barrels “shot harder” than round barrels! (Probably because an octagonal barreled 1894 cost a $1.50 more and made more profit for the store) So the Eskimos were making fun of the wimpy round barreled 30-06.

That is until the author shot through two seals with one 30-06 round. I had the impression that a 30-30 would not do that.

One other thing with the Eskimos, they were meat hunters. Bringing home food was a matter of survival. The modern trend of long range shooting at an animal, just to see if you could hit it, and then loosing it, would scare all the game off. And there was no guarantee Mr Eskimo would find another that day, or week. They were into the sure thing.

I suspect they only took on Grizzly if they had to. Or had a lot of buds as backup. If a bear wounded them, infection would set in, and then they were a burden on the others if they recuperated. Since hospitals and ambulances were not around the corner, they also stood a good chance of not recuperating.

As for me, I would want to take something into Grizzly country that was more powerful than a 30-30.

[saturno_v]

That is until the author shot through two seals with one 30-06 round. I had the impression that a 30-30 would not do that.


a 30-06 round is almost double the power of a 30-30 is some loads...we all know that ;););)