30-30 vs. 44 mag


PDA






Revolver Ocelot
August 29, 2009, 02:04 PM
this is a continuation of the woods gun topic I started earlier, I am looking at getting a single action revolver and a lever action rifle for deer hunting/going out into the woods and was looking at either both in 44 magnum or a combo of 30-30 and 357

If you enjoyed reading about "30-30 vs. 44 mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LightningMan
August 29, 2009, 02:12 PM
Sorry, I'd want the 30-30 rifle with a .44 mag. pistol, but thats just me. LM

huntsman
August 29, 2009, 02:21 PM
one's a rifle cartridge two are handgun cartridges, I'd take the rifle and a handgun choice.

PT1911
August 29, 2009, 02:25 PM
actually I would probably take the .357 mag rifle and .357 mag handgun.... but that is just me. So... with your given choices, I would likely choose the 30-30 and .357. gives more range, power, and versatility.

Blue Brick
August 29, 2009, 03:03 PM
+1 Rifle and Revolver chambered in 357 magnum, but I would use only heavy 38's, then again I live in Arizona.

Blue Brick
August 29, 2009, 03:07 PM
I have been looking at H&R heavily lately. They have a break-open carbine in 357 and 44 Magnum.

harrygunner
August 29, 2009, 03:23 PM
I thought about having a handgun and a rifle for the woods. I decided the two tools should provide different range capabilities. And at the same time, I wanted both to work close range.

So, I went with a 30-30 rifle and a .44 Mag revolver.

kanook
August 29, 2009, 03:51 PM
If you're going to reload go with a 35 rem and the 357 mag. When you star to cst your own you can resize to either one. Nothing like 200 grains of ww coming out of a 357 handgun. A lot of fun in the 35 also. :D

BCRider
August 29, 2009, 09:51 PM
If you're reloading then I'd go with the .44Mag option in both. Load up full power .44Mag for the lever rifle and something akin to .44Spl +P for the handgun if you find that the full on Mag loads are a bit much on the hand with the handgun.

I've got a .357 rifle for CAS events and while it may well be just fine for doing in deer when shooting a magnum round it FEELS like shooting a strong .22. To me this is a touch light.

Or go with the classic .30-30, which is a lovely round to shoot, and stick to handgun ammo in the handgun.

Jim K
August 29, 2009, 10:42 PM
IMHO, lugging around a rifle that is chambered for a pistol cartridge is like buying a big 4WD SUV with a Yugo engine. It might look impressive, but there ain't much there.

Sure, they did it in the old days, but that was back when more powerful rifles were big and heavy (and often single shot). When the .30-30 came along, the old timers thought heaven had arrived and they didn't waste a lot of time getting shuck of their .44-40 and .38-40 rifles in favor of more power and range.

Jim

MCgunner
August 29, 2009, 10:57 PM
I have a .357 magnum rifle and 3 handguns in the caliber. I like the .30-30, though, so that's what I checked. For woods bumming, .357 is all you need in a revolver and .30-30 is one of the better woods calibers for rifles extant.

IMHO, lugging around a rifle that is chambered for a pistol cartridge is like buying a big 4WD SUV with a Yugo engine. It might look impressive, but there ain't much there.

To 100 yards, the .357 will work. I shoot a 165 grain SWC at 1900 fps, can get 2000 fps from a 158 JHP. That'll kill any hog or deer to 100 yards. After all, the average .30-30 factory load 150 grain is doing good to hit 2200 fps. If you think it's stupid, fine, don't buy one, but I sorta like the combination of the magnum pistol bullet in the lever gun. The .454 Casull and .480 Ruger are chambered in the 92 Rossi, too. Tell me that doesn't have applications. :rolleyes:

The .454 casull is not your grandma's .38-40. Neither is the .357 magnum, for that matter. What I like about the .357 beyond it's ability to kill big animals is that with a sight elevation change, I can shoot my 105 grain .38 SWCs at 900 fps and kill squirrel to 50 yards. It's 1.5" accurate at that range with that bullet and 4" at 100 yards accurate with the 165.

tactikel
August 29, 2009, 11:08 PM
How about a .444 Marlin and a .44 Mag. handgun? No? OK a .30-30 and the .357 would be my choice.

Sunray
August 29, 2009, 11:13 PM
You have a rifle. What's the handgun for?

MCgunner
August 29, 2009, 11:17 PM
Because I like handguns.

jbkebert
August 29, 2009, 11:17 PM
454 Casull and .480 Ruger are chambered in the 92 Rossi, too. Tell me that doesn't have applications.

I have been looking pretty hard at the .454 casull in the rossi 92. Put it together with my Freedom arms .454 SA and I'll be in heaven. I really think that combo would give the owner a great guide gun and side arm. I often hunt with a .44 mag handgun and it will flat nail a deer at 100 yards. Loaded right it will take a elk at 60 yards with a well placed shot. I am planning on trying a .357 mag blackhawk this year for deer but I don't have the faith in knock down that I have with the .44 mag. So my vote is for the .44 combo.

hogshead
August 29, 2009, 11:24 PM
I agree with lightning man 30-30 rifle and 44 rev

dairycreek
August 30, 2009, 01:06 AM
For a long, long time I hiked and hunted the woods of northwest Oregon with a Marlin 30-30 and a Ruger Blachawk in 44 magnum. Took a lot of deer with the 30-30 and actually used the 44 magnum to kill a large and angry black bear. I began to be interested in adding elk to my hunting agenda. Felt that the 30-30 was marginal for a large elk so I eventually went with 45-70, also in a Marlin. I have taken both elk and deer with the rifle and handgun (depending on the shot and situation) and have done quite well with that combination.

I would recommend a Marlin Guide gun in 45-70 and the Ruger Blackhawk in 44 magnum and IMHO you are pretty much well covered for a woods combo.

AKElroy
August 30, 2009, 01:35 AM
+1 to the .44 Blackhawk, but mine would have to accompany a mod 94 .30-30.

chevyforlife21
August 30, 2009, 01:40 AM
why do you need a handgun for deer huntin? defense from bears if thats the case id trust just a 30-30

AKElroy
August 30, 2009, 01:42 AM
He likes handguns.

Nematocyst
August 30, 2009, 02:02 AM
Sorry, I'd want the 30-30 rifle with a .44 mag. pistol, but thats just me. Ditto that, but I offer my opinion w/o apologies.

Actually, for most situations,
I'd want either a .30-30 carbine plus .22 revolver
or .22 carbine and .44 mag revolver.

David E
August 30, 2009, 03:11 AM
For deer hunting, it doesn't matter which. For general woods knocking, it makes more sense to have a .22 for one of the guns.

A .44 levergun has more versatility than a 30-30, altho I really think the old .30 WCF cartridge is under-rated today. (it doesn't have the words "magnum" or "belted" in the name and it's sooooooo old, after all....:rolleyes: )

that said, a .44 levergun makes a very good "Tactical Rifle" that can hide in plain sight. Holding 10 or more rounds of serious man thumper loads, yet having a benign "John Wayne" look shouldn't be overlooked. The same gun in 30-30 only gives up a little capacity and can fill that role admirably, as well.

wheelgunslinger
August 30, 2009, 10:08 AM
The 357 and the 30-30 is the best combo you've listed.
I carry a .357 in the woods here in black bear country. The 30-30's rep speaks for itself.

SpotlightRanger
August 30, 2009, 01:05 PM
If this is just for hunting than reloading does not really make sense when factory ammo is still so cheap.

I would get the .30-30 as it is a better round than the .44 mag for hunting and get a light double action .357 as a BU gun. This combo has worked for many; for many years.

MCgunner
August 30, 2009, 01:36 PM
For deer hunting, it doesn't matter which. For general woods knocking, it makes more sense to have a .22 for one of the guns.

Well, that's what I used to think, until I figured out that a good .357 with an accurate light .38 wadcutter could take small game just as well as can a .22. It was an epiphany. :D. My current woods bummin' .357 is a nickel Taurus 66. It can bench my wadcutter loads into an inch at 25 yards, good as any iron sighted .22. I have the sight elevation marked for magnum and .38 loads. Have the same set up, same accuracy with my 6.5" Blackhawk, but the Taurus is a good 10 ounces lighter on the hip.

I gotta admit, when I'm woods bumming I don't carry a rifle and when I'm hunting I rarely carry a handgun other than my concealed carry.

jaholder1971
August 30, 2009, 11:24 PM
.30/30, hands down.

IMHO, lugging around a rifle that is chambered for a pistol cartridge is like buying a big 4WD SUV with a Yugo engine. It might look impressive, but there ain't much there.

Marlins and Rossi lever guns with heavy .44 Magnum and .45 LC loads ain't nothing to sneeze at.

jbkebert
August 30, 2009, 11:44 PM
Many times now when hunting I carry two handguns. A scope Encore in .308 win and a ruger spr in .44 mag for close shots. I hate trying to deal with a rifle when dragging a deer out.

Malamute
August 31, 2009, 12:09 AM
You didnt say where you are.

If no large critters, a 357 pistol is OK, but the 44 gives more flexibilty, and not so piercing a crack of muzzle blast.


I live in an area with a fair bit of open country as well as woods and mountains. I prefer the 30-30 over the 44 in a long gun because of the extra range. Sight in 3" high @ 100 yards, and 250 to 300 yard shots arent that difficult. This assumes a decent bullet BC, not the 170 gr Hornady. You don't need gummy tip bullets to achieve that either, Speers work well.


Someone mentioned factory 150 gr 30-30's being lucky to make 2200 fps, then how flexible the 357 carbine was with handloads. Perhaps, but why not handload the 30-30?. With H335 or other appropriate powder choice you can make 2400 fps w/ the 150's, and load down to anything possible in a 357 rifle or handgun, even down to round balls at very quiet noise levels. I'm one of those that has rarely ever shot factory rounds in the majority of my guns. You can shoot much more for the same money, and your guns are much more flexible. 3 grs Unique w/ a .315" round ball makes a great grouse and small game load in the 30-30. 6 1/2 grs Unique w/ a 120 gr cast is also good, with more range and power @ about 1200 fps, but a bit more noise also.

lawboy
August 31, 2009, 02:46 AM
I would take 357 in both. A winchester trapper carbine and a model 66 smith. That is what I have. The 357 properly loaded is so nearly the equal of a 30-30 out to 100 yards that the difference is meaningless. However, the magazine capacity increase with the 357 and the reduced recoil are advantages in my opinion. 44 Magnum carbine/handgun would be good too.

sean m
August 31, 2009, 12:20 PM
If it was my choice I think a 30-30 or 44 mag lever pairwed with a 22 revolver would make a good carry combo. But if commonality of ammo was a concern the 44 lever and revolver would be a good setup.

middy
August 31, 2009, 06:16 PM
That's a tough choice... I really can't say.

Personally, I'd go for .243 bolt action and a .357 magnum.

Hokkmike
August 31, 2009, 07:15 PM
My .44 Wrangler with Leverevelution (however you spell it) shoots fine out to 150 yards. (max for me)

Deltaboy
August 31, 2009, 07:38 PM
30/30 and a Blackhawk 357

JWF III
August 31, 2009, 07:47 PM
If you want ammo compatability, Magnum Research does make the BFR in .30-30. :D

But, I guess that a 5+ lb., 10" barreled pistol isn't much of a carry/hiking gun, is it?:D

Wyman

stonecoldy
September 1, 2009, 12:28 AM
The 30/30 for the long stuff, and .357 for under 50 yards. Sounds like the right combo. Especially for shots over 100 yards using the 30-30.
Although the .44 mag pair sounds good, I think you cover more territory and shooting situations with the 30-30.

kmrcstintn
September 1, 2009, 04:48 PM
Magnum Research BFR chambered in .30-30 w/ 10" barrel...

http://www.magnumresearch.com/bfr_specs.asp

.30-30 ballistics very respectable when shot from this monster...

http://www.magnumresearch.com/bfr_fact.asp

I'll say this about them...I had the chance to fire one in .500 S&W and the recoil felt on par with a fullbore .357 magnum shot from a 4" medium framed revolver; it is a considerable investment and they are an aquired taste, but having multiple rounds of rifle ammunition on hand in a handgun for hunting is a nice proposition, especially if hunting in remote areas accessed on horseback where you are dismounted and stalking a big game animal within 100 yards; if this is your kind of thing, save up enough for a high quality scope, a durable bandolier holster, and some sort of shooting sticks to use as a rest to complete the hunting package

flipajig
September 2, 2009, 09:42 AM
I have both a 30-30 and a 44 mag super blackhawk also a winchester m94 in 44mag out to 100 yds on the long guns im good 50 for the blackhawk. Ive always wanted a combo that would shoot one rd. and now I have them..

denfoote
September 4, 2009, 06:30 AM
The Marlin 30AS and Smith &Wesson 28 have been my desert tramping combo for years!!

Malamute
September 4, 2009, 01:20 PM
"The 357 properly loaded is so nearly the equal of a 30-30 out to 100 yards that the difference is meaningless."


What loads are you using in the .357? The loads I've seen in manuals aren't that close to 30-30 loads for comparable weight bullets. Both will do fine on average deer within 100 yards, which may be what you mean. I believe many are over gunned for their actual uses. It doesn't take a 7 mag or 30-06 to reliably kill deer at woods ranges.

RoostRider
September 4, 2009, 02:54 PM
I gotta admit, when I'm woods bumming I don't carry a rifle and when I'm hunting I rarely carry a handgun other than my concealed carry.

I am with you on that....

There is a reason the vast majority of experienced hunters aren't carrying handguns and rifles. There is also a reason the vast majority of experienced woods bummers aren't carrying rifles. The reasons are the same for both, you just don't need to, and it becomes impractical at some point (you have to decide for yourself how quickly you will get sick of the inconvenience of this needless redundancy).

That being said, I would go 30-30/.357 if I was going to take that approach for whatever reason. That way, you have what you need for either one of the things you plan to do with them.

ps- a .357 is a great woods/whatever gun.... .44 mag is overkill in my opinion for anything but hunting 'pretty big' big game....

bearmgc
September 4, 2009, 02:59 PM
If you're used to recoil, then 30-30 and a 44mag handgun. Or 30-30 and a .357 with heavy Castcore ammo. I never go hunting without a 44mag revolver. Grizz and big ol'wolves in my woods.

LlanoEstacado
September 4, 2009, 04:56 PM
I like the .44 combo.

Vern Humphrey
September 4, 2009, 05:45 PM
Sure, they did it in the old days, but that was back when more powerful rifles were big and heavy (and often single shot). When the .30-30 came along, the old timers thought heaven had arrived and they didn't waste a lot of time getting shuck of their .44-40 and .38-40 rifles in favor of more power and range.
The mystery of why the Old Timers carried pistols and rifles chambered for the same cartridge is solved by looking at what was available to them.

Early repeaters (the .56-.56 Spencer, the .44 Henry and the .44 Winchester 1866) were glorified pistols. They had weak actions and used rimfire cartridges. When the 1873 Winchester appeared, it was chambered for the .44 Winchester Central Fire -- a more powerful cartridge in a format able to take more pressure, but still a pistol-power cartridge (and less powerful than the .45 Colt.) Throughout the 1870s, Winchester was trying to come up with a rifle power repeater, but even the 1876 really wasn't up to handling rifle power cartridges. Finally in 1880, Marlin produced a repeater that would handle the .45-70, but Winchester didn't have a repeater for that cartridge until Browning designed the 1886 Winchester.

So for about 20 years after the Civil War, and right through most of the Indian Wars, if you wanted a rifle you had to choose a single shot. If you wanted a repeater, you were stuck with a pistol-power cartridge.

Now if you chose to go with a repeater, why not carry a revolver chambered for the same cartridge?

Dr. Fresh
September 7, 2009, 05:05 AM
^ This is why muzzleloaders and single-shot breechloaders dominated military armories for such a long time after repeaters arrived on the scene.

Joe Demko
September 7, 2009, 02:33 PM
I think I'd go with a lever action in .300 Savage; and if I figured I needed a pistol too, why then I'd want a nice light .22 lr revolver. I guess I could also be happy with a .22lr autoloader if it was along the lines of the Colt Woodsman or the Ruger Mk I/II with a slender barrel.
Another possibility would be to pair a .45-70 lever gun with the .22 handgun.

See, I don't like to carry a ton of excess weight around the woods with me. If I have one of the rifles, I can kill any big animals that require killing. Why also carry a handgun that is overpowered for small creatures and marginally suited to big game?

Vern Humphrey
September 7, 2009, 02:40 PM
That's why I usually carry my Colt Woodsman in the woods.

When deer hunting, I usually have my Hammond Game Getter in my pocket -- that allows me to fire a buckshot from my .30-06, powered by a nail-setting blank.

lobo9er
September 7, 2009, 02:52 PM
Many times now when hunting I carry two handguns. A scope Encore in .308 win and a ruger spr in .44 mag for close shots. I hate trying to deal with a rifle when dragging a deer out.
that sounds like a bit much two handguns that can kill big game. i have never hunted with a pitol either. so i am def. not an expert on the matter.

Squibster
March 5, 2010, 05:23 AM
I vote for the 35 Remy and the 357 mag. That combo could do a lot of things!

glockman19
March 5, 2010, 12:51 PM
I decided on a S&W 629 Classic 5" and a marlin 1894SS. Why? Ammo. I didn't want to add another caliber to the collection and would rather carry just one caliber of ammo.

gordy
March 5, 2010, 12:57 PM
Great choice,
the 44mag will do what the 30-30 can do and you don't have to carry 2 kinds of ammo.
Plus you don't have to worry about the pointy bullets in you lever gun then.

MichaelK
March 5, 2010, 07:00 PM
I've already made that decision. I chose the .44 and used it to take last season's deer. It's put venison in the freezer, so what else can I say!

If you enjoyed reading about "30-30 vs. 44 mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!