Deer rifle. 243 vs 30-30


PDA






C-grunt
June 30, 2012, 12:59 PM
I'm looking at two rifles that are the same price as my first deer rifle. One is a Marlin 30-30 and the other is a Savage 10 243. Both are good rifle that I'm familiar with. I'm kinda torn between which one to get.

If you enjoyed reading about "Deer rifle. 243 vs 30-30" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Trent
June 30, 2012, 01:10 PM
Pretty much nose to nose power-wise, on paper at least. 243 is going to be a lot flatter shooting, though the 30-30 will beat it in penetration.

There is a penetration advantage on the 30-30, heavier bullets tend to penetrate deeper and hold together better.

243 going to be flatter to shoot long distance though.

Tough call, gonna depend more on where you plan on using it, and what you're gonna be shooting with it. :)

Abel
June 30, 2012, 01:37 PM
For deer inside 175 yards, 30-30. If you anticipate shots at 250, a 243 would be better. I have a 30-30 as my deer rifle, but I set up in areas that fit the rifle's limitations.

mshootnit
June 30, 2012, 01:41 PM
30-30 with lever evolution gets you out to 235 yds pretty easily
243 is marginally better. 243 has a lot more utility on coyotes

rule303
June 30, 2012, 01:41 PM
The .243 is a lot more versatile as far as range and bullet types and weights available. Hard to beat the handling of a 30/30 lever in the woods though. If you are only going to use it for deer hunting in forested or brushy areas where you won't be shooting over 150yds or so, get whichever is more comfortable for you. If you plan on hunting more open areas, or taking up varmint hunting, get the .243.

The_Armed_Therapist
June 30, 2012, 01:43 PM
Both are very effective against most game in most of the country. I would give the edge to the .30-30 at close range (<200 yards) and the .243 at mid-range (>200 yards).

If there are lots of wide open spaces where you hunt, .243 would be better. If it's mostly woods, .30-30 would be better.

In my opinion, I like the .30-30 overall more for deer hunting. Then again, the .243 would be more versatile for target shooting, too.

Arkansas Paul
June 30, 2012, 01:57 PM
Would depend on the ranges you anticipate shooting at. In Arizona, I would imagine there's a lot of open territory and longer shots may be called for. If that is indeed the case, I would give the nod to the .243 Win.

nathan
June 30, 2012, 02:02 PM
I d get the .243, more accurate of the two.

C-grunt
June 30, 2012, 02:14 PM
Hunting would be both here in Az where long shots are easily possible and in Oklahoma where it's mostly woods and small clearings where I would be hunting. I also just found a Savage 270 with Accustock/trigger and Redfield for about 150 bucks more....hmmm.

porktornado
June 30, 2012, 02:35 PM
this is a pretty easy answer. for those of you saying the 30-30 has the edge with 200 and closer...why? would a .243 not kill a deer closer than 200 yards? no, it would make it just as dead as the 30-30 would, but it would get to the deer about 1000 fps faster. so with that in mind, if you want to limit yourself to 150ish yard shots with the 30-30, go for it. if you want to kill a deer anywhere from 10-400+ yards, .243 is your choice. if you get a 3x9 or 4x12 it would do just fine at close ranges as well as any other range. check out a ballistics table for both, they do not lie. i have personally seen a 100gr SP kill a 8'6" brown bear at 150 yards and he made it about 20-30 yards. the bullet was found laying up against the hide on the opposite side. now thats penetration! go .243 and don't look back, you will have a rifle that will take anything from rabbits to elk.

sixgunner455
June 30, 2012, 03:03 PM
Get the .243 for hunting deer in AZ. If you try it in OK and don't like it, get a .30-30 for hunting there.

I love the .30-30, but hunting deer in AZ requires that you be ready for shots from very short to very far, all on the same mountain side or drainage.

TexasPatriot.308
June 30, 2012, 03:25 PM
2 different animals, in Texas you need different calibers cause you might have 50 yard shots in heavy woods, may have 500 yard shots in senderos or hill/canyon country. the .308 seems to do it all, think about a rifle in .308.

snakeman
June 30, 2012, 03:30 PM
It depends on where and how you hunt. If you hunt from a stand the 30/30 is basically unbeatable in my opinion. However a good bolt action 243 will take deer cleanly out to 400 yards if you use the right ammunition and are capable of making the shot. For a first deer rilfe my vote 243.

R.W.Dale
June 30, 2012, 03:38 PM
The old axiom comes to mind for this thread.

Its a lot easier to make a 150 yard shot with a 300 yd rifle than it is to make a 300yd shot with a 150 yard gun.

Bobson
June 30, 2012, 03:49 PM
I'm looking at two rifles that are the same price as my first deer rifle. One is a Marlin 30-30 and the other is a Savage 10 243.
I'm surprised nobody has addressed this. .30-30 vs .243 is a fairly even playing field, as many have mentioned. So... let's look at the rifles, instead.

A Savage 10 - great rifle; and a Marlin lev... wait, wait. A Marlin? Is it an actual Marlin, or a Remlin? If its a Remlin, you can wrap this one up. Go with the Savage. Heck, I'd much rather go with a Savage Axis than a Remlin.

Anyway, considering your find of a Savage 270 with a Redfield scope for $150 more, this seems like an open and shut case.

303tom
June 30, 2012, 04:35 PM
All I can say is, when I was growing up my dad hunted everything & we had Hi-Powered rifles out the butt & when came to hunting White-tail, Prong horn, Goat or Sheep, even Elk dad used his .243 with 100gr. JHP`s.............

jmr40
June 30, 2012, 04:38 PM
With modern bullets the 243 not only shoots flatter, but will outpenetrate the 30-30. The Savage 243 will be lighter, more accurate at any range, have less recoil and should be less expensive if buying new. The 243 is the winner in every category except 1. Everybody should have at least 1 lever in 30-30. Even if it is not as good at actual performnce it is still good enough for most uses.

jimmyraythomason
June 30, 2012, 04:40 PM
If you choose the Savage Model 10 you have the option of rebarreling to a .308 win if you decide you want a little more gun.

CountryUgly
June 30, 2012, 04:49 PM
I'd spend the extra change and roll with the Savage .270. It'll do anything you can in N.A.

HKGuns
June 30, 2012, 04:50 PM
I'd take the .243 over the 30-30 any day of the week and Sunday. I'd take a .308 or 30-06 over both of the former however.

jrdolall
June 30, 2012, 05:31 PM
I have both. I like the look and feel of the Marlin. I like the lever action and I like the way it handles. I think the 243 is the better all around cartridge and would buy it if it was to be my only deer rifle.

Pit4Brains
June 30, 2012, 05:34 PM
You plan on hunting mules up north in the pines, whitetail in the chaparral or coues down south? I personally have two calibers that I use all across Az for everything from prairie dogs to elk and those are .25-06 and .30-06.
A lever action 30-30 seems more like a javelina killer and the .243 makes for a good junior's first big game rifle. JMHO of course.

68wj
June 30, 2012, 05:37 PM
Growing up I was the only kid at deer camp with a .243. Everyone else had .30-30's, and I got pretty good at tracking because they always seemed to need help.

Both are very good deer cartridges, but the .243 would get my vote.

meanmrmustard
June 30, 2012, 05:45 PM
I like the 30-30 for woodland stalk hunting.
The .243 is going to trump the other round AND rifle in flat, bean field type hunting situations. You need to evaluate what your main hunting areas are going to be, and find a cartridge that fills that niche.

Open, longer range shooting? Prolly the Savage .243 is best.
Deep woods/swamp/or brush busting? The 30-30 is going to shine.

If you find yourself needing something to cover both areas, as in a jack of all trades, research a cartridge that will reliably expand at short ranges while velocity is high, while having a decent BC and longer range capabilities to deliver enough energy and expansion if you are shooting across a bean field.

My vote: neither. I'd take the Ruger M77 MKII in .260 Remington over both. :)

valnar
June 30, 2012, 05:52 PM
I'd take a 6.5x55 over the .243. A little bigger hole in case you need it. A heavier 140gr bullet for penetration, nipping on the heels of the 150gr .30-30's.

But that's me, I don't have a need for .243.
.223, 6.5x55 and .308 (or other .30 variants) cover most needs.

My vote: neither. I'd take the Ruger M77 MKII in .260 Remington over both.
That'll work too!

C-grunt
June 30, 2012, 06:06 PM
I don't know where in Az I will be hunting. I just recently found an experienced hunter in Az to show me the ropes. In Ok the land is think wooded areas with open fields that can be a few hundred yards wide.

Coltdriver
June 30, 2012, 07:04 PM
I cannot imagine why anyone says a .243 and a 30 30 are on an even playing field.

A .243 can launch an 85 grain pill out the barrel at around 3200 fps. That will blow a hole through any deer at 300 yards. You can set the point blank range out to 265 yards and 300 yards is an easy shot. I have a load in my Ruger that is 3400 fps. A little 85 grain partition does damage all out of proportion to its size at those speeds.

A 30 30 is just not in the same class. Start with a 110 grain pill at 2600 fps and watch the arc. Within 150 yards, fine. Beyond that you better know your arc. 300 yards may be possible but go to a ballistics calculator and see the drop you have to deal with.

A .243 is the hands down choice between the two in my not so humble opinion.

Bushpilot
June 30, 2012, 07:15 PM
As much as I like lever guns and the 30-30, I have to say 243, especially out west. Add the 270 in to the mix and it makes it easier.... 270.

Eb1
June 30, 2012, 07:15 PM
I reload the 30-30 with a 125 grain Sierra Jacketed HP @ around 2500 fps out of my Marlin 30-30. For woods hunting it really turns the 30-30 into a deer smacker.
If I was going to go with a flat shooting rifle for deer sized game I'd have to skip the .243, and go with a .25-06. JMO.

I have had 150 grain and 170 grain 30-30 bullets go plum through a deer length wise @ 75 yards.

The load my wife uses in a 30-30 for deer is the same Sierra 125 grain JHP @ 2150 fps with a red dot that has a zero of 75 yards, and this is a great deer load inside 75 yards with zero recoil.
The great thing about a 30-30 and .30 cals in general is they can be loaded with 110 grain JHP to 170 grain round nose bullets. A very versatile cartridge.

wlewisiii
June 30, 2012, 07:28 PM
Of the two the OP is considering, I'd grab the Marlin. I just simply love hunting with my Winchester 94 & as far as range is concerned, if you can't hit with a .30-30 you're not close enough.

That said, out there I'd take one of my Mausers in 7x57. :cool:

DM~
June 30, 2012, 08:18 PM
I'd grap the 270 and run! At least it will do everything better than the other two choises and you won't out grow it!

DM

Old judge creek
July 1, 2012, 12:13 AM
I'm a life long 30-30 man but the 243 beats it all to heck for most applications, IMO.

Eb1
July 1, 2012, 12:27 AM
For most applications past 175 yards, yes. That is if the 30-30 owner is not a hand loader. If they are, well, then you have a different situation on your hands within that 175 yards.

The lever gun is a faster platform for shooting multiple targets.
The lever gun shoulders better, IMO, than a bolt gun for snap shots.
The 30-30 like mentioned before can be loaded with a 110 grain HP moving upwards of 2650 fps, and a 125 grain HP at 2500+ fps safely. Does it have the long range of a .243? No, but loading a 30-30 lever gun with these rounds seriously closes the gap with the .243 within the distance I gave earlier in this post.

I would take either, but for me a .243 would not be in the picture because I have hunted with a .25-06. Also mentioned was a .270, and don't look back.

I don't know why I let myself get dragged into these type posts ---> Beating my fist against my head.

Snag
July 1, 2012, 01:08 AM
I've used both calibers to hunt deer in various Winchester, Savage, and Ruger rifles and for me the 243 is the winner in any situation I can think of. I'd always pick 243 if my only other option was 30-30, and worry more about what kind of action I wanted or if I wanted a scope or not.

Kachok
July 1, 2012, 01:40 AM
243 for open country, 30-30 if you want more penatration, but the 6.5x55 beats them both for each with the same level of recoil. Long heavy javlin like bullets retain more energy at range and drive deep enough to blast through a moose, for many years it was a stand alone in the small caliber world, now there are the 260 rem, 6.5 Creedmore, and 6.5x47 that all rival it in standardized short actions and bolt faces, but I still prefer the original for sentimental reasons. The only advantage the 243 holds over the 6.5mms is it's lightning quick 55-70gr varmint bullets, and the 30-30 only holds advantage of being a larger hole going in.

JEB
July 1, 2012, 02:22 AM
i have been hunting with my 30-30 for several years now and it is a fine rifle and an excellent choice for the first 200 yards. after that, the .243 has a major advantage.

the biggest consideration is what type of action you prefer. yes, the lever is faster, but not by all that much. IMO its biggest advantage is the ease with which you can top off the magazine (we do a lot of driven hunts so topping off is more common than in most situatons).

i would suggest you go with the .243. a good bolt action is a great way to get into big game hunting and is much more capable at longer ranges. i really like my ol' 30-30, but i picked up a ruger 30-06 recently and i can already tell that it is going to be my "go to" deer rifle for as long as i can tell. the faster action of a lever is nice, but i would rather have the longer reach, higher power, and better accuracy that can be had from a good bolt action.

JEB
July 1, 2012, 02:24 AM
BTW, if that 30-30 happens to be one of the newer remlin rifles, i would go for the .243 and never look back.

Badlander
July 1, 2012, 09:03 AM
The 30-30 will reach game at my self imposed limitations. I'm not shooting any game at 250 yds. I know my skill level. A bench is one thing, field positions are quite another. I do love the lever actions.

Art Eatman
July 1, 2012, 10:34 AM
Most lever guns have iron sights; not all that many are scoped. Most bolt-actions, including .243s, are scoped.

It takes a heckuva lot of practice to be good with buckhorn sights beyond 100 to 150 yards and do precision shooting.

I've travelled around a bunch of Arizona, through the years. From what I've seen, I'd take my .243 over my 94 and never even think about it.

hdbiker
July 1, 2012, 10:45 AM
With todays premium bullets the .243 wins hands down.Years ago many writers said the .243 was a varmit rifle.Not so today.biker

MrDig
July 1, 2012, 12:57 PM
The old axiom comes to mind for this thread.
Its a lot easier to make a 150 yard shot with a 300 yd rifle than it is to make a 300yd shot with a 150 yard gun.

I have to second that sentiment, as much as I like both calibers if forced to choose between the two I would choose the .243
Since I own rifles that shoot the two I don't have to choose I can shoot both. But I do like the .243 a little better for it's flat trajectory, and the fact that it can reach out a little farther than the 30-30 effectively for Deer sized game.

tahunua001
July 1, 2012, 02:38 PM
growing up I shot my dads remington 700 in 243, my best friend, and inseparable hunting buddy always took his dads 30-30, I got my first deer(an admittedly small doe) at 300 yards the same year he got his first buck at 200 yards. the next year I he got a decent sized doe and I got a monster buck(both inside 100 yards). they are both highly capable rounds for deer and are both great within 200 yards. 243 is better over long ranges while 30-30 tends to drop off after 200. many shooters claim that it's impossible to take anything with a 30-30 past 100 yards but I have the personal experience to know that those observations are old wives tales told by the magnum crowd to try and justify owning an 11 pound rifle that costs 2 dollars every time they pull the trigger.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
July 1, 2012, 02:54 PM
I would say, if you are primarily hunting close-range, in brush, woods, etc. I would take the 30-30. If I was hunting longer distances where a flatter trajectory would be beneficial, then the .243 would be my choice. I cannot picture shooting a deer at 250 yards with a .30-30, however, I am sure people do it.

MrDig
July 1, 2012, 03:23 PM
FWIW, if you go to a gun store or big name retailer don't let some semblance of a sphincter tell you the .243 is a "kids" caliber to try and embarrass you into buying something different.
The .243 is a perfectly acceptable adult caliber and in this particular case size doesn't matter as they are both equally capable of taking Deer sized game.

JustinNC
July 1, 2012, 03:42 PM
243 will do everything a 30 30 does, and do it to 350 yds or so.


Edit, stupid auto correct on my phone

Deltaboy
July 1, 2012, 06:04 PM
In the open country 243 all the way.

Dr. A
July 1, 2012, 06:09 PM
Just get which one will give you confidence with a tough shot. As indicated by most, that would probably be the 243. Everyone has their favorite, and many of us start out with one or the other. I started with a 30-30, and moved to flatter shooting cartridges for my longer shots. As I gained confidence, I went back to what I prefer. Usually short range lever cartridges. I have the advantage in knowing how to hunt, where I will find deer, and usually which one I want to shoot. Get the one you want and shoot the heck out of it and be passionate about it. I am now a bow hunter to add to the challenge. Long rifles just made it all a bit to easy.

foghornl
July 1, 2012, 06:14 PM
Depends on your hunting area...

Woodsy/brushy/limited line of sight...the .30/30 for anything under 150 Yds

Hunting over say a bean field, low grass meadows, etc up to 300 Yds...the .243

Personally, I'm not gonna take a shot over 300, even with my .30-06. My longest shot on a deer was a laser-measured 176 Yds with my .30-30. One shot, walked about 10 feet to lean against a tree, then flop! DRT

Steel Talon
July 1, 2012, 06:29 PM
Of your 2 choices, the .243 would be my choice.

#1 Suitability to terrain it beats the 30-30, wide open spaces and can be used in the the AZ brush effectively. For one I never snap shoot at game with any caliber other than a shotgun and rabbits.
#2 penetration is just as good as a 30-30 with proper bullet choice
#3 .243 is much more accurate at all distances than a 30-30 and thus gives you a wider application of animals to hunt.
#4 The ,243 is a breeze to hand load for and is fairly inexpensive to do so.
#5 The .243 is mild in it's recoil and therefor provide a better platform to master marksmenship skills.
#6 The .243 CAN"T compete with the coolness and history of the 30-30

My #1 choice of caliber to hunt with up to Elk is the 25-06. My #2 is the .300win mag.

T.R.
July 1, 2012, 08:31 PM
You'll find 30-30 ammo pricing is less than 243 and often discounted during Fall season.

Recoil is similar with both cartridges but 243 has louder report which may make it "seem" to recoil harder.

I'm huge fan of both cartridges but my 30-30 is top choice for hunting in the forests and foothills.

TR

stolivar
July 1, 2012, 10:34 PM
only discounted about $1 from what I have seen. I would take the 243 over the 30-30 any day. If I was brush hunting I would take my 92 in 44 mag.


steve

tubeshooter
July 1, 2012, 10:35 PM
This has been a fun thread to read; very reasonable and civil.


My .30-30 was my first real rifle. I'll always have a soft spot for it.

Sniper66
July 2, 2012, 12:05 AM
The clear answer is BUY BOTH!!!

Sheepdog1968
July 2, 2012, 12:11 AM
Do you want a bolt to lever action? In my opinion the rest of the discussion will be moot.

R.W.Dale
July 2, 2012, 12:15 AM
Do you want a bolt to lever action? In my opinion the rest of the discussion will be moot.

Good point!

You can't get a bolt action in 30-30 today. However you can get 243 levergun

Another great reason to select 243 wich also comes in pumps, single shots and semiautomatics

jimmyraythomason
July 2, 2012, 12:47 AM
You can't get a bolt action in 30-30 todayNot new but there are plenty of Savage 340s and clones available and most are cheaper than the two options the OP has listed.

C-grunt
July 2, 2012, 12:55 AM
Thanks for the advise guys. While I'm a bit of a novice big game hunter I'm not a novice shooter and have a lot of trigger time between both of the models and chamberings. My first big rifle was a Savage 243 that I stupidly sold when I was 19 or 20.

I will probably go with the 243 but a LGS has just told me on a local forum that he has several rifles for me in my price range. So we will see if this whole thread ends up being a moot point for me.

Kachok
July 2, 2012, 01:03 AM
I would go with the 243 for no other reason then it is more versatile then the 30-30. 55-70gr varmint bullets at stupid fast speeds, and 85-100gr bullets for the big and tasty critters. 30-30 is the perfect brush gun for deer but is kind of a one trick pony in comparison. I don't own either at the moment but both are on my A list.

stonecoldy
July 2, 2012, 01:05 AM
I'd give a hard look at the .270 Winchester, and if I was satisfied with the rifle and scope, would buy it instead of the .30-30 or .243. You'll cover both of your possible hunting situations, plus have a better caliber/ load choice for future big game other than deer. I'd pick my .35 Remington over .30-30 in my Marlin levers and I'd pick my Featherweight .270 Winchester bolt over my former Savage .243 bolt, but I have a fair amount of choices to go to. If you've shot a number of calibers and the .270 isn't bothersome for recoil, go that way. Common ammo to find if you don't reload too.

Pit4Brains
July 2, 2012, 01:13 AM
I've been following this one..
I am an Arizona native, and a big game hunter. If you are going to hunt deer here, you will be better off with the .243.
If you hunt on the Colorado plateau, the 30-30 will serve you very little purpose. In the rim country where it is mostly Ponderosa Pine, the 30-30 could be fun, but the 243 will still be a good rifle when combined with a 3x9 scope. you don't want to over-scope in close quarters.
In the mountains below the ponderosas you will find thick, shrubbery of landscapes that have the worst of terrains so there's a good chance your shots will go across open draws where winds can be in all 6 directions.
Down lower in the Sonoran desert you'll be hunting rolling desert ridges where the ave shot will be between 100 and 200 yds.
I can't attest to deer hunting in Ok, but of the two choices, I would go out with the .243.
I do recommend a .25-06 or a .30-06 anyhow.. Good luck..

skidder
July 2, 2012, 02:32 AM
I recently sold my Marlin 30-30, but I still have 2 Savage 110 243s. both my Savage bolt action had a better groups out to 100 yrds. I would go with the bolt action for accuracy.

Skyshot
July 2, 2012, 08:36 AM
The 30-30 is a great woods gun, but the .243 is a great woods gun and also a good open country rifle. The accuracy of the .243 and bullet selections puts it way ahead of the 30-30 in my book.

brnmuenchow
July 2, 2012, 09:23 AM
Either or... Both are really good for deer size game. The .243 Win. has a little more accuracy at distance but for under 300 yds. both work well.

Sav .250
July 2, 2012, 11:46 AM
Lots of opinions. Mine would be the 243.

straightShot
July 2, 2012, 03:56 PM
If you're hunting close, in brush, and through small clearings as well as walking, the .30-30 can't be beat as a lightweight, quick to shoulder option. Ammo is readily available, too, but the .243 is a great choice as well.

This one's tough.

JustinNC
July 2, 2012, 04:34 PM
By brush gun, what do yall mean?

I hear it, I THINK I understand, but then I think back to how I personally hunt....

I can shoulder and with an appropriate powered scope, get on and animal just as quick as if I had iron sites. Once I'm up and on the animal, I'm going to settle in and make sure I'm on my spot. I don't just throw up, and pop the shot. To me, the scope might be a little slower on the draw, but the iron sights takes me longer to "settle" and make sure I am lined up vertically and horizontally with the front and back sights, where as once I am on the animal with the scope, the cross hairs takes the up down left right allignment out of the equation. I'm either on or Im not. I like iron sights, don't get me wrong, but I am much more thorough when shooting them for a precision shot like taking an animal, rather than plinking 2liter bottles or something.

I dont shoot THROUGH brush. I wait for an opening, so the heavier bullet through the brush thing makes me wonder?

Chances are, if it's thick brush, I aint walking far, I'm getting to my spot and parking it, weight isn't an issue.

No matter what I shoot, I make sure I have an appropriate back stop that is clear of dangers.

Now, what are the advantages of the 30-30 in that situation, over the 243? (don't shoot me, I still LOVE my Win 94. and bring it along to eat with the "big boys")

Texan Scott
July 2, 2012, 04:53 PM
Depends as much on how/ where you hunt as what you hunt, as all have been fairly pointed out. I like to keep things simple, and dislike glass optics. This is NOT rational, but it's not changing with age, either. People tell me that when my eyes start to go, I'll change my mind... but my last deer kill was less than a 25 yd shot, right at the edge of open field. when I can't see/ get within 25yds of a deer, it may be time to quit. As my options for .243 ( a fine deer caliber, I'm sure) with iron sights are a bit limited, I'll stick to leverguns... they're what I know and like. I need a new one, now, too.

But that's ME, HERE. As has been suggested, get both, if you have the money.

C-grunt
July 2, 2012, 05:13 PM
Well I went to the LGS today and they had a nice used older Remington 700 ADL in 270 Win with a 4x scope (I think it was a Bushnell) for 150 bucks more than I was going to pay for the 30-30 or the 243. So it's now on layaway until I can pay off the extra. Nice looking rifle. I'll post pictures when I get it. Thanks for the advice guys.

brnmuenchow
July 2, 2012, 05:17 PM
The term "Brush gun" for me is more of a size of rifle than caliber if that is what the question is. First off the term brush gun can be misleading it does not mean the caliber can "buck brush" better than another caliber. All bullets flying through brush are going alter trajectory to some degree and more than others with smaller light weight bullets. When I think brush gun I am generally thinking of a Marlin 1895 .45-70 Gov't. with an overall length at or under 40" vs. say a Marlin 1895 "Cowboy" .45-70 Gov't. at a length of 42+". This is just my opinion however. If the term really was refering to caliber than simply comparing rifle size then you could say an AK-47 is a better brush gun than an AR-15. Bigger heavier bullet vs. smaller faster light weight bullet.

Texan Scott
July 2, 2012, 05:27 PM
^ that, plus my 2 cents... a 'brush gun', to me, is something compact, without unnecessary protrusions, gadgets, or snaggable, breakable bits... one reason i dislike optics. it's going to be CARRIED through trees and brush.

it's also a gun that will be likely USED in trees and brush. NOT to SHOOT THROUGH brush, but at close range... you and the animal may 'find each other' in the trees and brush at VERY close range. when this happens, you'll understand WHY the gun needs to be quick to shoulder/ fire, snag-free, and chambered for something that put a premium on bullet size and weight, rather than velocity or even accuracy ... YES, EVEN ACCURACY, because if the bolt gun shoots to minute of angle, the lever gun to 3 minute of angle, and YOU shoot 6 minutes of angle when you're flustered, you're still gonna have 'minute of deer' at 25 yds. that's why I prefer .30-30s, and lust after a .45 LC.

slimfitter
July 2, 2012, 07:29 PM
If you are hunting in thick woods I would use the 30-30,but if you are in some open areas I prefer the 243. I have hunted with a 243 for the last 35yrs. and have never lost a deer. I load my 243 with 37gr. of IMR4895 and a 85gr. Sierra BTHP and CCI primers. I have killed deer up to 400yds with body shots. I normally shoot for the neck up to 250yds. If I hunt in heavy woods with short shots I use a Marlin 444 with a 265gr. bullet. The 243 is good in woods if you use a 100gr. bullet.

meanmrmustard
July 2, 2012, 09:28 PM
Good point!

You can't get a bolt action in 30-30 today. However you can get 243 levergun

Another great reason to select 243 wich also comes in pumps, single shots and semiautomatics
Not true. Savage 340. Great guns, I had one. Shouldn't have sold it.

R.W.Dale
July 2, 2012, 09:40 PM
Not true. Savage 340. Great guns, I had one. Shouldn't have sold it.

Can you buy a new one today...no you can't


I had two as well as a rem 788 in 30-30 none of wich were particularly outstanding

meanmrmustard
July 2, 2012, 09:44 PM
Can you buy a new one today...no you can't


I had two as well as a rem 788 in 30-30 none of wich were particularly outstanding
Who said anything about new? Not in the OP.

Bummer your guns weren't up to snuff. Mine was. We all get lemons.

R.W.Dale
July 2, 2012, 09:46 PM
Who said anything about new? Not in the OP.

Bummer your guns weren't up to snuff. Mine was. We all get lemons.

I was talking about new production guns with my comments.

I wouldn't call em lemons its just that they didn't shoot particularly well and had their own strange design flaws that held them back in the accuracy dpt

meanmrmustard
July 2, 2012, 09:49 PM
I was talking about new production guns with my comments.

I wouldn't call em lemons its just that they didn't shoot particularly well and had their own strange design flaws that held them back in the accuracy dpt
Sorry, I didn't get the implication. Apologies.

I remember some folks weren't fond of the 340 magazine. I never had a prob, and my 340 was quite accurate, even with irons.

Fremmer
July 2, 2012, 09:50 PM
The 243 will hold a scope better, recoil less, have bolt action accuracy, and you aren't stuck with 1 brand of lever ammo.
And it'll kill deer from 10 yards to 200 yards just fine.

mljdeckard
July 2, 2012, 10:32 PM
For me, the reason I wouldn't want the 30-30 is that I don't care much for lever guns.

Mike Sr.
July 2, 2012, 10:39 PM
""I d get the .243, more accurate of the two.""

Tell my lever action 375 Winchester it should not be shooting into ONE RAGGED HOLE AT 105 YARDS....



I'd take the 30-30 any day of the week over the .243....

With the new 160 ammo for the ole' thutty-thutty --------ooooo almost forgot does the 243 have a 160 bullet--------?


""30-30 Win 140 gr. MonoFlex 82731 2500/1943 2198/1502 1918/1143 1662/858

Hornady's 140grain bullet:
--- At the muzzle 1.5" high

---AT 100 yards 3.0" high

---At 200 yards: 0.3".... low....

Not too bad for the ole' thumper........keep your 243!

If I wanna a 'real':what::what: center fire rifle w/bout as much kick as my M/12/20 Ga. then I shoot my 7600P/308....with it's 16" barrel....RECOIL :eek:..what recoil :D:D

CaliCoastie
July 2, 2012, 10:39 PM
Wow, this many response's on a thread that.....hmmmm I can think of better cartridges to compare. I personally go from 22mag to a7mm-08 and don't feel left out. So the 30-30 gets the vote for me (a good friend of mine hit a hog in the shoulder and had it walk).....personal choices. learn what you want (doesn't always align with what you need) and go from there.

Mike Sr.
July 2, 2012, 11:03 PM
The 243 will hold a scope better, recoil less, have bolt action accuracy, and you aren't stuck with 1 brand of lever ammo.
And it'll kill deer from 10 yards to 200 yards just fine.


-------------------------------------------------------------
Hornady list's 4 different bullet weights, in 6 different factory loading's: 140, 150, 160 and 170 grain projectiles!

Mike Sr.
July 2, 2012, 11:09 PM
"...........a good friend of mine hit a hog in the shoulder and had it walk""


---------------------------

Side shot shoulder...on Pig...not a good shot placement! Nature built that area to
withstand/stand upto Tusk-battles!!!

R.W.Dale
July 2, 2012, 11:16 PM
Even shooting the pointy gummy tipped gimmick ammo from hornady 30-30 is not anywhere near the same class as 243

A big reason why are the 20" barrels almost all 30-30's made in the past century have been saddled with.

Various loads from a 20" Winchester
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/krochus/MAS36/table30-30.jpg

TexAg
July 2, 2012, 11:28 PM
I've got a .30-30 and a 6mm, I'd take the 6mm for accuracy and range any day. I'd take the Marlin for brush, groups of pigs and bad guys.

Fremmer
July 3, 2012, 12:00 AM
Ok fine, you aren't stuck with 2 brands of ammo. Doesn't matter, the bolt action and caliber are better.

razorback2003
July 3, 2012, 12:23 AM
If you can get a Savage with the Accutrigger, the the 243. 30-30 is a good gun too and handles well. Bolt action rifles generally can be made to have better triggers than lever action rifles.

Certaindeaf
July 3, 2012, 12:34 AM
Get a BLR in .243.

Snag
July 3, 2012, 12:48 AM
Well I went to the LGS today and they had a nice used older Remington 700 ADL in 270 Win with a 4x scope (I think it was a Bushnell) for 150 bucks more than I was going to pay for the 30-30 or the 243. So it's now on layaway until I can pay off the extra. Nice looking rifle. I'll post pictures when I get it. Thanks for the advice guys.

Dang it, 30-30 and 243 beaten by the 270 again.

viking499
July 3, 2012, 12:56 AM
Congrats on the new purchase C-grunt.

Kachok
July 3, 2012, 01:11 AM
Nothing wrong with a 270, a solid choice for a hunting rifle, a bit too zippy for my liking in the brush but really does the trick in the open.

viking499
July 3, 2012, 01:30 AM
Kachok, I thought you were gonna say that the 6.5x55 would be a better choice than the 270......:rolleyes:

I was going to agree with you if you did.....:D

Kachok
July 3, 2012, 01:39 AM
Kachok, I thought you were gonna say that the 6.5x55 would be a better choice than the 270......:rolleyes:

I was going to agree with you if you did.....:D
No for someone who does not handload they are better off with a wal-mart caliber. 6.5x55 factory ammo is expensive unless you order Prvi and is not nearly as powerful as good handloads. 270 is near it's full potentail in factory form and can be had at any store that sells bullets around the country.

Fremmer
July 3, 2012, 01:40 AM
Send it back and get the 243. :eek:

DM~
July 3, 2012, 03:45 PM
Well I went to the LGS today and they had a nice used older Remington 700 ADL in 270 Win with a 4x scope (I think it was a Bushnell) for 150 bucks more than I was going to pay for the 30-30 or the 243. So it's now on layaway until I can pay off the extra. Nice looking rifle. I'll post pictures when I get it. Thanks for the advice guys.

"Good for you" for sorting through some of the total BS posted here, and makeing a good choise for your new to you rifle!

DM

rajb123
July 3, 2012, 03:49 PM
...these are not comparible ....

meanmrmustard
July 3, 2012, 06:24 PM
Kachok, I thought you were gonna say that the 6.5x55 would be a better choice than the 270......:rolleyes:

I was going to agree with you if you did.....:D
Teehee, you beat me to it!

meanmrmustard
July 3, 2012, 06:25 PM
"Good for you" for sorting through some of the total BS posted here, and makeing a good choise for your new to you rifle!

DM
Who posted BS? This is an opinion thread, and many will vary from one to the other.

jrdolall
July 3, 2012, 08:14 PM
I think you made a wise choice if this will be your only deer gun. .270 is a fine round and IMO overall a better round for a wide range of hunting than either the .243 or the 30-30. Recoil is moderate. The only reason I don't own a 270 ids that I have umpteen rifles and just have not found one that I felt I really needed though it could happen tomorrow.
I really like my old Marlin 336. It just "feels" good in my hands and the action is awesome. My 14 yr old shot his first deer with it and I hope my daughter follows up when she is ready. Is it better than my .30-06? No, but I still hunt with it a few times every year in stands that have shots of 100 yds or less.

Abel
July 3, 2012, 10:43 PM
I really like my old Marlin 336. It just "feels" good in my hands and the action is awesome. My 14 yr old shot his first deer with it and I hope my daughter follows up when she is ready. Is it better than my .30-06? No, but I still hunt with it a few times every year in stands that have shots of 100 yds or less.

No other rifle gives me the level of confidence that a 336 with a scope does. You can't find that number on a ballistics chart.

Kachok
July 3, 2012, 11:33 PM
To me the biggest advantage to a good 30-30 is not the ballistics but the fact that it is such a compact handy rifle, often a full 4" shorter then many featherweight bolt action rifles, that makes a big difference when traversing brush so thick you have to crawl through it.

meanmrmustard
July 3, 2012, 11:41 PM
To me the biggest advantage to a good 30-30 is not the ballistics but the fact that it is such a compact handy rifle, often a full 4" shorter then many featherweight bolt action rifles, that makes a big difference when traversing brush so thick you have to crawl through it.
+1, and well said. The appeal, methinks, is a carbine design with a tried and true action. However, as has been discussed, the platform is not the discussion as a whole.

They both have shortcomings as well as offerings to those that use them. The 30-30, Leverevolution or not, isn't going to best or even equal the .243 in distance, but trumps it in energy at shorter ranges. Lot of lead can be slammed into a bonehead at 200 yards or less with the 30-30. Need more range? .243 is your answer. But I'd opt for a do all, end all cartridge for both. Jack of all trades, if you will.

7/08
.260 rem
.270
6x55 swede (just for you, Kachok! But seriously, I've shot it, good round)
.308

Some give all, some will suck. It's up to you and your application to find happy ground.

rswartsell
July 3, 2012, 11:46 PM
The one thing I haven't heard in this thread about the .30-30, or more accurately about the lever action is=not that it's handy for brush, but an experienced rifleman can perform a reasonable semblance of, under duress, rapid fire with them.

As the bolt action/.243 fans have made abundantly clear the antiquated .30-30 is not superior to the .243. Because the .243 lives in a bolt action, and historically the .30-30 in a lever, choose the action for the application. If you let me set the terms, I will at my advanced age outshoot a bolt .243 with my Marlin 336 anytime you want.

That dear friends is the argument.

meanmrmustard
July 3, 2012, 11:49 PM
The one thing I haven't heard in this thread about the .30-30, or more accurately about the lever action is=not that it's handy for brush, but an experienced rifleman can perform a reasonable semblance of, uner duress, rapid fire with them.

As the bolt action/.243 fans have made abundantly clear the antiquated .30-30 is not superior to the .243. Because the .243 lives in a bolt action, and historically the .30-30 in a lever, choose the action for the application. If you let me set the terms, I will at my advanced age outshoot a bolt .243 with my Marlin 336 anytime you want.

That dear friends is the argument.
Dang. That hasn't been discussed. Good addition sir.

Texaszach
July 3, 2012, 11:59 PM
I know when I hear rapid fire at our DEER camp it usually means somebody is making some bad shots.

meanmrmustard
July 4, 2012, 12:00 AM
I know when I hear rapid fire at our DEER camp it usually means somebody is making some bad shots.
Or shots on multiple deer. Goes either way.

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 12:12 AM
Whether you have any use for it, or whether you have any agreement with it, it is what it is. The inherent advantage of the lever .30-30 would be rapid fire. If you don't contemplate being surrounded by Comanche, or defending home against 10 or more zombies, maybe you are a Savage .243 guy.

Remember this though, in the brushy country the lever .30-30 has been taking deer for somewhere near 100 years, it ain't gonna quit now.

Walking Dead
July 4, 2012, 12:14 AM
I'd get a .270. The harder part will be getting drawn for a hunt in Arizona. It's not like Oklahoma I can tell you that.

JEB
July 4, 2012, 01:00 AM
I'd get a .270. The harder part will be getting drawn for a hunt in Arizona. It's not like Oklahoma I can tell you that.

man that sounds rough. around here all i have to do is walk into the bait shot and tell them how many tags i need. then if they get filled, i just go back and get a few more.

BTW, good decision on the .270. that should serve you well!

jrdolall
July 4, 2012, 01:08 AM
Tag? What's a tag? We can legally kill 2 deer every day from October 15th through January 31st though only 3 can be antlered. I will let you know when I take my 112 or however many it comes to next year. No tags.

JEB
July 4, 2012, 01:17 AM
I'd get a .270. The harder part will be getting drawn for a hunt in Arizona. It's not like Oklahoma I can tell you that.

what state is that? sounds like fun!:D

meanmrmustard
July 4, 2012, 01:24 AM
Tag? What's a tag? We can legally kill 2 deer every day from October 15th through January 31st though only 3 can be antlered. I will let you know when I take my 112 or however many it comes to next year. No tags.
Sounds like Alabama.

goon
July 4, 2012, 01:51 AM
Some of the .243's I've handled don't seem to give up much in the way of handling to the 30-30.
And for brush hunting, you can't actually shoot through brush and make reliable hits. Even the smallest twig can cause a bullet to become unstable and end up in orbit somewhere - or to go wild and wound a game animal. To make a humane and reliable shot, you'd be best off to pick out a hole in the brush and thread your bullet through it to a vital area.
Choose the rifle you think you can do that best with.

I've never owned a .243 but given what it can do, I may find one when I pick up another deer rifle.

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 02:04 AM
goon,

Did you ever own and fire extensively a lever action (at relatively short distances)?

I'm not going to say it's impossible, what with Lee Harvey Oswald making world record time with a Mannlicher Carcano, but bolts are just plain slower and designed for distance and precision. Period.

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 02:17 AM
:)tounge firmly planted in cheek for Oswald reference.

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 02:22 AM
If you are mistaking sloving a mathematical equation for energy by thinking E= MC2, then you are right, velocity is the part that is squared. However if you are correctly solving for momentum or inertia then weight or mass gets the nod. (regarding resisitance to deflection). A small twig will NOT deflect a 700 Nitro bullet on it's way to a Juarassic Park II T-Rex into the stratosphere as you suggest. It will have less effect on a typical .30-30 than it will a typical .243.

Kachok
July 4, 2012, 02:48 AM
True but they ALL suck going through the brush even the 700 nitro and 12 guage slugs. Which one sucks less is not much of an argument.
Energy figures are great and all but they are a LONG way from telling the whole story. I will take a 170gr .30 cal over an 85gr 243 anyday even with 20-30% less energy. Ft-lbs of energy is the potential work done by your projectile, but high speed projectiles tend to expend more of that energy on a more confined area where as the heavier slower projectile tends to make more consistent wounding damage throughout the wound tract, I have shown many examples of this on this forum. A 243s damage is laughable compared to that of a 405gr .458 cal of the same energy.

meanmrmustard
July 4, 2012, 02:52 AM
If you are mistaking sloving a mathematical equation for energy by thinking E= MC2, then you are right, velocity is the part that is squared. However if you are correctly solving for momentum or inertia then weight or mass gets the nod. (regarding resisitance to deflection). A small twig will NOT deflect a 700 Nitro bullet on it's way to a Juarassic Park II T-Rex into the stratosphere as you suggest. It will have less effect on a typical .30-30 than it will a typical .243.
Mass is the space with which an object and/or matter occupies. You are referring to density, sir. Please, do not sleep in physics.

Kachok, we agree. Inch or a mile, if you miss your target, you still suck. End of story.

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 02:59 AM
Rectitude in minutia do not a practical argument make. Degrees at relatively short distances can be everything (or nothing). Cumulative wisdom suggests heavy relatively slower bullets in short distance brush are superior strategy. If you guys can prove it wrong, knock yourselves out, and we will stand in awe of generations of wisdom overturned.

Kachok
July 4, 2012, 03:05 AM
Sure it deflects less, but I for one never take a shot on a deer through any kind of brush no matter what I am shooting. Not being able to clearly visually ID your target is unsafe and unethical IMHO If I cannot get a clean shot I let that one walk, I'll get him next time.

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 03:10 AM
Straw man argument, you are arguing against elements you presented. I think you just like to argue.

Kachok
July 4, 2012, 03:17 AM
How so? All I said was I don't shoot anything through thick brush, I think it is unsafe so to me which one deflected less matters little. More of a statement then an argument don't you think? That is the way I meant it anyway.

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 03:21 AM
You were arguing the physics of the "heavy bullet brush" equation, then switched to the "four rules argument" by introducing the inability to identify target. Never presented until you did. Lots and lots of game effectively identified in brush by lots and lots of hunters.

Kachok
July 4, 2012, 03:32 AM
You were arguing the physics of the "heavy bullet brush" equation, then switched to the "four rules argument" by introducing the inability to identify target. Never presented until you did. Lots and lots of game effectively identified in brush by lots and lots of hunters.
Well if you can clearly identify your target and have clear line of sight to the kill zone then you are not shooting through that heavy brush now are you? That is a given I did not change anything. You are right on the physics sure, I never said anything to the contrary, in fact I fully agree with you there, but the application of which I have reservations against.

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 03:38 AM
Good enough, you have every right to do so. But for those with no choice (but to hunt in brush, sometimes thick) it is safely and effectively done constantly and they MIGHT choose the .30-30 for that reason. Though granted the differences may be subtle.

Well played sir, hail good fellow well met.

theCan
July 4, 2012, 03:49 AM
this is a pretty easy answer. for those of you saying the 30-30 has the edge with 200 and closer...why? would a .243 not kill a deer closer than 200 yards? no, it would make it just as dead as the 30-30 would, but it would get to the deer about 1000 fps faster. so with that in mind, if you want to limit yourself to 150ish yard shots with the 30-30, go for it. if you want to kill a deer anywhere from 10-400+ yards, .243 is your choice. if you get a 3x9 or 4x12 it would do just fine at close ranges as well as any other range. check out a ballistics table for both, they do not lie. i have personally seen a 100gr SP kill a 8'6" brown bear at 150 yards and he made it about 20-30 yards. the bullet was found laying up against the hide on the opposite side. now thats penetration! go .243 and don't look back, you will have a rifle that will take anything from rabbits to elk.

The 30-30 certainly has better penetrating power. Suppose you had a quartering towards shot and you couldnt wait on a better shot. You have to put it through the shoulder. If the 243 gets deflected you may not have an immediately lethal shot. I've seen where a shotgun slug was used on a cow at point blank range and it got deflected up and away from the organs for a less than lethal result. Suppose it could happen with any caliber though...

meanmrmustard
July 4, 2012, 08:46 AM
You were arguing the physics of the "heavy bullet brush" equation, then switched to the "four rules argument" by introducing the inability to identify target. Never presented until you did. Lots and lots of game effectively identified in brush by lots and lots of hunters.
I'm interpreting here, so bare with me, but I believe that what Kachok is trying to convey is that a heavy, slow moving bullet from a compact carbine length rifle is good deer Meds in brushy area due to the shorter range shots. Better penetration, better platform, swift kills in the thick stuff. There is NO argument as to which caliber deflects less, be cause no one who gives two hoots about their quarry is shooting through brush anyway, and neither should you. I'm sure many people have IDed game in the thickets, but some have also shot other hunters. Not a bright idea to shoot at what kinda looks like a deer, but is actually your buddy.

So, your argument is questionable at best: Which caliber do I really want to miss with shooting through brush? Add lib your favorite cartridge, then pull the trigger, because you will miss or worse; wound your deer, or possibly hurt someone. You will undoubtedly do one of these.

Kachok
July 4, 2012, 10:49 AM
In rswartsell's defense I understand the temptation to shoot into the thicket. I have had days where no deer stepped out of the dense underbrush around my treestand, but I knew exactly where they were in that tangled mess of vines and thorn bushes I could hear them and see the vines move as they passed. Tempting but I'll pass, plenty more where he came from.

68wj
July 4, 2012, 10:55 AM
A decent demonstration of bullet deflection: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot40.htm

Art Eatman
July 4, 2012, 11:05 AM
Shooting through brush and hitting twigs and branches between the gun and Bambi is silly. All bullets will deflect somewhat, from .45-70 on down. The key variable is the distance between the branch and the game animal. That's been tested numerous times in The American Rifleman's Dope Bag, and the tests all produced the same result. Easy for a hoped-for heart shot to be a gut shot, if not a miss.

"Brush gun" means light and handy, quick-pointing for use in somewhat confined situations--not for shooting through brush. (Well, okay, maybe those with less intellect than Forrest Gump.)

.243 test case "study": I had a shot at a buck with my .243 at about fifty yards. Sierra 85-grain HPBT. In the line of sight with the buck's heart was a prickly pear pad. Don't ask me why I was bound and determined to shoot through that pad, but I did. Bang, whop, plop. He fell right there. Okay, so I walk up. Sheesh! I'd shot through FIVE pads. The path curved up and to the right. I didn't come anywhere near the heart. The remains of the bullet had hit just under his ear. Dumb me, but I'll take luck over skill any day. Call it a learning experience, not to be repeated.

skidder
July 4, 2012, 12:21 PM
I've had Winchester and Marlin lever 30-30s, but my 2 bolt action 243s were more accurate. That being said I still have a 30-30 that does fit the bill. Model 54 Winchester carbine with Williams peep sight. Now that's my version a brush 30-30 with some accuracy. Spire point 30-30s from a bolt action are like having a 30-30 magnum. I'm not saying the lever's are not practical, but the ones I've had were not as accurate as my bolts (possible the type of ammo). And you have to know there's a reason most bolt action ammo is spire point.

Ok...I'm starting to ramble.:D I guess what I'm trying to say is I would choose the 30-30 caliber over 243 if the 30-30 was a bolt action so I could use spire bullets.

goon
July 4, 2012, 01:05 PM
goon,

Did you ever own and fire extensively a lever action (at relatively short distances)?

I'm not going to say it's impossible, what with Lee Harvey Oswald making world record time with a Mannlicher Carcano, but bolts are just plain slower and designed for distance and precision. Period.


Yep, I've owned five of them over the years (I think) and shot a lot more. I love lever actions and think that at close range they're great deer rifles - some like the 99 Savage and BLR chamber rounds that can reach out accurately to 300 yards or more. Even the 30-30 only drops about 6" at 200 yards and still has plenty of energy and penetration, so I'd call it capable at that range. They're also more accurate than they get credit for. They can also be fast, but fast is as much from who the shooter is as it is from the rifle. Also, I don't know that "fast" is always good in a hunting rifle. If you don't get the deer with the first shot you may get it with a second, but anything more than that is just slinging lead into the woods. A precise first shot is better than a dozen hasty follow-up shots.
I still think a bolt action firing an adequately powered round with the scope set to a low power is an excellent deer rifle and probably more versatile than the ol' 30-30.

Also, I don't know if actual studies have been done about which rounds actually penetrate brush better, but conventional wisdom isn't always the truth. For my uses, I try to shoot past the brush or around the brush, but not through it.

Legionnaire
July 4, 2012, 01:10 PM
Either would make for a great deer rifle. I have owned and hunted with both. At this point, I don't still own a .30-30, but there are several .243s in the safe. My preference only. YMMV.

JEB
July 4, 2012, 01:27 PM
Also, I don't know that "fast" is always good in a hunting rifle. If you don't get the deer with the first shot you may get it with a second, but anything more than that is just slinging lead into the woods. A precise first shot is better than a dozen hasty follow-up shots.
I still think a bolt action firing an adequately powered round with the scope set to a low power is an excellent deer rifle and probably more versatile than the ol' 30-30.

big +1 to that!

rswartsell
July 4, 2012, 02:38 PM
So Art,

Should we now call you Forrest?

P.S. forgive me, rereading your post, you said less intellect than Forrest, so that wouldn't really be appropriate would it?

goon
July 4, 2012, 07:33 PM
That might be appropriate... if he hadn't learned from his mistake and shared it with the rest of us to prevent us from doing the same thing.

Art Eatman
July 5, 2012, 02:03 AM
Everybody has the occasional Gumpy Moment. The deal is to not repeat any of them. :D

slow944
July 5, 2012, 11:31 AM
I just read thru the whole thread and it seems that the OP went with a 270. I have a couple of lever actions and I have some bolt actions as well. I once owned a 243 T/C Encore, that's my only experience with that caliber. I do love the 30-30 though.

Art Eatman
July 5, 2012, 11:22 PM
Yeah, well, we had a good time, nattering away quite happily. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Deer rifle. 243 vs 30-30" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!