30-30 vs. .308 out to 200 yards?

When I used to shoot cowboy metallic silhouette back in the 1980's, I used 150gr RN 30-30 bullets throughout the course. The 200 yd rams when down when hit and spattered the jacketed bullets pretty thoroughly.
If you know the ballistic limitations of the cartridge, they are going to be effective on game at that range. Would the .308 Win cartridge be more effective? Seriously?

Shot placement and the popularity of the 30-30 in my area would be more to blame than anything.Most guys around here who use a 30-30 don't shoot them often,a lot of the rifles are iron sighted lever actions,and they are carried by old-timers who think that kind of setup will kill em as far as you can see em.I look at my 308 precision rifle and think to myself "there's a comparison?Really?"

for some reason the .308 has been used by the military as a sniper round instead of the 30/30......cant see why this is even being asked.

Here's data from Hornady:

155 gr 308: 2045 ft-lb @200yd
160 gr 30-30: 1643 ft-lb @ 200yd

With modern ammunition this is more than enough energy to effectively kill a deer or human sized target at this range. So, if the shooter can do his/her part: dead is dead. No difference, however the shooter's job could be a littler easier with a .308 at "in between" ranges due to flatter trajectory.

In deed a 30-30 has probably killed more deer than any other rifle, but the rest of the story is, for so many years there was not another comparable rifle. Because it has killed more deer means nothing, we have no way of knowing how many deer were hit and got away or were not recovered. A 30-30 is a wonderful rifle for what it was designed for, and that was short range shooting. Two hundred yards stretches it's capabilities, but it more than stretches the capabilities of most shooters. Remember, most shooters are not 20 year old kids with sharp eye sight, they are old fuddie duddies like me who wear glasses and don't see as well as we once did. Believe it or not, we don't shoot as well as we once did either. If the 30-30 is a Marlin it is easy to mount a scope, and that helps, but it still doesn't make a 30-30 perform like a 308. The time is coming when we will be saying 'an AR-15 kills more deer than anything else'.

for some reason the .308 has been used by the military as a sniper round instead of the 30/30......cant see why this is even being asked.

Click to expand...

Because it is a NATO round that allows the use of Spitzer type bullets that give the platform accuracy out to 600-1000 yards. Also, there are far better weapon designs available for the .308 than the .30-30.

None of this means that the .30-30 is a bad cartridge, as you seem to imply. A good 170 grain soft point does very well terminally out to 150-200 yards. At that range is still gives good expansion, a reasonable amount of fragmentation and most importantly deep penetration.

The only issue I can think of when hunting with the .30-30 out to that range is competency of the shooter. If you are good enough to hit the kill zone, then the .30-30 is good enough to quickly kill/drop the deer.

Glock19Fan said:

Because it is a NATO round that allows the use of Spitzer type bullets that give the platform accuracy out to 600-1000 yards. Also, there are far better weapon designs available for the .308 than the .30-30.

None of this means that the .30-30 is a bad cartridge, as you seem to imply. A good 170 grain soft point does very well terminally out to 150-200 yards. At that range is still gives good expansion, a reasonable amount of fragmentation and most importantly deep penetration.

The only issue I can think of when hunting with the .30-30 out to that range is competency of the shooter. If you are good enough to hit the kill zone, then the .30-30 is good enough to quickly kill/drop the deer.

Click to expand...

Dude. I can not imagine any fragmentation of a typical 170 grain 30-30 bullet at velocities under 1800 fps. Nor would I want any in a carcass I intend to consume.

Dude. I can not imagine any fragmentation of a typical 170 grain 30-30 bullet at velocities under 1800 fps. Nor would I want any in a carcass I intend to consume.

Click to expand...

Many soft points will exhibit some fragmentation down to around 1600 FPS unless they are bonded or use a hard lead. The 170 grain Core Lokt bullets in .30-30 have an fairly large amount of exposed lead at the nose of soft lead, and despite being well known for holding together, the tip will almost always produce fragmentation.

And fragmentation shouldn't matter when hunting because most people don't shoot where they eat. Much of the fragmentation is distributed throughout the heart and lungs and is rarely in edible muscle tissue.

for some reason the .308 has been used by the military as a sniper round instead of the 30/30......cant see why this is even being asked.

Click to expand...

Well hell, if thats the logic you want to use, you could apply it to the .308 vs any cartridge out there.

What is better for long range shooting, a .308 or a .270 WSM? Well the military uses .308 so it must be so much better that its a silly question.

A 30-30 zeroed at 200 is going to be 5" high at 100, about 3" high at 50 yards.

Click to expand...

How bout not zeroing at 200 either. Maybe, if you wanted to instead of simply arguing the superiority of some other round, there's a zero that can be worked out for your load that keeps you no more than 3 inch high or low all the way to 200.

The way the arguments are going here the .308 is also a poor choice because they make even more better magnum rounds.

KY Sparky said:

Here's data from Hornady:

155 gr 308: 2045 ft-lb @200yd
160 gr 30-30: 1643 ft-lb @ 200yd

With modern ammunition this is more than enough energy to effectively kill a deer or human sized target at this range. So, if the shooter can do his/her part: dead is dead. No difference, however the shooter's job could be a littler easier with a .308 at "in between" ranges due to flatter trajectory.

Click to expand...

Please don't try and insert common sense into the debate. If discussing the long range ability of of short range cartridges you only compare the worst of the options not solutions specially designed to address the issue. Hornady bullet take away the debate.

People choose the .30-30 (talking about today, not 100yrs ago) because of the guns, not the terminal ballistics of the cartridge. Lever guns are cool. But lets face it, if no lever guns existed and you had to choose a cartridge for a bolt action, nobody would choose the .30-30. (For the equivalent recoil, I'd pick the 6.5x55 )

I'm not saying that is right or wrong - I have a couple levers too. But for the most part they are short range guns. If you plan on consistently shooting targets 200 yards away, pick up the .308. If that is the extreme end, then the .30-30 is fine.

The same argument can be made for .44Mag out of a rifle under 50 yards. Great performance and capacity out of a lever gun, but wouldn't be your first pick for 200 yards.

The .308 does generally have a practical advantage but most of that is not due to the cartridge, it is more often the rifle it is chambered in. I have 6 .308s and 3 30-30s but none of my 30-30s are lever action so I can load more efficient bullets and am not limited to flat nose types. I used to play around with cast bullets a lot and due to the long neck of the 30-30, it had a good reputation for accuracy in that role. I have a 788 Remington in 30-30 (now in 38-55) that shot well but I have a 340 Savage that was a real 1.5 MOA gun with cast bullets and sometimes better. If you are looking at a single shot or bolt action 30-30 and you reload, it will perform well out to 200 yards and its performance will surprise a lot of people especially those with limited background on firearms. However if you are looking at a low cost factory rifle and factory ammo, the .308 will be the better choice.

The way the arguments are going here the .308 is also a poor choice because they make even more better magnum rounds.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said that the .308 or .30-30 either one was a poor choice. For whitetails at 200 yds, both are good choices.
I was simply pointing out that just because the military uses it, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is the best at something. Saying that out of two rounds, the one that the military uses must be better is silly.

Use the one that is most practical for your situation. Distance, load choice, how it carries; these are your deciding factors.

If a particular example of either rifle is inaccurate for the shooter, the why should be determined such that no animal suffer needlessly. If the shooter is the accuracy problem, he or she should also seek correction but to echo others, dead is dead.

Arkansas Paul said:

I don't think anyone said that the .308 or .30-30 either one was a poor choice. For whitetails at 200 yds, both are good choices.
I was simply pointing out that just because the military uses it, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is the best at something. Saying that out of two rounds, the one that the military uses must be better is silly.

Click to expand...

I wasn't directing anything at you. The "cause the military uses it" was certainly silly. And especially considering the military is moving on to other calibers for sniper roles.

I'm addressing the people that are arguing nuances of .308 vs .30-30 trajectory for short range hunting. Sure the .308 shoots flatter than the .30-30, but the 7mm mag shoots flatter than the .308. It must be better too.

Archangel14 said:

Okay, this thread has gotten a little off "target", so to speak (pun intended). I know that a .308 shoots flatter and has more energy. I get that. I understand why the military uses it and not a 30-30 round. I understand that the 30-30 is much weaker.

BUT, the question remains: if I shot a living creature (let's say a 150 pound living creature) somewhere in the chest at 200 yards, is there really any difference in the outcome between the 30-30 and the .308?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's been answered. NO DIFFERENCE. If you make a good hit, you made a good hit.

Either agree or disagree with hatt. Forget all the other off-topic stuff.

BUT, the question remains: if I shot a living creature (let's say a 150 pound living creature) somewhere in the chest at 200 yards, is there really any difference in the outcome between the 30-30 and the .308?

Click to expand...

If they land in the same spot, no there will be no difference. The outcome will be a dead deer if the hit is in the vitals.
However, depending on ammo selection, the one hit with the .30-30 may run a little farther before expiring as a result of the flat nose lead bullets that must be used with them. With the .308 you can use bullets like ballistic tips, SSTs or SGK BTHPs that expand more rapidly and violently than the standard cup and core soft points, resulting in faster kills. That is the main difference at that distance IMO.

Good Lord, we need a flatter shooting cartridge than the .30WCF for 200yds now??? If that's the case then certainly we need .300 magnums for 300yds and the .338Lapua for 400. Seriously, if I thought I needed a cartridge that shot flatter than the ole .30-30 for 200yd shots on deer-sized critters, I'd quit right now. Heaven forbid we should actually learn how our rifles shoot and adjust accordingly.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Calm down Craig. Have some coffee or something.

Quote:
been on more wounded deer chases from the 30-30 than any other round

"this could very well be due to poor shot placement, and shouldn't be taken as a fault of the cartridge itself."

And poor shot placement might be because:
1) range judgment is much more critical with the high, looping trajectory of the .30-30.

2) the .30-30 and the rifles it is chambered in are both inherently less accurate than .308 in a typical bolt-action

And wounded deer might be because there wasn't enough velocity left at range to reliably expand the .30-30 bullet.

I've heard the 'wounded deer-chase/.30-30' story several times. OTOH, I've very seldom heard it with regard to .308 or .30-06 class cartridges.

If 200 yard shots are seriously in the cards, the .308 is the most humane choice. For me, as an average hunter, the .30-30 is at most a 100 to 120 yard rifle; about half the range someone skilled with that cartridge would attempt.

Here is some information that I gathered that you might find useful.

I have a 20in bbl rifle chambered in 30-30, and an 18.5 in bbl rifle chambered in 308.

Here were my results using a chronogragh.

Note: Both were fired on the same day and under the same conditions.

Note: 30-30 = Win 170gr Power Point.
308 = Win 150gr Power Point.

Note: I ran both of the cartridge's average velocities thru my ballistics program, along with the E.C., elevation above sea level, etc...... and here is what it came to.

Velocity and K.E. at 20ft from the muzzle:
30-30: 2199fps with 1825ft/lbs of energy
308 : 2769fps with 2553ft/lbs of energy


200yards:
30-30: 1602fps with 969ft/lbs of energy
308: 2194fps with 1603ft/lbs of energy

I have hunted with both of these rifles, ( Deer, as well as hogs)....... and while the 308 has quite a bit more behind it's bullet at the 200yard mark compared to the 30-30, both are very capable at killing.

Especially if the shot from either rifle is placed in the same spot (Sake of argument.)

Both seem to produce similar wound channels at 200yards or closer, and typically exit the animal. (Quartering shots included)

The difference really showed itself to me when the distance is increased, and if I'm hunting something bigger than white tail deer.....but that wasn't your question.

BTW..... I did shoot a few boxes of 147gr 7.62x51mm on the same day, and under the same conditions. (Win "white box" Q3130)........using the same 18.5in bbl rifle.

It's really gonna come down to the rifle, and what you prefer to shoot, unless your wanting to hunt bigger critters like elk at 200yards, or whitetail deer at distances over 200yards.