30-30, 30-06 & .357 carbine: compare/contrast

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since we're nitpicking...

The US Military referred to it as the .45 Government. Just as they had called it's predecessor the .50 Government while almost everyone else called it the 50-70.

And I thought the 405gr loading came first? So that means that the .45-40- 405 would be the US Government round. And I seem to recall that the Carbine loading for calvary use used a 300gr bullet. So that would mean that the .45-70-300 could also be called the .45 Government.

I was also under the impresion that the 500gr loading didn't come about until the heavy fallingblock rifles came along and became popular with the buffalo slaughterers.


But then I could also be wrong again.
 
Nematocyst: You seem to be interested in a carbine for deer hunting. I've got a lot of centerfire rifles (including Savage99, Remington 760, Winchester 94 and 1886 carbines, and several bolt-action varities) but the one that feels, handles and looks the best to me is my Ruger 77 International Model in .308 cal. It is short, handy, and uses a short-action that fires a flat -shooting,powerful, accurate, easily obtainable and relatively inexpensive cartridge. I topped mine with a 2X7 Leupold compact scope.

Of course this rifle has a "Mannlicher" style stock and it's been my experience that people either love or hate the full-length configuration. My International accurately (no pun intended) reflects my sentiments in the matter.
 
The steel used in the original 1895 Winchester just won't hold up to a steady diet of modern hunting ammunition.

The Browning BLR is the only lever action rifle really stong enough for serious use.
 
BluesBear thanks for the info. I thought they started off with the 3
part name first then moved to the shortened version.


edit:
Found it...
As originally loaded and adopted by the U.S. Army in 1873, the .45-70 Gov't used 70 grs. of blackpowder to lob a 405-gr., all-lead bullet...

But I also found this...
The U.S. Army had introduced and adopted the .45/70 in 1873 for its single shot "trap door" Springfield rifle. Shooting a 500-grain lead bullet.
 
The .45-70 was loaded .45-70-405 and .45-70-500 for infantry rifles
and .45-55-405 for cavalry carbines, same casing though,
different charges and bullet weights.

And the .30-40 Krag and .30-03 and .30-06 Springfield were
all called .30 Government.

Oh, back to the original question: 30-30 30-06 and 357 carbine:
.30-30 is about two-thirds the power of the .30-06 at least on
paper ballistics (or the .30-06 is 50% more powerful).
.357 Magnum from a carbine length barrel is much more powerful
than the same cartridge in a revolver length barrel: I damaged
my 3/8" thick steel swinging target firing at it with a .357 carbine.
But it is not as powerful as the .30-30.

--------
edit for rusty memory
 
Last edited:
bullet mass ranges for .308: anybody got info?

For those with little time to read, and no interest in why I'm asking this question, I'll cut to the chase:
can anyone provide information about the range of bullet sizes & types available for .308 Win in factory rounds?

In particular, I'm interested in how the range of options for the .308 compares to the great diversity available for the .30-06.

Either your own knowledge, or a web site or THR thread would be greatly appreciated. :)
______

Here's the why part if you are interested.

I'm still trying to make a decision between 30-30, .35, 30-06 & .308. I'm not in a hurry about this: buying a rifle is still weeks to months away for me, so I'm doing my homework early, and very much enjoying the research.

OK, I'll own up to my ignorance again about the larger calibers (even though I'm chipping away at that ignorance): I did not know until last night that .308 Win is a widely available caliber, is a military caliber and will fire (is roughly equivalent to) 7.62X51mm NATO. Very interesting. And, from what I'm reading, it's one of the most accurate cartridges out there.

OK, so .308 has my interest and attention.

I'm still considering .30-30 because it's widely available, relatively low recoil, and I'm just pining to own another Marlin 336 lever gun (again, stupidly sold mine years ago).

The problem: I can only afford (and really only want) one rifle right now, and I want it to be as much all-purpose as possible. Sort of a SAF (swiss army knife). AND the .30-30 has limited options for bullet size unless one is a reloader, which I'm not. (At least yet...and would prefer not to be right now. Too many irons in my fire already.) For factory loads, I'm finding the .30-30 to be limited mostly to 150 & 170 gr. Fine for deer, but in a SHTF scenario and I'm out of canned sardines and spam, but can't find a deer, I may want to shoot a varmit or even a big jack rabbit, and a 150 gr seems a smidgen big for that.

So, I'm really attracted to the .30-06 for it's range of options bullet wise. Seems like one can get everything from varmit rnds to 200+ gr for the bigger mammals. That's appealing. I'm finding lots of information about that range.

However, for reasons explained elsewhere in this thread, I'm leaning more towards either a lever gun or a pump than a bolt action since I'm already familiar and comfortable with both. But .30-06 isn't available in either of those in a gun that I'm attracted to (yet; I do acknowledge the recommendations made earlier; thanks).

The Rem 7600P is available in .308. I like it's looks. For various reasons, I'm interested in the shorter barrel, and for now, the ghost ring sights. (I won't rule out a scope for later.) I haven't handled one yet, but have I resolved to travel if I must to do so.

But I'm having a bit of trouble finding information about bullet size & type ranges for the .308 and how it compares to the diversity of the '06. Hence my question.

As always, thanks for any info and the continuing opinions.

Nem
 
The .308 vs. the 30-06; always good fodder for gun writers needing something interesting to write about. Most of us are pretty bored with the argument by now.
I own and use both calibers and can assure you that both address the same general purposes and uses and that you will not I] go wrong with either choice. The 30-06 used to offer a slightly broader range of bullet weights (I'm doing this from memory as I'm away from my "library" at the moment, so please forgive any dated recollections), ranging from 110 gr. to 220 gr., while the .308 went from 120 gr. to 200 gr. (referring to factory loads only).
Both rounds are widely available and priced about the same.
The main advantage of the 30-06 is a slightly superior ballistic edge (between 100 and 200 fps velocity with equivalent bullet type and weight). The 308's advantages are slightly less recoil, slightly better accuracy (individual rifles will vary, of course) and the use of a slightly shorter action length to accomodate the shorter cartridge.
I like them both but, if forced to choose between the two, I'd opt for the .308 (7.62 NATO). Happily, this is one instance where you really can't lose!
 
consideration

You may want to fire a pump rifle before purchasing. I have had several Remington 30/06 pump carbines they were extremely accurate off the bench , but I had a hard time free hand shooting as the forearm is not fixed and pivots. Shorter barrels normaly produce more muzzle flash and engry drops at longer range. Reference to 30/06 vs 308 if largest game is of consideration go 06 if medium game go 308 it is usually lighter, shorter action and less recoil, But you want go wrong with either caliber and there is quite an overlap of the two.
Hope it helps
 
SwampWolf, BluesBear & Crackerjack, thanks for your ideas.

B'Bear, that's a cool web page that Remington has, and very useful. Great they've set it up so one can compare three cartridges at once. I've already spent some time on it. More to come soon.

the forearm is not fixed and pivots
Crackerjack, that is an interesting point that I hadn't considered. I'll be sure to pay attention to that when looking at them. I may not have an op to shoot one before buying, but I suspect I could get a sense of what effect it could have just by handling it.

That looseness, for lack of a better word, is one reason I'll be buying an 870P shotgun instead of a regular 870. The 870P is machined a bit better than the 870. The action is noticably tigher in a side by side comparison (at least in my mind). I suspect the same may be true of the 7600P v. the standard 7600, which is why I'm considering the former over the latter even though I'd lose two inches of barrel length. (Not so much an issue for me though; I don't expect to try shots much over 100 yds.)
 
Don't overlook the Remington 7615.
It's a pump carbine chambered in .223 that accepts all AR-15 magazines. :evil:

Years ago I had a late 1960s vintage Remington 760 carbine in .308. It was a very nice rifle except that the barrel heated quickly causing a wandering point of impact.
 
Don't overlook the Remington 7615.
It's a pump carbine chambered in .223 that accepts all AR-15 magazines.
B'Bear, I haven't looked at the .223 at all so far. What can you tell me about it relative to this thread that would persuade me to consider it further? I'm not at all opposed. It's just that I've been considering rifles in the .30 range (.357 carbine, .30-30, .35, .308, .30-06), so on first glance, a .223 seems a bit small, especially considering that I think (see below) I want to be able to drop whitetail, mule deer, antelope & maybe elk.

Having said that, though, I confess, I find myself asking, "why?"

Why would I want to kill that much meat at once, given that I'm mostly a loner, less likely to hang out in big camps where many pounds of meat would be welcome in a stew pot, and more likely to shoot varmits for meat, along with carrots, onions, potatoes & greens, not to mention that occassional human intruder intent on doing me bodily harm?

In a SHTF/TEOTWAWKI situation (which I reluctantly admit, i expect), I will have no freezer, and no way to preserve large quantities of meat.

Any thoughts welcome. Thanks.

Nem

PS: how interesting. This is my .357th post on THR. Hmm.
 
Changing thread name: .223, 30-30, .35, .308, 30-06 v .357 carbine: compare/contrast

Just spent an enjoyable evening reading about the .223.

Found a couple of articles on reloader sites; another one about hunting coyotes in Idaho; and at least one with a warning to beware shooting 5.56 in a .223 (pressures aren't commensurate; gun go boom).

Apparently the .223 is a varmit gun & military caliber, adopted after .30-cal-inspired 7.62 were deemed "overpowered".

Hmm. What was I saying about large game?

Flat trajectory, very fast, lower recoil than the .30's, eats less powder.

Here is an interesting overview.

OK, got my interest. I'm listening.
______

Added later after careful reading of the wikipedia article: "...at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it will yaw and then fragment at the cannelure. The fragments disperse through the flesh causing much more internal injury. The effectiveness of fragmentation seems to impart much greater damage to tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. It should be noted that this fragmentation effect is highly dependent on velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled rifles generate less muzzle velocity and therefore rounds lose effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles."

Hmm. That concerns me. The 7615 has a short barrel; only 16.5".

But then, this: "There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the round, especially the first-round kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmention. Typically, this only becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 meters) or as already stated wth shorter barreled weapons. The 14.5 inch barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine can be particularly prone to this problem. At short ranges, the round is extremely effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk to bystanders when used inside a building or in an urban environment - the bullet fragments remaining in the target. By comparison larger pistol-caliber bullets pose a far greater threat of passing through the target and causing additional casualities."

So, the 7615 barrel is 2" longer than the problematic M4.

This is tough to sort out.

Interesting though.

Still got my interest.

Nem
 
Last edited:
Nematocyst-870 said:
....I want to be able to drop whitetail, mule deer, antelope & maybe elk....

If you want to hunt large game (deer and larger), don't get a .223. While the .223 is certainly capable of taking deer, it is illegal to hunt deer with a .223 in many states. The usual requirement is for a minimum of .23 or .24 caliber, so you can hunt deer with a .243 but not a .223. In addition, the .223 generally is designed to incapacitate by fragmentation, which will tend to ruin large quantities of meat.

The .223 is, however, an excellent varmint cartridge with the right bullet.
 
i think that the 30-30 has killed more deer than can be counted so i would go with the marlin as said above it is a side eject and i prefer it but i think what it all boils down to is the fact of who is shooting and how they cna handel their own gun if you are good with a 30-06 take it if you liek the .357 they go with it jsut get one gun and master it and you will be set
 
I hate to muddy the waters, but one rifle has been glaringly left out of the equasion - the Savage 99.

I own two Savage 99s, one is a mid 30s model in 300 Savage and the other is a mid 60s Featherweight model in 243.

The Savage 99 solves the problem of spitzer bullets in a lever action. It is a fast-action lever rifle that is a joy to carry, is extremely durable and can be had in some very deer-capable calibers like 300 Savage, 308 and 243. You can also safely low-mount a scope on these rifles and my 1964 Savage 99 in 243 gives me 100yd groups that look as good as any bolt action you could buy off the shelf.

My 1938 Savage 99 in 300 Savage has a set of nice, Marbles open sights and you can always go open sight (either v-notch or peep) on any Savage99.

Often, you see Savage 99s selling for good prices (around 300 bucks) at some pawn shops and gun shows, but they're becomeing collector items, because they're not made anymore.

If you like the idea of a fast action lever gun but also like the idea of a scope and a flatter-shooting round than the 30-30, the Savage 99 might be the rifle for you.

Again...I hate to muddy the waters, but you might be shorting yourself if you did not research the classic Savage 99 lever-action rifles.

- Brickboy240
 
FKB, Belton & Brickboy, thanks for opinions. Good food for thought.

I'm still hoping also to hear more opinions about the .223. I'd enjoy hearing B'Bears thoughts about why he recommended I look at it.

Why, in light of several threads I read last night, and FKB's comment above about .243, I'm realizing I may as well consider the .24's and .270's as well. (I plead ignorance so far.) But, again, I want to make sure to get a caliber that is fairly widely available with the biggest range of cartridge options (in terms of mass, pressures, etc) that I can without going into reloading (yet).

As I've confessed above, this process is forcing me to really closely examine exactly what my goals are for a rifle, what I intend to try to shoot with it, etc. It's a great process for me; so glad to have some time to explore and listen to opinions before buying one.

Brickboy, thanks for the tip on the Savage 99. It's a busy day for me, but I'm going to read more about it later tonight or tomorrow.

Nem
 
Not counting on-line gaming forums, wikipedia is just about the last place I would go looking for firearms information.

I mentioned the .223/5.56 not realizing that you might want it for medium game hunting. You'll find that the vast majorities of .223 rifles will handle .5.56 just fine. (The Remington is actually chambered in 5.56)

I really only intended it to be another option to consider, not a recommendation per se.

One of the main advantages for .223 is the same as for 9mm. It is just about the least expensive ammunition out there. (AND in a SHTF scenario, ammo will be plentiful.)

Cheap available ammo, light recoil, detachable magazines, good accuracy, light weight.


Portability, light recoil and good accuracy are the primary ctiteria for a carbine. All of the aformentioned moels are sound advice.

I would suggest that you visit a large gun shop or gun show and handle several various models and then determine which is best for you.
In reality caliber is only a small part of the equation.
 
I'd stay away from the 223 for whitetails, unless they're really small deer and you're really close. I have a 22-250 bolt gun and you won't catch me plugging deer or pigs with it.

A Savage 99 Featherweight in 243 or 308 would fit the bill. Easy to carry, light, not a bad kicker, accurate, fast and a scope mounts nice and low. They also hold 6 rounds and are of all steel construction - built like they used to build them and extremely strong.

They also made the Savage 99 in 250 Savage caliber - another light kicking capable round, but they're harder to find and ammo might be harder to find as well. Some might say the 300 Savage is hard to find ammo for, but I bought a box of 300 Savage at two local Wal Marts and several sporting goods retailers around here carry it, so its obviously not THAT hard to come by. Remington still make new factory 300 Savage ammo.

Still, I'd trust my 99 Savage in 243 to the ends of the earth on whitetails and coyotes (its main use). I paid 350 dollars for this rifle and it was well worth it!

- Brickboy240
 
BluesBear said:
In reality caliber is only a small part of the equation.
BluesBear, thanks for that reminder, and your sage advice. Good points all. Much appreciated. :)

Brickboy, likewise.

I'll add more later...
 
Again...I hate to muddy the waters, but you might be shorting yourself if you did not research the classic Savage 99 lever-action rifles.
I've got six of 'em, and can't say enough about 'em. It's a natural for southpaws, one of the few leverguns that's chambered for hi-pressure rounds, exceedingly fast to work on follow-up shots without losing cheeckweld, and darn accurate shooters. I prefer the F model (featherweights) in 308 as my out-n-about rifles; versatile, powerful, and totable.
 
Probably because a shotgun is a better choice for home defense than any rifle.

With all due respect, some of the most respected firearms trainers in America disagree with you*. You can't just make such a statement; it has to be supported by facts. These are the facts:

a properly selected carbine or rifle will hold more rounds than a shotgun; will put more rounds on target in less time; each round fired will have more range and better penetration against armor than shot, but less penetration in tissue than slugs, and properly chosen rifle rounds will tend to penetrate less than pistol rounds through housing construction material.

A well-selected carbine and ammo combination is easily the best choice for home defense. I like shotguns quite a bit, but that doesn't mean they are the
best choice for the job.

The shotgun's raison d'etre is its versatility as a hunting arm. You can hunt anything from small birds up to large bears (at close range). If it's all you've got, it'll work for home defense, but just because it can be used for the role, does not automatically make it optimal, 'cuz it ain't.

John

*and incidentally, Louis Awerbuck, probably THE most respected authority today on tactical shotgun usage, says he only use slugs in his shotguns for social purposes now. I like slugs, but a quality carbine would be better for almost everyone.
 
You know, a shotgun may or may not be optimal ballistically speaking, but the sight of the front end of a 10guage double barrel sure has a way of persuading all manner of miscreants to take their business elsewhere. Or it did before all these message boards got going...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top