.30-30 or .44 mag lever action

Status
Not open for further replies.
.30-30, do it for American history :) It is more versatile, (already mentioned) if your distance increases.

Someone up there argued for the matched performance of .44 vs. 30-30, but conveniently used a 20" barrel length for both, disregarding your stated barrel lengths...as well as using a light-for-caliber bullet in .44 for his stats, (already mentioned).
 
Last edited:
Someone up there argued for the matched performance of .44 vs. 30-30, but conveniently used a 20" barrel length for both, disregarding your stated barrel lengths...as well as using a light-for-caliber bullet in .44 for his stats, like someone else mentioned.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, go call Speer, and tell them to use the OP's stated barrel lengths for their load development in their next reloading manual. I can't control test bbl length in the manual I had on hand. Who cares if a 200 gr bullet is light for .44 Mag? It's still both commercially available, and has plenty of tested load data. It's also the most apples to apples comparison in this oranges vs. bananas inquiry.

As for versatility, what about the .44 Mag is less versatile the .30-30 Win? You can go anywhere from light JHP / JSP to heavy hardcast loads in a the .44 Mag.

My point was simply that .44 Mag out of a rifle starts to act more like a rifle cartridge than a pistol cartridge. I don't have a dog in this fight. I've fired plenty of .44 Mag & .30-30 Win, but never owned either. I like more interesting stuff like 7-30 Waters. ;)
 
Hogdon web site max velocity 30-30 rifle loads and corresponding Hornady HITS results:
170gr 2332fps 1015 HITS

Hogdon web site max velocity 44 *rifle* loads and corresponding Hornady HITS results:
200gr 2106fps 653 HITS (H110 load) 37,800 CUP pressure
300gr 1473fps 1025 HITS (H110 load) 38,800 CUP pressure - no other powder or load listed higher in pressure.
Click to expand...

the 30-30 170 gr. at 2332 fps generates 2052 ft/lb of energy

The 44 Mag 300 gr. at 1473 fps generates 1445 ft/lb of energy.


...with the 30-30 170 gr. bullets having higher sectional density....the 30-30 has clearly the edge over the 44 Magnum....

The 200 gr. bullet in 44 cal has piss poor SD compared to the 170 gr. 30 cal....I can edge out in energy that 44 Mag load with a 150 gr. 30 cal fired at 2512 fps (Hodgdon) and still have much better SD.
 
So it's all energy and SD? Typical 243 Win loadings have equal SD, and equal energy to typical .45-70 Gov't loadings. Which one you wanna hunt Buffalo & Brown Bear with? I'll leave y'all here in your own version of reality where momentum & bullet construction don't exist.
 
Flip a coin and then buy the proper bullet design for the intended purpose. They'll both work fine.

If you're worried about max performance get an 1895.
 
So it's all energy and SD? Typical 243 Win loadings have equal SD, and equal energy to typical .45-70 Gov't loadings. Which one you wanna hunt Buffalo & Brown Bear with? I'll leave y'all here in your own version of reality where momentum & bullet construction don't exist.
Click to expand...

It is all energy, SD and yes, bullet construction of course

Let me inform you a little bit...a heavy for caliber 100 gr. 243 bullet has a SD of .242 and generates, in a typical 243 Win loading, a bit shy of 2000 ft/lb.

The 45-70 hot loadings nowadays considered adequate for buffalo and brown bear hunting generally fire a 450-500 gr. bullet with SD up to .350 or more and usually at muzzle energies well north of 3000 ft/lb....so yes the 45-70 is the superior cartridge for that kind of job but for any fancy (or better say fanciful) notion of "momentum" theory....in addition to that I never heard of solid 243 cal bullet suitable for hunting or any deep penetrating ones....the pills designed for that caliber are built for a different purpose (varmint or up to small deer)

....and no, before you say it, the standard pressure 405 gr. 45-70 is currently considered a piss poor choice against the big bears according to the study conducted many years ago by the US Forest Service in Alaska, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf

A lot of smaller higher velocity (and higher energy/SD) calibers were vastly superior in the test.....read it, you may find it interesting....this is the real world version of reality....;)

......another thing you may ignopre is that the 6.5x55 Swedish is a very popular cartridge among big game hunters in Scandinavia because you can use up to 160 gr. controlled expansion bullets which have tremendous SD and consequently formidable penetration capabilities....moose and bears are regularly (and comfortably) taken with it.
 
Last edited:
If you have or plan on getting a .44 revolver then get the .44. I have a rifle/revolver pair in .357 and love to be able to carry a long gun and handgun in the same caliber. This I think is the biggest benefit of pistol caliber rifle's.

If you have no intention of the combo the 30-30 is also a good choice, and with the kinda new leverevolution ammo can get you out a little farther.

I think both will do the job good enough.
 
....and no, before you say it, the standard pressure 405 gr. 45-70 is currently considered a piss poor choice against the big bears according to the study conducted many years ago by the US Forest Service in Alaska,
Click to expand...
First, that study is from 1983, so it's hardly indicative of any current loadings. Second, everything I've ever read from any reputable source on dangerous game hunting emphasizes the importance of penetration over expansion. Why do you think Nosler & Barnes market their solid construction bullets for DG hunting? The USFS test puts a heavy emphasis on expansion, which is a serious flaw. I have no problem with their raw data on the rounds they fired. However, they tested far too few loads per caliber, and assumed that commercial loads of similar weights from different manufactures would perform the same. I disagree with their conclusions. Look at how they rank 30-06. Gimme a break.
In both, the 300-gr bullet ranked much higher than the 405-gr bullet, primarily because of the poor expansion of the 405-gr bullets. At the 1200-1300 ft/s striking velocity, some of these bullets acted as solids and penetrated as much as 24 inches. This was the greatest penetration recorded in the tests.(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
Piss poor my rear end!
 
First, that study is from 1983, so it's hardly indicative of any current loadings. Second, everything I've ever read from any reputable source on dangerous game hunting emphasizes the importance of penetration over expansion. Why do you think Nosler & Barnes market their solid construction bullets for DG hunting? The USFS test puts a heavy emphasis on expansion, which is a serious flaw. I have no problem with their raw data on the rounds they fired. However, they tested far too few loads per caliber, and assumed that commercial loads of similar weights from different manufactures would perform the same. I disagree with their conclusions. Look at how they rank 30-06. Gimme a break.
Click to expand...

You mentioned 45-70 loadings for buffalo which I assumed you meant current hot loadings. The 45-70 tested on that study was a regular commercial big brand one and it scored poorly.

You may disagree with their conclusion but at least they tried to conduct a scientific test rather than hearsay....


The test does not do not put an emphasis on expansion per se , just their rank metric is based on the widest wound channel (which expansion does produce) and the depth of penetration.....


Solids are recommended for thick skinned dangerous game because between an insufficient penetration (to reach vitals or CNS) and a wider wound channel is better at least to get the first right...this is the very reason why if you use a 44 Magnum as defence against a Grizzly you should use a hard cast and wide meplat bullet while if you take a a 338 Win Mag rifle (smaller caliber but much higher energy and SD) you can confortably use a controlled expansion bullet....you have plenty energy to get to the vital with some to spare for expansion producing a wider wound channel....

Piss poor my rear end!
Click to expand...

Indeed piss poor according to their methodology...at best mid rank (17 out of 33) with the 300 gr. Yes current much hotter 45-70 loadings would fare much better I suspect....so eventually its all about energy isn't it?? ;) ....together with SD and bullet construction obviously....

The 30-06 is indeed a good grizzly stopper with proper ammunition......ask our friend Caribou living in North Alaska....he knows a thing or two about hunting big brownies and he recently knocked one with authority (search for the post and pictures) with its Mosin Nagant rifle (30-06 power class)
 
Solids are recommended for thick skinned dangerous game because between an insufficient penetration (to reach vitals or CNS) and a wider wound channel is better at least to get the first right...this is the very reason why if you use a 44 Magnum as defence against a Grizzly you should use a hard cast and wide meplat bullet while if you take a a 338 Win Mag rifle (smaller caliber but much higher energy and SD) you can confortably use a controlled expansion bullet....you have plenty energy to get to the vital with some to spare for expansion producing a wider wound channel....
Click to expand...
Strange because Nosler offers their solids in 9.3mm (.366") & larger. The Barnes Banded Solids go from Spitzers (up to 30 cal), and switch to RN & FN at .338" & larger.
Yes current much hotter 45-70 loadings would fare much better I suspect....so eventually its all about energy isn't it?? ....together with SD and bullet construction obviously....
Click to expand...
Why go hotter? The old school .45-70 load they tested still had the best penetration in their test. It also has much more manageable recoil than the big magnums.
Large-Caliber Standard Rifle Cartridges
.45-70 U.S. -
We tested the .45-70 in two bullet weights (300- and 405-gr) and in rifles with two barrel lengths (20 and 22 inches). Both rifles were Marlin 1895 lever-action. In both, the 300-gr bullet ranked much higher than the 405-gr bullet, primarily because of the poor expansion of the 405-gr bullets. At the 1200-1300 ft/s striking velocity, some of these bullets acted as solids and penetrated as much as 24 inches. This was the greatest penetration recorded in the tests.
...
Recoil in this rifle, which weighed less than 8 lb, was much less severe than in the large caliber magnums; it is thus not a detracting factor.
Click to expand...
Near the start of the document, they also state:
The rifles used for training are like those to be carried in the field (that is, short barreled, bolt-action, .375 Magnum). Shooting this rifle may be very unpleasant for some inexperienced persons. They become more apprehensive of the rifle (a known effect) than of the bear (an unknown effect).
Click to expand...
Even many experienced shooters don't like ultra heavy recoil. If the USFS hadn't put such emphasis on expansion they would've seen that the .45-70 was excellent for their purposes.
 
Strange because Nosler offers their solids in 9.3mm (.366") & larger. The Barnes Banded Solids go from Spitzers (up to 30 cal), and switch to RN & FN at .338" & larger.
Click to expand...

Yes they do offer them if you need to use it against thick skinned animals (Rhino, Elephant, etc...) while the great bears are not thick skinned.

Near the start of the document, they also state:

Quote:
The rifles used for training are like those to be carried in the field (that is, short barreled, bolt-action, .375 Magnum). Shooting this rifle may be very unpleasant for some inexperienced persons. They become more apprehensive of the rifle (a known effect) than of the bear (an unknown effect).
Click to expand...

This is one of the reason why the 30-06 is actually one of their recommended caliber in that study...manageable recoil and the possibility to get that cartridge in a faster repating action than a bolt (pump or lever).


Solids offer excellent penetration at the cost of narrower wound channels....
 
I hunted big bears for many years, shooting and seen killed more than a few...

I don't have to read soneones elses report, i don't have to guess from reading balistics out of a reloading manual, as i saw for myself what works and what doesn't work as well.

What i found works best is a bullet that expands well, and still gives DEEP penetration, preferably exiting. I'd MUCH prefer a 30-06 loaded with 200NP's over a 47/70 with a bullet that doesn't expand well or drive in deep enough.

When a bullet expands fast, it does a lot of damage, and kills game faster. Of course, it has to drive in deep too, and that's why i much prefer NP's. (Nosler partitions)

DM
 
That study is so outdated and flawed it's barely useful. .358 W ranked higher than the .358 Norma in a dangerous game study. 300 grain .338 WM that penetrated 16.8 inches is rated lower than the 200 grain .338 that penetrated 12.3 inches. Yeah, OK.
 
What would be a better gun for black bear protection and close in deer work?
Lookin at Marlin .44 mag with a 16.5" barrel or a .30-30 with a 18.5" barrel.

Of the two I'd rather use the .30-30 with 170 gr. bullets, and I own both... and if I were to go outside the given parameters, I'd take a 336 in .35 Rem.
 
That study is so outdated and flawed it's barely useful. .358 W ranked higher than the .358 Norma in a dangerous game study. 300 grain .338 WM that penetrated 16.8 inches is rated lower than the 200 grain .338 that penetrated 12.3 inches. Yeah, OK.
Click to expand...

Have bears evolved snce 1983?? Interesting.....you fail to comprehend that absolute penetration was not the only parameter in that study.....enough penetration to reach the vitals AND width of the wound channel was the winning combination....
 
hunted big bears for many years, shooting and seen killed more than a few...

I don't have to read soneones elses report, i don't have to guess from reading balistics out of a reloading manual, as i saw for myself what works and what doesn't work as well.

What i found works best is a bullet that expands well, and still gives DEEP penetration, preferably exiting. I'd MUCH prefer a 30-06 loaded with 200NP's over a 47/70 with a bullet that doesn't expand well or drive in deep enough.

When a bullet expands fast, it does a lot of damage, and kills game faster. Of course, it has to drive in deep too, and that's why i much prefer NP's. (Nosler partitions)

DM
Click to expand...

DM


You experience seems to exactly confirm the result of that study.....
 
saturno_v said:
Have bears evolved snce 1983?? Interesting.....you fail to comprehend that absolute penetration was not the only parameter in that study.....enough penetration to reach the vitals AND width of the wound channel was the winning combination....
Click to expand...
I comprehended the study just fine. That's why I said it was flawed. Penetration isn't the only thing, but it's the most important thing. They admitted the study was flawed and they were just posting numbers when they said this:
Because we had no unbiased way to
determine the relative importance of
each ballistic category, we considered
each to be equally important.
Click to expand...
You really think a 1000 lb bear cares about a 9mm Para worth of energy? Or an extra 1/16 expansion? Or 80% retained weight v 90%?

There were no min and max acceptable penetration numbers for the test medium they were using.

The recoil numbers don't tell us anything. They were using some heavy guns in lighter calibers like .30-06 and some light guns in .338 and .375. Yet they apparently included that erroneous info in the calculations.

That's SOME of the flaws. Whatever wasn't flawed is now outdated with new bullet tech.
 
Penetration isn't the only thing, but it's the most important thing.
Click to expand...

Yes penetration and wound channel width as close second.....as I said before, if you just have enough horsepower to penetrate adequately on a given target you should go solid.....if you have energy to spare, the use of an expanding bullet will give you a larger wound channel.

You really think a 1000 lb bear cares about a 9mm Para worth of energy? Or an extra 1/16 expansion? Or 80% retained weight v 90%?
Click to expand...

The only thing a bear "cares" about is if the bullet did reach the vitals or CNS and the width of the wound channel (entity of the damage)...that's all...

There were no min and max acceptable penetration numbers for the test medium they were using.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the entire document in a long time but I suspect they did put a minimum acceptable penetration depth to reach vitals on an average size grizzly bear.

I agree that few inches of difference in penetration or small differences in the expansion ratio in the test medium would not mean that much on a practical situation, however they had to rank the different cartridge performance in some way...they had to draw the line....obviously it is not a cut and dry situation in real life.

The recoil numbers don't tell us anything. They were using some heavy guns in lighter calibers like .30-06 and some light guns in .338 and .375. Yet they apparently included that erroneous info in the calculations.
Click to expand...

They cannot take in consideration all the possible firearm assortment......yes you can have a light 20 inch barrel carbine in 30-06 that kick like a mule and a heavy long barreled rifle in 375 with a muzzle brake......on average is generally accepted that a 30-06 has a less recoil than a 375 H&H....

Whatever wasn't flawed is now outdated with new bullet tech.
Click to expand...

I would not put too much emphasis in "newer" bullet technology from 1983.....Nosler partitions and other exotic design were already in place at that time.....is not like the computer industry, we did not move light years ahead.....the only cartridge in that test that I think nowadays would rank radically different (much better I think) is the 45-70 with the newer super hot loadings with very heavy for caliber bullets (500+ gr.)
 
Another flaw was using an expansion ratio vs using recovered diameter. A .30 has to do more expanding than a .375 does to get to x. Using their logic a .22 bullet that expands to .50 is much better than a .700 solid.

They didn't list any Partitions or other exotics. Another flaw, LOL.
 
Go with a 458 socom. Bears are darn near tanks. Maybe supernatural.

Well, at least thats what other threads around seem to agree on.

Personally, I'd go with the 30-30. Bear tested and mother approved. Either way is great choice. As long as neither are a AR-15 platform, I loathe those things, lol.
 
Last edited:
Another flaw was using an expansion ratio vs using recovered diameter....
Click to expand...

They were considering the overall diameter of the expanded bullet.....they just mentioned the expansion ratio go give an idea of how much the bullet opened up but the ranking took in consideration the overall diameter, which you can calculate multiplying the original caliber for the resulted expanded ratio....
 
I heard someone once say stick with the round the gun was made for. i.e. buying a rifle? Get a rifle round. Same with AR questions, get a .223 for example. 308 is for the M1.

Takes alot of frustration our of life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
30-30 or 44 mag for black bear protection?
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
6K
Robert
Robert
S
  • Locked
Marlin .44 mag Lever Action
Replies
2
Views
697
MinScout
M
S
  • Locked
.44 mag vs. 30-30 leverguns Recoil
Replies
21
Views
17K
salty
S
A
  • Locked
Lever gun, .30-30 vs. .44M
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
willsnipe
W
VoodooMountain
  • Locked
30-30 vs 44 mag lever
2 3
Replies
52
Views
99K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top