30-30 vs 44 mag lever

[CraigC]

I went with 30-30 rifle and 44 mag pistol. You don't need a rifle for the 44 mag and to me it doesn't make sense. A 30-30 has considerably more range and an expanding bullet has more killing power as determined in the 1800's. That is why non expanding bullets are required for war and have been since the late 1800's. But either will do so suit yourself depending on your hunting range. I could see using the same cartridge for both, especially for handloaders.

Conversely, if you don't need to cover more than 150yds, there's no reason to choose the .30-30 over the .44. The .44 is softer recoiling and has less muzzle blast if you're hunting without hearing protection. Not to mention that they are fun to shoot, easier and cheaper to reload for and have double the magazine capacity.

Smallbore bullets have to expand to be effective. Big bores do not.

Apples to grapefruit. The non-expanding bullets used by the military have ZERO in common with those used for sporting purposes in big bore rifles and handguns. Non-expanding bullets (hardcast bullets aren't really "non-expanding") have changed dramatically in the last 150yrs.

 

[Ireload2]

For the typical once a year deer hunter the .44 Mag offers nothing of value over the .30-30. Most consider the .30-30 a common standard round available everywhere.

The perception is .44 Mag is an expensive odd ball with little to offer. In a rifle it is just a fat .357 Mag.
For a true gun nut most early .44 Mag rifles were stuck with that sorry one turn in 38" rifling that seems to be fit for little except high velocity jacketed bullets.

Want a big bore? Get a .45-70.

 

[Robert]

OP, there should be plenty here to mull over. Another 3 pages of, get x, no y, is not really going to change things. Good luck.