30-30 vs. 44 mag

[jaholder1971]

.30/30, hands down.

IMHO, lugging around a rifle that is chambered for a pistol cartridge is like buying a big 4WD SUV with a Yugo engine. It might look impressive, but there ain't much there.

Marlins and Rossi lever guns with heavy .44 Magnum and .45 LC loads ain't nothing to sneeze at.

 

[jbkebert]

Many times now when hunting I carry two handguns. A scope Encore in .308 win and a ruger spr in .44 mag for close shots. I hate trying to deal with a rifle when dragging a deer out.

 

[Malamute]

You didnt say where you are.

If no large critters, a 357 pistol is OK, but the 44 gives more flexibilty, and not so piercing a crack of muzzle blast.


I live in an area with a fair bit of open country as well as woods and mountains. I prefer the 30-30 over the 44 in a long gun because of the extra range. Sight in 3" high @ 100 yards, and 250 to 300 yard shots arent that difficult. This assumes a decent bullet BC, not the 170 gr Hornady. You don't need gummy tip bullets to achieve that either, Speers work well.


Someone mentioned factory 150 gr 30-30's being lucky to make 2200 fps, then how flexible the 357 carbine was with handloads. Perhaps, but why not handload the 30-30?. With H335 or other appropriate powder choice you can make 2400 fps w/ the 150's, and load down to anything possible in a 357 rifle or handgun, even down to round balls at very quiet noise levels. I'm one of those that has rarely ever shot factory rounds in the majority of my guns. You can shoot much more for the same money, and your guns are much more flexible. 3 grs Unique w/ a .315" round ball makes a great grouse and small game load in the 30-30. 6 1/2 grs Unique w/ a 120 gr cast is also good, with more range and power @ about 1200 fps, but a bit more noise also.

 

[lawboy]

I would take 357 in both. A winchester trapper carbine and a model 66 smith. That is what I have. The 357 properly loaded is so nearly the equal of a 30-30 out to 100 yards that the difference is meaningless. However, the magazine capacity increase with the 357 and the reduced recoil are advantages in my opinion. 44 Magnum carbine/handgun would be good too.

 

[sean m]

If it was my choice I think a 30-30 or 44 mag lever pairwed with a 22 revolver would make a good carry combo. But if commonality of ammo was a concern the 44 lever and revolver would be a good setup.

 

[middy]

That's a tough choice... I really can't say.

Personally, I'd go for .243 bolt action and a .357 magnum.

 

[Hokkmike]

My .44 Wrangler with Leverevelution (however you spell it) shoots fine out to 150 yards. (max for me)

 

[Deltaboy1984]

30/30 and a Blackhawk 357

 

[JWF III]

If you want ammo compatability, Magnum Research does make the BFR in .30-30.

But, I guess that a 5+ lb., 10" barreled pistol isn't much of a carry/hiking gun, is it?

Wyman

 

[stonecoldy]

The 30/30 for the long stuff, and .357 for under 50 yards. Sounds like the right combo. Especially for shots over 100 yards using the 30-30.
Although the .44 mag pair sounds good, I think you cover more territory and shooting situations with the 30-30.

 

[kmrcstintn]

Magnum Research BFR chambered in .30-30 w/ 10" barrel...

http://www.magnumresearch.com/bfr_specs.asp

.30-30 ballistics very respectable when shot from this monster...

http://www.magnumresearch.com/bfr_fact.asp

I'll say this about them...I had the chance to fire one in .500 S&W and the recoil felt on par with a fullbore .357 magnum shot from a 4" medium framed revolver; it is a considerable investment and they are an aquired taste, but having multiple rounds of rifle ammunition on hand in a handgun for hunting is a nice proposition, especially if hunting in remote areas accessed on horseback where you are dismounted and stalking a big game animal within 100 yards; if this is your kind of thing, save up enough for a high quality scope, a durable bandolier holster, and some sort of shooting sticks to use as a rest to complete the hunting package

 

[flipajig]

I have both a 30-30 and a 44 mag super blackhawk also a winchester m94 in 44mag out to 100 yds on the long guns im good 50 for the blackhawk. Ive always wanted a combo that would shoot one rd. and now I have them..

 

[denfoote]

The Marlin 30AS and Smith &Wesson 28 have been my desert tramping combo for years!!

 

[Malamute]

"The 357 properly loaded is so nearly the equal of a 30-30 out to 100 yards that the difference is meaningless."


What loads are you using in the .357? The loads I've seen in manuals aren't that close to 30-30 loads for comparable weight bullets. Both will do fine on average deer within 100 yards, which may be what you mean. I believe many are over gunned for their actual uses. It doesn't take a 7 mag or 30-06 to reliably kill deer at woods ranges.

 

[RoostRider]

I gotta admit, when I'm woods bumming I don't carry a rifle and when I'm hunting I rarely carry a handgun other than my concealed carry.

I am with you on that....

There is a reason the vast majority of experienced hunters aren't carrying handguns and rifles. There is also a reason the vast majority of experienced woods bummers aren't carrying rifles. The reasons are the same for both, you just don't need to, and it becomes impractical at some point (you have to decide for yourself how quickly you will get sick of the inconvenience of this needless redundancy).

That being said, I would go 30-30/.357 if I was going to take that approach for whatever reason. That way, you have what you need for either one of the things you plan to do with them.

ps- a .357 is a great woods/whatever gun.... .44 mag is overkill in my opinion for anything but hunting 'pretty big' big game....

 

[bearmgc]

If you're used to recoil, then 30-30 and a 44mag handgun. Or 30-30 and a .357 with heavy Castcore ammo. I never go hunting without a 44mag revolver. Grizz and big ol'wolves in my woods.

 

[LlanoEstacado]

I like the .44 combo.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Sure, they did it in the old days, but that was back when more powerful rifles were big and heavy (and often single shot). When the .30-30 came along, the old timers thought heaven had arrived and they didn't waste a lot of time getting shuck of their .44-40 and .38-40 rifles in favor of more power and range.

The mystery of why the Old Timers carried pistols and rifles chambered for the same cartridge is solved by looking at what was available to them.

Early repeaters (the .56-.56 Spencer, the .44 Henry and the .44 Winchester 1866) were glorified pistols. They had weak actions and used rimfire cartridges. When the 1873 Winchester appeared, it was chambered for the .44 Winchester Central Fire -- a more powerful cartridge in a format able to take more pressure, but still a pistol-power cartridge (and less powerful than the .45 Colt.) Throughout the 1870s, Winchester was trying to come up with a rifle power repeater, but even the 1876 really wasn't up to handling rifle power cartridges. Finally in 1880, Marlin produced a repeater that would handle the .45-70, but Winchester didn't have a repeater for that cartridge until Browning designed the 1886 Winchester.

So for about 20 years after the Civil War, and right through most of the Indian Wars, if you wanted a rifle you had to choose a single shot. If you wanted a repeater, you were stuck with a pistol-power cartridge.

Now if you chose to go with a repeater, why not carry a revolver chambered for the same cartridge?

 

[Dr. Fresh]

^ This is why muzzleloaders and single-shot breechloaders dominated military armories for such a long time after repeaters arrived on the scene.

 

[Joe Demko]

I think I'd go with a lever action in .300 Savage; and if I figured I needed a pistol too, why then I'd want a nice light .22 lr revolver. I guess I could also be happy with a .22lr autoloader if it was along the lines of the Colt Woodsman or the Ruger Mk I/II with a slender barrel.
Another possibility would be to pair a .45-70 lever gun with the .22 handgun.

See, I don't like to carry a ton of excess weight around the woods with me. If I have one of the rifles, I can kill any big animals that require killing. Why also carry a handgun that is overpowered for small creatures and marginally suited to big game?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That's why I usually carry my Colt Woodsman in the woods.

When deer hunting, I usually have my Hammond Game Getter in my pocket -- that allows me to fire a buckshot from my .30-06, powered by a nail-setting blank.

 

[lobo9er]

Many times now when hunting I carry two handguns. A scope Encore in .308 win and a ruger spr in .44 mag for close shots. I hate trying to deal with a rifle when dragging a deer out.

that sounds like a bit much two handguns that can kill big game. i have never hunted with a pitol either. so i am def. not an expert on the matter.

 

[Squibster]

I vote for the 35 Remy and the 357 mag. That combo could do a lot of things!

 

[glockman19]

I decided on a S&W 629 Classic 5" and a marlin 1894SS. Why? Ammo. I didn't want to add another caliber to the collection and would rather carry just one caliber of ammo.

 

[gordy]

no pointy bullets!

Great choice,
the 44mag will do what the 30-30 can do and you don't have to carry 2 kinds of ammo.
Plus you don't have to worry about the pointy bullets in you lever gun then.