FMJMIKE
Member
I would chose the .357 mag. The Ruger 77/357 though !!!
.357 lever action rifle vs M1 .30 Carbine?
- Thread starter DavidB2
- Start date
- Status
MCgunner
Member
Well, I guess my minimum is higher than yours. That, and for what you'd pay for a beat up old M1 Carbine, you could have a new .357 Carbine and money left over for ammo. But, to each his own. .30 Carbine is not illegal for hunting deer or hogs in Texas, might be in other states. I could say that about .357, too, probably, but in the case of the .357 it is unwarranted as it really is a whole nuther cartridge in a rifle. Far weaker have been used, like .38-40 or, well, .30 carbine.
I mean, my wife's uncle shoots hogs all the time with a .22, all he's got and they tear up his yard/garden. He really don't care how long it takes 'em to die, though, kinda like poisoning rats.
greyling22
Member
jehicks87
Member
Why not just get an SKS? Serious question? Powerful Cartridge, as accurate as either of the two you've thrown out, cheaper weapon AND cheaper ammo.
?
?
sansone
Member
if you're only concern is dispatching deer go with the 357 but the M1 is much more interesting & fun to shoot IMHO
hardluk1
member
The difference between 30 carbine and 357 mag should be easy to see as a deer hunter. Rifles are way cheaper to buy in 357 mag. The 30 would cost atleast 50% more. You have a much wider range of ammo for the 357 mag and that can make for a better combo. The 30 would make for a better plinker but it would be hard to walk into most gun shops and even find ammo today and then you are very limited with choice. Plus a 357 rifle would easy to add optics to if you want that option. Will the 30 kill deer ?? Sure but why buy a cartidge that cost more to get into and is all around more limited in its ability to harvest game as well is a 357mag cartidge.
An sks would do well too.
An sks would do well too.
All I can say is I am a hand loader to & check my Location..............You under estimate the .357 by a few hundred ft lbs. But, at 100 yards, my load is making about 700 ft lbs as calculated by a ballistics program using a conservatively estimated BC for the bullet, still kills quite dead at that range. Think about that, my hottest load in my Ruger 6.5" blackhawk makes 785 ft lbs muzzle energy and I've killed hogs quite dead at 60 yards with it. The rifle is making nearly as much energy at 100 yards as the handgun at the muzzle. It's got a big, flat 165 grain lead bullet that fully penetrates and cuts a nice round hole while giving about 3" diameter of visual tissue damage. That's based on the one I shot at 80 yards. The wound channel impressed me. It was a lung shot, heart was not touched.
An advantage of the .357 is the fact that you can use those heavy, flat pointed Keith style SWCs or if you just HAVE to have a hollowpoint, load a 180 XTP in front of an appropriate amount of Li'l Gun, haven't worked that load up as I like my cast bullets in the caliber.
I would NOT use a 125 grain JHP on deer. I'd worry about enough penetration. I don't even use 125s for self defense in revolvers, hard on the gun and generally not as accurate as a Speer 140 JHP, or at least I've yet to find the 125 grain bullet that can match a Speer 140JHP's accuracy. If 125 grain stuff stopped production, wouldn't break my heart.
For hunting, the M1 Carbine round simply is NOT appropriate for deer sized game.
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100
5. 18.5 inch Marlin 1894
a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast = 1851 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1860 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2153 fps---- Can you believe this?!!!
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2298 fps---- Or this?!!!
Note, energy of load C 158 grain JHP is 1626 ft lbs. My handload using a 165 grain bullet at 1850 is 1253 ft lbs.
USSR
Member
It's all about the bullet, whether you are talking about the .357 Magnum or the .30 Carbine. When I first started hunting with the .357, I used winchester's 145gr SilverTips. While they will work on a classic behind the shoulder through the ribs shot, they fail miserably at most any other type of shot. I later went with Hornady 158gr XTP bullets (a much more sturdily built bullet) before finally settling on a cast 265gr HP bullet in my .45 Colt. As I said previously, neither the .357 Magnum nor the .30 Carbine are going to kill anything that the other won't as well.
Don
Don
mgkdrgn
Member
M1 carbine is going to be a bit "light" for deer ... they are tough critters.
A hot 357 load with a good expanding bullet out of a rifle should be a superior choice ... but I wouldn't want to be using it at much over 100 yards.
44 Mag or 454 Casull/45Colt ... now that is a whole nuther story!
A hot 357 load with a good expanding bullet out of a rifle should be a superior choice ... but I wouldn't want to be using it at much over 100 yards.
44 Mag or 454 Casull/45Colt ... now that is a whole nuther story!
USSR
Member
Not really. I've killed dozens of them with everything from .22 to .70 caliber. With a heart/lung shot, they expire within 75 yards. Head or spine shots anchor them right where they are.
Don
If we consider all things equal, they'll work about the same.... but .357 Mag has a wider bullet selection.... much wider. I'll also bet that the lever gun will be a little more accurate than a clapped out M1 Carbine, maybe better than one of the new ones too.
788Ham
Member
Get the ,357 rifle ! The M1 carbines were kept mostly in the rear with the gear, just wooden noise makers. JMHO If they were good for anything, every GI would have been issued one.
JFrame
Member
I would opt for the .357 carbine also -- but this dissing on the .30 carbine seems misplaced. I recall reading that for most occasions, Audie Murphy preferred the carbine over all available small arms, and dispatched quite a few Germans with it.
The .30 carbine was also the preferred weapon of Jim Cirillo of the NYPD Stake-out Squad, and -- of the weapons he had available -- he reported more reliable one-shot stops with the carbine than any other small arm (including the 12 gauge, IIRC).
.
The .30 carbine was also the preferred weapon of Jim Cirillo of the NYPD Stake-out Squad, and -- of the weapons he had available -- he reported more reliable one-shot stops with the carbine than any other small arm (including the 12 gauge, IIRC).
.
Texan Scott
Member
I'm pretty sure it won't stop the debate altogether, as someone will ALWAYS pop in to shout SKS! (and not without reson: it's not a bad backwoods deer/ hog/ truck gun), BUT...
Am I the only one who'd like to see a semi-auto ruger .357? like a 10/22 on steroids, or the old deerfield .44, but in .357? maybe with flush-fit 5rnd mags, as now, AND 10rnd 'banana' mags, too? THAT, for me, would render the .30 carbine as a deer rifle argument kinda moot.
Edited to add: Somebody has to be the guy to stand up first and start the slow clap.
Am I the only one who'd like to see a semi-auto ruger .357? like a 10/22 on steroids, or the old deerfield .44, but in .357? maybe with flush-fit 5rnd mags, as now, AND 10rnd 'banana' mags, too? THAT, for me, would render the .30 carbine as a deer rifle argument kinda moot.
Edited to add: Somebody has to be the guy to stand up first and start the slow clap.
Last edited:
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
M1 Carbine will not be accurate like a 357 lever action carbine. It will also not have the power of a 357 carbine either with good hunting ammo.
In my experience a heavier bullet is better than a lighter bullet on deer which is why the 357 is a better choice. On the other hand, if you are going to carry a rifle to hunt deer why carry a rifle in pistol caliber when you can get the same rifle in a rifle caliber? The 357 is better than a .30 carbine but sucks compared to a 30-30 or 35 rem (or any other rifle caliber) in a lever action.
philbo
Member
I own both, but the 357 would get the nod for hunting simply for the heavier bullets available for it.
Old judge creek
Member
Audie Murphy, the most highly decorated US soldier of WWII, preferred it because he was 5'5" tall and weighed 110#. It was just about the only service rifle that really fit him.
Physically, he was very small, but in every other way he was IMP a giant among men.
mljdeckard
Member
I think the real world difference between the two would be negligible, if noticeable at all. Particularly if both ate using expanding bullets.
I have an M-1 carbine and an SKS I worked over. Some significant differences, the SKS is a lot bigger, longer, heavier, and bulkier. My noob wife has shot both, and the little carbine is a lot easier to handle. But yes, the SKS is the one I throw over the handlebars. If I need to shoot something I'm actually afraid of, i want to give it full-service.
I have an M-1 carbine and an SKS I worked over. Some significant differences, the SKS is a lot bigger, longer, heavier, and bulkier. My noob wife has shot both, and the little carbine is a lot easier to handle. But yes, the SKS is the one I throw over the handlebars. If I need to shoot something I'm actually afraid of, i want to give it full-service.
JFrame
Member
Perhaps -- but something tells me Murphy was pretty battle-smart, and would have wielded whatever weapon gave him a good chance of survival. In different engagements, he used the Garand, the Thompson, and in one shoot-out, even blazed away with a captured MG-42, charging German positions with the machine gun.
Something tells me Murphy wouldn't have opted to carry the carbine ONLY because it was light.
Edited to add: It's funny -- Army chow and just growing older must have agreed with Murphy, because another physical taken of him in 1944 lists him at 5'7 1/2" and 138 pounds...
.
Last edited:
- Status
