I'll agree that if the officer is comfortable with a revolver, it's not a terrible or obsolete choice. It might even be more practical if he's more likely to run into a wounded bear on the highway than he is to confront a masked gunman at the local Piggly Wiggly. But for the most part, why not carry the high capacity handgun? I can't see a situation where having a quick reload of 15 or more rounds would ever be a bad thing.
But that is a different debate...
As for the rifle, the .357 is nothing to scoff at out of a handgun and it's even more impressive out of a rifle. On paper you don't give up much and it does hold more ammo. Penetration may be less than from a handgun because you'd be driving bullets designed to do their work out of a 6" revolver a few hundred FPS faster from your carbine. That could be good for limiting overpenetration dangers and would probably increase lethality - kind of like a bigger, heavier M193 projectile.
But I still don't think the .357 is as close as it's ballistics would indicate, at least not in some respects. The 30-30 would have an edge against body armor or any cover that you found your bad guy hiding behind. It's not a magic laser death ray either - I've seen fairly small trees deflect or stop rounds from the 30-30 and many more powerful rounds. But I've also seen them shoot through things that have stopped .357 rounds dead in their tracks. I'd rather have some chance of penetrating cover than no chance at all.
Another thing is still the cost - 30-30 Marlin lever actions are still available in good used shape for $250. They're not an AR but they also aren't going to cost you $1K.
A .357 Marlin lever action is a sweet little rifle, but I've never seen one for sale used and the new ones are somewhere over $400. For the extra cost, what do you gain? Is it worth it?
A 30-30 would probably also add another 50-100 yards of effective range. You might not need or want that, but if you did it is a better choice.
The 30-30 is also a better choice if you have to deal with the possibility of finishing off any wounded animal larger or meaner than a deer. If I had to go try to put down an injured 300 pound black bear, I'd want the 30-30 over a .357.
The truth is that we get into the debates about what's best, but we're all very ethnocentric about our choices. Here in the NE a rifle that will do 200 yards against man or beast should cover anything that you wouldn't need a SWAT team for.
Maybe in the South the range would be shorter - why not go with a cartridge like the .357 that would likely allow faster follow up shots and reduce the danger of overpenetration?
Like anything else, our personal choices will depend to a large extent on our locations and backgrounds.
But that is a different debate...
As for the rifle, the .357 is nothing to scoff at out of a handgun and it's even more impressive out of a rifle. On paper you don't give up much and it does hold more ammo. Penetration may be less than from a handgun because you'd be driving bullets designed to do their work out of a 6" revolver a few hundred FPS faster from your carbine. That could be good for limiting overpenetration dangers and would probably increase lethality - kind of like a bigger, heavier M193 projectile.
But I still don't think the .357 is as close as it's ballistics would indicate, at least not in some respects. The 30-30 would have an edge against body armor or any cover that you found your bad guy hiding behind. It's not a magic laser death ray either - I've seen fairly small trees deflect or stop rounds from the 30-30 and many more powerful rounds. But I've also seen them shoot through things that have stopped .357 rounds dead in their tracks. I'd rather have some chance of penetrating cover than no chance at all.
Another thing is still the cost - 30-30 Marlin lever actions are still available in good used shape for $250. They're not an AR but they also aren't going to cost you $1K.
A .357 Marlin lever action is a sweet little rifle, but I've never seen one for sale used and the new ones are somewhere over $400. For the extra cost, what do you gain? Is it worth it?
A 30-30 would probably also add another 50-100 yards of effective range. You might not need or want that, but if you did it is a better choice.
The 30-30 is also a better choice if you have to deal with the possibility of finishing off any wounded animal larger or meaner than a deer. If I had to go try to put down an injured 300 pound black bear, I'd want the 30-30 over a .357.
The truth is that we get into the debates about what's best, but we're all very ethnocentric about our choices. Here in the NE a rifle that will do 200 yards against man or beast should cover anything that you wouldn't need a SWAT team for.
Maybe in the South the range would be shorter - why not go with a cartridge like the .357 that would likely allow faster follow up shots and reduce the danger of overpenetration?
Like anything else, our personal choices will depend to a large extent on our locations and backgrounds.
