30/30 or large caliber handgun for bear defense?

I was going to bring up the point, but lawnboy beat me to it in his last post: The rifle poses some challenges, since his stated intent is a weapon for hiking and fishing.

He's found a way to sling it that works for him; a back-slung scabbard could be another way to go.

Seems to me, though, if it's an either/or case, the magnum revolver in a Chesty Puller type rig is the easiest to adapt to waders and backpacks. It's also the less likely to be left behind momentarily when one has to answer calls of nature, or cook, cut firewood, etc.

It's nice to have both, but there are more conceivable instances where the rifle would pose logistic challenges.
 
if i was fishing in alaska i don't think i would be alone, i'm sure i would have family or friends with me. i would be packing a 44 or larger on my hip as i suppose my friends would. i would imagine one or more of us might be sporting a 12 ga shotgun or a high power rifle (something bigger than a 30/30) just like i see paid guides amd park rangers do on tv. an ounce of prevention is better than becoming a big pile of bear poop.
 
First off we're really talking an apples to oranges comparison especially if we do as Whosmith did and compare bullets of different construction. With bullets of equal construction penetration comes down to sectional density and velocity. Hardcast lead in a .30-30 rifle will out penetrate hardcast lead in a .44M handgun.

When seconds count the handgun will be faster to get into action for most of us but then again a .30-30 carbine is gonna be easier to score with. Personally, I think the OP has put way too much thought into the choice. Just pick one or split the difference and get a .44 lever action.

LK
 
ummmmmmmmm............
I thought I did answer his question. In the 1st post.
here, I'll copey and paste it here.
-----------------------------------------
Either is good but neither is perfect.
Why?
Because there is no such thing as the "perfect gun" for every situation.

ANY long arm is easier to make hits with once you have your shoulders and feet in the proper position, and ANY handgun is easier to fire from awkward positions, therefore can be faster to get into action.
So...which is "better"?
The issue I'd be looking at is your ammo. The average 30-30 with factory ammos is limited to 170 grain soft points. if you had load, you can use Barnes X bullets and get even better penetration.
A 44 mag can be used with factory Federal Premium ammo with hard cast 300 grain bullets and the very best are the LBT 320 grain gas-check bullets. When I was running cast Performance Company (I am a former CEO of that company) we shot our rounds in comparison to many factory rounds, both in handguns and rifles. I can promise you faithfully that a 44 mag with one of our bullets will out penetrate ANY 30-30 load you can use regardless of price and regardless of what bullet you load in that 30-30.

So I would go out on a limb here and make a statement that a 44 magnum with the correct load is ballisticly superior to the 30-30, but that doesn’t matter is you can’t take advantage of it. A 30-30 with a good hit is way better then a 44 mag with a poor hit.
So….how good are you with the handgun?
If you can hit running rabbits at lest 50% of the time or get 7 out of 25 hits on flying clay birds with your handgun (loaded with the heavy “bear killers”) I would advise you to go with the 44
If however you miss almost every shot with your handgun on running rabbits and shooting clay birds you should have a rifle.
------------------------------------------------

I am not as good at creative writing as I'd like to be, and I apologize if I didn't answer perfectly, but I did the best I know how.
I stand on the principal that good accuracy with less ballistic effectiveness is better then good ballistic effectiveness with less accuracy. That's why I'd recommend a 30-30 over a 44 handgun in most cases. Meaning in the hands of most shooters.

The 44 with proper ammo, kills better then the 30-30 and thousands of game kills have proven that to me, but it doesn't matter is the shooter can't place a handgun bullet well, and he can place a rifle bullet well. 50% to 75% of ideal penetration and cavitations in the right place is WAY better then 100% penetration and cavitations in the wrong place.

A very good handgunner is a rare man. Those that are good enough to hit running rabbits regularly can impress other shooters and they are the ones that can and do show how well a good handgun can kill.

From the standpoint of a professional ballistician, and being able to do the math and understand the importance of the loss of blood pressure and volume, I can promise you that the heavy handguns bullets of the correct shape are extremely effective. But we need to always compare apples to apples. Ballistic formulas are not hard to come up with, but identical animals at identical angles, in identical condition, in identical “mindset”, in identical terrain is not possible to come up with.

Killing an animal is also not hard to do. Killing them FAST can be hard to do.
Archers kill everything on earth with sharp sticks with small blades on them.
Death is not a measure of effectiveness of a round or a bullet. Heck, cancer kills too, but not very fast.
I could kill an elephant with a 22 lr. It’s been done several times in the past.
That doesn’t transform a Stevens Crackshot into an elephant rifle.

Effectiveness is a function of 2 criteria.
#1 how fast does the animal go down in most cases.
#2 Will you get the same results from difficult angles as you will from ideal angles

After all the gum-flapping and all the prognosticating, it really comes down to those 2 questions.

Fast kills from any reasonable angle is what we want. If you have those 2 things, you are good to go, theories be damned.

Oh,,,,,,one thing more for the sake of edujacating the last poster.
We made 30 cal 308" 3085" and 309" bullets in 180, 190 and 218 grain. I have shot all of them in 30-30s into various balistic media. I no longer have the data for the 30 cals, but I do remember the best penitration I got from the 30-30 in a 20" barrel in saturated news paper and ligh bones was about 20"
The 44 magnum from a 6" barrel with the 320 grain bullet went over 3 feet.
So sorry guy, you could not be more wrong.
the hard cast 30-30 will NOT even come close to a 44 magnum using hard cast bullets.

Again, this is truth, not theroy.
 
Last edited:
When seconds count the handgun will be faster to get into action for most of us but then again a .30-30 carbine is gonna be easier to score with. Personally, I think the OP has put way too much thought into the choice. Just pick one or split the difference and get a .44 lever action.
Click to expand...

I framed the question the way I did to avoid some of the pitfalls of previous threads on the topic. I also posted it on a Friday to get max views and responses.

When I first thought about this, given the guns I have, my mind immediately went to my 30-30. But in the Defense against Bears threads on TFL the only time the 30-30 gets mentioned is when someone says something like "bazillions of grizzlies have been killed with a 30-30........" and then go on to say it is sub-optimal, etc.

But to my mind a low-medium rifle should be superior to a heavy handgun in all the things that count here. Except possibly speed. But I'm even up in the air on that. thanks Wyosmith, AK444 and others for the great numbers and other info.
 
30-30 is a keeper!

Jack

black_bear_pic_.jpg
 
For me there is no doubt that the .30-30 rifle would be a better choice if I was actually shooting at a bear. I am only a so so pistolero but can easily hold my own with a rifle. The problem is that it probably wouldn't take long for me to get tired of having a rifle slung over my shoulder while I fished, thus it would end up somewhere besides where I needed it. With a pistol I would have it with me at least, maybe I could make a shot with it if needed. Short range, probably standing in water or thick brush, heavy recoilding handgun, bear trying to eat me, me screaming like a girl. Honestly don't know if I could make that pistol shot or not.
 
If I was fishing, I would opt for the .44 magnum definitely over the 30-30. For the degree of discomfort and difficulty with a rifle over the shoulder and fishing, the .44 magnum is the better choice. I would on the other hand have my rifle close by as well and hope to be able to fight my way back to get it. If you are going to bring a rifle to brown bear country, it better be the biggest caliber you can readily shoot with a degree of accomplishment. The 30-30 while good for deer and black bear, ain't my choice for grizzly country. My .444 is at the low end of the scales, but I can handle it well with my medical conditions. That is a choice that works for me, but others might want a bigger cannon. If I didn't have the medical concerns, I would likewise carry a 45-70 loaded to the max.
 
The deal is "hits, in a hurry" and stopping a charge. With what can you get the hits the soonest and most often? Will the cartridge's bullet break bones and at least slow down or seriously cripple the bear?

Work from likely scenarios--worst case is probably better--and consider the actual performance to be expected from whatever cartridges might be chosen, and the type of firearm which is likely to be readily available very quickly.
 
I'd take a Glock. It's light enough to carry and not be a burden. It'll be on my hip when I need it.

Curious bears will run off if you discharge your weapon in the air.
 
Sorry, shooting in the air may startle a bear as the BC photographer, but the gunshot has at times provoked a more intense response as well. Not a good survival strategy in my opinion.
 
Seems the OP was asking about a self defense weapon, for hiking ,fishing in Alaska.There have been a lot of opinions rendered and attacked here. But let me point out ,if you drop a bear in D.L.P. in this state,it better be CLOSE or you better be bleeding,Fish & game takes these with a poor attitude, one gentleman that had been torn up told me as they were loading him up for the hospital run an officer leaned over and said ,you could have avoided this, he later retracted the statement after the investigation. And every one of these bear encounters took place with limited visibility , and was always less than 45-50 yrs starting out, often a lot less.Yes there are those that take place at longer ranges but I am talking about the most of them.As was stated there is no perfect weapon for something like that,my answer is always the one you always have on you. Not close but on you, then the one you can get into action the fastest,then practice till you can hit,a half sheet of paper every shot as fast as you can get the gun in action and empty.Might I also suggest picking up a brown bear skull sometime, look at it from all angles, look up into the brain cavity, and try to imagine where one would have to hit to reach into the brain pan.The front and top of a brown bear skull should be the perfect design for the front slope on a battle tank,and a bear that is really coming will be low pretty much straight on ,an unbelievably fast. Thank God I've only been bluffed, but have been part of a group that had to put one down on Kodiak,and have talked to quite a few others that had to do the deed, even spent an evening with group that invited MR Moe, the gentleman that fought one with his buck knife and lived. As for weapon choice I leave that to you to determine which fits you best, given the above. Bullet choice, hard cast lead.One frontal shots with the heavy bone structure ,penetration trumps all else, break things up, reach deep, do as much damage as you can.
 
Great post aaalaska, penetration is absolutely the key. Your points are well taken on the legal risks of DLP as well. Hope to never test this for myself as you stated.
 
I like how the rifle is easier to make hits with but a handgun enables you to make hits with an angry bear sitting on you.

If I was near grizzlies I may deal with the inconvenience of a rifle slung on my shoulder. If not then a handgun would suffice.
 
To accompany you for protection while fishing, I find that the 44 mag will do just fine. Its difficult to fish with a 30-30 slung on one sholder and cast with the other arm. The 30-30 isnt going to do you any good if it is out of reach when you need it.

When it comes to the bruins, the bigger the better. The 500mag is better than the 44 and the 460 WBY is better than the 30-30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top