Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
Why not? Because tracking sucks, and losing game sucks worse. Stick to brain shots if doing that with this chambering.
.30 carbine for white tail deer... why not?
- Thread starter leafybug
- Start date
- Status
It's hard for me to understand why, when there are just bunches and bunches of good calibers out there to hunt with....people continue to want to use a caliber which is underpowered for the task and try to justify it. Maybe it's just to prove it can be done. I have no doubt a lot of game has probably been wounded and lost to sub caliber hunting but people continue to try.
t4terrific
New member
Firstly, there are people who use the .30 Carbine for deer who do not try to justify it...they just use it. Secondly, there is no scientific method for determining what cartridge is the minimally effective on deer...it is a matter of opinion only. So, who can say that it is under powered. There are those who will say that a .243 is under powered for deer and give some nebulous or ambiguous statement like, "...there are better choices." In my own view, being that I almost have never (a few exceptions), shot at a deer more than fifty yards away and never any aiming point except side-ways, behind the shoulder, if a .30 Carbine was all I had (there are a lot of deer hunters who do not have unlimited resources to spend on guns), I would use it.
Gunplummer
New member
Just a personal observation from the deer woods, but I would bet the 30-30 has hit and lost more game than the .30 carbine ever did. Shotguns probably second on the list.
Maybe if there is actually a person out there posting in this thread, who only owns a 30 carbine, and considers himself a hunter, and cannot afford a more suitable gun, he should trade his .30 carbine for a 12 guage shotgun (or two) that works well for about anything.
The problem with selecting marginal calibers is that those selections are usually based on anecdotal success stories, as there is never any evidence or data available to show how many wounded animals were hit, and never recovered, and written off to "musta missed". Nobody likes to post about the ones they shot that ran off. There is no way to know the percentage of recovery for a given caliber.
The problem with selecting marginal calibers is that those selections are usually based on anecdotal success stories, as there is never any evidence or data available to show how many wounded animals were hit, and never recovered, and written off to "musta missed". Nobody likes to post about the ones they shot that ran off. There is no way to know the percentage of recovery for a given caliber.
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
Yes, sir. TimSr just hit the nail on the head twice in a row.
I use 30-06 bc I want the animal down. I missed a deer about 2 years ago by hitting him in the hip. He dropped right there and I had to finish him with a 40sw. Some how the scope was off (I must have hit it by mistake knocking it off line).
I am not sure these limit range rounds would have given me a kill. I use something that gives me margin for error bc I know I am not prefect.
I am not sure these limit range rounds would have given me a kill. I use something that gives me margin for error bc I know I am not prefect.
Gunplummer
New member
Any deer hit near the spine is probably going to go down. When I was younger I was talking to a guy I met in the woods during deer season. The set up he had looked pretty expensive to me and he said it was a 6MM. I asked him if he thought it was enough with those light bullets. He then preceded to tell how this gun "Blew the front leg right off a doe last year". He did not get that deer. My Ex's father used to carry a .357 along as "A finisher" until I talked him into getting rid of that ridiculously under powered, inaccurate .35 Remington and lent him a sporter 7.7 Arisaka. He then started to literally "Knock them down". True story. Maybe it is a confidence thing?
22-rimfire
New member
Limit your shooting distances to archery range and you're probably okay. Personally, I don't know why anyone would choose to hunt deer with this caliber unless it's all you have.
.30 Carbine
"Personally, I don't know why anyone would choose to hunt deer with this caliber...."
22-rimfire: It doesn't necessarily need to be a case of whether it's "All one has" or not. There are many reasons why; Shoulder/torso injury(ies) where recoil becomes intolerable... for one.
For whatever reason someone chooses, it's not up to anyone else to question why as long as the caliber/firearm meets the legal requirements for the area hunted, and the person with the equipment is using it capably.
The .30 Carbine was designed as a weapon of war against the human animal and was used effectively to that end. As such, any caliber which will kill a human will also kill a deer, as stated above: [As long as it meets all legal requirements]. All this "Heavy-hitting, large caliber-high-velocity cartridge- needs-to-be-used-or-it-won't-work syndrome" commonly referred to as, [Macho Magnum-itis] crap is unwarranted.
If anyone does not understand something so simple as that...Then no amount of explaining will ever make them see or understand how it is. Not now- Not ever.
Truth be told...The [lowly] .22 rimfire (NO Pun Intended) cartridge, both LR and Magnum versions have taken/killed more deer-sized game than could ever be comprehended. Perhaps not as quickly as some would argue the larger, more powerful calibers would/could have, but dead is dead no matter how it's looked at.
This .30 Carbine issue can be hashed/rehashed indefinitely ad hominem
and perhaps never be resolved. Maybe it's time to put it to rest. If not the Carbine argument, then some/any other cartridges downloaded to low velocities and which may be as effective as the carbine in their own right, but, the argument will persist....As long as there are at least two differing opinions.
WILL.
STAFF; MODERATORS....Any input?
"Personally, I don't know why anyone would choose to hunt deer with this caliber...."
22-rimfire: It doesn't necessarily need to be a case of whether it's "All one has" or not. There are many reasons why; Shoulder/torso injury(ies) where recoil becomes intolerable... for one.
For whatever reason someone chooses, it's not up to anyone else to question why as long as the caliber/firearm meets the legal requirements for the area hunted, and the person with the equipment is using it capably.
The .30 Carbine was designed as a weapon of war against the human animal and was used effectively to that end. As such, any caliber which will kill a human will also kill a deer, as stated above: [As long as it meets all legal requirements]. All this "Heavy-hitting, large caliber-high-velocity cartridge- needs-to-be-used-or-it-won't-work syndrome" commonly referred to as, [Macho Magnum-itis] crap is unwarranted.
If anyone does not understand something so simple as that...Then no amount of explaining will ever make them see or understand how it is. Not now- Not ever.
Truth be told...The [lowly] .22 rimfire (NO Pun Intended) cartridge, both LR and Magnum versions have taken/killed more deer-sized game than could ever be comprehended. Perhaps not as quickly as some would argue the larger, more powerful calibers would/could have, but dead is dead no matter how it's looked at.
This .30 Carbine issue can be hashed/rehashed indefinitely ad hominem
and perhaps never be resolved. Maybe it's time to put it to rest. If not the Carbine argument, then some/any other cartridges downloaded to low velocities and which may be as effective as the carbine in their own right, but, the argument will persist....As long as there are at least two differing opinions.
WILL.
STAFF; MODERATORS....Any input?
It won't. When I was a kid, the old .30-30 was the most common deer cartridge around. Now, I hear people say that the .30-30 is "too weak" to kill a deer humanely. In the last twenty years, I have killed over a dozen deer. All but a few of them with either a .30-30 or it's older "weaker" brother the .44-40, both from lever rifles. All of them were shot within 100 yards, not one of them ran more than 10-15 yards and I never lost any of them. Deer are not armor plated. They will die fairly quickly when shot in the right place. The only two deer I have ever tracked were both shot with a .30-06. One was the first deer I ever shot. I was 13 and I blew the shot. The big doe went about 100 yards in a big circle before dropping. The other was a buck shot by my cousin. At the scene of the shooting was a pool of bright pink, foamy blood, a couple pieces of bone and a chunk of "meat". After tracking that deer for almost a mile, the blood trail stopped and we never did find it. The fact is, when used within it's effective range, and the shooter does his part to place the round where it needs to go, the .30 carbine will kill a deer quickly and humanely. Not every deer rifle has to be a "magnum"-something. People killed and recovered plenty of game before "magnums" came about, and plenty of folk still wound and lose game since "magnums" have been around. More power doesn't make up for poor marksmanship.
And as dahermit asked earlier,
22-rimfire
New member
Will-J, I think I covered things adequately with my limitation to archery ranges. When someone is planning on using the 30 Carbine for deer hunting, I automatically think they are using a carbine and not a handgun like the blackhawk chambered in 30 carbine.
You can't necessarily use the game laws any more to define ethical caliber choices as in my state, it is legal to use a 25 acp to hunt deer. Do you think that is a reasonable choice for deer hunting?
You can't necessarily use the game laws any more to define ethical caliber choices as in my state, it is legal to use a 25 acp to hunt deer. Do you think that is a reasonable choice for deer hunting?
OK, I gotta post these photos.
These aren't deer obviously, but that sure looks like an M1 Carbine to me! Looks like an old photo, so I'd bet they were shot with military FMJ ammo, and I doubt either was a one-shot kill. But still - brown bears, M1 Carbine.....
And there's these rounds, made for hunting deer. Those are all-copper Barnes 30800 X-bullets in there. I've got some of the bullets, not the loaded ammo, to make my own ammo. When I ordered them from Barnes I was told they made those just for deer hunting. I'm figuring deer and spooks. Or anything else in the way.
What the.....Photobucket IMG links don't work here??? Let's try attaching them.....
These aren't deer obviously, but that sure looks like an M1 Carbine to me! Looks like an old photo, so I'd bet they were shot with military FMJ ammo, and I doubt either was a one-shot kill. But still - brown bears, M1 Carbine.....
And there's these rounds, made for hunting deer. Those are all-copper Barnes 30800 X-bullets in there. I've got some of the bullets, not the loaded ammo, to make my own ammo. When I ordered them from Barnes I was told they made those just for deer hunting. I'm figuring deer and spooks. Or anything else in the way.
What the.....Photobucket IMG links don't work here??? Let's try attaching them.....
Attachments
Last edited:
.22-RF:
I think I understand (at least I try) where/how others feel about certain areas of ethics when it comes to those areas to which we restrict ourselves, and fully agree with those who counter my opinions on certain matters as I feel I have the prerogative to do the same.
Whether [or not] it is right (legally, morally, ethically, or in any other sense) to use a certain [take your pick] weapon, caliber, weight or type of, or
number of projectile(s), should not be deemed inappropriate by any one person as to [that] use by anyone else, regardless, unless all the facts and circumstances are fully known and understood by all. In short; What may be completely adequate for one person, given certain circumstances, may, or may not, be adequate for someone else who elects to use that same [equipment] under other circumstances.
While stationed at Ft. Benning in the '70s I was asked (and honored, so I thought at that time) to hunt with some Bn. NCOs. However, during that hunt, I saw some things which were not (to my mind) ethical. Keep in mind, these were "Country Boys" who were from the surrounding area who were used to [civilian] regs. and threw Post regs. to the wind, (.30-30 barrels on H&R Topper actions in shotgun-only areas--with shotgun barrels on-hand if approached by Post Wardens; Buckshot, (illegal on Post) instead of slugs, and a few other things which didn't go over too well with me at the time... (stretching and/or outright violation of Post and Georgia Regulations).
Since these were Staff or Bn. NCOs, and I was just a Jr. NCO at the time, I kept these things to myself but never went hunting with any of them again. I always found some reason/excuse to not be available. Should I have reported them? Perhaps. But given the circumstances and the military's stance on accusations brought on higher-ups by lower ranking personnel, as much as it galled me to stifle my disgust with the events, I let it ride and went on with other matters of importance. I did hear sometime later (a couple years). that they (most of them, anyway) were caught and dealt with; Both military and state (Alabama). I later found that one of the men was family to the girl I was dating at the time. However...I digress.
What I am trying to say is....Unless you know, factually, that any setup being used by someone....anyone, is not being used properly, then it is NOT in the best interest of things to make assumptions as to whether or not the use of said setup is adequate according to the parameters in which it is being used, or by the experience/expertise of the person using it.
What works for you, regardless of what it is, may not... [Not]... work for someone else, and vice versa. THAT is my view on things.
WILL.
I think I understand (at least I try) where/how others feel about certain areas of ethics when it comes to those areas to which we restrict ourselves, and fully agree with those who counter my opinions on certain matters as I feel I have the prerogative to do the same.
Whether [or not] it is right (legally, morally, ethically, or in any other sense) to use a certain [take your pick] weapon, caliber, weight or type of, or
number of projectile(s), should not be deemed inappropriate by any one person as to [that] use by anyone else, regardless, unless all the facts and circumstances are fully known and understood by all. In short; What may be completely adequate for one person, given certain circumstances, may, or may not, be adequate for someone else who elects to use that same [equipment] under other circumstances.
While stationed at Ft. Benning in the '70s I was asked (and honored, so I thought at that time) to hunt with some Bn. NCOs. However, during that hunt, I saw some things which were not (to my mind) ethical. Keep in mind, these were "Country Boys" who were from the surrounding area who were used to [civilian] regs. and threw Post regs. to the wind, (.30-30 barrels on H&R Topper actions in shotgun-only areas--with shotgun barrels on-hand if approached by Post Wardens; Buckshot, (illegal on Post) instead of slugs, and a few other things which didn't go over too well with me at the time... (stretching and/or outright violation of Post and Georgia Regulations).
Since these were Staff or Bn. NCOs, and I was just a Jr. NCO at the time, I kept these things to myself but never went hunting with any of them again. I always found some reason/excuse to not be available. Should I have reported them? Perhaps. But given the circumstances and the military's stance on accusations brought on higher-ups by lower ranking personnel, as much as it galled me to stifle my disgust with the events, I let it ride and went on with other matters of importance. I did hear sometime later (a couple years). that they (most of them, anyway) were caught and dealt with; Both military and state (Alabama). I later found that one of the men was family to the girl I was dating at the time. However...I digress.
What I am trying to say is....Unless you know, factually, that any setup being used by someone....anyone, is not being used properly, then it is NOT in the best interest of things to make assumptions as to whether or not the use of said setup is adequate according to the parameters in which it is being used, or by the experience/expertise of the person using it.
What works for you, regardless of what it is, may not... [Not]... work for someone else, and vice versa. THAT is my view on things.
WILL.
Last edited:
.22-RF;
I think the .25 Auto might...MIGHT..be adequate for dispatching a wounded animal ..IF.. a shot (or two) to the head from close (read that *near-contact* distance) range is/are made. I abhor the phrase "Point-blank"; Too general...and all-too-often misused.
And, PLEASE, for all you readers/posters out there; Let's not open this up to a [How many people have been killed by .25 Autos] issue. It will be totally irrelevant.
Have a good day.
WILL.
I think the .25 Auto might...MIGHT..be adequate for dispatching a wounded animal ..IF.. a shot (or two) to the head from close (read that *near-contact* distance) range is/are made. I abhor the phrase "Point-blank"; Too general...and all-too-often misused.
And, PLEASE, for all you readers/posters out there; Let's not open this up to a [How many people have been killed by .25 Autos] issue. It will be totally irrelevant.
Have a good day.
WILL.
- Status