Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
For a rifle which is dedicated to the following hunting type or niche:
--hilly AND wooded terrain
--for game size "cow elk and smaller" (i.e. less than 500 lb game)
--iron sighted for inclement weather
So a hilly woods rain rifle.
Which of these two chamberings would you pick for this rifle: .30-30 win (in the form of a Marlin 336) or .454 Casull (in the form of an LSI/ Rossi Puma 92)? Assume 16" barrels for both.
If the criteria were "mulies or smaller", clearly the .30-30 would win out - you have plenty of power and more practical range.
But when adding cow elk into the mix (100-150 lbs more than the biggest mulie buck), would the additional terminal performance of say, a 300 grain .454 casull, over a 170 gr .30-30, be worth it in terms of added killing power, to overcome the tradeoff of loss of practical range (which in my case, with poor eyes, with iron sights, means a reduction from about 150 to about 100 going to the .454)?
Or is the .454 Casull even a proven demonstrably-superior terminal performer over a .30-30 to begin with, which would result in a lower likelihood of tracking and / or losing game? Same terminally or is the .454 better? (And don't say: Just use 190 grain .30-30s to equal the .454 in terminal performance, because I want to use factory ammo for this rifle).
So which one wins purely from an extended range vs. terminal performance tradeoff of the two cartridges alone? Then after answering that, if you add in the lighter weight of the Puma 92 to the mix, would that change or not change your initial choice for this use? Obviously, the 92 is handier / lighter, which makes a difference in this type of terrain.
Two other small wildcards - lower cost and more availability of .30-30 ammo, and more recoil of .454, but I'm considering those two factors negligible for this thread.
Thanks.
--hilly AND wooded terrain
--for game size "cow elk and smaller" (i.e. less than 500 lb game)
--iron sighted for inclement weather
So a hilly woods rain rifle.
Which of these two chamberings would you pick for this rifle: .30-30 win (in the form of a Marlin 336) or .454 Casull (in the form of an LSI/ Rossi Puma 92)? Assume 16" barrels for both.
If the criteria were "mulies or smaller", clearly the .30-30 would win out - you have plenty of power and more practical range.
But when adding cow elk into the mix (100-150 lbs more than the biggest mulie buck), would the additional terminal performance of say, a 300 grain .454 casull, over a 170 gr .30-30, be worth it in terms of added killing power, to overcome the tradeoff of loss of practical range (which in my case, with poor eyes, with iron sights, means a reduction from about 150 to about 100 going to the .454)?
Or is the .454 Casull even a proven demonstrably-superior terminal performer over a .30-30 to begin with, which would result in a lower likelihood of tracking and / or losing game? Same terminally or is the .454 better? (And don't say: Just use 190 grain .30-30s to equal the .454 in terminal performance, because I want to use factory ammo for this rifle).
So which one wins purely from an extended range vs. terminal performance tradeoff of the two cartridges alone? Then after answering that, if you add in the lighter weight of the Puma 92 to the mix, would that change or not change your initial choice for this use? Obviously, the 92 is handier / lighter, which makes a difference in this type of terrain.
Two other small wildcards - lower cost and more availability of .30-30 ammo, and more recoil of .454, but I'm considering those two factors negligible for this thread.
Thanks.