Senseless?

L

lizziedog1

New member
There are many hunters that use handguns. There are countless articles about this along with countless threads on sites like this one. You read how a revolver in .44 magnum is capable of taking most things that walk this earth. Then you read artilces, sometimes by the same author, that a rifle chambered in .30-30 is barely capable for taking deer at limited ranges. I find that this doesn't make any sense at all.

If a sixgun can kill something, I would assume that the rifle would be even better. Look up the ballistic figures of a .44 magnum out of a handgun and a .30-30 out of a rifle. Not even close.

Am I missing something, or is this senseless to you?
 
This is the 'old notion' that bigger is better. The 44 mag is in the top of the hand gun calibers, but the 30-30 is at the lower end of rifle calibers. Kind of like..my yen yang is bigger then your yen yang.

For some of us, we consider a 30-30 to be a large caliber and capable of taking anything within a resonable range. If you live in a place where there is vast open ranges and your shot would be several hundred yards as the norm, then you need a larger-stronger cartridge for the distance and Knockdown power.

Where I live here in the East, I have no need for a bolt action rifle that can safely shoot 300yds for a solid knock down. If I lived in AZ, I would have much need for a 30-06 0r 08 or even larger. Evaluate your needs and go with what works best for you. :)
 
You are missing the "range" part of the equation. With a handgun you are taking about archery range. I.E. up to about 50 yds for a relatively good shooter - a bit farther for someone really good or for a scoped handgun. With a 30-30, you are at least considering shooting at rifle ranges.

If every deer hunted with a 30-30 was shot at archery range, there would be no question at all about the effectiveness of that caliber on deer. By the same token, if every .44 mag handgun hunter was intending to hunt at rifle ranges then that caliber would be considered insufficient.
 
I think that, especially with today's range of rifle configurations coupled with the caliber selection, the 30-30 isn't quite the popular caliber anymore. I can get a handy sized carbine in 308 Win and have more power and better bullets that allow for much longer shots using pointed if not boattails and also gain much better wind bucking ability to boot. And so the 30-30 has become more of a smaller powered cartridge in the scheme of things. Now ranked or thought of in terms of being minimal. And though there are now much more powerful cartridges than the 44 Mag, it's still thought of as more than powerful enough for larger critters from a handgunners perspective. Unless we are talking about brown bear. But you'll occasionally hear that the 357 is marginal at best with a desire to use something +P in 44 or a more powerful caliber than the 44 for the larger NA game. But for deer the 44 Mag is great out to 75 yds and is good enough.
 
No, you're not missing anything.

In fact, you're finding something. It's called "truth". You don't need some modern wonder-uber-magnum to kill a deer.
 
Realize that most writers have a "favorite" round, and anything else is portrayed as being garbage, and you will be on the right path to discernment. As long as people let other people ignore basic math and the laws of physics, others will try to lead them astray. This is called a "classic bamboozle" (as opposed to a modern bamboozle we recently sent to Washington, DC).

A Fairy Tale:
There once was a gun rag writer named Jack who looooooooved his 270 Winchester, in fact he loved it so much that he wrote about it a lot. So much, in fact, that other people began to think of the 270 Winchester in a Model 70 as nothing short of pure bottlenecked magic, and the animals were sore afraid. There was also in that country a gun magazine writer named Warren who loved his 280 Remington, and he loved to write about it, but not being so prolix as Jack, people pooh-poohed Warren and ignored the facts. Warren was understandably vexed, and he and Jack would have a war of words whenever one or the other of them would make some gazillion-yard shot on an animal no bigger than a speck but with antlers as big as a house and then write about it in their respective gun rags. One day, another writer named Elmer said there was no difference between the two except for a minor difference in bullet diameter, that difference being 7 thousandths of an inch. At that point Jack died and Warren retired, and their disciples fought mightily, and Winchester laughed all the way to the bank.

Moral of the story: Just saying something does not make it so.

Oh, and the other part of the moral to the story is that no matter how large and/or powerful the handgun is, almost any rifle has more energy and better ballistics than a handgun round.
 
scorch said:
oh, and the other part of the moral to the story is that no matter how large and/or powerful the handgun is, almost any rifle has more energy and better ballistics than a handgun round.
Click to expand...

the truth! And the truth shall set you free!!! AND YEE SHALL BE FREE INDEED!!:d
 
If you are going to use a handgun...

you should have been practicing since July.

Rifle hunter need to be put since September, not the local club hunter sight-in.
 
Alot of muzzle loaders are pretty close ballistically to a 44 mag too, but they seem to have plenty of power when you ask a muzzle loader enthusiast. I know a gentleman who used nothing but a 25-20 WCF for deer for over 50 years, waited for good shots, and made good shots. The 25-20 is by no means a power house, but his shot placement made it powerful enough. I think shot placement is far more more important than energy or bullet weight, bullet construction also plays a big role. If YOU are comfortable with the cartridge and can use it effectively, who cares what joe six pack thinks. If a 25-20 with cast lead bullets can take down 200 plus pound mule deer (with a good shooter behind it) the 44 has no problem, along with all the other "underpowered" rifle and pistol cartridges.
 
Last edited:
As the technology of firearms/shooting/hunting evolves, people seem to forget that the stuff from the past worked just fine and it still does. Another factor is that younger people never knew any different.

Something that I got a kick out of within the last couple days:
Someone posted a question about a modern .308 bolt action rifle with a modern optic. Most people said it wasn't worthwhile, there are much better things out there, blah blah blah.
I pointed out that the rifle in question is far better than the rifles used to settle this country as well as better than the rifles used in both world wars. Nobody even commented on my post.

People often fail to think things through. Your logic is right on the money.

Another great example of what you are talking about are the stories of when Col Wesson went all over the world taking everything walking with the then brand new S&W Registered Magnum in .357. It was considered so powerful that it would be a semi-custom gun since most people wouldn't be interested in something so powerful. I just read a thread today about how marginal the .357 is for whitetail deer.
 
.44 mag vs. .30-30

Thirty years ago Guns and Ammohad a feature article on this. One of their writers chose the .44 magnum out of a revolver and another writer the .30-30 out of a carbine. They debated the merits of their weapon/cartridge combination. They ran a series of shooting tests to determine which one was better.

One test involved shooting both guns at a five gallon metal can full of water. I don't remeber the distance, but it was the same for both. The .44 magnum exploded the can. The .30-30 launched the can straight up like a rocket. They also shot them into various objects made of different materials.

The .30-30 beat the .44 magnum in every test. Pentration, expansion, you name it. They concluded that a .44 magnum can anchor a deer, but the .30-30 would do a better job at any given range.

Just look at the sectional densities of the two bullets.The .30-30 is in the .250's and the .44 magnum's in the 180's.

If the .44 magnum, in a handgun, is truly capable of taking any beast on earth, then so is the .30-30. If the .30-30 is limited to deer size game, then so is the .44 magnum. Any other conclusion would not be logical.
 
Something that I got a kick out of within the last couple days:
Someone posted a question about a modern .308 bolt action rifle with a modern optic. Most people said it wasn't worthwhile, there are much better things out there, blah blah blah.
I pointed out that the rifle in question is far better than the rifles used to settle this country as well as better than the rifles used in both world wars. Nobody even commented on my post.
Click to expand...

I've noticed the same thing about archery. Everybody needs these $1000 bows and high tech expandable broadheads, and it is unethical to go out hunting unless you've spent an hour sharpening the broadheads right out of the package. Alright, then why the hell are you here today? Your ancestors used a bow made out of a stick and stone points that were as sharp as.... a rock! Same thing with rifles. I still like to dabble in new calibers for target shooting and fun, and most all of my rifles get taken hunting at some point or another, but you could realistically get by with 1 caliber for everything in the U.S.
 
the hunting bow industry has admitted recently that the best hunting compound bow and arrow create projectile energy identical to the 32 sw long, roughly 72-76 ft pds. This is used by many archers to shoot and harver 800 pound bears, elk, moose, etc at 60-70 yard ranges.

The 30-30 creates a roughly 1902 ft pds at the muzzle and still has 858 ft pds at 200 yards for a 150 gr flat point. This same load is considered inferior for hunting past 100 yards by many people for the above animals. Yet look at the energy and penetrationit gets.

The 44 magnum barely breaks 900 ft pds at the muzzle for specialty loads out of specialty handguns, yet many people hunt the 200 pound deer at 1-200 yards and say they are humane and ethical hunters.

Nowadays the 30-30 and the old lever gun cartridges have no prestige for ownership or hunting use when the person has to compensate for buying a 1300 dollar rifle in the latest super magnum caliber because a marketing writer said its needed for hunting.
Sure, cowboy shooters and smart people still use lever guns and old calibers like the 30-30 for several reasons. its cheaper to get good quality ammo from remington then it is to get the new super magnum rounds. Normally i can get a 20 rnd box of 30-30 for half the price of a 20 round box of win short mag ammo.
 
I reckon I oughta put my Marlin 336 .30-30 in the "pay it forward" thread since it won't kill a deer...:D
Brent
 
No, you're not missing anything.

In fact, you're finding something. It's called "truth". You don't need some modern wonder-uber-magnum to kill a deer.
Click to expand...


I agree...


The .44 mag is a great piece for sure (I have one) but the 30-30 is by far a superior piece, I have one also, and there is not a creature in teh world I cannot kill with it. Bear, Boar, Elk, Elephant Etc...

It's placement. Simple shot placement no matter what weapon you use.
 
We could easily go on and on about the greatness of the O'l 30-30 cartridge and every large game it has taken under the sun throu the generations. We could also go On and on about the agility of the lever action and it's quickness for followed shots that have saved many of people from Bear out in the Wilderness, but that would be another Thread that would certainly stir the pot even more. ;)
 
AARRGGHH!

Don't compare bows to guns!!!! They do not kill in the same way.

I can shoot a 30-30 into a bucket of sand, but the arrow goes right through it.

That would be like saying a knife can't kill you because it does not generate enough ft lbs....


Sorry, pet peeve, rant off.
 
ditto

Thanks for the comment on guns vs bows. I am constantly amazed at the penetration and killing power of a well placed, hunting arrow/head. (not this year, yet I hope) I was tempted to write the "bucket of sand" comparison myself.

One comment I've not seen yet is how much easier it is to make accurate, well placed shots w/ the carbine, and how much more skill this takes w/ a handgun.
Most all of us shoot long guns better.
 
That would be like saying a knife can't kill you because it does not generate enough ft lbs....
Click to expand...

+1 ft/lb is a measurment of the amount of energy used to perform work of an application which is a usless figure for comparison by itself in any application without knowing the effeciency of the the tool used to perform the work.
 
arrow penetration

AARRGGHH!
Don't compare bows to guns!!!! They do not kill in the same way.
I can shoot a 30-30 into a bucket of sand, but the arrow goes right through it.
Click to expand...
Off topic... but...

What is the deal with arrows?
presumably it is the weight of the arrow that provides the punch.
Although having said that, modern arrows are pretty damn light....

As for the killing mechanism, those broad head arrow tips do a real slice and dice job, but I have often wondered about getting them past bone, like ribs or the shoulder blade...???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top