I couldn't have put it better myself... which is obvious to everyone...lol
why the 3030?
- Thread starter remington308
- Start date
I couldn't have put it better myself... which is obvious to everyone...lol
Shoot Bambi with a .30/30 and he dies.
That must be outdated, I guess, 'cause when you shoot Bambi with the latest .369 RemSavChester RichterMag, not only does he die, but he's field-dressed, skinned, wrapped and frozen for you by the time you get to him, right?
No?
Dead's dead. Somebody who needs 4,000 ft-lb to go deer hunting needs to bone up on the concept of aiming.
The 30-30 cartridge and the 22 long rifle have a lot in common.
They are two of the oldest, as well as two of the most popular cartridges in existance.
It is so often said about the 30-30, "Why use an inferior cartridge when there are better choices available?"
Exactly the same can be said of the 22 long rifle. If you are just judging by power to get a "better cartridge," then the 22 magnum beats it, hands down. But, if we add cost, availability and how much power is needed, the LR wins by a landfall.
And which is most popular, a 22 LR or a 22 magnum?
Many, many moons ago, Winchester introduced the 22 Winchester Rim Fire, 22 WRF, as a superior, "better choice," than a standard 22LR. It was an over-sized, improved 22 LR.
Where is it today?
In the depression years we talk about, where everyone lived basically on wild meat and the 30-30 was the most popular big game rifle, every homesteader had a 22 rifle. And I mean every homesteader. In those days when big game was king, not every single family were hunters. But even families who didn't hunt big game, would have a 22 rifle. And a lot of meat was brought home with a 22. I remember one time my two teen age brothers brought home 22 prairie chickens, sharp tail grouse, from one afternoon of hunting.
Almost all of the homesteaders 22 rifles were light, single shot and the ammunition used was vitually 100% shorts. The people found out that a body hit with a short was at least as effective on all small game as was a hit with a long rifle, and it destroyed less meat and was cheaper to buy.
And a man or a boy, carried a 22 with them, wherever they went, any time of the year.
Yes, lots of similarities between the 30-30 and the 22 rimfire.
They are two of the oldest, as well as two of the most popular cartridges in existance.
It is so often said about the 30-30, "Why use an inferior cartridge when there are better choices available?"
Exactly the same can be said of the 22 long rifle. If you are just judging by power to get a "better cartridge," then the 22 magnum beats it, hands down. But, if we add cost, availability and how much power is needed, the LR wins by a landfall.
And which is most popular, a 22 LR or a 22 magnum?
Many, many moons ago, Winchester introduced the 22 Winchester Rim Fire, 22 WRF, as a superior, "better choice," than a standard 22LR. It was an over-sized, improved 22 LR.
Where is it today?
In the depression years we talk about, where everyone lived basically on wild meat and the 30-30 was the most popular big game rifle, every homesteader had a 22 rifle. And I mean every homesteader. In those days when big game was king, not every single family were hunters. But even families who didn't hunt big game, would have a 22 rifle. And a lot of meat was brought home with a 22. I remember one time my two teen age brothers brought home 22 prairie chickens, sharp tail grouse, from one afternoon of hunting.
Almost all of the homesteaders 22 rifles were light, single shot and the ammunition used was vitually 100% shorts. The people found out that a body hit with a short was at least as effective on all small game as was a hit with a long rifle, and it destroyed less meat and was cheaper to buy.
And a man or a boy, carried a 22 with them, wherever they went, any time of the year.
Yes, lots of similarities between the 30-30 and the 22 rimfire.
There is a lot of calibers in between 30-30 and retardosuperultramag..... they used to aim with spears too... bowhunters aim... by your own analogy what makes 30-30 better than them?...
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
What calibre do you shoot for big game
I have a few rifles.... depends on the situation.... if you want my personal all around favorite.... .30-06
My point is that rejecting on one hand a proven game-getter because it's old but going nuts over something with 'magnum' in its title simply because it's new and shiny is ridiculous. Men still take their great-grandfather's cartridge to the field and fill their tag every year. Were it obsolete, that wouldn't be happening.
You can paper the walls of a large house with the names of 'modern', 'improved', 'new-and-great' rounds introduced to replace 'obsolete' ones like the .30/30 but for which you can no longer buy ammo because, in the end, they proved no better at putting venison in the pot. Where are the .280 Ross, the .350 Rem Mag, the .250 Savage, the .300 Savage, the .275 H&H Mag, the whole lines of rounds by Newton, Stevens and Jeffrey, the .30 Remington, .308 and .358 Norma Magnums? The list goes on and on. Bright shiny new rounds that came along after the .30/30 - where are they now? Wait 10 years and try to find ammo for the WSSMs - rotsa ruck. They weren't bad cartridges, but they didn't fulfill any real need.
Completely agree with this.... I am no magnum pusher.... like I said, I like .30-06.... it suits my needs better... more bullets / loads available... good in close and can reach out... pushes through brush well and readily available ammo.... JMOP
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
What do you mean by pushes through brush well?
Doesn't get as easily deflected as a high speed high spin magnum round if it hits a twig on it's way to the target....
mudgunner49
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
That's BS - everything gets deflected, even .50M2...
Definetely do Not agree with this statement...I believe the laws of physics say, if two objects of equal weight are travelling at different velocities the faster object will require more energy to alter its trajectory. But then again I could be wrong.
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
Are you kidding?
I had to question this cause you have posted that statement about a couple of calibres...
And getting back to your comments on "most ethical" and "most effective"....
Do you shoot through bush and stuff often? ...
I think the issue is not that no bullets will get deflected, but rather - as he clearly said - that some will be deflected less than others.
I'm of two minds. I suspect part of this may be from the days when jacketed bullets were not quite as technologically advanced as they are now. An early JSP hitting a branch might well have done less well than a solid lead slug of the day, less well than a modern JSP.
I'm not sure that velocity plays that much of a role, either. I could be wrong and would like to hear somebody's logic on how it would.
One thing that does come to mind is that the slow 'brush-buster' bullets tend to be more squat than the high-vel ones. Some will say that bullets with a higher BC (essentially, more length-to-diameter) will be more stable, but I doubt it. Consider the ease with which a squat child's top is spun to stability and the stability it has if knocked - it wobbles, then corrects. Now consider spinning a pencil on its point. (Yes, it can be done, but it has to spin much faster.) That pencil, if knocked, will be much more likely to wobble out of control.
In any case, I have seen several trial reports on people who have tried to recreate brush using grids of dowels. The slower, large diameter slugs tended to deflect less than the faster JSPs. None of them were what a ballistician would consider fully scientific, yet their results did tend to support the old folk wisdom.
Going back to velocity again, long, small diameter bullets require a much higher RPM to be gyroscopically stabilized. I wonder if they are more likely to spin apart under the stress of hitting brush? I know the first run of 5.56mm FMJ produced (I think by IVI) for the then-new C7s failed to hold together, turning almost to dust once out of the muzzle. Not sure, just a thought.
Gentlemen, for your consideration, the results of a test done by Jim Carmichael years ago.
The old myth that a heavy, slow moving large diameter slug "busts brush" better than other pills was well put to rest quite a long time ago. It is simply not true.
Jim Carmichael (shooting editor for Outdoor Life after Jack O'Connor), and a man of more than moderate experience tested this theory years ago. He constructed a "brush barrier" of dowels, randomly glued into a drilled plank (actually had to build this new each time a new cartridge was tested). Shot at a target behind the "brush barrier". Checked for accuracy delivered to the target, along with expansion upon arrival. I remember him complaining about how labor-intensive this was, and how careful he was to duplicate the barrier each time.
Keep in mind this was done in the mid-70's, and keep in mind what cartridges were "all the rage" for that time period. He tested all the old standbys for "good brush buster": .35 Remingon, .338 Magnum (heavy bullet), 444 Marlin, as well as garden variety stuff: .30-30, .270, .30-06, etc., etc., This example list is not all-inclusive of what he tried. All with factory loads, and with the heaviest bullets offered. Round nose when available (since this bullet style had the "reputation" of a brush buster). (Even did rimfire for the benefit of squirrel hunters trying to get ol'bushytail out of a tree.)
Jim Carmichael suspected just from personal experience, that the cartridges with "brush buster" reputations weren't really all they were cracked up to be, and his opening hypothesis was that NO cartridge is a good brush buster: NO shot at game should ever be taken when the target is obscured by brush, as there is NO cartridge that will not be severely affected as to bullet accuracy and terminal performance. His original hypothesis was generally borne out, and his conclusion after the testing was exactly that: NO CARTRIDGE CAN BE COUNTED ON TO MAKE ITS WAY ACCURATELY TO A TARGET OBSCURED BY VEGETATION, AND UPON ARRIVAL, RELIABLY EXPAND, not even a 12ga slug!
Jim's initial "champion cartridge" for the test was the old .45-70 Govt., in the factory 405g jacketed loading. A slow moving freight train if ever there was one. This pumkin-roller just had to drive right through all those wimpy dowels and arrive powerfully on target, right? Alas, it was not to be. Severely deflected by sometimes the very first dowel, and often to the point of keyholing a foot or a yard off target! Other members of the reputed "Brush Busting Cartridge" club fared similarly: .444 Marlin, .35 Remington (and .350 Remington), 358, etc. Yes, 12ga and 20ga slugs were tried, and slugs were so severely deformed by their trip thru the dowel forest, that sometimes they would not even arrive on the backing board. Yes, they went though the wood, but went through to where?
Things got a bit better when High-velocity, smaller diameter stuff was tried, but the results were still miserable. The ol' .30-06 220g roundnose would sometimes get through and arrive on the paper, but just as often, it would arrive already expanded (as evidenced by the hole in the target). Other times it would keyhole, and more than once, no impact point could be discovered. Other garden variety North American cartridges gave similar results, with the ol' .30-30 holding its own against cartridges of greater "Brush Busting" reputations. (They ALL did crappy.) The light stuff (.223 wasn't a popular civilian offering yet, so .222 Magnum, .22-250, etc), all had their bullets blowing up on the first or second dowel they smacked, rarely arriving on target.
There was ONE cartridge/bullet combo that seemed to get through the dowel forest almost every time, but accuracy was ALWAYS AND WITH EVEN THIS CARTRIDGE severely affected. (Deflections in the 8-10" range for this best example). Also, more than one recovered bullet showed that the dowels had damaged the bullet in flight so much, that its expansion qualities were negated. (In other words, even if the bullet did hit a deer's ribcage, it would not expand.)
The winner? (And remember, we use the term "winner" loosely: all the cartridges failed Jim Carmichael's criteria for a good "Brush Busting" cartridge: to be able to punch through foliage, arrive somewhat accurately on target, with good expansion delivered.):
The .264 Winchester Magnum, in the factory Winchester 140g loading. Jim's theory for its "sucess" (again a term used loosely), was exactly as Ma Duce deducted: That bullet is very, very long, and very, very fast, but not as frangible (easy to break up), as some other fast long bullets tried (like .257 Roberts 100g, .243, etc.). Jim could not believe the result, and so repeated some testing with this cartridge, especially against the 7mm Magnum in the heavy roundnose "Brush Busting" bullet weight. The .264, for some reason continued to do less miserably.
Again, the lesson here is that NO cartridge does this task well. Next time somebody talks about their "brush buster", if it is not a .264 Magnum, they are urinating into the wind. If it is a .264, they are merely standing downwind from their own farts
And, from my own personal experience, I tried to kill a big bull moose standing in some willows one time. He was less than thirty yards away, and I was using a 375 H&H. I shot at him three times before actually hitting him in the lungs. Never tried shooting through brush again! NEVER!
Ted
The old myth that a heavy, slow moving large diameter slug "busts brush" better than other pills was well put to rest quite a long time ago. It is simply not true.
Jim Carmichael (shooting editor for Outdoor Life after Jack O'Connor), and a man of more than moderate experience tested this theory years ago. He constructed a "brush barrier" of dowels, randomly glued into a drilled plank (actually had to build this new each time a new cartridge was tested). Shot at a target behind the "brush barrier". Checked for accuracy delivered to the target, along with expansion upon arrival. I remember him complaining about how labor-intensive this was, and how careful he was to duplicate the barrier each time.
Keep in mind this was done in the mid-70's, and keep in mind what cartridges were "all the rage" for that time period. He tested all the old standbys for "good brush buster": .35 Remingon, .338 Magnum (heavy bullet), 444 Marlin, as well as garden variety stuff: .30-30, .270, .30-06, etc., etc., This example list is not all-inclusive of what he tried. All with factory loads, and with the heaviest bullets offered. Round nose when available (since this bullet style had the "reputation" of a brush buster). (Even did rimfire for the benefit of squirrel hunters trying to get ol'bushytail out of a tree.)
Jim Carmichael suspected just from personal experience, that the cartridges with "brush buster" reputations weren't really all they were cracked up to be, and his opening hypothesis was that NO cartridge is a good brush buster: NO shot at game should ever be taken when the target is obscured by brush, as there is NO cartridge that will not be severely affected as to bullet accuracy and terminal performance. His original hypothesis was generally borne out, and his conclusion after the testing was exactly that: NO CARTRIDGE CAN BE COUNTED ON TO MAKE ITS WAY ACCURATELY TO A TARGET OBSCURED BY VEGETATION, AND UPON ARRIVAL, RELIABLY EXPAND, not even a 12ga slug!
Jim's initial "champion cartridge" for the test was the old .45-70 Govt., in the factory 405g jacketed loading. A slow moving freight train if ever there was one. This pumkin-roller just had to drive right through all those wimpy dowels and arrive powerfully on target, right? Alas, it was not to be. Severely deflected by sometimes the very first dowel, and often to the point of keyholing a foot or a yard off target! Other members of the reputed "Brush Busting Cartridge" club fared similarly: .444 Marlin, .35 Remington (and .350 Remington), 358, etc. Yes, 12ga and 20ga slugs were tried, and slugs were so severely deformed by their trip thru the dowel forest, that sometimes they would not even arrive on the backing board. Yes, they went though the wood, but went through to where?
Things got a bit better when High-velocity, smaller diameter stuff was tried, but the results were still miserable. The ol' .30-06 220g roundnose would sometimes get through and arrive on the paper, but just as often, it would arrive already expanded (as evidenced by the hole in the target). Other times it would keyhole, and more than once, no impact point could be discovered. Other garden variety North American cartridges gave similar results, with the ol' .30-30 holding its own against cartridges of greater "Brush Busting" reputations. (They ALL did crappy.) The light stuff (.223 wasn't a popular civilian offering yet, so .222 Magnum, .22-250, etc), all had their bullets blowing up on the first or second dowel they smacked, rarely arriving on target.
There was ONE cartridge/bullet combo that seemed to get through the dowel forest almost every time, but accuracy was ALWAYS AND WITH EVEN THIS CARTRIDGE severely affected. (Deflections in the 8-10" range for this best example). Also, more than one recovered bullet showed that the dowels had damaged the bullet in flight so much, that its expansion qualities were negated. (In other words, even if the bullet did hit a deer's ribcage, it would not expand.)
The winner? (And remember, we use the term "winner" loosely: all the cartridges failed Jim Carmichael's criteria for a good "Brush Busting" cartridge: to be able to punch through foliage, arrive somewhat accurately on target, with good expansion delivered.):
The .264 Winchester Magnum, in the factory Winchester 140g loading. Jim's theory for its "sucess" (again a term used loosely), was exactly as Ma Duce deducted: That bullet is very, very long, and very, very fast, but not as frangible (easy to break up), as some other fast long bullets tried (like .257 Roberts 100g, .243, etc.). Jim could not believe the result, and so repeated some testing with this cartridge, especially against the 7mm Magnum in the heavy roundnose "Brush Busting" bullet weight. The .264, for some reason continued to do less miserably.
Again, the lesson here is that NO cartridge does this task well. Next time somebody talks about their "brush buster", if it is not a .264 Magnum, they are urinating into the wind. If it is a .264, they are merely standing downwind from their own farts
And, from my own personal experience, I tried to kill a big bull moose standing in some willows one time. He was less than thirty yards away, and I was using a 375 H&H. I shot at him three times before actually hitting him in the lungs. Never tried shooting through brush again! NEVER!
Ted
Well I was following right along J Carmichal picking a few statement apart but generally agreeing till he proclaimed a 264 with 140s as the winner 
If bullet constrction was equal there's no way a 264-140gn is any better than a 270-150gn, a 30-06-220gn etc.
The simple fact is the bullet needs to be constrcted heavy enough to with-stand most of the brush busting to get thru, but that's not the type of bullet needed for thin skinned game! & rule of logic dictates if bullet construction is equal, the heaviest, fastest bullet is at the top, with the slowest, lightest bullet at the bottom.
Better idea is to shoot around the brush
If bullet constrction was equal there's no way a 264-140gn is any better than a 270-150gn, a 30-06-220gn etc.
The simple fact is the bullet needs to be constrcted heavy enough to with-stand most of the brush busting to get thru, but that's not the type of bullet needed for thin skinned game! & rule of logic dictates if bullet construction is equal, the heaviest, fastest bullet is at the top, with the slowest, lightest bullet at the bottom.
Better idea is to shoot around the brush
Speaking of J Carmichel...I vividly remember reading an article he wrote a number of years ago on the old 1895 lever action Winchester. He was listing the cartridges it was produced in & at the end stated he it was even produced in the 303B but since it was so rare in that caliber he had never actually seen one. So much for the wisdom of J Carmichel
Not sure if this crosses over or not, but here's a thought.
So along the highway is a light pole. What would they be, twenty or so inches
across the base?
So a semi runs off the road and smacks this light pole.
What happens?
Then the dept. of hiways goes and fixes this pole.
A short time later, a guy on a motorcycle hits this same pole.
What happens?
Just say'in...............
So along the highway is a light pole. What would they be, twenty or so inches
across the base?
So a semi runs off the road and smacks this light pole.
What happens?
Then the dept. of hiways goes and fixes this pole.
A short time later, a guy on a motorcycle hits this same pole.
What happens?
Just say'in...............
Speaking of J Carmichel...I vividly remember reading an article he wrote a number of years ago on the old 1895 lever action Winchester. He was listing the cartridges it was produced in & at the end stated he it was even produced in the 303B but since it was so rare in that caliber he had never actually seen one. So much for the wisdom of J Carmichel
I wouldn't hold that against him.
I'll bet they were/are very scarce in the US. Who down there would choose a 303 British, when the same rifle could be had in the great 30-40 US calibre?
