30-30 vs 303Brit
- Thread starter Dosing
- Start date
peckerwood
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- PalePony, Yukon
Safe design?...Simple really, the bolt action requires that a person remove their action hand from the gun and therefore their trigger finger from out of the trigger guard, and thusly place it on the bolt to cycle the action...with a Lever action the entire trigger guard is being removed and exposing the trigger to outside influences such as clothing, twigs/branches, and the trigger finger itself.
It isn't brain surgery...I have seen lever guns go off during cycling while hunting simply because the cuff of a jacket sleeve got caught inside the trigger gaurd/lever while the gun was being cycled for the shot/follow-up shot.
Although it is not impossible to accidentally discharge a bolt gun it is slightly more difficult to do so factoring in the fixed trigger guard into the equation.
Of course this still doesn't leave out the branches and sticks that are common in the bush. In truth it all comes down to the user; of that I will agree, but the removal of the entire trigger guard in the action of cycling doesn't encourage my confidence any.
Don't get me wrong either...I love lever guns almost as much as I like black guns and bolt guns. But for me, the less that can go wrong the better...especially in negative conditions hunting or bear defense.
Just my opinion
It isn't brain surgery...I have seen lever guns go off during cycling while hunting simply because the cuff of a jacket sleeve got caught inside the trigger gaurd/lever while the gun was being cycled for the shot/follow-up shot.
Although it is not impossible to accidentally discharge a bolt gun it is slightly more difficult to do so factoring in the fixed trigger guard into the equation.
Of course this still doesn't leave out the branches and sticks that are common in the bush. In truth it all comes down to the user; of that I will agree, but the removal of the entire trigger guard in the action of cycling doesn't encourage my confidence any.
Don't get me wrong either...I love lever guns almost as much as I like black guns and bolt guns. But for me, the less that can go wrong the better...especially in negative conditions hunting or bear defense.
Just my opinion
I voted 303 British because of the greater range and versatility of the round. The 30-30 in a lever gun has some advantages close in....handier, usually lighter to carry, etc, but I own a P14 that has been somewhat sporterized. [Receiver milled and tapped for scope mounting, barrel lopped off at 24" and crowned, Timney trigger, stock redone] I load Steve Redgwell's 200grain SemiSpitzer MK9 bullet SIZED AT .313" for serious shooting/hunting. It is an honest 1' rifle with that bullet, and shoots 1½" or less with the Hornady 174 grain and 150 grain bullets. I can easily achieve 308 Winchester ballistics with the lighter bullets,and exceed them slightly with the 200 grainer. To say that this rifle is not an effective game-getter would be a mistake. I have a 6x36 Leupold on it, and carry it around as a "truck" gun. I would dearly love to get my hands on a decent Ross in 303, but so far the only ones I have seen have been pretty poorly kept.[such a shame] Regards, Eagleye.
kombi1976 said:I think it's more accurate to say that the cartridge the P14 was designed for, the .276 Enfield, was an unsuitable battle round.savagefan said:
It fired a 165gn bullet at 2800fps, only around 100fps behind a 7mm Rem Mag! :shock:
Imagine pumping out round after round using that cartridge with a rifle that had a brass buttplate!
And implementing the P14 even for the .303 cartridge was far too expensive at the beginning of a major war. :|
There's nothing wrong with P14s though.
With small modifications they became the M17, America's main battle rifle during WW1.
Y'know, I think the most fascinating thing about the .303 as a cartridge is that it's chambered in at least 5 different good rifles that have their flaws and their strengths:
Martini Enfield - only a single shot, but one of the fastest operating most accurate single shots out there
1895 Winchester - a fast repeater that has few if any drawbacks, with the possible exception of the price they currently fetch.
SMLE - rear locking and fairly weak in todays terms but hard wearing, virtually impossible to kill by abuse in the field and the fastest cycling bolt action battle rifle.
Ross - dangerous if poorly assembled and unsuitable for trench warfare but incredibly strong and astoundingly accurate...probably the most misunderstood action of the 20th century.
Pattern 14 - strong, accurate, reliable and sadly under-utilised.
If you can't find a good gun among those then your too picky and most are inexpensive to boot.
Nuff said.... :mrgreen:
Nice summary there, and a whole bunch off interesting rifles to play with!!!! :!:
No offence taken, kombi, but I'm not nuts. I'm not suggesting that all front locking turn bolt designs are unsuitable, but the success of the SMLE in the trenches proved that the advantages sought by developing the P14 were unnecessarry for the British Army at that time. The rear locking action of the SMLE was reliable enough and accurate enough. Spending the additional money to equip the troops with those unnecessary features would have been a mistake, especially when it would have meant losing features that did prove useful, such as the larger magazine capacity.
I don't mean the P-14 was no good at all, just that the SMLE turned out to be better for the task at hand. I don't think the decision makers get any great credit for that, it was the difficulties of changing with war imminent or in progress (and money, as you say, was certainly on that list of difficulties) that forced them to stick with the SMLE. They would have persisted in the mistake if they could have, and you have stated part of the reason why: "not that different from the M98 and most of the other European countries were trying to equip themselves with a stronger front locking actioned rifle at the time." It was the fashionable trend in current thinking on what an infantry rifle should be like, mainly because of the success of the Mauser in quite different kinds of fighting, including its use by the Boer irregulars against the British Army in S. Africa. But as luck would have it, the fighting in Europe wasn't like that, and the SMLE came into its own.
I don't mean the P-14 was no good at all, just that the SMLE turned out to be better for the task at hand. I don't think the decision makers get any great credit for that, it was the difficulties of changing with war imminent or in progress (and money, as you say, was certainly on that list of difficulties) that forced them to stick with the SMLE. They would have persisted in the mistake if they could have, and you have stated part of the reason why: "not that different from the M98 and most of the other European countries were trying to equip themselves with a stronger front locking actioned rifle at the time." It was the fashionable trend in current thinking on what an infantry rifle should be like, mainly because of the success of the Mauser in quite different kinds of fighting, including its use by the Boer irregulars against the British Army in S. Africa. But as luck would have it, the fighting in Europe wasn't like that, and the SMLE came into its own.
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
We had two out yesterday, and both I had no probloem hitting anything i aimed at out to 385 meters with either.
The 200 meter chicken sillhouette was a cinch.
My son and one of his buddies had a great time hitting the 200 yard gong
( a 24 incher) offhand with 180 grain soft point Ingmann ammo.
Chaep and effective!
The one rifle is a no.4 totally customised by my fahter (one of his first projects) and the other was a No.1 that was done by Parker Hale, complete with the PH scope mount and Montecarlo stock by Sile.
Fine rifls, both.
Cat
The 200 meter chicken sillhouette was a cinch.
My son and one of his buddies had a great time hitting the 200 yard gong
( a 24 incher) offhand with 180 grain soft point Ingmann ammo.
Chaep and effective!
The one rifle is a no.4 totally customised by my fahter (one of his first projects) and the other was a No.1 that was done by Parker Hale, complete with the PH scope mount and Montecarlo stock by Sile.
Fine rifls, both.
Cat
Of course the irrelevant fact that the British army rounded up the Boer women, children and old people left at farms and villages and put them into concentration camps wouldn't have been a factor either.Calum said:
Yep, the Brits invented concentration camps.
Gee, the high rate of sickness and death in the camps wouldn't have sapped the resolve of the Boer irregulars either, would it? :x
Obviously just those damn Mausers! :?
Can't win a war with 'em! :roll:
I'd say that apart from some specific examples it is often just a contributing factor.Gibbs505 said:
If the Boers had had more resources to continue rearming and supplying their men and the British hadn't had the pure numbers that the full resources of an empire afforded them it may've been a different story.
In fact regular supplies alone may well have turned the tide.
