30-30 vs 44 magnum for deer

crazy_davey said:
You were wrong and the bear wasn't hunted but killed by Bella Twin in self defence(there is a difference). She shot it seven times in the head if I remember correctly.

Look up the facts before posting new Internet fables.
Click to expand...

you are correct about the seven shots, but he was correct about the record. At the time it was the largest:

Then consider a 67-year-old woman named Mrs. Bella Twin who was walking near her home in the Swan Hills of Alberta, Canada a while back, when the largest grizzly bear known to man suddenly reared up on the trail before her.


Mrs. Twin happened to have her rifle with her. It was a .22. Paying no attention to the common belief that wild animals will not bother you if you do not bother them, Mrs. Twin shot the bear with her .22. In fact, she put seven .22 slugs in a tiny circle in the giant's brain. It fell over dead. She had killed the biggest grizzly bear of which there were authenticated records (since that time three larger specimens have been shot). Mrs. Twin's grizzly had a skull whose dimensions were verified by the Boone and Crockett Club. It measured 16 10/16 by 9 11/16 inches—roughly the size of Dan Stoker's garbage can. Even small grizzly bears have been known to charge people in wild, leaping bounds, covering 10 to 12 feet per jump, so Mrs. Twin was fortunate that she shot the grizzly before it stepped on her.
 
I never said anything about the record part in either post. He made it sound like some little old lady went out on a trophy grizzly hunt with a .22.

I do understand the point he was trying to make though.
 
Home3 said:
I was actually under the impression that it was a record Grizzly in some fashion. But I could be wrong.

In any event, the point I was trying to make was that just because a certain caliber "can" kill a game, doesn't mean it is same as the next caliber which also "can" do the same.
Click to expand...

You make a good point especially when you see the number of holes in the bear's skull. I think there is six if I recall correctly. It's on display near Slave Lake. If I'm not mistaken it is still tied for the biggest grizzly ever taken in Alberta with a score of 26 5/16 so you are also correct that it is a record of some fashion.
 
Wrong Way said:
you are correct about the seven shots, but he was correct about the record. At the time it was the largest:

Then consider a 67-year-old woman named Mrs. Bella Twin who was walking near her home in the Swan Hills of Alberta, Canada a while back, when the largest grizzly bear known to man suddenly reared up on the trail before her.


Mrs. Twin happened to have her rifle with her. It was a .22. Paying no attention to the common belief that wild animals will not bother you if you do not bother them, Mrs. Twin shot the bear with her .22. In fact, she put seven .22 slugs in a tiny circle in the giant's brain. It fell over dead. She had killed the biggest grizzly bear of which there were authenticated records (since that time three larger specimens have been shot). Mrs. Twin's grizzly had a skull whose dimensions were verified by the Boone and Crockett Club. It measured 16 10/16 by 9 11/16 inches—roughly the size of Dan Stoker's garbage can. Even small grizzly bears have been known to charge people in wild, leaping bounds, covering 10 to 12 feet per jump, so Mrs. Twin was fortunate that she shot the grizzly before it stepped on her.
Click to expand...

Actually her bear is tied for #28 in Boone and Crocket but for Alberta it was a big freaking bear. The story of what actually happened that day has been embellished a lot over the years but from the research I've done, her and her trapping partner were out on the trapline, each with a dog team. She was in the lead and as she rounded a corner the bear was there and stood up. She got off her sled and grabbed her .22 which she carried to dispatch animals in traps and waited to see what would happen. The bear dropped to all fours and started walking towards her. Legend has it she made her first shot at 5 feet and then shot several more times. There is some speculation that the dog team distracted the bear enough for her to get the shots off. Whether the bear was going to attack her or the dogs is unknown but it is likely the highest scoring grizz taken with a .22. I guess the moral of the story is that if you are willing to limit shots to 5 feet that the .22 is indeed effective on old ephram.
 
What all this about the Indian lady, a large grizzly and a 22 really points out, is if the chips are down you use what you have.
I once thought I would be confronting a large grizzly in the wild and my only firearm was a Smith & Wesson 22 revolver. I had the cylinder full of long rifle and the gun in my hand felt a hell of a lot better than no gun. I even visualized the final shots going right into his mouth.
Thankfully, it was all avoided.
 
I like how the .44 mag takes a Grouses head "clean off"......
I have had a couple of whoopsies........1" to low......not much left but some floating feathers!!!!

All of the Deer that I shot with a .44 mag, they died rather quickly.......if they were shot in the same place with a 30/30.....the result would have been the same!

The bog Standard American Eagle soft points worked well out of the .44's I owned!
 
Lifetime ban for anyone that references that stupid story in defence of any use of marginal calibers to shoot things. Actually, any reference of that story should get you a thrashing.
 
BigUglyMan said:
Lifetime ban for anyone that references that stupid story in defence of any use of marginal calibers to shoot things. Actually, any reference of that story should get you a thrashing.
Click to expand...

I still say if you are willing to wait until a grizz is at five feet there's a case to be made for the .22 ;)
 
44 magnum!
Then you get to say forty four and magnum in the same sentence.
Or thirty twice.
I say 7 mag and go home to skin and butcher.
 
Good. I think we have finally reached a consensus here; the best caliber for deer is 7 shots of .22 LR in the head!

Next question; does anybody know why did Ruger stop making the Deerfield? Any chance they may bring it back? I can't bring myself to fork-out $1000 for a used one.
 
snoopycda said:
44 magnum!
Then you get to say forty four and magnum in the same sentence.
Or thirty twice.
I say 7 mag and go home to skin and butcher.
Click to expand...


7 mag you say?
Doesn't that go in the same sentence as wasting meat after it blows off the better part of a quarter on it's way out; in addition to turning the entry quarter into jelly and blood pudding?
 
The OP's question related to the 30-30 or 44 Mag. for hunting deer with hounds in Ontario.
Narrow enough parameters to exclude 22LR's, 454CM's & 7mmRM's as well as grizzly bears.
YES either the 30-30 or 44 Mag. WILL DO JUST FINE.
 
tokguy said:
[/I]

7 mag you say?
Doesn't that go in the same sentence as wasting meat after it blows off the better part of a quarter on it's way out; in addition to turning the entry quarter into jelly and blood pudding?
Click to expand...

That just hasn't been my experience. But i like to shoot deer in the middle of the ribs, I dont eat deer ribs or lungs.
 
I have used both, but I really like my 98 Trapper Carbine (regular loop) in 44 mag. Great bush gun and it really likes the lever-evolution stuff from hornady. But like others have said, both will work fine. In a pinch, its probably easier to find 30-30 ammunition than 44 mag if you forget your supply at home and have to hit the county hardware store.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom