The 30-30 for moose

At one point in my life my only big game rifles were a surplus 303 (bought from the barrel in the surplus store in Wpg) and a 30-30, bought new. Loved that rifle, still have it. Have hunted with it lots over the years. But the 303 killed better, at least with soft point ammo. Still, as long as I knew I wasn't shooting too far (and that's a whole other issue) I would feel fine with one. it's sort of like bow hunting, you know going in your not shooting long distances. - dan
 
Potashminer said:
It might be co-incidence that the guy was using a 30-30 - he had shot an elk - says the hit was good - we found blood in the bush in the rain, like as if the thing coughed that up. I do not think I will ever forget his comment - that elk turned and went away from him after his shot - plenty of time for more shots - his comment - "What was I supposed to do, shoot it in the ass?" I would guess he was a deer only hunter, and was worried about "wrecking" meat - obviously did not know what a Texas Heart Shot was or why it works so well. Let alone his choice of cartridge for hunting elk in bush. We never did find that elk. I have never shot a moose - but I suspect with any game animal - if it does not fall down at your shot, fire again! He ended up to waste a LOT of elk meat with his decision.
Click to expand...

Waste of meat is not a good thing, worse yet is the suffering the animal went through. For some reason people don't seem to take that into consideration
 
dan belisle said:
At one point in my life my only big game rifles were a surplus 303 (bought from the barrel in the surplus store in Wpg) and a 30-30, bought new. Loved that rifle, still have it. Have hunted with it lots over the years. But the 303 killed better, at least with soft point ammo. Still, as long as I knew I wasn't shooting too far (and that's a whole other issue) I would feel fine with one. it's sort of like bow hunting, you know going in your not shooting long distances. - dan
Click to expand...

Yep, .30-30 is a max 125 yard rifle in my mind.
 
There's a youtube video called:"Don't under-estimate the 30-30". My great grandfather used a Winchester 30-30 with a 26 inch barrel. He downed lots of moose, deer and elk with it.
 
Back in the day when you could just buy a moose tag over the counter I might have considered a .30-.30 for moose but not nowadays.

Now it takes you 4-5 years or more years to get a moose draw so why take chances with a 3030 when you could use something that can reach out way beyond the capabilities of a marginal at best 3030.
 
Ardent said:
I would consider that pretty abysmal performance frankly, when even just an .308 at that range usually renders them stiff legged right off the hit. Couldn’t see where the impact on him landed with the dirt flying, but it looked pretty lung, no heart to me.
Click to expand...

Hard to say for sure.

That first moose, it was definitely high and far back....second one, yeah from the steam coming out, looks pretty lungy but, dunno which of the 3 shots we're seeing lol
 
Jon87 said:
Our older guide in Newfoundland referred to 308s as "walking guns", as in you'll be walking a long way to track whatever you shoot. I don't agree, but thought it was funny anyway.
Click to expand...

Wonder what he thought about the 30-06 which is only a shade faster than the 308.
 
To be as arbitrary as the next guy, the 30WCF is excellent for Game up to 300lbs out to 200 yards, but, many can't shoot open sights and are better off with a scoped 223.
 
Potashminer said:
It might be co-incidence that the guy was using a 30-30 - he had shot an elk - says the hit was good - we found blood in the bush in the rain, like as if the thing coughed that up. I do not think I will ever forget his comment - that elk turned and went away from him after his shot - plenty of time for more shots - his comment - "What was I supposed to do, shoot it in the ass?" I would guess he was a deer only hunter, and was worried about "wrecking" meat - obviously did not know what a Texas Heart Shot was or why it works so well. Let alone his choice of cartridge for hunting elk in bush. We never did find that elk. I have never shot a moose - but I suspect with any game animal - if it does not fall down at your shot, fire again! He ended up to waste a LOT of elk meat with his decision.
Click to expand...

Obvious the guy was a jerk. Calibre of the rifle has nothing to do with it. If it's still standing up, fire away. Rule of thumb with any heavy game considered " shock proof".
 
Jon87 said:
Our older guide in Newfoundland referred to 308s as "walking guns", as in you'll be walking a long way to track whatever you shoot. I don't agree, but thought it was funny anyway.
Click to expand...
Obviously the guide was a complete tool as the 308 will kill any moose, every time with a good shot behind it.
 
Thanks for the input i have decided to use a different rifle for this hunt just in case i have to reach a little further. That youtube video summed it up pretty good lol
 
The real question was is there any other drawbacks of a 3030. Yes , the criticism you'll get by not having something as big as everyone thinks you need. Going by the Hornaday info the ftx at 300yds is in the ability of a 3030, with a accurate rifle scoped and practice with at that range. Most people have only delusions of how much there bullet drops after the sited in zero and most the zero it self is just guessing. 2 inches hi at 100yds is not a zero, maybe a good place to start but is not zero.
 
Highwind said:
There's a youtube video called:"Don't under-estimate the 30-30". My great grandfather used a Winchester 30-30 with a 26 inch barrel. He downed lots of moose, deer and elk with it.
Click to expand...

You raise a good point about the barrel length. I have owned a made-in-1977, a made-in-1957 and a made-in-1955 Win 94 in 30-30 that all had 20" barrel with sights on the barrel. All also eject straight up, so I did try to install a scope on the 1977 - from the mounts available at the time, I ended up with the scope significantly off-set to the left of the barrel centre line, to allow it to eject and clear that scope tube. Was not really my "cup of tea", although another fellow thought it was just dandy, and he bought it from me.

Looking at some ballistic tables - if one is truly getting 2,200 or 2,400 fps from the muzzle, then 200 yard impact speed is circa 1,500 or 1,600 fps with 150 or 170 grain 30-30 bullets - I think that is likely "border line" for proper bullet upset on impact? Is no doubt that a 6" longer rifle barrel likely gets (some) more velocity over the 20" carbine barrels.

But is likely as much a "sighting" thing. I do not know many folks that can hit an 8" pie plate, at 100 yards, 3 times in a row, with barrel mounted iron sights, from a standing off-hand shooting position. I suspect it is easier to do with that 6" longer barrel, but I am not sure of that. I just measured on the last Model 94 that is here - the original barrel mounted sights might be 17" apart on that 20" barrel - I do have that rear sight removed and installed a Williams aperture sight on the very rear of the receiver, so the distance for that is now 23" - that gained 6" over factory, which I presume is the distance gain with the longer barrelled versions - is probable that the "old timers" could really take advantage of the increased precision possible with the barrel mounted iron sights to be further apart.

So, those older 30-30 rifles likely hit just a bit harder, and allow the shooter to aim a bit more precisely, compared to the "more common" modern carbines.
 
Last edited:
I live in Newfoundland and have shot/have witnessed 5 moose shot with a 308. 180 grain partitions and game over. Most people use cheap crappy bullets on moose and that is the big issue. Not the cartridge.
 
Potashminer said:
You raise a good point about the barrel length. I have owned a made-in-1977, a made-in-1957 and a made-in-1955 Win 94 in 30-30 that all had 20" barrel with sights on the barrel. All also eject straight up, so I did try to install a scope on the 1977 - from the mounts available at the time, I ended up with the scope significantly off-set to the left of the barrel centre line, to allow it to eject and clear that scope tube. Was not really my "cup of tea", although another fellow thought it was just dandy, and he bought it from me.

Looking at some ballistic tables - if one is truly getting 2,200 or 2,400 fps from the muzzle, then 200 yard impact speed is circa 1,500 or 1,600 fps with 150 or 170 grain 30-30 bullets - I think that is likely "border line" for proper bullet upset on impact? Is no doubt that a 6" longer rifle barrel likely gets (some) more velocity over the 20" carbine barrels.

But is likely as much a "sighting" thing. I do not know many folks that can hit an 8" pie plate, at 100 yards, 3 times in a row, with barrel mounted iron sights, from a standing off-hand shooting position. I suspect it is easier to do with that 6" longer barrel, but I am not sure of that. I just measured on the last Model 94 that is here - the original barrel mounted sights might be 17" apart on that 20" barrel - I do have that rear sight removed and installed a Williams aperture sight on the very rear of the receiver, so the distance for that is now 23" - that gained 6" over factory, which I presume is the distance gain with the longer barrelled versions - is probable that the "old timers" could really take advantage of the increased precision possible with the barrel mounted iron sights to be further apart.

So, those older 30-30 rifles likely hit just a bit harder, and allow the shooter to aim a bit more precisely, compared to the "more common" modern carbines.
Click to expand...

I agree with the added precision due to the longer sight radius, but I would be willing to bet a guy can get equal ballistic performance out of a 20" barrel today with current powder technology as one could get from 26" in 1910 with what they had to work with. Obviously that improvement also applies to 26" rifles today too, although I'd be willing to bet the number of 26" rifles in the field today is a very small percentage when compared to 20" carbines.
 
Mr.Rigpig said:
I agree with the added precision due to the longer sight radius, but I would be willing to bet a guy can get equal ballistic performance out of a 20" barrel today with current powder technology as one could get from 26" in 1910 with what they had to work with. Obviously that improvement also applies to 26" rifles today too, although I'd be willing to bet the number of 26" rifles in the field today is a very small percentage when compared to 20" carbines.
Click to expand...

Agreed - but if I know 30 hunters that use factory shells only, not sure any of them own a chronograph - not sure that any "really" knows what muzzle velocity that their factory shells give them from their rifle - is not as if the numbers on the packages might not be exaggerated a bit - they tend to be taken as "gospel"!!. In many cases, does not matter - they have killed many critters, as it is. The successful guys, those that fill their tag year after year, tend to know what the limitations of their shooting and their units are capable of - and are mature enough to "pass up" on shots that are too far - for them or their rifle. And some don't - they just keep firing, until something falls down, or is out of sight.
 
Potashminer said:
Agreed - but if I know 30 hunters that use factory shells only, not sure any of them own a chronograph - not sure that any "really" knows what muzzle velocity that their factory shells give them from their rifle - is not as if the numbers on the packages might not be exaggerated a bit - they tend to be taken as "gospel"!!. In many cases, does not matter - they have killed many critters, as it is. The successful guys, those that fill their tag year after year, tend to know what the limitations of their shooting and their units are capable of - and are mature enough to "pass up" on shots that are too far - for them or their rifle. And some don't - they just keep firing, until something falls down, or is out of sight.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I keep forgetting that some people still use factory ammo.... lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom