PDA

View Full Version : Senseless?


lizziedog1
October 20, 2009, 06:44 AM
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?

musicmatty
October 20, 2009, 07:19 AM
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. :)

Doyle
October 20, 2009, 07:44 AM
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.

rodwhaincamo
October 20, 2009, 11:02 AM
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.

Brian Pfleuger
October 20, 2009, 11:11 AM
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.

Scorch
October 20, 2009, 11:49 AM
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.

Brian Pfleuger
October 20, 2009, 11:55 AM
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.

the truth! And the truth shall set you free!!! AND YEE SHALL BE FREE INDEED!!:d

jrothWA
October 20, 2009, 07:02 PM
you should have been practicing since July.

Rifle hunter need to be put since September, not the local club hunter sight-in.

cornbush
October 20, 2009, 08:09 PM
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.

444
October 20, 2009, 08:51 PM
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.

roy reali
October 20, 2009, 09:04 PM
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.

snipecatcher
October 20, 2009, 09:44 PM
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.


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.

Newton24b
October 21, 2009, 09:04 PM
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.

hogdogs
October 21, 2009, 09:55 PM
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

koolminx
October 21, 2009, 09:59 PM
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.


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.

musicmatty
October 22, 2009, 08:57 PM
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. ;)

davlandrum
October 23, 2009, 12:21 PM
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.

bamaranger
October 27, 2009, 12:30 AM
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.

teeroux
October 27, 2009, 01:15 AM
That would be like saying a knife can't kill you because it does not generate enough ft lbs....


+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.

PBjafa
October 27, 2009, 02:32 AM
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.

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...???

JagFarlane
October 27, 2009, 05:45 AM
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...???

With an arrow it's more about proper placement, and allowing the broadhead to do its job, ie, slicing through whatever comes its way. And while the arrows are made now out of aluminum and carbon fiber, thats more for strength. They're still made to a certain grain weight. You also have to factor in the draw weight of the bow.

As for broadheads hitting bone, most will just glide around the bone, but there are some that will go through. Muzzy MX-4 (http://forums.bowcountry.com/bcforums/showthread.php?t=15559) You'll find here, one of the testers at bowcountry was putting MX-4's through the leg bone of a cow...

Sam06
October 27, 2009, 07:59 AM
I do about 90% of my Deer hunting with a handgun(And I hunt 4 days a week when the season is on). I use a T/C Contender in 30-30 most of the time. I also carry a M629 for close up shots. I hunt in a stand and if I can get a shot from 10-40 yds I use the M629 with open sights. From 40-150yds its the T/C with a scope. I do handload for both so I can build my own rounds for the 30-30.

Oh yea when I rifle hunt I use a 30-30 or a 308. It just depends on where I am going. If I have to make or will be in a position to make a 200yd shot the 308 goes with me. But if I am hunting where the shots are 100yds and in the 30-30 is the gun. The only time I use a rifle is if I am hunting on Ft Bragg(They don't allow Handgun hunting) But I don't hunt there all that much anymore.

For a South Eastern Deer hunter the 30-30 is Just right. I like them so much I have 3 of them:) They are very easy to load for. the brass is all over the place. Components are plentiful and I have never had one that would not shoot inside 1.5" at 100yds. The most accurate one I have is a Savage 340 with a peep sight. With 130gr Hornaday Spire points it is a real killer and very accurate. My Winchester 94AE with a 2-7x scope will put all 6, 130gr Speer Hot Core bullets into a 4" Circle at 150yds from a field rest.

I hunt in Montana also. I use my contender in 30-30 or the 308. I am over the big Magnums. I used to hunt with a 300 WM but I do not see the advantage of it inside normal hunting ranges. I love the Lever action Rifle. My 308 in a Winchester 88 and a Savage 99.

The 30-30 is a proven Killer on Deer, hogs and other game. When I hear folks bashing it I know they don't know squat.

2DaMtns
October 27, 2009, 09:27 AM
I think it's funny when you read one thread that says the 357 is marginal for deer, but then in the next thread everyone praises it for knockdown power and one shot stops in SD situations. I know they're not the same scenarios, but I find it hard to beileve that you can rely on a 357 to take down a 200lb human attacker but then you're not supposed to trust it to take down a deer. Yeah, I know that an intruder would be shot a lot closer and all that, but come on. The magnum rage is just marketing at its finest. I looked at the used rifle rack at my local shop the other day, and I think 8 out of the 10 I looked at were either 300 or 7mm mags. And around here, deer rarely get over 175# live weight, and people rarely shoot over 100 yards. I personally have never shot a deer beyond about 60-75 yards. 357, 30-30, either one will take a deer if you do your part.

Brian Pfleuger
October 27, 2009, 09:59 AM
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....


Arrows don't kill with "punch".

I shoot a 2008 Hoyt Katera XL, which shoots a 370 grain arrows at 264fps.

Do the math:

(264X264X370)/450240=57.28ft/lbs of energy.

As a matter of comparison, a 22LR generates over 300ft/lbs of energy and a 12ga slug can generate over 3000ft/lbs.

Arrows kills by hemorrhage. Loss of blood pressure to the brain and/or lack of oxygen, depending on exactly what is hit.

DRice.72
October 27, 2009, 11:31 AM
I have found this thread fascinating. I have worked with avid hunters all my adult life and I have noticed the shift from the 30-30 to the 7mm mags, 300 mags, and 308. I always wondered why that was. It seemed from the hunting stories I was hearing these men took a lot of game with their 30-30's.

banditt007
October 27, 2009, 10:55 PM
peetzakilla, the most powerful .22lr barely generates 200 ftlbs.... ;)

Brian Pfleuger
October 28, 2009, 10:42 AM
Hm, you're right.... I was thinking that the high end stuff was just a smidge over 300.... just a smidge over 200 is correct.

Still, more than double the any bow on the market until the last year or so, more than quadruple anything that was even made 10 or so years ago!

jmr40
October 28, 2009, 12:52 PM
I've never read an article where anyone ever said a 30-30 wouldn't do the job it was designed to do. I see these threads a lot where people are talking about how great the 30-30 is and they are tired of it being overlooked.

I've never seen anyone do that. I have read articles where people have pointed out that the round has limitations, it does. They all do. But every article I have ever read has praised the round when used within its limitations. Even though it is not the best round for ranges over 150 yards or so and there are better choices for game larger than deer, it is perfectly fine for at least 90% of all big game hunting.

I think that when some writers point out that there are better choices, some take that as a condemnation of the round. It's not, it is just a fact. Just because something is perfectly adequate does not mean something else is better. Some people are satisfied with adequate, others want better. Neither is wrong.

Brasscatcher84
October 29, 2009, 11:30 AM
when confronted with claims like this, it's best to remember the old proverb "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see"

PBjafa
October 29, 2009, 08:00 PM
Peetzakilla - Arrows don't kill with "punch".

You might have missed what I was trying to say.
What pushes the arrow head all the way through the target?
(either a bucket of sand, or an animal, that will stop a bullet)

An arrow is as likely as not to either completely penetrate, or finally stop with the fletching being the only thing still left in the animal and the rest of the arrow hanging out the other side. (depending on the animal, arrow, range etc of course)

According to the ft/lbs formula an arrow isn't terribly impressive.
But seeing what one does to a target sure is.

koolminx
October 29, 2009, 08:32 PM
I shoot my compound at 80 lbs, and let me tell you that NO BROAD HEAD get's through a shoulder or a Hip bone. The arrow ticks for about 50 or less bounces, they bleed for about a half mile then dry up... I've seen it year after year from people that forget (like I did) that the longer the shot, the better the chance the deer HEARS your bow THAWUMP then you release... The deer moves 2 feet in the time it takes the arrow to get there and you get a hip bone shot.... ( saw the same deer 3 weeks later with a bloody hip but no limp nor infection, thankfully....)

Bows are Excellent cutters, that's all they're designed for. Punch is only there to deliver the head on the shaft...

zombieslayer
October 30, 2009, 07:55 AM
well, caliber wars will forever rage on. Way back when, my great-grandaddy told me he liked to hunt Fl whitetail with a 32-20 because it didn't tear up the meat too bad. Nowadays, people hunt game with cannons. A 30-30 will kill a deer. Everyone should know that. My buddy John bought a 7mm rem mag this year, and is convinced he's gonna kill a deer with it. Seems like WAAAY over kill to me, but to each his own

Brian Pfleuger
October 30, 2009, 03:46 PM
You might have missed what I was trying to say.
What pushes the arrow head all the way through the target?
(either a bucket of sand, or an animal, that will stop a bullet)

An arrow is as likely as not to either completely penetrate, or finally stop with the fletching being the only thing still left in the animal and the rest of the arrow hanging out the other side. (depending on the animal, arrow, range etc of course)

According to the ft/lbs formula an arrow isn't terribly impressive.
But seeing what one does to a target sure is.

The simple answer is that arrows are not designed to dissipate energy within the target. They're designed to penetrate. Bullets use up energy expanding and/or generating hydrostatic shock waves in the target. An arrow is tipped with a razor blade and a tip that cuts a hole bigger than what is behind it. The friction is minimal. Very hard full metal jacket type bullets also penetrate very well. They don't dump energy into the target, similar to an arrow.

Simply put, "what pushes an arrow through the target?" Momentum. Momentum that is not "wasted" on damaging the arrow or, beyond the direct impact area, the animal either.

James R. Burke
October 30, 2009, 07:16 PM
I never cared to hunt deer with a handgun. But I dont see nothing wrong with it, if it is done correctly. Some folks are into it, and are very good at it. Same with bow hunters I know and seen some very good ones. Or muzzeloading which I do. There is no doubt it can not do what a rifle caliber can. But at the correct range, and shot placement which is key with anything they work great at taking deer. I guess it comes down to what you like, and are into. It's all good if done correctly in my book even though I dont pistol or bow hunt for deer. You are correct about the spec's on comparing a pistol bullet to a rifle bullet.

Art Eatman
October 31, 2009, 10:21 AM
Skill and shot placement.

Many decades ago, a one-armed man showed up at a deer-lease ranch near New Braunfels, Texas. He was planning on using a 6" K-38 S&W. The rancher expressed concern about crippled deer. The man walked over to the benchrest and cranked off six rounds toward the 100-yard target. Six hits, about a six-inch group. The rancher nodded, smiled, and walked away.

sc928porsche
October 31, 2009, 04:37 PM
Yup, guess what is needed now is a good 30-30 revolver.

Yellowfin
November 1, 2009, 12:57 PM
This must be a Halloween subject, as all the millions of dead deer from over a century are supposed to be up and walking around because the .30-30 didn't really kill them after all. Somehow it seems to me a lot of people would have starved if their .30-30 wasn't putting deer on the table; they ate PLENTY of venison.

ZeroJunk
November 1, 2009, 01:42 PM
but I have often wondered about getting them past bone, like ribs or the shoulder blade...???


My hunting partner killed two deer with one shot using a bow. Went through the ribcage on the first and almost through the second. He also killed a bull elk and the arrow went through the elk's lungs and lodged in to a tree so deep we had to chop it out with a hatchet.

But, I can tell you that if you hit the shoulder too far forward on a big buck you are in some trouble and if you hit it on an elk you are simply out of luck.

shortwave
November 1, 2009, 05:56 PM
Skill and shot placement. That about sums up the whole caliber,arrow,bolt,broadhead wars. A deer is a very easy animal to kill in the sense that you don`t have a tough hide nor alot of heavy bone to penetrate taking the right shot. Knowing the capabilities of the weapon of choice and more important our limitations with that same weapon is key. One of the hardest things to do is let a Boone and Crocket buck walk cause he doesn`t present a good shot. I`d rather wait another day than sling an arrow further than I`m capable of. Questioning whether a 30-30 or a .357 pistol is capable of killing a deer is IMO ridiculous. Sure they can but they have their own capabilities and have to be used as such. After some thought, I think "Skill,Shot Placement and Responsibility" would sum up the 'wars of weapons/calibers' debate.

bacardisteve
November 2, 2009, 06:32 PM
I just dont understand anymore. Way back when the 30-30 was the ideal elk rifle not to mention deer. Now people are using big bad magnums for deer and i bet most have never shot past 100yds with em. I use the puny 7.62x39 for deer currently. About the same as a 30-30 and i never had a problem. I also carry a 1911 loaded with buffalo bores 230gr hardcast and have killed 3 deer with it to date but all were within 20yards and none went more than a few yards.

ZeroJunk
November 2, 2009, 07:09 PM
Way back when the 30-30 was the ideal elk rifle not to mention deer.


There was a time when a spear was ideal for elk. We have better stuff now if anybody wants to use it.


I usually hunt elk with a bow, but it's lunacy to think that 338 win mag won't more likely result in a surer kill.