Why not .30-30 semi-auto?

[mikejonestkd]

Jim, here's a pic of mine, with a Williams peep sight. I can get 4" 100 yard groups with it, which is more than minute of deer at that range.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/185306...posted-public/

[44 AMP]

One thing you could just about count on, back in the 60s and early 70s when I was haunting the small gunshops in the northeast, you could nearly always find a Remington model 8 or 81 in the used rifle rack. And they often stayed there a long time.

Not because they weren't good guns, or because their cartridges weren't good (in .300Savage and .35 Rem they were great) but because of the combination of factors including the rifle buying public in those days.

Compared to other deer rifles, the Reminton semi autos were expensive, complicated, and heavy. Working class seasonal deer hunters often passed them by, because they didn't have much money, and a Winchester, Marlin, Savage or even the Remington pump would do the job equally well and be cheaper and lighter to carry.

And carry mattered more then than it does today. Few people who didn't live through those times realize that very few people had slings on their rifles. Though they are a a standard and expected feature today, back then, sling swivels were not a common factory item. And many people never added them or had a gunsmith install them, so the rifle was always in one's hands, when not set on the ground.

Well heeled hunters seldom chose the Reminton semi auto, though they could afford it, they often were interested in other guns without the semi's limitations. (bolt actions, primarily).

Remington's semis sold well enough stay in production and even be reintroduced back into production after the suspension of civilian rifle production during the WWII years, for a few years until superceeded by the improved design of the Rem 740 series semis.

Another interesting thing relating to why there are no semi auto .30-30s, is perhaps, Winchester itself. Unlike Remington who built a semi auto for full size full power "deer rifle" rounds from the early years of the 20th century, Winchester's semi auto designs were blow back designs (the 1905, 07 and 09/1910) which used lower powered rounds such as the .351 WSL and .401 WSL (Winchester Self Loading).

Other than a few prototypes intended to compete against the Garand, Winchester didn't do a locking action full power rifle cartridge semi auto until the Model 100 about 1961. Apparently because they just weren't interested in that segment of the market. During the same years, when Winchester concentrated on their lever guns and the bolt action model 54 and then Model 70, Remington produced semis, pumps and bolt actions in a wide range of calibers and types. (and none of them in Winchester cartridges).

The .30-30 became America's deer gun, because of its performance when it came out, compared to other available rounds, AND because of the relatively light and very handy lever actions that most people chose. The available semi auto designs could have been made in .30-30 but doing that offered no advantages to the hunting public and several drawbacks.

And as time went on, and newer better performing rounds became available some of those got put into semi autos, further increasing the "pointlessness" of a semi auto .30-30 Winchester.

[Rob228]

which used lower powered rounds such as the .351 WSL

I was playing with a .351 at a pawn shop about a month ago, the only thing that stopped me was availability of ammo. I ended up with a Henry in .45 Colt instead. Jokes on me, I don't currently reload and .45 Colt ammo is scarce and expensive.

[44 AMP]

Its no joke, but I think you would be even worse off if you had bought the .351SL.

The guns (and the ammo) have been obsolete and out of production for over a half century. Its possible the cowboy action shooting enthusiasm led to a reintroduction of the .351, in small amounts, I don't know. As a mainstream factory produced round its been gone a long time.

.45 Colt has been in constant production since 1873. (with the exception of the WWII war years) Its popularity has risen, fallen and risen again but its always stayed in production and there are NEW guns being made in .45 Colt every day.

Not so the .351SL . Everything is scarce and expensive these days. Obsolete and niche rounds even more than popular ones.

[mikejonestkd]

Its no joke, but I think you would be even worse off if you had bought the .351SL.

I agree completely, its a long and lonely path to go down when attempting to load for an obsolete cartridge. I got my Rem model 8 strictly as a wall hanger because ammo was almost non existent. I lucked into a few boxes of loaded ammo, and learned to turn down 30-30 win just to be able to feed my .30 Remington rifle.
I'd take a 45 colt in heartbeat over a .351SL.

[Pumpkin]

The 81 and the 35 Rem were a perfect marriage of cartridge to gun.
Unfortunately the 25, 30, and 32 Rem offered no advantage over other Winchester cartridges at the time.

[44 AMP]

Unfortunately the 25, 30, and 32 Rem offered no advantage over other Winchester cartridges at the time.

Yes, they did. They came in Remington rifles!

And, that was the point. Remington could have, but didn't try to make their 25.30 and 32 rounds "better" than the Winchester, other than in one way. Pointed bullets.

They were intended to duplicate the performance of the Winchester rounds, and if you look in older reloading manuals they say to use .30-30 data and .32 Spl data for loading the .30 & .32 Remington.

With Winchester, you got your choice of .25, .30. or .32 caliber flat or blunt tip bullets in a tubular magazine lever action rifle. (which reminds me of the old joke about how you could have any kind or color car you wanted, as long as it was a black Ford )

With Remington, you got the same caliber choices, AND you got the choice of pointed bullets, box or tube magazine and pump or semi auto (and I think some bolt guns too)..AND Remington also had their .35, a round that Winchester had no direct counterpart for.

Winchester did have their .35 Winchester, but it was a larger, more powerful round, and only available in the Model 95 Winchester, which was bigger, and heavier and significantly more expensive than the Win 94, not nearly as popular, and was discontinued in 1936.

[Pumpkin]

They are sweet rifles, although Bonnie and Clyde might not agree..... if they could.

[Jim Watson]

Winchester compared the .401 WSL to .30-40 Krag but it is not equal in velocity or energy.

[44 AMP]

Winchester said a lot of things in their old advertisements and catalogues. Some of it was true, some, ...not so much...

[GeauxTide]

It's called the 300 HAM'R. 135 FTX at 2400 and 150 Speer at 2286 in 16.25"! Mine handles like a 7# dream with scope and shoots 5 shots into 1/2".

[Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

Winchester compared the .401 WSL to .30-40 Krag but it is not equal in velocity or energy.

Ruger, how about a 10mm Ranch Rifle?

[44 AMP]

There is a 30-30 in an AR

No, there isn't. What you are describing is a different cartridge that produces 30-30 class ballistics.

[stinkeypete]

Why not .30-30 semiauto?

My dad passed away last month. It was past the end of his trail, old age was cruel to him, and it's a blessing he is able to rest now.

He loved his cowboy lever guns in .44 Magnum. He usually shot .44 Special out of them. "Close enough to .44-40" is what he told me, and I wouldn't argue. My old Marlin .30-30 and his had some quiet conversation in the woods for a few deer hunting seasons.

He grew up in Northern PA (Potter County) and he wondered why .35 Remington was never more popular than it was. Me too. His uncle had passed a .300 Savage Model 99 down to him. Ammo was hard to find and the beautiful curved lever rifle just didn't cycle all that smoothly and didn't seem to fit right using iron sights. It was sold off long ago.

My Grandfather has passed along a Remington Model 30 Express in 30-06 with a steel butt plate. My dad passed it to me with several boxes of factory ammo and just three shells shot. "This thing still kicks like a mule. Your Grand-dad loved this rifle and he was a slim man and only 5'4" tall. He never complained. It's what he trained on in WWI and after the war, they were good inexpensive rifles." The Model 30 Remington started out using barrels and actions and god knows what left over parts from WWI.

Indeed, with factory loads, it kicks like a mule. It's one of my "forever" guns, I think. I have been shooting it with 180 grain lead and 12.5 g of Unique at paper. The action and trigger are smooth.

Reading "antique" reloading ammo from the '50s, I saw that you could get 1,000 rounds of military surplus 30-06 for $8.00 from the civilian rifle program. This was surplus from WII.

So- why WOULD anyone want a semi-auto in .30-30 when the .308 Winchester is out there, with a history and a NATO cartridge close enough to work in most of them?

Well, I guess people are familiar with their semi-auto rifles, maybe from the military, and want something big enough to deer hunt with but not so big as to be overkill.

By the time one is done with a new upper... heck... find you an old used Marlin .30-30 for less money.

Thanks for letting me chew the fat on this.

[langenc]

A friend has a mod 8 and I cleaned the smoke off it after a house fire.
I offered to buy it and she refused. Im now really glad cause they are HEAVY....w/ all that iron in the essentially double thickness barrel.

[4V50 Gary]

SVT-40 was rimmed.
Dragunov is rimmed.

So, it can be done but there's no demand so why develop one?

[JustJake]

Why not [a] .30-30 semi-auto?

Because that ballistic niche is already filled by the 7.62x39 and, more recently, the .300BLK.

[44 AMP]

Because that ballistic niche is already filled by the 7.62x39 and, more recently, the .300BLK.

I don't think the ballistic properties alone are the reasons. In fact, I'd put its ballistic performance at the bottom of the list. Or you may think of it as the base requirement. It's the factors beyond that which are the primary reason we don't see a semi-auto .30-30.

I think the single biggest factor is simply market demand, with #2 being the semi auto rifles available.

The .30 Remington was developed in 1906. Its a rimless case duplicating .30-30 ballistics. And was available in Remington's semi auto rifles of the era. So, .30-30 ballistic niche in a semi auto rifle, covered...right?

Yes, but so what?? They sold well enough to stay in production, but were never any serious competition for the .30-30 and the Winchester (and other) lever actions. The rifles didn't do anything enough better than the lever guns to interest the majority of the buying public, who were more concerned with the fact that they cost more, were heavier, and didn't carry as well as the lever guns available. I'd venture to say what kept the .30 Remington semi alive was the fact that (eventually) it was available in .300 Savage. When Remington brought out their new line of semis after WWII, they were available in .30 caliber rounds more powerful than the .30-30, so still no buying public interest (let alone demand) for a semi .30-30.

As to the 7.62x39, it almost reaches .30-30 performance, but wasn't a round on the US commercial market until after the fall of the Soviet Union. With everything else available, many more powerful rounds, it was a low demand round for deer hunting.

.300 Blackout? It also comes close to the .30-30's performance, and was developed specifically for AR pattern rifles, and I think it's fair to say that its popularity is tied directly to those rifles.

Its a circular thing, there has never been a semi auto deer rifle that was directly competitive with the .30-30 lever guns, and because of that there was never a significant market demand for one. And, because there was no significant market demand for one, one was never offered.

[Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I don't think the ballistic properties alone are the reasons. In fact, I'd put its ballistic performance at the bottom of the list. Or you may think of it as the base requirement. It's the factors beyond that which are the primary reason we don't see a semi-auto .30-30.

I think the single biggest factor is simply market demand, with #2 being the semi auto rifles available.

The .30 Remington was developed in 1906. Its a rimless case duplicating .30-30 ballistics. And was available in Remington's semi auto rifles of the era. So, .30-30 ballistic niche in a semi auto rifle, covered...right?

Yes, but so what?? They sold well enough to stay in production, but were never any serious competition for the .30-30 and the Winchester (and other) lever actions. The rifles didn't do anything enough better than the lever guns to interest the majority of the buying public, who were more concerned with the fact that they cost more, were heavier, and didn't carry as well as the lever guns available. I'd venture to say what kept the .30 Remington semi alive was the fact that (eventually) it was available in .300 Savage. When Remington brought out their new line of semis after WWII, they were available in .30 caliber rounds more powerful than the .30-30, so still no buying public interest (let alone demand) for a semi .30-30.

As to the 7.62x39, it almost reaches .30-30 performance, but wasn't a round on the US commercial market until after the fall of the Soviet Union. With everything else available, many more powerful rounds, it was a low demand round for deer hunting.

.300 Blackout? It also comes close to the .30-30's performance, and was developed specifically for AR pattern rifles, and I think it's fair to say that its popularity is tied directly to those rifles.

Its a circular thing, there has never been a semi auto deer rifle that was directly competitive with the .30-30 lever guns, and because of that there was never a significant market demand for one. And, because there was no significant market demand for one, one was never offered.

Well said!

[JustJake]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
I don't think the ballistic properties alone are the reasons. In fact, I'd put its ballistic performance at the bottom of the list. Or you may think of it as the base requirement. It's the factors beyond that which are the primary reason we don't see a semi-auto .30-30.

I think the single biggest factor is simply market demand, with #2 being the semi auto rifles available.

The .30 Remington was developed in 1906. Its a rimless case duplicating .30-30 ballistics. And was available in Remington's semi auto rifles of the era. So, .30-30 ballistic niche in a semi auto rifle, covered...right?

Yes, but so what?? They sold well enough to stay in production, but were never any serious competition for the .30-30 and the Winchester (and other) lever actions. The rifles didn't do anything enough better than the lever guns to interest the majority of the buying public, who were more concerned with the fact that they cost more, were heavier, and didn't carry as well as the lever guns available. I'd venture to say what kept the .30 Remington semi alive was the fact that (eventually) it was available in .300 Savage. When Remington brought out their new line of semis after WWII, they were available in .30 caliber rounds more powerful than the .30-30, so still no buying public interest (let alone demand) for a semi .30-30.

As to the 7.62x39, it almost reaches .30-30 performance, but wasn't a round on the US commercial market until after the fall of the Soviet Union. With everything else available, many more powerful rounds, it was a low demand round for deer hunting.

.300 Blackout? It also comes close to the .30-30's performance, and was developed specifically for AR pattern rifles, and I think it's fair to say that its popularity is tied directly to those rifles.

Its a circular thing, there has never been a semi auto deer rifle that was directly competitive with the .30-30 lever guns, and because of that there was never a significant market demand for one. And, because there was no significant market demand for one, one was never offered.

An overly 'windy' response that actually agrees with what I said.

Well said!

Ah, not really.