30-30 for elk?

[jbur13]

Did you keep the rifle? How'd it shoot?

The next day my Dad and I walked back to retrieve the gun and we couldn't find it! We circled and walked around for a while and gave up. Heavy timber and brush and we could have been off by a hundred yards. Makes me wonder if it could still be there.
I remember feeling very creeped out when I found it, very eerie feeling, and that's why I opted to bring my dad back.

 

[Lycanit]

Elk are too noble to be lab rats. Lots of elk were taken decades ago with a 30-30, when thats all people had available. Those days are over. Using an underpowered round these days is nothing but a stunt. Elk size game require a minimum of 1500 ft-lb of energy in a projectile delivered to a vital area. Pre 1960 most elk hunters were feeding their family. Hunting was about subsistence rather than recreation. Times have changed. Don't ask me about archery. I hear far more stories about sticking an arrow in one than actually making a kill. I killed lots of elk, but confess that I wounded some that I never found. Most of those happened when I took a shot that shouldn't have been taken. Young & dumb!

You seem overly predicated on numbers! I'm trying to compare archery to rifles is like trying to compare bicycle tires to oranges!
Your words of advice on here seem to bring hollow and sour. If you told me the sky was blue, I would n't open the door and walk outside just to confirm. Just because you're shooting skills, are that lacking does not contribute to this conversation!

 

[Straight Shooter]

Model 71. View attachment 605998

My dream timber rifle.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I wonder back in the day, if anyone with a Winchester model 92 carbine in 44-40 caliber ever killed an elk or a buffalo?

Kevin Costner shot a charging bull buffalo with an 1860 Henry and I saw it with my own eyes . . . . . .on tv.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I never have hunted Elk with a .30-30 Win, I hunted a couple of times with a friend who would push deep dense revive(s) for Elk using a Win 94 in .30 WCF in the Cascade Mountains, he had killed a couple that way over the years, and from him and others who hunted with him told me he never lost one, My friend said; his shots were always well within the .30-30 range being quite close. I also have some Canadian friends who have hunted Moose with a .30-30 Win in B.C. Canada. Now this goes back to the late 60s and 70s hunting days. With that said; one of my favorite rifles is my (1942) Win .30 WCF I've never used it for Elk but if I had to I think it would work within its range limitations. I had another hunting buddy that used a Remington Mod 8 in .30 Rem for everything, it's pretty much the ballistical twin of the .30-30 Win. Don't get me wrong I don't think a .30-30 WIn is a good choice for Elk, especially big Elk... but yes, it could and has worked.
Just my 0.2 Cheers.

Think of the number of Alaskan moose that have been killed wit a 30-30.

 

[APDDSN0864]

Think of the number of Alaskan moose that have been killed wit a 30-30.

Moose, Caribou, Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, Walrus, Seals, Sea Lions, and an unknown number of smaller species in Alaska and Canada!

Ed

 

[Lycanit]

Elk are too noble to be lab rats. Lots of elk were taken decades ago with a 30-30, when thats all people had available. Those days are over. Using an underpowered round these days is nothing but a stunt. Elk size game require a minimum of 1500 ft-lb of energy in a projectile delivered to a vital area. Pre 1960 most elk hunters were feeding their family. Hunting was about subsistence rather than recreation. Times have changed. Don't ask me about archery. I hear far more stories about sticking an arrow in one than actually making a kill. I killed lots of elk, but confess that I wounded some that I never found. Most of those happened when I took a shot that shouldn't have been taken. Young & dumb!

I am not trying in all honesty to be a jerk. I'm really not! But I am saying that solid placement with anything reasonable is going to be effective. And comparing rifles to arrows is at Best. A fool's game. Having killed wild boar with knives. I can tell you they all died so much faster from a knife than a rifle or a handgun. I do wish you absolutely the best in your hunt! Disagreement does not meme inhospitably. There are lots of ideas from any side to support good ideas. So I sincerely and completely wish you the best in your hunting efforts!

 

[Calvin45]

I am not trying in all honesty to be a jerk. I'm really not! But I am saying that solid placement with anything reasonable is going to be effective. And comparing rifles to arrows is at Best. A fool's game. Having killed wild boar with knives. I can tell you they all died so much faster from a knife than a rifle or a handgun. I do wish you absolutely the best in your hunt! Disagreement does not meme inhospitably. There are lots of ideas from any side to support good ideas. So I sincerely and completely wish you the best in your hunting efforts!

And I'd add that for every animal supposedly wounded and not recovered because of an "underpowered" cartridge there's another one that's been lost to an idiot thinking that his powerful magnum somehow makes him a good shot at distance or atones for bad shot placement.

Now I agree with the poster you've replied to up to a point (though foot pounds of energy never killed anything, that 1500 number is pulled out of a hat and nothing more, as much as it is a sensible approach) - these days we're not using a .30-30 (or a .22 for that matter, had a great great uncle died before
I was born that killed all manner of big game animals with a .22 rimfire and a .22 hornet during the 30s and 40s when times were very tough and kids gotta eat) because it's all we have and we'll starve if we don't kill. So I do agree that if we can use a more reliably ethical fast killing cartridge why wouldn't we? Many guides and outfitters suggest the 270 as a sensible starting point for serious elk and moose guns, this is based on experience and observation, and seems wise.

But that being said, the false confidence and unethical shots taken by folks with big magnums they bought just for a specific hunt that they can't shoot well, are intimidated by, or plainly do not understand ballistics about (for example the number of people over the years that have suggested a .30-30 is on the light side but then go on and talk about shooting big game with a .300 rum at 700+ yards….DO THE MATH!!!!! ) is no less a problem.

There really still are people that believe that if it's got enough energy, or if it's going at a magical velocity, or if it retains all its weight, or if it retains none of its weight and does an energy dump, or if it generates "hydraulic/hydrostatic/hydononsense" shock, etc…. It will somehow magically kill quickly even with poor shot placement. A shooter with a .30-30 that knows the rifle, the cartridge, and their own ability is way less likely to wound a majestic creature senselessly than a shooter that bought a rifle with more recoil than they're used to and imagines it's a death ray because of the size of the cartridge haha.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

And I'd add that for every animal supposedly wounded and not recovered because of an "underpowered" cartridge there's another one that's been lost to an idiot thinking that his powerful magnum somehow makes him a good shot at distance or atones for bad shot placement.

Now I agree with the poster you've replied to up to a point (though foot pounds of energy never killed anything, that 1500 number is pulled out of a hat and nothing more, as much as it is a sensible approach) - these days we're not using a .30-30 (or a .22 for that matter, had a great great uncle died before
I was born that killed all manner of big game animals with a .22 rimfire and a .22 hornet during the 30s and 40s when times were very tough and kids gotta eat) because it's all we have and we'll starve if we don't kill. So I do agree that if we can use a more reliably ethical fast killing cartridge why wouldn't we? Many guides and outfitters suggest the 270 as a sensible starting point for serious elk and moose guns, this is based on experience and observation, and seems wise.

But that being said, the false confidence and unethical shots taken by folks with big magnums they bought just for a specific hunt that they can't shoot well, are intimidated by, or plainly do not understand ballistics about (for example the number of people over the years that have suggested a .30-30 is on the light side but then go on and talk about shooting big game with a .300 rum at 700+ yards….DO THE MATH!!!!! ) is no less a problem.

There really still are people that believe that if it's got enough energy, or if it's going at a magical velocity, or if it retains all its weight, or if it retains none of its weight and does an energy dump, or if it generates "hydraulic/hydrostatic/hydononsense" shock, etc…. It will somehow magically kill quickly even with poor shot placement. A shooter with a .30-30 that knows the rifle, the cartridge, and their own ability is way less likely to wound a majestic creature senselessly than a shooter that bought a rifle with more recoil than they're used to and imagines it's a death ray because of the size of the cartridge haha.

You are right on!

I have to add. When I carried my 30-30 in Africa it was so much fun. Someday I can see myself hunting only with Lever guns. Long range hunting will then be 200y!

 

[AussieWriter]

There was a guy on the hunting channel a few short years back, who set a mission to hunt all the bigger animals in the US using only a .30/30.

He concluded the series with Alaskan moose and brown bear. Big ones of course and the only hint of non traditional ammo was with the brown bear at the end, where he stated using premium ammo from someone like (buffalo bore).

The point being, the velocity of the .30/30 cartridge, was still the factory level velocities we have all used for the last 129 years.

 

[Calvin45]

There was a guy on the hunting channel a few short years back, who set a mission to hunt all the bigger animals in the US using only a .30/30.

He concluded the series with Alaskan moose and brown bear. Big ones of course and the only hint of non traditional ammo was with the brown bear at the end, where he stated using premium ammo from someone like (buffalo bore).

The point being, the velocity of the .30/30 cartridge, was still the factory level velocities we have all used for the last 129 years.

Awesome. My dad has a marlin 336 from the 70s, my father in law has a Winchester 94 from the 50s in immaculate shape. Lord willing they're with us a long time yet but in the future it's a nice thought at any of my 3 sons might take a deer with those rifles. They're all quite young yet but all want to go hunting soon

 

[HARPERC]

You are right on!

I have to add. When I carried my 30-30 in Africa it was so much fun. Someday I can see myself hunting only with Lever guns. Long range hunting will then be 200y!

I would like to revisit some less than ideal experiences with a .30-30, using the Lever Hammers. It would likely improve my opinion of the .30-30.

 

[wilkup]

I would like to revisit some less than ideal experiences with a .30-30, using the Lever Hammers. It would likely improve my opinion of the .30-30.

After running basic 30-30 ballistics off Berger's page and recalling Steve took his to Africa w/ the 143 Lever Hammers, I actually feel pretty confident carrying this rifle in the given situation for elk next month. It's also nice to have such an easy recoiling rifle for fast follow up shots to anchor the animal. Gonna be a fun hunt!

 

[RockyMtnMT]

After running basic 30-30 ballistics off Berger's page and recalling Steve took his to Africa w/ the 143 Lever Hammers, I actually feel pretty confident carrying this rifle in the given situation for elk next month. It's also nice to have such an easy recoiling rifle for fast follow up shots to anchor the animal. Gonna be a fun hunt!

The original assault rifle!!!