30/30 Vs. .270
12-06-2011, 08:12 PM
#21
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Brush gun= FICTION! The only advantage of the "so called, brush gun" lies in the gun itself, not the caliber! That advantage would be a short, lever gun in tight cover. This "advantage" which is ever so slight is negated by the limits of most lever-gun calibers, usually, "the tried-n-true thuthy-thuthy!" While I am not a big fan of the .270 (just personal preference) there are literally dozens of calibers that put the 30-30 to SHAME! ANY one of these calibers will at least equal the 30-30 at tight range and far out shine the 30-30 if the shot becomes longer.
12-07-2011, 05:28 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,525
The bigger the round, the bigger the deflection was what happened. Which means the lighter the round, and faster as well, the less the round deflected.
Incorrect. Theround with less mass was traveling at a speed sufficient enough to create more momentum than the heavier slower round. Mass alone (not weight) does not determine momentum, its a combination of mass and velocity. Thats why a lighter but faster round can have more momentum. However, if velocity is equal, then the heavier round has more momentum.
Which actually sort of proved that the whole "brush gun" theory was backwards at best, but wrong in all reality.
"Brush Gun" doesnt only refer to shooting through brush, and in my opinion that is the least appropriate way to classify a brush gun over an open area gun. More than anything, it refers to maneauverability in brush. There is no argument when discussing the maneuverability of a short rifle in tight brush as opposed to a long barreld rifle.
The 30-30 is more of nostalgic hunting round today than the wildly popular hunting round it was in my Grandfather's hunting days. It was still quite popular in my Father's early hunting years as well.[/quote]
There is a purpose for every gun, you just havent found one for the 30/30 yet
Incorrect. Theround with less mass was traveling at a speed sufficient enough to create more momentum than the heavier slower round. Mass alone (not weight) does not determine momentum, its a combination of mass and velocity. Thats why a lighter but faster round can have more momentum. However, if velocity is equal, then the heavier round has more momentum.
Which actually sort of proved that the whole "brush gun" theory was backwards at best, but wrong in all reality.
"Brush Gun" doesnt only refer to shooting through brush, and in my opinion that is the least appropriate way to classify a brush gun over an open area gun. More than anything, it refers to maneauverability in brush. There is no argument when discussing the maneuverability of a short rifle in tight brush as opposed to a long barreld rifle.
The 30-30 is more of nostalgic hunting round today than the wildly popular hunting round it was in my Grandfather's hunting days. It was still quite popular in my Father's early hunting years as well.[/quote]
There is a purpose for every gun, you just havent found one for the 30/30 yet
12-07-2011, 05:43 AM
#23
Typical Buck
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 526
It is laughable when people start tossing around the laws of physics on forums pertaining to bullet performance. They always leave out a very important factor. Bullet configuration/construction. Always add all variables.
12-07-2011, 05:54 AM
#24
Fork Horn
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 360
Lots of info and flubber being thrown around this post. To the OP, the 30/30 and 270 have two different missions. The 30/30, has plenty of power to kill most things in north america, as long as the shooter does his part. That is a fact. Its a slower velocity round, and has proven reliable against game at distances up to 100yards easily. The 270, is a much higher velocity round, and shoots much flatter. Hits somewhat harder as well. It has the ability to kill most north american game as well, at longer distances, 200-400 yards, depending on the critter. Here is the twist, the 30/30 will destroy less meat at close range then a 270 will, and cheap bullets to cheap bullets, I would put the 30/30 more reliable on a 50 yard shot. Now at 200 yards, the 270 is going to be more effective, and since its bullet will have slowed down somewhat, it will destroy less meat then it would at close range. Bullet selection isnt as critical as it is at short ranges, with high velocity rounds. When you get up near the 3,000fps mark, cheap bullets tend to fragment upon impact. So, if you want a short range gun, the 30/30, or a 45/70 rules the roost. If you want more reach, and dont expect close up shots, the 270 is a good gun. If you want a compromise, a 308 is probably about the best, as it has the range of a 270, albeit a little more bullet drop(whoopie), and still wont blast a chunk of meat out.
12-07-2011, 05:54 AM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,525
[quote=Nomercy448;3886199]Since we live on earth, and aren't comparing how much a bullet weighs on earth to what it weighs on the moon, we see that W = M * 1
Incorrect, the gravitational constant is never considered "1", no matter what system you prefer to work in because gravity, being an acceleration is never equal to "1" otherwise we would all float. Therefore, mass and weight should never be used interchangebly. I understand the point you are trying to make though and it is a fair way to approach the discussion but despite what is commonly believed and taught in highschool, gravity is not constant along the surface of the earth, it changes with elevation and coordinates, but the differences are minimal and only slightly affect trajectory along the y-axis. Even still, because of the parabolic change in cartesian cordinates, a change in velocity occurs as well since velocity, being a vector, is comprised of magnitude and direction. Because of this weight should not be used, but mass. All things being equal, and considering you are hunting in the same areas that you are testing, then yes, mass and weight can be used interchangeably sometimes, but not always.
Technically, when I use my analytical balance to "weigh" my bullets, I am actually MASSING them, not "weighing", since a balance measures the object against a reference mass...
You are actually measuring force, but since the acceleration vectors for both are equal and opposite, the acceleration vectors cancel and leave you with simply mass.
But again, no, heavier is NOT better for "busting brush" as has been proven over and over again in the last decade. Higher momentum is better, and having a smaller diameter to reduce the likelihood of impact... Not "heavier"...
Incorrect, "heavier" is better with all things being equal. Smaller profiles assist with penetration, but mass (or weight if you want to look at it that way) and velocity is what creates momentum and energy, and energy transfer is what does the damage.
Incorrect, the gravitational constant is never considered "1", no matter what system you prefer to work in because gravity, being an acceleration is never equal to "1" otherwise we would all float. Therefore, mass and weight should never be used interchangebly. I understand the point you are trying to make though and it is a fair way to approach the discussion but despite what is commonly believed and taught in highschool, gravity is not constant along the surface of the earth, it changes with elevation and coordinates, but the differences are minimal and only slightly affect trajectory along the y-axis. Even still, because of the parabolic change in cartesian cordinates, a change in velocity occurs as well since velocity, being a vector, is comprised of magnitude and direction. Because of this weight should not be used, but mass. All things being equal, and considering you are hunting in the same areas that you are testing, then yes, mass and weight can be used interchangeably sometimes, but not always.
Technically, when I use my analytical balance to "weigh" my bullets, I am actually MASSING them, not "weighing", since a balance measures the object against a reference mass...
You are actually measuring force, but since the acceleration vectors for both are equal and opposite, the acceleration vectors cancel and leave you with simply mass.
But again, no, heavier is NOT better for "busting brush" as has been proven over and over again in the last decade. Higher momentum is better, and having a smaller diameter to reduce the likelihood of impact... Not "heavier"...
Incorrect, "heavier" is better with all things being equal. Smaller profiles assist with penetration, but mass (or weight if you want to look at it that way) and velocity is what creates momentum and energy, and energy transfer is what does the damage.
12-07-2011, 05:58 AM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,525
[quote=JagMagMan;3886214]Brush gun= FICTION! The only advantage of the "so called, brush gun" lies in the gun itself, not the caliber! That advantage would be a short, lever gun in tight cover.
YESSIR!
This "advantage" which is ever so slight is negated by the limits of most lever-gun calibers, usually, "the tried-n-true thuthy-thuthy!" While I am not a big fan of the .270 (just personal preference) there are literally dozens of calibers that put the 30-30 to SHAME!
Agreed, at distance alteast.
ANY one of these calibers will at least equal the 30-30 at tight range and far out shine the 30-30 if the shot becomes longer
YESSIR!
This "advantage" which is ever so slight is negated by the limits of most lever-gun calibers, usually, "the tried-n-true thuthy-thuthy!" While I am not a big fan of the .270 (just personal preference) there are literally dozens of calibers that put the 30-30 to SHAME!
Agreed, at distance alteast.
ANY one of these calibers will at least equal the 30-30 at tight range and far out shine the 30-30 if the shot becomes longer
12-07-2011, 06:03 AM
#28
My own personal opinion (yes, I've owned an old Marlin .30-30 years ago)....
.30-30 --- Tried and true, historical, close range, rifle. Everyone has shot a .30-30 over the years and/or owned one or knew someone who owned one. Perfect rifle for close range, thick woods. Guys still carry the ancient .30-30 in the heavy woods of the George Washington Nat'l Forest here in Virginia. In a nutshell: The ol' .30-30 will never die.
.270 --- Way better cartridge than the .30-30 and has a way longer range. The .270 is for more open areas, high ridge tops overlooking a cut cornfield or something. If you want to reach out and drop a deer at 200 yards, the .270 will do just fine. The .30-30 will do it, but, you'd really have to compensate for the huge bullet drop. In a nutshell: The .270 in fact, blows the .30-30 away, as do most bolt action rifles. But then again, I don't think the .270 (or any scoped bolt action rifle) can come up to the shoulder so easily and so quickly, as an open sighted .30-30 rifle.
.30-30 --- Tried and true, historical, close range, rifle. Everyone has shot a .30-30 over the years and/or owned one or knew someone who owned one. Perfect rifle for close range, thick woods. Guys still carry the ancient .30-30 in the heavy woods of the George Washington Nat'l Forest here in Virginia. In a nutshell: The ol' .30-30 will never die.
.270 --- Way better cartridge than the .30-30 and has a way longer range. The .270 is for more open areas, high ridge tops overlooking a cut cornfield or something. If you want to reach out and drop a deer at 200 yards, the .270 will do just fine. The .30-30 will do it, but, you'd really have to compensate for the huge bullet drop. In a nutshell: The .270 in fact, blows the .30-30 away, as do most bolt action rifles. But then again, I don't think the .270 (or any scoped bolt action rifle) can come up to the shoulder so easily and so quickly, as an open sighted .30-30 rifle.
12-07-2011, 07:27 AM
#29
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 33
I appriciate everyone's input, and have thought about it. Personally, I am writing the 30/30 off, just because I relized most of the thick brush I hunt it, my shots are usually 50 yards or less. That's what my old 12 is for! I am now debating between the .270 and the .308. So, when looking at ballistics, cartridge prices, etc, what is the better rifle?
12-07-2011, 07:32 AM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Titusville Florida
Posts: 1,727
DavidD, The truth of the matter is, get the one you like best. Neither round is capable of hitting brush and continuing on a straight, unaltered path. The arguement for snaking your bullet through a hole in some branches is a valid one, but most shots of this type will be under 100 yards. Either rifle on average will have a scope that's 1 1/2" above the bore and is sighted in to shoot 3" high at 100 yards.
Jeff Ovington made the following statement and I agree with it. "Told that that no other caliber is responsible for more big game animals than the 30-30.. The 30-30 is also responsible for crippling more big game animals than any other caliber out there as well." I began deer hunting in N.E. Pennsylvania back in the 70's. I was a young teenager and the only one with a bolt action 30-06. I used to take such ribbing from the "men" in camp who tell me how useless my Rem700 was because bolt actions were too slow for deer hunting. With the exception of one guy who used a WW2 surplus 7.7 ***, everyone, and I do meen evryone, used either a Win94 or Marlin 336 in 30-30 or 35 rem. The day before the season started we would all check our rifles. The guys who used open sights had a rusty pail hanging from a tree branch, they'd stand and shoot from about 25 yards away then go look for holes that weren't rusty. The guy's who used a scope all had those god awful see-thru rings that made you lift your cheek off the stock to see through the scope. Needless to say I've seen the 30-30 wound plenty of deer, but not once was it due to the cartridge. The 30-30's bad reputation is the result of generations of deer hunters who pushed the limitations of the rifle, the sights used and the personal capabilities of the hunter.
Jeff Ovington made the following statement and I agree with it. "Told that that no other caliber is responsible for more big game animals than the 30-30.. The 30-30 is also responsible for crippling more big game animals than any other caliber out there as well." I began deer hunting in N.E. Pennsylvania back in the 70's. I was a young teenager and the only one with a bolt action 30-06. I used to take such ribbing from the "men" in camp who tell me how useless my Rem700 was because bolt actions were too slow for deer hunting. With the exception of one guy who used a WW2 surplus 7.7 ***, everyone, and I do meen evryone, used either a Win94 or Marlin 336 in 30-30 or 35 rem. The day before the season started we would all check our rifles. The guys who used open sights had a rusty pail hanging from a tree branch, they'd stand and shoot from about 25 yards away then go look for holes that weren't rusty. The guy's who used a scope all had those god awful see-thru rings that made you lift your cheek off the stock to see through the scope. Needless to say I've seen the 30-30 wound plenty of deer, but not once was it due to the cartridge. The 30-30's bad reputation is the result of generations of deer hunters who pushed the limitations of the rifle, the sights used and the personal capabilities of the hunter.