Wow!! a .30 cal 170 grain bullet at 2000 fps!!

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:20 am

This was Guns 'n' Ammo TV's reaction to a Federal reduced recoil load for the .308 win. They were going on and on about how great the low recoil was.

Do those ballistics sound familiar to anyone else?

You just have to love marketing machines.

Jaguarundi · Post by **Jaguarundi** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:41 am

Jeez

makes you wonder what they think about the ol' 30-30?

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:54 am

About spit my sodypop all over the living room when Boddington , said yeah that loads good for deer out to 200 yds......

Heck last time I noted anything in Guns and Ammo the 30-30 wasn't hardly good for nothing past 100 yds.....

Slick13 · Post by **Slick13** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:04 pm

Jason_W wrote:This was Guns 'n' Ammo TV's reaction to a Federal reduced recoil load for the .308 win. They were going on and on about how great the low recoil was.

Do those ballistics sound familiar to anyone else?

You just have to love marketing machines.

You're forgetting, the .30-30 is chambered mostly in light weight lever guns, and the .308 in bolt guns that are usually a pound or more heavier. The reduced recoil .308 is going to be much more comfortable for a new or young shooter to use. As they gain experience or grow older, they can move up to hotter loads if they feel the need to.

With 170 grain factory ammo, my .30-30 Model 94 isn't too far behind my .30-06 1903A3 Springfield in recoil. And with the 20" barrel, is probably just as loud. For these reasons, I consider the .30-30 a poor choice for new or young shooters. No need to give your 12 or 13 year old child, or your wife, a flinch. Perfect levergun caliber for them is the .25-35, and I'm suprised Marlin isn't making some 336s in that caliber.

It is funny though that the .30-30 is run down regularly by gun magazines, but this new load is probably just fine for deer in their opinion.

~Michael

Bigahh · Post by **Bigahh** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:13 pm

I am a 1/2 step ahead of those guys. I invented my own reduced recoil load for my .308. A 170 grain Hornady FP going 2300fps. My longest shot where I hunt is maybe 100 yards. Federal should send 50 cents per box check every month as a finders fee.

horsesoldier03 · Post by **horsesoldier03** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:14 pm

I have an 11 yr old daughter that expresses intrest in hunting and guns as well. We will frequently go shooting together and up until now she has been restricted to .22s and her .410. However, the last time we went shooting, she tried both the 30-30 and my .308. She loved both of them and chose the .308 primarily I think because it had a scope. Naturally I was hesitant, however, her 5 shot group that she kept in a 3" circle proved to me that with my supervision she was ready to step up. She shot 20 rounds that day, although she did complain a little about her arm being sore the following day. I will definately be looking for that reduced load for her. However, I suspect it will be the same as the 30-30s recoil that she already handles.

Bigahh · Post by **Bigahh** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:22 pm

Horsesoldier03,

I use 37.5 grains of Varget with the 170 gr Hornady FP for my 308. It is a low middle of the road load for a 165 grain bullet in the Hornady book, and it's accurate.

deerwhacker444 · Post by **deerwhacker444** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:56 pm

I saw that episode this week, I was laughing at the TV. For those of you who didn't see it, it was funny because the Federal "rep" was stating that this 170 gr. bullet was specifically designed to perform in reduced .308 Win. loads.

IT WAS A FLATNOSE 170 gr. 30-30 BULLET THAT THEY LOADED INTO A 308 CASE...! He was trying to get the viewer to think that this was something special that they've come up with. What a farce. Boddington should be ashamed of himself.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:01 pm

If they got excited about that, they'ed have a stroke looking at Weatherby ballistic data.

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:02 pm

deerwhacker444 wrote:

I saw that episode this week, I was laughing at the TV. For those of you who didn't see it, it was funny because the Federal "rep" was stating that this 170 gr. bullet was specifically designed to perform in reduced .308 Win. loads.

IT WAS A FLATNOSE 170 gr. 30-30 BULLET THAT THEY LOADED INTO A 308 CASE...! He was trying to get the viewer to think that this was something special that they've come up with. What a farce. Boddington should be ashamed of himself.

Everyone has to pay bills and put food on the table.

Still, I found it amusing.

DerekR · Post by **DerekR** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:23 pm

That 170 grain bullet Federal uses looks suspiciously like a Speer 170 Grain FP that I use in my 30/30.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:44 pm

Waitamminit...

.30/170 at 2000?

And my .357/180 at 1800 is no good for deer?

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:46 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:Waitamminit...

.30/170 at 2000?

And my .357/180 at 1800 is no good for deer?

YUp

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:55 pm

Just goes to show ya that waaaayyy back then folks knew how to "get 'er done"
and didn't "overdo" stuff either. If it did the job then we will use it and love it.

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:58 pm

Jeeps wrote:Just goes to show ya that waaaayyy back then folks knew how to "get 'er done"
and didn't "overdo" stuff either. If it did the job then we will use it and love it.

That's what I like about a lot of these more vintage rounds. They're very frugal in that they don't burn all that much powder.

It would be interesting to see how much powder the new federal loading burns compared to a 30/30 at the same velocity.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:53 pm

But but but, what happened to "more is better"?

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:14 pm

When these reduced power loads came out I laughed. Not because I thought they were funny, but because I thought the marketing gimmick was aimed at wimps and pansies.

My wife is 5'5" and her go to rifle is a Win 94 carbine loaded with full pressure ammo. The recoil of the light carbine never bothers her.

My 10 year old step son ( now over 30) was insulted when I told him he should let me make him some lighter loads for the 30-30 and 303 British. He would have none of it. He too shot full power loads from these guns.

These low recoil rounds are a solution searching for a problem.

Joe

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:59 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:Waitamminit...

.30/170 at 2000?

And my .357/180 at 1800 is no good for deer?

OI, everybody knows such a load would just bounce off a deer!

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:03 pm

I saw the message header and asked myself what all of the fuss
was about. "That sounds like a 30-30 load...."

Too funny!

-Stretch

oldgerboy · Post by **oldgerboy** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:37 pm

I made up loads like that for a buddy who got tired of his .30-06 Rem Pump beating him up 30 years ago.

I guess it could have taken them 40 years to catch up.

LeverBob · Post by **LeverBob** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:47 pm

I could get real sarcastic 'bout now...

LeverBob

gundownunder · Post by **gundownunder** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:47 pm

leverbob I dont have your sensibilities.

old iron sights, you should be aware that you are discussing pistol ammo and they are discussing rifle ammo. There is no comparison and you should stick to squirrels and other rodents and stop harrassing game animals with a gun that has no place in the hunting fields.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:03 pm

gundownunder wrote:leverbob I dont have your sensibilities.

old iron sights, you should be aware that you are discussing pistol ammo and they are discussing rifle ammo. There is no comparison and you should stick to squirrels and other rodents and stop harrassing game animals with a gun that has no place in the hunting fields.

OK, now you did it. That should start something. I think I'll sit back and watch.

J

e

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:12 pm

Hey. I just came up with a great low-recoil idea for the 35 Whelen.

A 200 gr. .358 bullet traveling at 2100 fps!

Oh...that's right. That would only be a 35 Rem. Oh well. Back to the drawing board... "How can I make a 35 Whelen hurt less without calling it a 35 Rem?"

bogie

clubkey · Post by **clubkey** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:21 pm

Who wants popcorn?

jlchucker · Post by **jlchucker** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:30 am

Doesn't everybody know that before they invented short-mag calibers, those weak 30-30, 35 Remington, or 45-70 bullets just harmlessly bounced off deer? Makes you wonder how anybody managed to get any kind of wild game back in the day! So says my gunsmith every time somebody brings him a short-mag rifle to fix.

And what about gunwriters who say that the 357 and 44 mag rifles are not powerful enough for whitetails, but then turn right around and write articles advocating carrying 44 mag revolvers into "bear country" for "self-defense"?

I have pretty much stopped reading gun magazines. Many of the posts such as found on this website and a few others make far more sense.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:43 am

Now boys, you know that once you have shortened, fattened, lightened, lengthened, increased, decreased, enlarged, sped up, slowed down, shrunk, spindled, folded and mulitiated every cartridge you can, the business is just gonna dry up.

Please let them have their fun.

While I won't be around to see it, I bet 100 years from now the old .30-30 will still be selling, as will be the '06, 35 Rem, 45-70 and a host of other dead and useless cartridges. And they will still work.

Bigahh · Post by **Bigahh** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:07 pm

JimT wrote:
While I won't be around to see it, I bet 100 years from now the old .30-30 will still be selling, as will be the '06, 35 Rem, 45-70 and a host of other dead and useless cartridges. And they will still work.

And work quite WELL I am sure!

gundownunder · Post by **gundownunder** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:23 pm

I bet 100 years from now the old .30-30 will still be selling,

I hate to burst that bubble but I'm afraid that in 100 years kids will walk around saying " My grandpa told me that in the old days his grandpa used to be able to own guns"

If i'm wrong I bet you will be right.

LeverBob · Post by **LeverBob** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:07 pm

clubkey wrote:Who wants popcorn?

ME, ME, ME

WITH APPLE SLICES ON TOP

LeverBob

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:32 am

Slick13 wrote:
Jason_W wrote:This was Guns 'n' Ammo TV's reaction to a Federal reduced recoil load for the .308 win. They were going on and on about how great the low recoil was.

Do those ballistics sound familiar to anyone else?

You just have to love marketing machines.
You're forgetting, the .30-30 is chambered mostly in light weight lever guns, and the .308 in bolt guns that are usually a pound or more heavier. The reduced recoil .308 is going to be much more comfortable for a new or young shooter to use. As they gain experience or grow older, they can move up to hotter loads if they feel the need to.

With 170 grain factory ammo, my .30-30 Model 94 isn't too far behind my .30-06 1903A3 Springfield in recoil. And with the 20" barrel, is probably just as loud. For these reasons, I consider the .30-30 a poor choice for new or young shooters. No need to give your 12 or 13 year old child, or your wife, a flinch. Perfect levergun caliber for them is the .25-35, and I'm suprised Marlin isn't making some 336s in that caliber.

It is funny though that the .30-30 is run down regularly by gun magazines, but this new load is probably just fine for deer in their opinion.

~Michael

Well I disagree with that theory, sorry. The 336 marlin weighs 7lbs, according to the web site, and the Savage wood stocked bolt 30-06 weighs......7 lbs. The synthetic stocked one weighs 6.5 lbs. The Rem 700 weighs in at 7.5 lbs average, and I don't think 8 oz will make that much difference to felt recoil.

Add a scope to the marlin and we're at about 8lbs, more when it's loaded.

Besides, you can easily load the 150gr in 30-30 to reduced velocities and have even less recoil and just as much range.

Reduced recoil stuff is a good idea, IF you already have a bolt gun in those calibers.

pbslinger · Post by **pbslinger** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:55 am

I'm gonna hold out for the field data to come in to see if a 30 cal 170 @ 2000 fps is effective on deer sized game.

t.r. · Post by **t.r.** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:39 am

Any effective low recoil hunting ammo makes sense to me. Remington's Managed Recoil load for .308 & 30-06 features a pointed 125 grain bullet.

TR

oldgerboy · Post by **oldgerboy** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:11 pm

Hey t.r., that sounds like the 125 Sierra I was loading in my bolt action .30-30 almost 40 years ago. Darn good deer cartridge and bullet.

Pete Moss · Post by **Pete Moss** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:29 pm

It's all very good. I hunt with a .375 H&H mag Brno, kicks a bit but I don't have to trail the deer after the shot. Most folks IMHO who fear recoil need to practice a bit more and learn to enjoy their rifles. My Marlin 94 in 357 mag has shown me a more fun side of shooting and I may hunt with a 444 this season. There is such a large "Cool factor" to these beasts that I can't explain.

Wow!! a .30 cal 170 grain bullet at 2000 fps!!

Wow!! a .30 cal 170 grain bullet at 2000 fps!!

Re: Wow!! a .30 cal 170 grain bullet at 2000 fps!!

Re: Wow!! a .30 cal 170 grain bullet at 2000 fps!!