Mic McPherson

Synopsis: Though oft' berated, and even derided by modern elitists, for hunting smaller species of big game where conditions limit shooting range, the 30-30 Winchester cartridge and lever-action rifle system classes among the all-time great combinations. What has led to this success; do opportunities for improvements exist; and what kind of performance can we expect from modern 30-30 loads and rifles?

Products that endure for many generations are exceedingly rare. Those that achieve such a lofty goal deserve our respect – consider the following account.

Shortly after the turn of the century, prospectors plying the sands of the desert thirty miles east of Phoenix, Arizona discovered gold under the shadow of Superstition Mountain's North Peak. There, in the following months, the tent city of Goldfield, Arizona (Territory) sprang from the desert. Soon, as many as five thousand prospectors, miners, merchants and their family members established residence in tents located in the desert near those nascent mines. As far as historians can tell, every one of those bought their tent of tests (perhaps 3000) from the, then newly established, Phoenix Tent Company, Phoenix, Arizona.

More recently, Goldfield has reemerged from its ashes (reminiscent of the legendary Phoenix!). Each day (excepting the summer months) thousands of tourists visit the reconstructed commercial center of the original town. In guided underground tours, many of those people learn how early gold miners lived, worked and prized riches from Mother Earth. It is an interesting point that many of these tourists arrive at Goldfield bedecked in gold and silver adornments, precious metals which miners might very well have drilled, blasted, shoveled, scraped and pried from the earth under their very feet, almost a century before!

Located on Main Street in this new town of Goldfield we find McKenzie's Gold Emporium, a tent-structure establishment – just as many of Goldfield's original businesses were. Perhaps amazingly, McKenzie's Gold Emporium is housed in a new Phoenix Tent Company structure, purchased and erected in 1993! Thus, the circle is complete.

Just as the Phoenix Tent Company has persisted, so has the "30-30 Winchester." Obviously, each serves an enduring purpose. However, we are not concerned with tents here, our question is: "Why has the classic lever-action, 30-30 rifle been so ever popular?"

Two similar cartridge developments, Savage's 303 – introduced contemporaneously with the 30-30 in 1895, and Remington's rimless 30 (originally called the 30-30 Remington) – which was invented a decade later, were still with us as this was written but have both since entered the custom-load-only status. However, one can hardly refer to these two chamberings as "booming successes." In fact, it surprises this writer that either of those held on so long in the face of "modern" magnums and "the bottom line." A subtle warning, if you own or are lined-up to inherit a rifle chambered for either of those cartridges, you might want to stock up on ammunition, if it is not already too late – even empty cases are no longer generally available.

Conversely, we can safely assume that as long as we are able to maintain our hunting heritage and rights, the 30-30 WCF (Winchester Center Fire) will be a ubiquitous member of a short list of commonly available non-militarily derived chamberings – other North American civilian chamberings that are similarly likely to endure include the 270 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum, 357 Magnum (actually derived from an earlier military development), 35 Remington (maybe) and 44 Magnum – a rather short list, indeed!

To get some idea of what the ubiquitous 30-30 Winchester-chambered lever-action rifle does right, let us consider the aforementioned similar chamberings and the rifles for which Savage and Remington originally offered those numbers. First, we will consider the 303 Savage.

In 1895, Mr. Arthur Savage, who also invented the radial tire and the horizontal blade lawn mower (among other things!), introduced a revolutionary rifle and cartridge to an unsuspecting and largely unappreciative sporting audience. In that era of blackpowder hunting cartridges, his 303 Savage was revolutionary in the fullest sense of that term. Savage chambered their 303 in the Model-1895, predecessor to Savage's Model-1899 lever-action rifle (which was later renamed and which became famous as the Model-99). That company's founder developed both rifle and cartridge with military sales in mind. Earlier in the 1890s, Mr. Savage had presented his rifle and cartridge system for consideration in U.S. Army trials.

At that time, U.S. Army Brass were (belatedly) looking for a cartridge and gun to replace the venerable 45-70 Government, Trapdoor Springfield. That rifle was a blackpowder, single-shot relict adapted and converted from even older muzzle loading arms.

Mr. Savage's offering was a handy, fast operating rifle. The 303 Savage chambering (original loading, a 190-grain bullet at 2000 fps!) was revolutionary by contemporary U.S. military standards. Nevertheless, ballistics of British and European military chamberings so overshadowed Mr. Savage's 303 that the latter never had a chance in competition against the 30-40 Krag, which could launch a significantly heavier bullet considerably faster (220 grains at 2200 fps) and the Krag rifle was more typical of what was becoming the standard contemporary military design – the turn-bolt. Those same Brass, who rejected the Savage rifle, soon realized that the Krag lacked several worthwhile features and despite the Krag having the smoothest operating bolt-action ever made, it was soon replaced with a thoroughly modern rifle.

Nevertheless, Savage's 303 chambering offered considerable big game hunting performance. Sagely, Savage Arms remodeled their basic rifle and offered it to the sporting public – as originally produced by Marlin Firearms. My personal, biased, opinion is that the Savage lever-action rifle chambered in 303 failed to achieve a considerable measure of success due more to poor marketing strategy than to anything else! Quite simply, anything the 30-30 Winchester could (or can now) do, the 303 Savage could (and can now) do far better. Further, Savage's lever-action rifle has numerous design advantages, compared to Winchester's Model-94. Finally, Mr. Savage's development is considerably handier in the hunting field, especially for the mounted hunter using a saddle scabbard.

This latter point explains why Savage Firearms has, for so long, been associated with the War-Chief headdress logo. Leaders of the Cheyenne nation were so taken with the Savage rifle – they considered it the ideal hunting rifle for a horseman – that they asked Mr. Savage for a consideration on a large purchase. Arthur Savage, recognizing a marketing advantage, offered a better deal. The Cheyenne (and later the Apache and Navajo) received free rifles in trade for use of the patented Savage symbol and their participation in trade shows as representatives of the Savage firm – this might have been the single truly successful marketing ploy attempted by Savage during its first one-half century of operation!

In closing this discussion on the 303 Savage, I believe it is fair to say that this cartridge and rifle failed more as a result of poor marketing than for any intrinsic comparative disadvantage to the 30-30 Winchester and its standard rifle, the Model 1894 Winchester. Had Savage offered loads with modern 150-grain spitzer bullets at more than 2300 fps, which were feasible circa the late 1890s, the 303 would have so far eclipsed any feasible 30-30 loading as to make it a whole different animal! Any loading with a spitzer bullet would have made hunting range ballistics so far superior to the 30-30 that everyone would soon have heard of the 303s advantages. Alas, Savage never figured this out and instead of loading the 303 to advantage, they simply offered the rifle chambered in 30-30.

Now let us consider Remington's rimless cartridge series (25, 30, 32 and 35 calibers). This family originated with the 30 Remington in 1906. Each chambering (excepting the 35 Remington) entirely duplicated ballistics of a same-caliber Winchester offering in an otherwise indistinguishable rimless version.

Why did Remington invent this new line of cartridges, you may ask. The answer is simple: Leaders at Remington were painfully aware of Winchester's success with the 38-55 Winchester Center Fire (WCF) based series of cartridges chambered in various versions of the handy John M. Browning designed, Model-1894 rifle. Understandably, Remington wanted a piece of the pie! Who could blame them? Browning's lever-action designs (1886, 1892, 1894 and 1895) had helped Winchester forge a strong position in the hunting-rifle market while Remington simply held on.

The 38-55 WCF cartridge was essentially unchanged from the 38-55 Ballard hunting and target chambering, which was introduced in 1884. The 38-55 Ballard was practically indistinguishable from the, circa 1876, 38-50 Ballard. In more than a century since the original version of this cartridge was invented, various manufacturers have altered this basic case to produce the following more-or-less familiar factory numbers: 375 Winchester, 32-40 WCF, 32 Winchester Special, 30-30 Winchester, 25-36 Marlin, 25-35 Winchester, 22 Savage High Power (Imp), 225 Winchester, and 219 Zipper! Moreover, the list of wildcat versions is essentially endless.

Remington's response to the booming success of the Model-94 was to try to do Winchester one better. They invented their own (exceedingly similar) rimless cartridge series (beginning with the 30-30 Remington) and hired none other than John Moses Browning to design a newfangled autoloading rifle to use those cartridges. This combination offered 30-30 Winchester family ballistics in a rifle designed to provide "superior" handling and shooting properties, when compared to the Model-94, or so Remington believed, or hoped, or prayed.

Clearly, Remington was very wrong, and they were wrong on two important issues. First, ballistics of Winchester's 38-55 based family of cartridges held no magic – a fact Remington evidently failed to recognize, else they most assuredly would have designed and adopted more powerful chamberings, which they could easily have done. Second, Remington's rifles were not nearly as handy to carry or use as was Winchester's Model-94. The autoloading capability was of no particular benefit to the average hunter. By any measure, Remington's rimless cartridge series (excepting the unique 35-caliber version, which has a substantially larger body diameter) and the rifles designed to chamber those cartridges total to historical insignificance. What was it then about the 30-30 Winchester and the rifles that chamber it?

What the "30-30" represents is a package deal of unmatched merit. Here we have a cartridge that, with well-placed shots, provides all the power any hunter could ever need in order to cleanly dispatch any game animal up to the size of mule deer, within reasonable open-sight ranges. The Model '94 Winchester and 336 Marlin rifles that are the most commonly chambered guns for the 30-30 offer unexcelled handling characteristics. Besides delivering all the hunting accuracy most hunters can use, these guns are easy to use and maintain.

To better illuminate this analysis, one might better ask: "What is wrong with the 30-30 Winchester and the typical lever-action rifles that chamber it?"

Some believe the 30-30 delivers marginal big game hunting energy; however, increasing delivered energy increases recoil. This could make the gun less desirable – Winchester's recent and much more powerful 307 cartridge, chambered in these rifles, has been an abject commercial failure, perhaps for this very reason. Adding weight to the rifle would reduce recoil but that would also reduce handiness, hence usefulness.

Some believe typical 30-30 accuracy limits its usefulness; however, within the range where this cartridge delivers sufficient energy to cleanly do the job on deer-sized game, both the cartridge and these rifles deliver all the accuracy needed to place a shot where it counts (at least if the hunter will make some effort in choosing his ammunition, a limitation that holds regardless of rifle or chambering). Increasing intrinsic accuracy level of any hunting gun and load is always worthwhile. However, potential benefit here is not particularly significant when considering the typical open-sighted 30-30 and the limitations of its trajectory. The unpleasant truth: Those who cannot cleanly dispatch their game using a 30-30 are either shooting too far, hunting inappropriate (too large) game, or are simply incompetent.

Some believe a flatter trajectory would improve the 30-30 as a hunting cartridge. Unfortunately, this would only make it easier to hit game beyond the range where 30-30 bullets carry sufficient energy to cleanly do the intended job; that is, beyond the range where intrinsic accuracy and the shooter's ability would allow proper shot placement.

Some critics believe increasing down-range energy would improve the 30-30. Here again, benefit would be marginal. Considering limitations of the 30-30's trajectory and the "hunting accuracy" of an open-sighted rifle, most deer hunters do not need a cartridge that can deliver more down-range energy. (However, refer to the table on long-range ballistics and note that Speer's 30-30 bullets deliver dramatically more energy to targets at the far end of the 30-30's useful range – and this cannot be a bad thing in the hands of the practiced 30-30 marksman!)

Finally, most would agree that adding a scope to such a rifle is not particularly beneficial – unless one simply cannot see the iron sights. It certainly does increase potential to place a shot precisely – under proper circumstances. However, most hunters feel that a scope ruins the intrinsic handiness of these rifles and it certainly encourages hunters to take shots at excessive ranges. I believe a much better option is to add a receiver or tang-mounted aperture sight, which can provide more sighting accuracy than the hunter would ever need for reasonable shots with such a rifle. Excepting those who need to use an optical sight owing to vision limitations, the scoped 30-30 has no great value. (I must note that the Scout Scope system somewhat mitigates the issues here and is a fine option that only slightly alters the rifles handling characteristics.)

So, there you have it: The 30-30 and lever-action rifle combination has been so successful chiefly because it is such a well-balanced package! That fact is neither complicated nor hard to understand. What is complicated and hard to understand is why there are still those who deride this cartridge and the fine rifles that are chambered for it! Folks, the "30-30" will be around, and cleanly dispatching big game animals, for as long as our crumbling society allows us to continue hunting. How many newfangled chamberings can boast that as an a priori fact?

We have taken a long road to get to the heart of this article but here it is: As currently loaded and chambered, just how accurate, powerful and effective is the 30-30 Winchester? To establish these values, I recently completed a series of ballistics, accuracy and terminal performance tests using several contemporary guns with a wide selection of factory loads (of both standard and "premium" quality) and several handloads (using both standard and "premium" bullets).

I have more recently finished a pressure-lapping bore polishing test on these rifles. For that study, I used NECO's process, which involves the firing of lapping agent-impregnated bullets through the barrel. Preliminary results are exciting – dramatic reductions in fouling and measurable accuracy improvements. (I never got around to finishing that test!)

One last aside, Barnes now offers both 150-grain and 165-grain XFP bullets designed specifically for the 30-30 Winchester. I am still pestering them to offer a 125-grain XFP. With proper loads, the lighter bullet should safely achieve at least 2500 fps. Barnes could optimize terminal performance of that bullet for smaller big game species in North America – if so, this might very well be the ultimate 30-30 hunting combination.

I imagine that a 125-grain bullet will seem unduly light to most hunters but, rest assured, such an XFP would provide more than enough penetration. Refer to the table and compare the 150-grain Starfire (which is similar to the XFP) to other, heavier, bullets. Note that the Starfire penetrates entirely too far for use on smaller species of deer. (The folks at PMC tell me that, despite hundreds of reports from successful hunters, they are yet to hear of the recovery of the first 30-30 Starfire bullet from a deer carcass!) Further, (because it will occupy considerably less of the propellant space), the 125-grain bullet will allow use of handloads that generate considerably more energy, compared to the 150-grain or 165-grain XFP bullets. Testing with the 150 and 165-grain XFP prove that with equal pressure maximum loads, the lighter bullet typically penetrates significantly further into test medium (saturated telephone book) – velocity matters.

Guns included in the test reported here: Savage's (long-discontinued) Model-170, pump-action; Winchester's Model-94 lever-action, the classic representative of the genre; Marlin's 336 lever-action, preferred by many; New England Firearms' Handi-Rifle, an inexpensive breach-break single-shot with expensive performance.

Savage's 170 offered those who preferred the pump-action a handy repeater equipped with a tang-mounted safety. This rifle is very easy for us sinistral types (left-handed) to use. The Model-170 weighs about the same as the '94 and handles just as well for hand-carry, though it is not as easy to get into or out of a saddle scabbard. Many writers have reported achieving surprising accuracy with the Model-170. My test rifle, however, has about 0.010" excessive headspace. This fact may account for some accuracy loss – this particular Model-170 did not compete well in my initial accuracy tests.

Winchester's '94 is a John M. Browning brainchild, arguably one of his best. In 1967, Winchester engineers changed the geometry of the carrier-actuating slot in the finger-lever. This is a significant improvement over Mr. Browning's design: Finger-lever manipulation is smoother. In 1983, along with the 375 Winchester Big Bore version of the rifle, Winchester added the angle-eject feature (now marketed as "side-eject"). This change facilitates scope mounting, for those so inclined. This amounts to a minor alteration to the original design having no impact on handling or function, except that it allows proper scope mounting – centered over the bore. (In 1984 Winchester introduced their 307 and 356 chamberings, both based on a rimmed version of the 308 Winchester.) In 1994, Winchester added a cross-bolt hammer-blocking safety-device – the less I say about this abomination, the better. In addition, in 1994, Winchester also added a rebounding hammer and a trigger-actuated hammer-blocking safety-device; this theoretically desirable passive-safety system works extremely well. However, unfortunately, it significantly increases the force necessary to manipulate the finger-lever, when fully cycling the action. Finally, Winchester has changed the magazine tube and foreend attachment designs several times over the years as well as the design of the factory sights – current drift windage with slide and screw elevation adjustable sights provide for precise adjustment and are quite functional for big game hunting. Other than these minor alterations, modern model 94s are almost indistinguishable from those made 100 years ago, although modern examples use steels that are generally superior.

The test rifle demonstrated what one might term "extreme sensitivity to bullet weight and type." The lightest bullets tested grouped fully 12-inches higher at 100 yards and some bullet types simply would not group well in this testing.

Also noteworthy, evidently, U.S.R.A.C. and other manufacturers have recently changed the throat length in factory 30-30 Winchester chambers. This change created a few problems in these tests but it also allowed this rifle to generate very impressive 20-inch barrel velocities, although (of course) pressures were higher.

Loaded to function through the action, Speer's 110-grain Varminter seated hard into the rifling on this 1994-manufactured Model-94. (Speer is aware of this problem and claims to have plans to or to have already addressed it.) This was not a problem for my testing, as I created good bullet pull by using a 0.304-inch expander and a solid crimp via Lee's Factory Crimp Die. However, not all dies and crimping systems provide good bullet-to-case friction. Were a shooter to chamber such a load and then open the action without firing the cartridge, the bullet might stick in the barrel as the extractor pulled the case from the chamber! This is not particularly desirable. Further, driving the bullet into the rifling can raise pressures to unsafe levels, see below. If you want to use this bullet in your Model-94, verify that you will not encounter these problems.

My handload with Hornady's 150 grain bullet was evidently just touching the rifling because velocities were quite erratic – when bullets are marginally touching the rifling, slight individual load variations can allow some chambered bullets to engage the rifling hard while others have a slight clearance. Such a condition wreaks havoc with ballistic uniformity and grouping – see main tables.

Despite limited overall accuracy (by bench-rest standards); this rifle was a pleasure to shoot. After decades of separation, I have fallen in love with the '94, again. For instinctive, offhand, shooting (read, "typical hunting") this gun has all the accuracy most of us could ever use. Notice that in this limited testing I could not improve upon accuracy provided by Winchester's factory 150-grain HP loading. In general, factory loadings were more accurate than my carefully assembled handloads in this gun! (I do not have to like this fact but honesty requires reporting it.) However, I will also contend that one could likely do better with more handloading development – very likely this rifle would perform better with handloads using W748 propellant, which is the Winchester factory-load propellant.

While Marlin's Model-336 is the direct descendent of their Model of 1893, they have has made several significant changes through the years. First was replacement of the square bolt with a round bolt (1937). This strengthened the receiver while dramatically smoothing action-manipulation. Marlin also incorporated a trigger-lock safety system that prevents pulling the trigger to release the hammer unless the shooter has fully closed the finger lever – a system that Winchester's Model-94 shares. Micro-groove rifling (1955) completes the list of significant changes.

Micro-Groove rifling has earned a reputation for accuracy. My experience with Marlin's new version of the Model-1895 chambered in 45-70 Government (which Marlin also based on the 336 action! and an M-94 in 44 Magnum) leads me to believe this reputation is quite well deserved. Finally, Marlin recently added a misbegotten cross-bolt safety, which is practically indistinguishable from the one now found on Winchester '94s. As with the '94, none of these alterations makes much difference to handling and function: Newer Marlins are smoother and easier to manipulate. Again, sights, steel and heat treatment have improved in the intervening century, no surprise.

This new rifle shares, with the '94, a comparatively short chamber throat. When I chambered Speer's 110-grain Varminter in the 336, the bullet engaged the rifling rather deeply. Again, this could lead to a bullet lodged in the barrel when an unfired round was extracted. No fun! And, as with the '94, my Hornady 150-grain handloads did not shoot nearly as well as the Factory version, I can only guess that the short chamber had something to do with this result, yet this does not explain why the factory Hornady loads did so much better! Excepting Speer's 130-grain bullet, this Marlin showed a definite preference for 170-grain bullets. Even more so than in the '94, bullet weight had a significant influence on vertical shot placement.

New England Firearms offers the Handi-Rifle, based on a modified H&R breech-break shotgun action. This inexpensive single-shot is now available in a variety of chamberings, making it suitable for any North American hunting, given the right barrel (chambering). Reported accuracy suggests the Handi-Rifle may very well be up to the most onerous of these tasks – where a single-shot rifle is appropriate. Function is the epitome of simplicity: Push the action-release lever (located to the right of the hammer and very nearly as easy for sinistral folks to use as it is for dextral types), break the action by rotating the barrel down, insert a shell, close the action, cock the hammer, take aim and shoot. The transfer-bar safety is the only such mechanism and the only one required; this gun cannot fire unless something holds the trigger back as the hammer falls. New England Firearms intends these rifles for scope mounting; they designed the buttstock to accommodate the higher line-of-sight associated with scope use.

Despite a typical 22-inch barrel, this rifle produced very impressive velocities. However, my example did not appear to like any of the handloads tested. Since it showed a definite preference for Winchester's factory loads, I must conclude that it works better with ball propellants. Were I to attempt to find the "most accurate" load, I might consider loads using W748, which is certainly one of the best 30-30 propellants available.

I have to admit that despite this rifle's repulsion for my handloads it impressed me more than any new rifle I have seen in years. Yes, it is inexpensive. No, it is not cheap. The action locks with authority. Trigger pull, despite the functional transfer-bar safety, is as good as I have ever seen on any production rifle. Period!

I must note that the Speer 110-grain Varminter showed the same problem mentioned in the above discussion. However, in this rifle Hornady's 110-grain Spire point is probably a much better choice for the varmint hunter – it is unsafe to use such pointed bullets in any tubular magazine rifle, except for single loading or with only one round in the magazine.

Though not tested extensively for this piece, Thompson/Center's Contender deserves mention here. This gun features a top-quality breech-break action with an automatic safety mechanism and an exposed hammer. These guns often deliver sub-MOA 100-yard accuracy with the right load and shooter. Note that 30-30 velocity loss is considerable with 14-inch and shorter barrels. However, in the 16-inch gun, velocity is typically within about 150 feet per second of 20-inch barrel velocities. The Contender can safely use spitzer bullets (as is true of the Handi-Rifle, Savage's Models 99 & 340 – and any other single-shot or bolt-action rifle). Owing to superior ballistic efficiency of spitzer bullets, the 16-inch barreled 30-30 chambered Contender can deliver more energy at 100 yards than any 30-30 rifle firing typical factory 30-30 loads, which always use blunt-nosed bullets.

In a tubular magazine, under the battering that occurs during recoil, a cartridge loaded with a pointed bullet could detonate the primer of the round in front of it, leading to a specter best left to the imagination.

The 30-30 Winchester chambering is a good choice for hunting with the Contender. It can deliver substantial energy without generating the harsh recoil that can make these guns unmanageable to some shooters. Invariably, unmanageable recoil will generate world-class flinches rather than world-class shooting skills. World-class shooting skills are certainly necessary for handgun hunting.

I intended these test procedures to isolate the intrinsic accuracy of each gun and load combination. Simultaneously, I recorded velocities on the Oehler Model-35P (used to calculate muzzle energy, down-range energy and trajectory). Shot-string velocity data also gives a measure of ballistic uniformity, which is a good estimate of the consistency of a load.

For all bench-rest testing the guns were fitted with Bausch & Lomb's most impressive Elite 4000, 2.5-10x40mm riflescope (I wanted to test rifle and load, not my ability to use open sights!) To establish typical accuracy, I fired 10-shot groups. (Remember, these are not target guns: The only accuracy measure of legitimate concern to any hunter is how close to where he is aiming he can expect the gun and load to place a bullet; considering the effects of trajectory, wind and target motion.)

As the reader might well ask: "Why 10-shot groups rather than twice as many 5-shot groups or myriad 3-shot groups (I generally prefer the latter for testing any big game rifle and load)?" I can answer that query quite simply: "because the chosen approach made the testing of so many loads in so many guns possible, considering the limited time available." While I would have preferred to test three three-shot groups with plenty of cooling time between shots; time considerations vetoed that superior approach.

Simultaneously with firing these groups, I recorded shot velocities on Oehler's 35P chronograph with screens centered 15-feet from muzzle of gun. A 6-foot screen spacing was used and provides measurement accuracy to within about +/-1 fps of reported instrumental velocity. I conducted all testing when the temperature was between about 70- and about 80-degrees F in the typically dry air of Western Colorado. I did not shoot when the wind picked up past a mild breeze; I also did not have wind flags so, inevitably, some portion of the dispersion measured in each group resulted from my failure to account of the wind.

Note from the above table that Speer offers bullets with the highest ballistic efficiency of available component bullets for use in lever-action, 30-30 rifle handloads. Among factory loadings, only Speer's new Nitrex™, which is loaded with a superior plated bullet, can compete with the long-range ballistics offered by Speer's line of flat-nose 30-30 bullets. When comparing bullets lighter than 170 grains, the difference is highly significant. Consider the following table.

Most experts suggest that those hunting the largest variety of either mule deer or northern whitetail deer should use a load that delivers about 1000 foot pounds of energy to the target. For the much smaller deer species (southern whitetail, coos, blacktail and desert mule deer) 750-foot pounds is generally more than sufficient. For elk, few would argue with 1500 foot pounds as a reasonable minimum. Of course, regardless of species, bullets must perform properly at the target – penetration, expansion and weight retention are all critical factors. Note that, even assuming near-perfect bullet performance, one should probably not use the 30-30 for elk hunting where shots are apt to exceed about 75 yards.

All factory ammunition of each type came from the same manufacturing lot. I did not pursue handloading development toward achieving "ultimate accuracy." Rather, using several newer appropriate and promising propellants, I established safe loads essentially duplicating factory-load velocity. This allowed me to gain familiarity with performance of some of these newer propellants that seemed to have applications in the 30-30 Winchester. Propellants tested included: VihtaVuori's N133, N140, N150, N160; Hodgdon's VarGet; Accurate's 2015BR and 2520.

As noted previously, with any of these newer 30-30 rifles, when I seated Speer's 110-grain Varminter bullet to function through the action, the bullet engraved solidly into the rifling. This drove pressures well beyond the SAAMI limit. Since, when loaded in the 30-30, this is an explosive varmint bullet, I can only hope that Speer has long since redesigned it – which would have required only a modest alteration. Such a change will be a welcome modification. Evidently older 30-30 rifles had longer chamber throats; before receiving my frantic call, Speer had not received one report of this problem, despite decades of folks using this bullet in 30-30 chambered rifles!

Choice of load used in accuracy testing rested solely upon one factor: Ballistic uniformity. Certainly, this approach ignores the admirable goal of pursuing ultimate accuracy but that was not my goal here. Remember that the 30-30 is primarily a hunting cartridge and these are hunting guns, I simply wanted to see what 30-30 chambered guns do in box-stock condition shooting factory loads and handloads using some of the newer propellants available. Here, I was testing new propellants for usefulness in the 30-30 as well as overall cleanliness and consistency potential.

My intention was to compare these guns on as fair and impartial a basis as possible. Further, it is very likely that with any given bullet one propellant might have delivered best accuracy in one gun, while a different propellant delivered best accuracy in another. While I might have accounted for this problem by trying to find the most accurate possible handload using each bullet in each gun, such a test would likely have been a ten-year project! Further, I could never have been certain I had actually discovered said "most-accurate" load. Note that in several instances I tested two similarly consistent loads, just to give both propellants a fair comparison.

I have tabulated the results of these tests in the associated (master) table along with test results from the pressure barrel. As this was written, N150 and VarGet data are not currently available anywhere else – consistency shown in this study suggests that these propellants both have real promise for 30-30 handloads.

With each bullet type fired in each gun, all handloads used cases from the same lot and only those that had been reloaded the same number of times; all primers, propellants and bullets were from same lot. Case selection and preparation efforts were significant.

Sizing was in standard RCBS dies. I trimmed cases to a uniform length of 2.028" using RCBS's Power Pro Case Trimmer tool. Case necks were deburred with RCBS Trim Mate tool fitted with the RCBS outside deburring tool and K&M Services 4-degree Controlled-Depth inside-deburring tool. Flash holes were uniformed and deburred with K&M's handy uniformer. Finally, primer pockets were uniformed with K&M's primer pocket uniformer.

I seated CCI-BR2 primers into cleaned pockets in a separate operation using Lee's Auto Prime tool. I carefully weighed propellant charges using RCBS's Powder Pro scale. I used my swirl-charge technique to dump carefully weighed propellant charges into carefully prepared cases using a standard funnel or a funnel and extended drop tube. I only used extended drop tube when that was necessary to get the charge into case and seat bullet without case deformation. (Generally, use of the swirl-charge technique, to increase packing density and packing scheme uniformity, has been shown to dramatically increase ballistic uniformity while use an extended drop tube, to increase packing density, has proven to somewhat decrease ballistic uniformity.)

Loading was as follows

• I ran resized, primed and charged cases progressively through Dillon's 550-B press
• First position: Slightly flare case mouth
• Second position: Fully seat bullet
• Third position: Verify case sizing with full-length 32 Special resizing die, sans decapping stem
• Fourth position: Lightly crimp case mouths into cannelure via Lee's Factory Crimp Die

In a related study, I fired samples of each bullet – factory or handload – into saturated telephone books at close range to establish typical penetration, expansion and weight retention. This information is helpful in estimating comparative performance of a bullet on real-world targets. If a more realistic test medium exists, no one seems to know what that is! Further, anyone can do this test – something that cannot be said of testing with ballistic gelatin.