.30-30 Winchester VS .357 Remington Magnum

[ArmasTermin]

Okay, supposed to say I got a lever-action rifle, I wonder which chambering would be better for me. The choices are between the .30-30 and the .357 and both have advantages and disadvantages.

I would want to use the rifle in an all-purpose role from fun target shooting to possibly small game, defense against animals both four- and two-legged, maybe huinting, and whatever else would need shooting in environments from the middle of the woods to suburban areas.

The .357 would be able to hold between eight and ten rounds compared to the .30-30's between five and seven. The .357 could also chamber .38s for cheaper target practice. And the revolver I want is in .357 so I could buy one ammo for two guns. Recoil would be lighter as well.

On the other hand, the .30-30 would have a better range. The effective range of a .357 L-A is, according to various websites, only about 100 meters compared to the .30-30's 150-200. And, I dunno, I kind of want my first rifle to be in a rifle caliber.

EDIT: Okay, now I'm reading that 100 meters is about the maximum range for .357 and that's with hot-loaded .357s. I kind of want more range than that.

But in a home defense role the rifle round would have more penetration than would be safe, possible going through walls and into people's homes. Not that I ever expect to have to use it in such a role while having Camellia, but it's something to consider.

There's also expense. I believe .30-30 is more expensive than .357 and I know it's more than .38 Spl. But I really don't shoot so often as to make that such an issue.

What do you think?



 

[I am an eggplant]

I'm going to surprise a few people, but I say go with .357 Magnum.
My dad has an Interarms M92 in .357 and I've had nothing but good experiences with it.
It's accurate, inexpensive to feed, not tough on your shoulder or ears (surprisingly), and with HPs, an effective manstopper. It's also built like a tank.  

[ArmasTermin]

Yarg. No one ever looks in Buying and Advice...

EDIT: I really should go for .357 of the two. Cheaper ammo means more bought ammo for practice which means I'd be better with it. And I'd shoot it and enjoy it more because of that. And of course there's the higher capacity. And .357/.38 is a lot more flexible of a cartridge than .30-30.

I would just be really irritated if at some point I had to or wanted to make a long shot and couldn't because of the cartridge's restrictions--not mine. And I really want a rifle rifle, not a pistol rifle.  

[Floyd]

I've written about my Marlin .30-30 lever action carbine and cannot recommend that with a clear conscious. Thing kicked like a mule. If I were to make a recommendation, I would go with the .357.

If you get a lever action, get the longest barrel you can find. Your shoulder will thank you.  

[ArmasTermin]

Floyd

I've written about my Marlin .30-30 lever action carbine and cannot recommend that with a clear conscious. Thing kicked like a mule. If I were to make a recommendation, I would go with the .357.

If you get a lever action, get the longest barrel you can find. Your shoulder will thank you.

Really? I've read that it's quite manageable and that it's usually the first rifle a young person uses when they start hunting things like deer...  

[Freak_090]

Depends on the use, deer 30-30

plinking-357  

[OberFeldwebel]

For some odd reason I can't get the thought of ".45-70" out of my head...

I think it's all this talk of lever action carbines.  

[ArmasTermin]

I think I'm going with the .30-30 cause... I want a rifle. I want to be able to shoot moderately long ranges (300 yards on in) with a handy rifle that has what's mostly the cheapest rifle ammo available at Wal*Mart. It would be a decent SHTF/long-range plinking/wilderness survival/hurricane escape gun. And I think I would find myself doing basically the same thing with a .357/.38 version as I do with my dad's .22 but not as cheaply.

Next I want an AR-15. Then either another lever-gun in .357 to make into a Cowboy Assault Rifle or a Mosin Nagant to use as a poor-man's sniper rifle.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Poor-mans sniper rifle?

I'm sorry but since that 'poor mans UMP 45' I'm taking offense to anything regarded as 'poor mans'.
Besides, repro scope and mounts cost ~$300.
Ok so it is a cheaper sniper rifle.  

[Fresnel]

Remember, "effective range", like "speed limit", is a suggestion. I've shot my Buckmark .22LR pistol at 300 meters into a steel bear, and hits were 50/50.  

[Ephemeral Filigree]

Fresnel

Remember, "effective range", like "speed limit", is a suggestion. I've shot my Buckmark .22LR pistol at 300 meters into a steel bear, and hits were 50/50.

That's pretty good.  

[Fresnel]

Felix H. Riboruba

Fresnel

Remember, "effective range", like "speed limit", is a suggestion. I've shot my Buckmark .22LR pistol at 300 meters into a steel bear, and hits were 50/50.

That's pretty good.

Yeah, that was at Whittington. Had to aim halfway up the damned mountain to hit it. I expect if the sights had been on, I would have done much better. Also, at age 10, my accuracy was bullshit if I wasn't sandbagging it.