357 Rossi or 30-30 Marlin brush gun?

[35remington]

I am not sure it's so much a matter of "more is better"......rather, it's more why a .357 gives anything a 30-30 cannot already do.

The OP's statement on the matter helps to explain.

Here's the problem, quote:

"If I go with a larger bore it feels like if I'm limiting myself in range, it's ok because I have a hammer behind me."

Presumably he means if it's range limited the larger caliber at least makes it hit harder. What's mystifying is why, exactly, one would judge a .357 as hitting harder when in fact it shoots bullets no heavier than a 30-30 at somewhat slower velocities?

In comparison to a 30-30 I'd hardly classify a .357 as being in the "hammer" category. That's giving five hundredths of an inch of bullet diameter way too much credit.

His desires are (somewhat) clearly expressed....the ability to attain them is questionable given his stated alternative (the .357).

[mnewcomb59]

I like the 357 in place of 30-30 because its easier to reload, uses less powder, and doesn't need a gas check high speeds. It pretty much comes out cheaper and easier to reload, but gives up ballistic coefficient.

The 357 meplat is just a few hundredths wider, but nearly double the square inches of a 30-30 meplat. When you think in terms of square inches of meplat, they go up exponentially with caliber. This means it doesn't need any expansion because it has a good meplat and middling sectional density. It uses up all its energy over about 3 foot, perfect for hunting.

So yeah, 357 isn't a "hammer" any more than the 30-30, but cheaper and easier to reload with cast at pretty much the same power level. The 30-30 might have 1000 foot pounds at 200 yards and the 357 only has 800. Before that distance though, the 357 kills the same or better because same (or maybe a tiny bit less) velocity, but wider meplat. Thumb sized hole clean through a deer on any angle. If your .2 meplat on your 150 grain bullet fails to upset, you will have a teeeeeeny hole in a deer compared to a .29 meplat at about the same speed.

Plus, once your 30-30 does expand, you have to balance it perfectly so you still have enough penetration. 30-30 will be more work all around - from resizing necks, fitting gas checks, sizing on gas checks, ladder testing, alloy testing, terminal testing. Or you could stick a .29 meplat hard cast in your easy-reloading straight wall case and go hunting.

[35remington]

If I wanted to make some kind of point, I'm sure you realize that with LE powder and the 160 LE bullet....a boattail spire point....any claims for .357 superiority at any range are meaningless because they aren't factual. Both powder and bullet make for a very clear lead for 30-30 carbine power and range over the .357 carbine. Comparisons of the sort that clearly establish the very real 30-30 superiority when both cartridges are optimized don't matter either because this is about under 100 yard ranges.

The ideal of the .357 producing a "wider wound" is very, very arguable.

What is still the mystery of the moment is why the OP expressed a desire for a "hammer" and thinks a .357 is it, or offers anything the 30-30 cannot already do.

I think the correct answer is that another cartridge is needed to accomplish the stated goal. Since I really don't have anything more substantive to add until the OP clarifies why he believes what seems like a questionable premise is the answer to his problems I don't really need to say much more.

[mnewcomb59]

The 30-30 is far superior when considering 24-26 inch barrels. However, even with LE powder, there is 0 difference in the 16 inch barrel and about 100 fps in the 20". In the 20" barrel LE ammo does 2300 fps, Buffalo Bore 357 158 is 2150.

But my other point is a fact - bigger meplat at same weight and velocity is wider, but shorter wound. Ever see Marshall Stanton's charts in his book? A .22 meplat at 1800 fps makes 1.1 inch wound. A .28 meplat at 1800 fps makes 1.4 inch wide wound. Given the fact that the meplat differences are generally greater than that between the two calibers, my point definitely stands. Even if the 357 hit 200 fps slower, it would make the same width wound as the 30-30.

If the 30-30 shooter wanted to match the 357 damage, he would have to have a carefully constructed bullet that expanded, but stopped well short of 40 cal. Maybe 20 grains of pure lead in the nose and the rest wheel weights.
If he got a full mushroom, he could expect half the penetration of the 357.

[35remington]

mnew, it's not as hard as you make out. Cast bullet of wheelweights plus a little tin, affix a gascheck, run it in the 2000 fps vicinity and go hunting. It's not at all hard.

Apparently it's so difficult that the 30-30 regularly gets used in exactly that way here. Read the past posts on the matter.

[35remington]

Even with the velocity loss the 30-30 is still well ahead.

Marshall Stanton's charts are......charts. And quite open to question.

Disregarding all the minutiae, the question of why the .357 is perceived as having "hammer" characteristics still remains. Let's leave it at that until we get some clarification. The perception seems erroneous to me, and apparently to you as well.

[mnewcomb59]

Marshall Stanton's charts are......charts. And quite open to question.

Question this - would a larger meplat make a smaller wound at the same speed? Of course it won't make exactly a 1.421001" wound every time in every critter, but in his testing medium he saw that maximum wound diameter could be predicted by meplat and velocity, and his tests have proven repeatable.

We're having such a good discussion, please don't discount charts because they're a piece of paper.

[.30-06 fan]

The 357 takes up less space uses less powder and is simple to reload. Kills deer at 100 yards.

It's a no-brainer.

Dead is dead.

[35remington]

Trouble is, an expanding bullet.....and a 30-30 is most definitely expansion capable under 100 yards at cast bullet attainable speeds....makes all the discussion about meplats pretty meaningless.

So proselytize for 'ol bald Marshall all you want, but a 30-30 does not have to kill by meplat alone, nor should it be expected to at the ranges discussed here. Since meplat is meaningless to expanding 30-30 bullets, so are Marshall's charts in any comparison of the two calibers.

[mnewcomb59]

Trouble is, an expanding bullet.....and a 30-30 is most definitely expansion capable under 100 yards at cast bullet attainable speeds....makes all the discussion about meplats pretty meaningless.

So proselytize for 'ol bald Marshall all you want, but a 30-30 does not have to kill by meplat alone, nor should it be expected to at the ranges discussed here.

By the time you are making a wound the size of the 357, you are penetrating less.

EDIT: Okay let me rephrase. If the 30-30 has 5% more foot pounds it can make a little more total wound. Once the wound is noticably bigger than the 357 hard cast, you are definitely penetrating less. You are applying pretty much the same foot pounds over a shorter depth.

Hard cast with a good meplat plain works independent of velocity. Smaller hole when slower, slightly bigger hole when faster. When you depend on expansion, you can have over expansion when the shot is too close, and no expansion when the shot is further. Your working window might be 50 to 125 yards and outside of that the bullet will pinhole or over expand.

There is a happy point where you could be making a slightly bigger wound for the same depth, or the same sized wound for a little deeper, but this is the boolit voodoo I'm talking about where you have to test to be sure. There are also many alloys that will pinhole or varmint grenade and you have to have a jug/wetpack/gel tested alloy in the 30-30 for best wounding. The 357 plain works with simple water dropping range scrap or wheelweights because it has the better sectional density at expense of ballistic coefficient.

[35remington]

Questionable. We'll leave it at that.

[cainttype]

So I'm having a bit of a dilemma for a brush gun, lead only. Now, I have the 308 is for longer ranges, but for under 100 yards having another 30 caliber, but weaker, feels like a bit of redundancy.

For shorter ranges I think I'd prefer a larger bore lead-only gun. I have the 30-30 Marlin I use as lead only but I noticed this last hunting season I barely used it because it just didn't make much sense to me to limit myself to a weaker 30 caliber when I could grab a longer distance gun in same diameter 'just in case'. If I go with a larger bore it feels like if I'm limiting myself in range, it's ok because I have a hammer behind me. A Rossi M92 357 is available at a friend's gunshop and I'm seriously contemplating trading.

Both choices are more than adequate for short range deer-sized game when properly loaded.
I really enjoy the light, handy '92 style rifles for all-around fun. After seeing that the OP "barely" uses the 30-30 Marlin he already has (and doesn't seem inclined to change), it appears that he might actually be able to enjoy the Rossi... I say trade for something that you'll appreciate and use as often as possible.
The 357 Rossi appears to be the obvious choice for the man that's asking.

It's bigger than a tack-hammer, although quite a bit smaller than a sledge-hammer... Everybody should enjoy having something that size in their toolbox.

[jmort]

"So proselytize for 'ol bald Marshall all you want..."

Let me see, Marshall Stanton or 35 Remington? One widely admired, running a successful hard cast bullet business, for a long time, and the other seems to troll and have no bona fides. Tough choice, but I will stick with Marshall.

[davidheart]

Traded my Remlin with a friend who wanted a Marlin for his Winchester 94 30-30 plus $150.

Going to keep the 30-30 caliber in a more cast boolit friendly gun. (read, not micro-groove)

Now.... the $150 is going to be put back into a sledgehammer.... I have my eyes hard on a .45-70.

Can't think of another woods sledgehammer to fit the bill at the moment.

[jmort]

You made a great choice. The .30-30 is so very cast friendly. I would take a Winchester 94 any day. Now for the .45-70, too much recoil/pain for me in a lever gun.

[davidheart]

You made a great choice. The .30-30 is so very cast friendly. I would take a Winchester 94 any day. Now for the .45-70, too much recoil/pain for me in a lever gun.

Thank you. It was not an easy choice.

I've heard rumor of pain from the .45-70. Is it harsher than the 7mm Rem Mag and 8mm Mauser? They were not too bad but people told me both of those calibers are horrible on your shoulder.

[cainttype]

In '92 and '94 type actions, depending on your criteria... 41 Mag, 44 Mag, 45 Colt, 454 Casull in pistol-length '92s, and 356 Win, 38-55, 375 Win, 444 Marlin, 450 Marlin, to name some I've seen in the '94s and Marlins ... I imagine there are 475s and 500s out there, but I haven't seen any.
I'm willing to bet I've even left someone's favorite out, too.

[KLR]

Hmmm... My son's Marlin shoots cast great whereas my Winchester 94 has an abrupt throat and has been a total pain. His is more accurate and I had to modify the cartridge guides on mine before it would feed reliably.

You'll just have to see how your 94 works for you. Why did your friend want to get rid of it?

[davidheart]

...Why did your friend want to get rid of it?

My Marlin was set up with a scout scope and he liked the setup. He's been eyeing my rifle since hunting season because of it. I honestly couldn't get myself used to the scout setup and it was a pain with cast boolits. Shoots Remington Core-Lokts beautifully though, but I didn't want it for Core Lokts, I wanted it for cast.

I certainly hope I don't have feed issues, but at least I won't have Microgroove issues.

Maybe a 50BMG for a woods rifle? It shoots cast right?

[Lonegun1894]

Despite what some amateur ballisticians on here say, stand the rounds or cases beside each other, easy to see that the 30/30 is in another league from the .357. Now the choice between the .30/30 and the .44 Mag. is a diff. argument.

There's a HUGE difference between studying paper ballistics, or just looking at two rounds side by side on your coffee table, and actually going out and using them both to take game like some of us do. Now if actual use in the field makes us amateurs, then I guess I'd rather be an "amateur" than a professional.