Author Topic: Weak kneed factory 30-30 ammo "where's the beef?" (Read 3422 times)

R.W.Dale · « **on:** July 15, 2007, 09:55:49 AM »

I had a real eye opener at the range today while chronographing various loads. The real shocker was when I ran some 170grn Remington factory loads through my Savage 340 with a 20" barrel.

Shot
1. 1863 fps
2. 1879 fps
3. 1828 fps
4. 1838 fps
5. 1888 fps

Now before you say I was getting erroneous readings I had also chronographed some remington bulk .22LR ammo. Remington claims 1280 fps for the 36grn HP ammo. I got

1. 1250
2. 1222
3. 1243
4. 1240
5. 1268

It would appear as though those threads that place 30-30 in the same class as .357 magnum carbines could be very factual.

A max load of H-335 under a sierra 150grn FP according to Hodgon yields 2308 FPS I averaged a respectable 2240 fps. I wonder what's up handloads appear to be fairly close to claimed velocities in the manuals so why are these factory loads almost 300 FPS slower than the mfg's claims

quickdtoo · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2007, 10:03:05 AM »

Remington's claimed velocity of 2200fps is in a 24" barrel, dunno if the extra 4" of barrel really accounts for the velocity, but it's aways possible, but probably very optimistic in most barrels on their part. $:-\$

Tim

http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/comparative_ballistics_results.aspx?data=R30302

beemanbeme · « **Reply #2 on:** July 15, 2007, 03:17:49 PM »

Your velocity readings sound about right. Domestic ammo, especially before every kid on the block got a Chrony, was usually fairly optimistic about its velocities.
Using 22 match ammo is a good way to proof your Chrony however as usually it's pretty close to what it sez on the box.

Lone Star · « **Reply #3 on:** July 15, 2007, 05:30:30 PM »

Those velocity readings are very low compared to past published results.

In Speer #9:
R-P 170 in 20" barrel - 2022 fps
R-P 170 in 22" barrel - 2066 - this was a Savage 340

In Handoader 3/77:
R-P 170 in 24" barrel - 2117 fps

Either the OP has a very slow 340 barrel, or the loads he tested are from a poor lot with velocities well below normal.

.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #4 on:** July 15, 2007, 05:56:40 PM »

Quote from: Lone Star on July 15, 2007, 05:30:30 PM

Those velocity readings are very low compared to past published results.

In Speer #9:
R-P 170 in 20" barrel - 2022 fps
R-P 170 in 22" barrel - 2066 - this was a Savage 340

In Handoader 3/77:
R-P 170 in 24" barrel - 2117 fps

Either the OP has a very slow 340 barrel, or the loads he tested are from a poor lot with velocities well below normal.

.

While I certainly believe some barrels are slower than others I'm not buying over 300 fps, 100fps maybe but not 300. And if it were a slow barrel the handloads would have also been excessively slow, but they weren't.

Rick Teal · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2007, 09:19:20 AM »

I have 2 30-30s, and have graphed several different factory 170 grain loads. I've never had one reach 2000 fps, and only a few top 1900. 150 grain loads seem a little closer to the published, producing 2250 fps class velocities.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #6 on:** July 16, 2007, 11:24:11 AM »

We're talking factory ammo here, not reloads. I'm going back quite a ways but it seems the velocity posted on the boxes way back when was 2200fps for 150's and 2000fps for 170's. I could be wrong but that's what I seem to remember. It's been a long time since I shot a thutty-thutty.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #7 on:** July 16, 2007, 11:57:14 AM »

I don’t shoot much factory ammo but I have shot a bit of WW 150g and 170g .30-30. Here are the chrono results:

150g, Winchester
2411fps, 2 shot average, 4/17/2006
2464fps, 1 shot, 9/5/2006

170g, Winchester
2123fps, 9-shot average, 9/5/2006, box 1
2181fps, 4-shot average, 9/5/2006, box 2
2147fps, 3-shot average, 11/20/2005
2125fps, 3-shot average, 4/22/2006
2137fps, 4-shot average, 6/4/2006
2112fps, 3-shot average, 6/16/2006

30-30man · « **Reply #8 on:** July 16, 2007, 01:16:26 PM »

I have never liked Remington ammo. I don't have a chrono but the Win/Fed stuff just seemed like it was hotter. It also just never grouped well in any of my guns. The Winchester 150 grain HP is my favorite deer round for the 30-30. It tears things up pretty bad but they always drop on the spot. Almost always one shot kills on hogs and deer.

Lone Star · « **Reply #9 on:** July 17, 2007, 12:08:01 PM »

Quote

We're talking factory ammo here, not reloads. I'm going back quite a ways but it seems the velocity posted on the boxes way back when was 2200fps for 150's and 2000fps for 170's.

Is 35 years far enough back?

Published factory data from 1972:

.30-30 Winchester
150 gr - 2410 fps - 1930 fpe
170 gr - 2220 fps - 1860 fpe

.

Snowshoe · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2007, 05:51:19 PM »

I swear I could see the bullet in flight with the last factory .30-30 I fired. It was a 170g Federal, and it didn't shoot flat enough to hit a doe at 80 yards. I have used nothing but reloads since, and have taken deer out to 200 yards and coyotes past 250 yards. The .30-30 is a good round when you use good loads.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #11 on:** July 20, 2007, 05:23:20 PM »

Quote from: Snowshoe on July 19, 2007, 05:51:19 PM

I swear I could see the bullet in flight with the last factory .30-30 I fired. It was a 170g Federal, and it didn't shoot flat enough to hit a doe at 80 yards. I have used nothing but reloads since, and have taken deer out to 200 yards and coyotes past 250 yards. The .30-30 is a good round when you use good loads.

I'm afraid that if you missed a doe at 80 yards with Federal's 170g ammo, it wasn't because the ammo "didn't shoot flat enough".

Brithunter · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2007, 02:19:22 AM »

Due to the way my rifle is built I can only use Winchester cases and so have only ever tried Winchester factory ammo and I could only get 150 Grn loads. they are the Silver Tip and HP bullet and neither are accurate in my rifle. I did chrono them but cannot find the figures but I did find them for my hand-loads using the Hornady 130 Grn spire point bullet and that has an average velocity of 2716 fps and groups under MOA.

The bolt face recess is tight and was made to fit Winchester ammo which incidentallyy is undersized on the head dimension. Why they cannot make it to specs I don't know.

Snowshoe · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2007, 02:37:30 PM »

Coyote Hunter said:
I'm afraid that if you missed a doe at 80 yards with Federal's 170g ammo, it wasn't because the ammo "didn't shoot flat enough".

How can you say that? Where you there to hear the "pop" instead of the bang when the rifle went off? You make this statement with no knowledge at all of what happened. How I told it, is how it happened!!!!!!!!!!

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2007, 06:48:10 PM »

Quote from: Snowshoe on July 21, 2007, 02:37:30 PM

Coyote Hunter said:
I'm afraid that if you missed a doe at 80 yards with Federal's 170g ammo, it wasn't because the ammo "didn't shoot flat enough".

How can you say that? Where you there to hear the "pop" instead of the bang when the rifle went off? You make this statement with no knowledge at all of what happened. How I told it, is how it happened!!!!!!!!!!

If you got a squib load that's one thing, but you didn't make any mention of that. There isn't any .30-30 commercial ammo made that doesn't shoot flat enough to take a doe at 80 yards. The Federal 170g ammo is rated at 2200fps and even if it is far below that (say 1400fps, to pick a number) it will still shoot flat enough.

poncaguy · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2007, 07:04:00 AM »

What are the new Hornandy 30-30 Lever rounds ballistics.......they should move out pretty good.........

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2007, 07:24:38 AM »

Quote from: poncaguy on July 22, 2007, 07:04:00 AM

What are the new Hornandy 30-30 Lever rounds ballistics.......they should move out pretty good.........

The manufacturer claims they do.... But like with many things reality is entirely different

http://www.realguns.com/archives/120.htm

At some point soon I'll buy a box and try them out for myself.

Back to the original topic, Today I chronographed some of the loads discussed above. The only difference than before is I put the chronograph 100yds away (at considerable financial risk I might add).

The 170grn Remington ammo that chronied 1850 FPS at 15" from the muzzle averaged an abysmal 1675 fps at 100 yards for 1059 ft lbs of energy at that range.

The 150grn Handload fared somewhat better, from a 2300 fps muzzle velocity it was down to 1900 FPS at 100 yards. And was packing 1202 FT lbs of energy at that range

swampthing · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2007, 05:14:44 AM »

Federal Premium "Vital Shok" 170g Nosler Partions, cronied 2130fps from 20" Marlin. Clean through a 400lb Russian boar @35yds. Two, 170g Rem. "Core Lokt's," never cronied, clean through shoulders of running 400lb Russian boar @50yds, from another 20" marlin.
Both did the job, but if these pigs were out a ways and bullet impact speed was below the expansion threshold... my buddies would be scavenging boar chops off of me and my lowly 1235fps 280g .44
Beef it.

sixshooter · « **Reply #18 on:** October 24, 2007, 12:59:47 PM »

The low velocity Krochus posted got me kind of nervous cause I just bought 6 boxes of 170gr Core Lokts, so after work I chrono'd some.

The gun is a Marlin 30AS w/ 20" Micro Groove barrel made in 1998.
1st shot - 2032
2nd shot - 2017
3rd shot - 2014
4th shot - 2083
5th shot - 2044
Avg - 2038
SD - 27
Temp - 55 F

For comparison 3 weeks ago I chrono'd some 150gr Win Power Point thru the same gun and got,
Avg - 2194
SD - 29
Temp - 80 F

For a 20" barrel I can live with a little over 2000 fps.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #19 on:** October 24, 2007, 03:04:35 PM »

It's rather timely this thread got brought back up as I just got back from the range having worked up a handload shooting 170grn Hornady's over a charge of varget.

Firearm was a Savage 340 with a 20" barrel

[/list]

30.0grs

1843
1938
1881
1879
1894

31.0grs

1966
1973
1974
2039
1990

32.0grs

2058
2081
2066
2077
2065

33.0grs MAX

2126
2137
2163
2149
2146

Given these results and the results from Sixshooter I'm gonna chock the weak ammo up as an isolated incident.
[/list]

sixshooter · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:18:09 AM »

Maybe we both have venison on the mind ??

That's my next step, to start reloading for the 30-30, right now I'm only loading handgun rounds but once I shoot up a good pile of brass I'll have to give it a try.

You know I just wonder when you hear all the stories of Core Lokts separating it seems to be in higher velocity rounds. So maybe we're better off only pushing them around 2000 fps thru our lowly 30-30's !

qajaq59 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 04, 2007, 01:42:56 AM »

Quote

That's my next step, to start reloading for the 30-30

Now that would be about the wisest thing you ever did. And if you really like to shoot a lot, use the cast bullets and save a ton of money while you're doing it. I go thru a 100 to 150 rounds a week in my 30-30s, and I sure wouldn't want to be buying commercial ammo at today's prices.

Swampman · « **Reply #22 on:** November 04, 2007, 01:55:13 AM »

Considering the accuracy and performance of the Remington Core Lokts, I'd stick with them.

Dee · « **Reply #23 on:** November 04, 2007, 01:09:04 AM »

Well, I have been shooting a Winchester Model 94 that was bought new by my father in 1957, since I was a youngster. He gave it to me, after firing only 7 rounds thru it. Dad wasn't a hunter, but he liked the old 94s. When I got that rifle I put a Lyman aperture rear and post front on it. In 1970 or 71, I started reloading the 150 grain round nose, at 2400fps, and a Lyman 170 grain gas-check bullet I molded from wheel weights to the same velocity of 2400fps, and never looked back.
200 yard water jugs are a sure thing, and 270 yard water jugs are pretty much the same with that rifle. I doubt it has had 50 rounds of factory ammo ran thru it since it was new.
The fact that ammo factories promote higher velocities than they actually sell in their ammo has been common knowledge for as long as I can remember, but brass is cheaper, and bullets in bulk are a dream come true to someone like me. About all I load now is the 150 grain jacketed round nose, and it works on everything.
I believe what you said about that light load is QUITE possible, with today's employee attitudes, and standards of factory quality going down, but don't hold it against the old 3030. It will do what it has always done, with the same ole bullets it has always done it with. I put little stock in these new bullets and loadings.

Swampman · « **Reply #24 on:** November 04, 2007, 01:51:00 AM »

I'm thinking it's the company lawyers. Consider the .357 Magnum. It isn't even close to what it used to be. Maybe all those old Winchesters out there have the ammo companies concerned. There's no question in my mind that a Marlin or a Handi could take some +P .30-30 loads. I'm not suggesting anyone try it.

Brithunter · « **Reply #25 on:** November 04, 2007, 08:43:32 AM »

Hi All,

Factories dropping off quality in a old cartridge is nothing new. Townsend Wheelan mentions it in his book the Hunting Rifle and let's face it 30-30 is not fashionable now and has not been so for a long time. It does not mean that people are not buying 30-30 ammo but how long since the Gun press did write ups on the 30-30 cartridge? no it's full of short magnumbs and ultra cartridges

I again shot some of the Whinchester 150 Grn HP 30-30 amo through my rifle today at the range and 10 rounds will not stay inside 3" at 81 yards

shot a box and a bit so I can re-load the brass with fireformed cases.

Dee · « **Reply #26 on:** November 06, 2007, 02:10:49 AM »

Swampman in other actions you could have a valid point, but 3030 pressures are not going to damage a pre-war 3030, as it is a good strong action well suited to the cartridge. Mine is 50 years old, and a 250 yard shot at a gallon jug of water (which I practice on), or a deer is a done deal with the 150 grain round nose loaded at 2400 fps. I would not hesitate shooting the leverevolution 165 grainers at the same 2400fps in the rifle. The ammo companies are wanting to sell new rifles, and are, I believe, INTENTIONALLY not paying attention to QC on ammo such as the 3030, to discourage NON-re loaders to go buy a NEWER CALIBER. JMO
It used to be that a man bought ONE RIFLE for life, and learned it inside out, and they were built to last a life time. These newer calibers will WASH OUT a barrel if shot as much as the life timer might shoot a rifle now a days. Again, JMO.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #27 on:** November 06, 2007, 02:57:29 PM »

Quote from: Dee on November 06, 2007, 02:10:49 AM

Swampman in other actions you could have a valid point, but 3030 pressures are not going to damage a pre-war 3030, as it is a good strong action well suited to the cartridge. Mine is 50 years old, and a 250 yard shot at a gallon jug of water (which I practice on), or a deer is a done deal with the 150 grain round nose loaded at 2400 fps. I would not hesitate shooting the leverevolution 165 grainers at the same 2400fps in the rifle. The ammo companies are wanting to sell new rifles, and are, I believe, INTENTIONALLY not paying attention to QC on ammo such as the 3030, to discourage NON-re loaders to go buy a NEWER CALIBER. JMO
It used to be that a man bought ONE RIFLE for life, and learned it inside out, and they were built to last a life time. These newer calibers will WASH OUT a barrel if shot as much as the life timer might shoot a rifle now a days. Again, JMO.

Actually, I've found the Winchester .30-30 ammo to be quite consistent and accurate to boot. And while not quite as hot as my loads, certainly not "weak-kneed". I think the suggestion that ammo manufacturers are not paying attention to quality is ridiculous - for the most part they are turning out some of the best (most consistent) .30-30 ammo ever made available from factories. Velocity may not be what you want (in which case try another brand or reload), but the quality is there.

Brithunter · « **Reply #28 on:** November 07, 2007, 12:54:56 PM »

Well I am sorry to say that my experience of using factory ammunition has not been good. So far I have tried three different loads in the .243 and none of it was accurate enough to use for hunting, the 30030 Winchester ammo in 150 grain, both HP and Silver Tip has prooved poor, the Winchester .303 ammo I have is about the best of the American center-fire ammo I have tried. I had have better luck with Sako Lapua and RWS and indifferent results with Norma. The cartridges that I have tried factory ammunition in are:-

.222 Rem
.243 Win
6.5x55
.270 Win
7x57 Mauser
.308 Win
30-30 Win
.300 Win Mag
.303 British
8x57 Mauser
9.3x57 Mauser

The cartridges that I have the best success with are:-

.222 Rem Sako 55 grain Gamehead
6.5x55 Norma 77 grain SP
7x57 RWS 175 Grain H-Mantle
.300 Win Mag Lapua 220 grain Mega
.303 150 grain PMP
8x57 Mauser S&B 196 grain SPCE and 196 grain Privi Partesen SP
9.3x57 Norma 286 Grain Alaska

The .243 rifle has some bedding problems and finding scope mounts to fit that don't move (the action is dovetailed) so until these problems are resolved I have stopped wasting ammo on it. However it's the four rifles chambered in .270 Win that have surprised me as none shoot the factory (Norma and RWS) ammo particularly well.

Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #29 on:** November 07, 2007, 02:46:31 PM »

Quote from: Brithunter on November 07, 2007, 12:54:56 PM

Well I am sorry to say that my experience of using factory ammunition has not been good. So far I have tried three different loads in the .243 and none of it was accurate enough to use for hunting, the 30030 Winchester ammo in 150 grain, both HP and Silver Tip has prooved poor, the Winchester .303 ammo I have is about the best of the American center-fire ammo I have tried.…

In the greater scheme of things, only a small percentage of ammo that goes through my rifles is factory ammo. While it may not be benchrest quality, I have yet to find factory ammo that ISN’T accurate enough for hunting. Some has been very accurate. The Winchester 170g SilverTip ammo did quite well in my .30-30 and it took me a while to beat the load with handloads.