All most all purpose 30-30 load - 150 or 170?

[J Miller]

Sometime in the near future I'll have all three basic Win 94, 30-30 barrel lengths covered. 16", 20", and 26".

Although I've been shooting the 30-30 for close to 40+ years I've mostly used 150gr bullets. My thoughts on this was that since the 30-30 is not a high pressure magnum the 150gr bullet would give me the best velocity and straightest trajectory of the two weights.
I've shot some 170s occasionally, and for the most part have no recollection of them doing anything that would make me sit up and notice it.

So for those who have used the 30-30 with jacketed bullets enough to form a solid opinion; which jacketed bullet weight would you suggest for a one size for all three barrel lengths load, the 150gr or 170gr?

Joe

[TedH]

If you're just punching paper I don't see any reason to throw that extra 20 gr. of lead. I'd stick with the 150's.

[Dave]

I have always used 170's just because they shot well out of my gun. They punch right through deer and hogs and I like that. It seems 150's are more popular but really I can't believe 20 grains of weight is that big a deal.

[Blaine]

The very first 30wcf ammo I shot was green box 170s....they shot into half inch at 50 yds....saw no reason to ever try anything else, tho, during the ammo crisis I picked up some Win and Fed 170s, and have some 150 flat nose of some flavor I might load someday.

[J Miller]

My current and near future uses will be paper punching and practice for the most part. However I'm thinking for the future as well. I hope to put these rifles to work when I get out of here.

Joe

[wm]

I like the 170 grain soft points in my 30 WCF. But that is because I buy either the Winchester Power Points or Remington Cor Lokts in bulk and I load them in my 30-40 Krag, 300 Savage, 30-06, 308, and 7.5X55mm.

For Michigan deer hunting those 170 grain soft points work just fine out of all those rifles and are pleasingly accurate punching paper.

[Hobie]

I don't think it matters much for any reason. I use the 170s. Just my personal preference. They work.

[Idiot]

I've settled on 150 grain bullets because I can then match my reloads to factory loads that are most available at Wal-Mart in my area, which is 150 grains - dogs, deer, javalina, antelope, and other medium sized game that needs killing won't know the difference.

[FWiedner]

I use my .30-30s as hunters, and when I hunt all but the smallest game I prefer to go heavy for caliber.

I dedicate guns to specific loads. Different load, different gun.

I practice on paper using the same ammo that I hunt with.

Ive got 3 Model 94's and so far the 170s just shoot better in my guns and get better penetration on medium and large game. The 150's just make a mess of things.

That 20 grains seems to make a difference.

[txpete]

I have shot a bunch of different loads in my win 94 30/30's both carbine and "rifle".really if your just punching paper save some money and shoot some cast loads.the ranchdog 165 gr bullet is one of the best.
that said in my win's the jacketed 150 and 170 gr bullets both group good.I would also say the rem 150 gr bulk bullet has always shot good in my guns.

pete

[Mike D.]

I use the 150 Barnes TSX out of necessity. Regardless, I like the way those bullets perform. High velocity, extreme accuracy and knock down power.

[Bigahh]

If I lived anywhere in the Good Old U.S.A. there is no doubt in my mind I would still use the trusty 170 grain Hornady Flat Point. It just shoots so well out of my rifles I would never think of changing to any other weight or brand for that matter. Whatever bullet shoots out of your rifles, use it! If you want to try some Hornady Flat Points I will be happy to send you some down Joe.

[Sixgun]

Jacketed bullets?? I'm too cheap to buy 'em. Back in '72 when I started to load for the 30 WCF, I may have bought 3 or 4 boxes of 170 Sierra's. From there on and about 10,000 rounds later, its been a 175 gr. cast gas check out of several dozen 30's.-----------Sixgun

[iceman]

I shoot 170 because my rifle likes them more than the 150s. I would suggest get a couple boxes of each and see what works the best in your rifles. They probably won't all like the same, but you never know until you try. Happy shooting.

[Griff]

I generally use 150s. In factory loaded jacketed, reloads and gas-checked reloads. I've shot several deer with Federal 150 gr. Power-Shok. From ~40 yards to over 200, each has been a thru and thru. Haven't seen a need for 170s.

Here's trajectory data I worked up from 5 different loads (bullet weights are primary differences) I did some 15 or so years ago. Unfortunately, I don't have any 170 data. However, even tho' there are 3 different 150 grain bullets, you can see the BC has some slight affect on trajectory. All data is from my 26" octagon barrelled mdl 94, starting w/the 125 Sierra, the 130 Speer, 150 Sierra, 150 Speer & the 150 Nosler:









I ain't sure exactly if that answers any question you might have... but... interesting data anyway. But, in looking at bullet details, it's easy to see why the weightier and longer 170 bullets don't vary very much in trajectory from their 150 grain little brothers. It's all in the Ballistic Coefficient:

.308 dia. (.30-30) 170 gr. FN
.205 @ 2400 fps and above
.248 between 2400 and 1800 fps
.293 @ 1800 fps and below

Bullet Coefficient
0.304

Interestingly, both brands have a sectional density of .256, and I find it interesting that Sierra lists 3 different ballistic coefficients based on velocity... someone smarter than me will have to explain that!

[El Chivo]

I switched to the 150's to improve the trajectory. I started with the 170's but found they dropped considerably more. If I wanted heavy bullets that drop quickly I could just stick with 35 Rem.

Also while researching guns I read that many hunters have had issues with 170's not expanding on deer. Perhaps the shots taken were too long, but why take a chance?

I also read that the 170's retain energy better than 150's or 35 Rem 200's, which was why I tried them out.

In general I think the obvious answer to the question, the all-purpose load, is 150's, and 170's would be for when you want more penetration like hogs or bear. Of course people have their preferences either way but when you speak of all purpose, I think of going from varmint hunting to small game to big game. The 150's shoot flatter, expand well, and get the job done in most situations.

[rjohns94]

I use 170grain loads mostly. my rifles seem to shoot them well. I plan on doing some casting and experimenting but so far, factory winchester silvertips in 170gr seem to work just fine.

[Pisgah]

I have never found a dramatic performance difference between 150s and 170s in general. Yes, the 150s shoot just a tad flatter, the 170s seem to give just a bit more penetration on heavy targets, and individual rifles have shown a preference for one over the other when it comes to accuracy. But even though I know which load each of my .30-30s "likes" best, when it comes to factory ammo I usually buy whichever brand and bullet weight is cheapest at the moment and find that in any of these guns it will perform well enough for whatever use I want to make of it.

[86er]

Joe -

When Ricky got his 94 the rear sight ladder would not adjust enough for him to get 170's on the target. He has shot 150's in that gun ever since. In contrast, I picked up a 94 and my rear sight won't go low enough for the 150's to be on the small bullseye. I'm shooting 170's because of it. After experimentation, I can shoot 125's, and 150 Barnes loaded slower than factory to hit the point of aim with my sights. I couldn't change the rear sight elevator since the sight still shot high with the elevator removed altogether. On the other hand, if it had shot too low I suppose I could have got a new, higher elevator to make it work. The point is, you may want to try your rifles and see if each will hit where you want with the respective loads you're considering. If not, you'll need to change the load, stick with one or change the sight elevator. As far as a hunting bullet, someone that has 1000 Tags Filled data can figure out for you what shows to be statistically better. I believe there is data on over 100 animals shot with the 30-30. I have the data but I'm no good at manipulating it. Good luck!

[jlchucker]

I have shot a bunch of different loads in my win 94 30/30's both carbine and "rifle".really if your just punching paper save some money and shoot some cast loads.the ranchdog 165 gr bullet is one of the best.
that said in my win's the jacketed 150 and 170 gr bullets both group good.I would also say the rem 150 gr bulk bullet has always shot good in my guns.

pete

I agree. My personal favorite 30-30 plinking bullet is a 311008 cast bullet listed by Lyman for the 32-20 and weighing around 115-120 grains,
sized to fit my 30-30 of choice. I load them to around a listed 1400-1500 fps, get no leading and find these to be plinking-accurate to around 75 yd. Recoil is light, and the shooting is fun as well as cheap.

[336A]

I use 150gr bullets for all around use as I feel they shoot flatter and expand a little better than the 170's plus they are more accurate out of my rifle. However if I were going after game larger than deer sized game I'd use the 170gr bullets, the 170gr loads shoot about 1.5-1.75" for me at 100yd.

[J Miller]

Some comments:

The Hornady gummy tip LEVERevolution bullets are not even considered.
First; I am not a fan of pointed bullets of any kind in tube magazines.
Second; I've heard wildly varying reports of their performance on game from different people. 86er did a report on them and was less than satisfied.

For the purpose of THIS thread cast bullets are not being considered. I do have some loaded up and will test them but for now I'm sticking to the 170 and 150gr jacketed soft points.
................................................

86er,
I probably would learn a lot from your book. A soon as I get things figured out I think I'll pick one up.

The rear sight elevator issue is an easy one to fix. At least in my minds eye.
I usually leave my elevator on the middle step and using a 6:00 hold I want my bullets to hit 3" high at 100 yds. I've never had a Win 94 that wouldn't do that. And I've had 14 or 15 of them, all vintages but the AE models.
If I found one that would not cooperate I'd set the rear sight on the middle step and shoot it at 100 yds. Then I'd use a sight height calculator to see how much taller or shorter I needed my front sight to be. After that I'd put on a new front sight.

.................................................

Griff,

Will study your charts when my sinuses let my brain focus.

.................................................
Pisgah,
That's pretty much what I've seen too.
I'm seeing that there really isn't a dramatic difference in performance between the two loads.

Joe

[Markbo]

As a rule, I let my gun tell me what it likes and let it be whatever it is. I see no useful information in all the ballistic data in the world if the chosen load in a particular gun is not one of the 3 most accurate loads I have worked up for it. Only when I know the best the gun can shoot, do I worry about how far I can shoot it.

For plinking at close range - which is completely different than working up hunting loads - I usually try to find some sort of 'target' load, eg 200gr TC over 5.0gr Titegroup in .45 ACP. I do the same in all rifles and handguns that I plink with a lot. Find something less than max weight at a reasonable velocity that shoots consistent small groups. Then I work up hunting loads (if so used) in each gun completely separately.

[Old Savage]

170s, they have been more accurate in my 30-30 shooting.

[J Miller]

One of the things I've always done is to utilize practice ammo of the same qualities of my serious ammo.
By qualities I mean that it has the same recoil, same or similar muzzle blast, hits to the same point, and functions the same.

By utilizing ammo that meets these criteria every round weather shot as a plinking or target round, is a serious practice round. By doing this I keep myself fully familiarized with my guns and I don't have to switch ammo around for a frantic practice and re-familiarization session.

Joe