Home Forums Lever Action Central Lever Actions - General 30-30 Buffalo Bore ammo 190gr

Any of you guys try this heavy 30-30 load ? Would it be ok for elk size game in short range hunting?

[bleep], you don't need to spend the money on Buffalo bore ammo to shoot elk with a 30-30. I personally prefer anything in a 338 but I hunted for years with a 30-30 and work for an indian tribe where I've seen numerous bison dropped with a 30-30 using 170grn bullets at 150yds or less. One big bull took 3-shots to anchor, but he was wounded prior during roundup and he wasn't providing much of a shot.

I know that isn't the answer you are looking for, but a couple off well placed shots and you'll be fine without spending the extra money.

Thanks 4x4Mag

Yes people get caught up in the power thing and not what been going on a 100 years or so. I for one this happend to

I have not personally tried this ammo, but I've heard at least one report that expressed disappointment at this load. Frankly, its hard to imagine the purpose of slowing down the old 30 with this heavy of a bullet.
Right now we have the best bullet technology available. If you need to shoot factory loads look for Federal-they load either the Barnes or the Nosler right now-either are fantastic bullets. Winchester has a new bonded core 30 WCF load out, and Grizzly loads the Hawk premium soft point. Any of these choices will greatly improve the performance of the 30WCF.

Was the 303 Savage with the 190gr a fair combo?

The last 190 grain loads made for the 303 I'm aware of were Winchester Silvertips. These loads would work fine on deer, but with a thin jacket, they opened up quite quickly, making them marginal for heavier game.
Considering that the 30WCF has worked fine on deer for 100 years with a 150-160grain bullet, want to tell me exactly what the extra 30-40 grains are for?

I regularly use 190's in both .30/30s and .303 Savages, albeit they are cast lead bullets though. Cast soft and driven @ 2000fps, the wide flat points on them expand like crazy and "way over penetrate". If I were to use that combo on larger game, I would merely cast them from a harder alloy to gain more penetration. No need for expensive premium bullets here.

One very good reason for not using cast bullets which project into the case is accuracy. Accuracy regularly suffers since hot powder gasses will press on the base of the bullet, deforming it.
This obduration can also raise pressures, since the bullet must be squeezed back to groove diameter upon entering the rifling.
Another very good reason is that a 170 cast bullet is more than sufficient-if properly cast and lubed-to handle anything the 30 WCF is suitable to hunt.

Mak your post is sooo off that i wouldnt even know where to start, first would be it "obturation" and how would extending farther into a case cause more gas cutting????? Both bullet bases are subjected to the same gases????? Im at a loss here.....

When a cast bullet extends into the case, it has the base, and shank of the bullet in contact with the powder. When that powder burns it becomes a gas. This gas is going to work on that exposed surface, and its going to deform it. When a bullet obdurates, it shortens and widens to fill an available area, in this case, the shoulder of the cartridge brass. There is no guarantee that this process will happen uniformly. What do you think happens to accuracy when a deformed bullet leaves the bore?
No, it is not the same as the gases operating on the base of a bullet, supported by the neck of the case. Here, the force of the expanding gas acts purely to launch the bullet. In the example of using a long bullet, and any 190 grain cast bullet is going to have a longer shank than neck length, given correct OAL in the 30WCF, those same gases are allowed to operate on the entire exposed area of the cast bullet. This will, in fact, negatively affect accuracy, can easily lead to leading, and pressure issues, as stated above.

I do not have experience with Buffalo Bore's .30-30 load, but I have shot 1000's of rounds of Buffalo Bore ammunition, both rifle & revolver, cast and jacketed and have found it to be as good or better than the premium offerings from Federal & Hornady. Both from a consistency and from an accuracy stand point. I have found that Buffalo Bore's published velocity claims are more accurate in real world guns than what customary from other manufacturers.

Buffalo Bore 's .30-30 load is a jacketed flat point not cast. It is also listed at 2100 fps and Federal's premium load is a 170 gr Nosler partition at 2200 fps, so I don't see that you are losing much velocity with Buffalo Bore.

Sorry if I am off topic, but I tried to answer the question that was asked:)

Well, Mak, theoretically what you say makes sense but in the real world it has no meaning. I have proved that to my satisfaction many times over during 40 years of casting and loading, and not with just the .30/30 but with several other cartridges with much shorter necks, including the .300 Savage. I make no bones about liking heavy bullets in these calibers and have experimented with weights up to 220 grains, mostly cast bullets. If the effect you're referring to really takes place, the effect would be magnified by using a soft lead bullet. This argument has been batted around ad nauseum in forums and in print for many years and the consensus is always: don't worry about it. Sub-MOA accuracy with many loads in the 180-200 grain weight range speak for themselves.

When hunting with a .30/30 or .303 Savage I want every last bit of performance available to me without stepping into the realm of high pressures. That's why I favor 190's in the .30/30. I applaud Buffalo for providing a load of that weight commercially. Maybe more people will now try that weight bullet and see what they've been missing all these years.

Don't forget, the original factory load for the .303 Savage was with a 190 grain bullet. Hunters "back in the day" acknowledged that the .303 Savage had a slight edge performance-wise over it's nearly identical (in terms of case capacity) cousin the .30/30. That 190 grain bullet was why.

Would that load take the 30-30 out of just a deer class combo?

Please enlighten me. I've been using a .30-30 with jacketed 170's for deer and black bear since 1977 with complete satisfaction.

Gnoahh is talking ballistics, and you're talking personal satisfaction.

Two different things, and neither is wrong.

Well, since I've killed deer from 10' to 314 yards with the 170's and the only bullets I've ever recovered were from lengthwise shots {brisket to hip} I'm just curious as to what I've been missing.

If you're getting complete satisfaction with 170s, that's all you really need to know.

The rest is ballistics.

Frankly, I could not disagree with you more. We have plenty of empirical data backing up the deformation of exposed lead bullets. What we have been treated to, endlessly, is the fast and light vs. slow and heavy argument, which you rehash here.
The 303 was loaded with a jacketed, not a cast bullet, and the cartridge was associated with so much fantasy, that like the 22 HP, it required a few hunters getting stomped into the dirt, and failing spectacularly, before reality hit.
You do, however, make a point that is correct-some loads simply shoot well in our gun, and we don't always know why. Probably this is the reason so many of us say our rifle "likes" a particular load.
I should mention that it was somewhat common in decades past to see handloaders go with a 180-190 cast for the 30WCF. Back then they thought these loads gave them an edge. The reason almost no one wastes their time here anymore is because today's premium bullets actually do provide an edge, without the loss in velocity or rise in pressure that comes with the heavy for caliber bullet.

Once again, if it aint broke, why fix it? I've been using 170gr with consistently excellent results. Core-Lokts are hard to beat for my application. If I want to shoot elk, I use my 444Marlin or 30-06. But I know, guys just like to dink around with stuff.

I don't dispute the effectiveness of 170's in a .30/30. Hell when I'm feeling lazy I just grab a box of 170 Silver Tips and go for it. If nothing but that bullet weight was available I would still be loving life.

As for the .303, I treat it as any other .30/30. Not enough difference to sneeze at. My point is, a 190 gr. bullet loaded to full performance with safe pressure compared to a 170 loaded likewise has the edge ballistically- which may, or may not, matter in real world scenarios. As for modern technology giving "an edge" to old tried-and-true technology, great, but who really cares? Aside from advancing the general state of the gunning art (which is a good thing) in reality it is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. (But does allow an ill-informed guy to believe his old M94 now has the "killing power" -whatever that is- of a .308.) Advances in the ammunition technology is wonderful, as long as one doesn't buy into it myopically and devolve into a "dedicated follower of fashion", ie: technology for technology's sake.

I will stick with my "heavy for caliber" cast bullets in all of the .30s. They give me great flexibility in load development simply by jockeying the lead alloy makeup- and I won't go broke buying the "latest and bestest" bullets and ammo that hit the market. Obviously you have never killed deer with a soft 190 grain flat nosed cast bullet launched at 2000fps. It's something to behold. Talk about tissue damage and "way over penetration"!

I'd be pretty careful even considering Buffalo Bore ammo. For one thing, they are not members of the SAAMI. Which means they don't adhere to their standards as do the vast majority of ammo makers.
Second, I've seen two sepatate cases where their .45-70 ammo locked up Marlin rifles in good condition for which that ammo was supposidly designed.
No thanks. E

I think that if the .30-30 is all you have to hunt with, then it would make sense to go with a heavier bullet for bigger game. But for elk, I think you want to keep shots at 100 yards or less with the .30-30. However, given a choice, I would prefer to go with something more along the lines of a .30-06 class or larger caliber rifle for hunting animals larger and/or tougher than deer or if you are hunting somewhere that generally requires longer shots.

No but I've shot a damn good many with "soft lead" slugs of .50-.73 caliber and 350-600 grains at 1400-1800 fps and they don't make 'em one bit deader, one bit quicker than a 170 grain jacketed bullet from a .30-30. I don't believe for a minute I'd find any "magic killing power" hiding within the "ballistics" of a 190 grain .30 cal.

No magic, and I hope I didn't imply that there was any! My point is to not knock the use of bullet designs and weights that don't fit inside the parameters of common knowledge if you haven't tried them, and that old technologies kill as well as as new.

Montana, I agree 100%. If game heavier than deer were in the offing I would be reaching for something with more oomph than a .30/30 too. But if push came to shove, I wouldn't feel terribly undergunned with a .30/30 and heavy bullets- up close.

It's another choice, and I'm glad to see a company like BB offering this, and the rest of their line of ammo.

The advantages of a 190 over a 170 are as debateable as comparing a 170 to a 150. For deer, they are all proven.

If a 30-30 was all I had, I'd choose the 190gr load for bigger critters, or carrying one in the back country for personal defense. The advantages may be mostly psychological, but there's certainly no downside.

Now that I agree with. I've never shot a critter with any of these new fangled "super bullets" everybody seems to think they need these days and I doubt I ever will. The old fashioned lead and jacketed lead stuff works just fine.

Thanks guys for the replies.

Jeez, did we actually answer your question?

Kinda!

\

The 170 Np will get it done for You if You handload, if not Federal will load em for You in there premium line.



Gunner

Thanks Gunner!

The "secret" to the success of the .30-30 is (and has always been) that it uses a relatively heavy bullet at a velosity that allows a fairly flat trajectory over 200 yards or so.

No matter how you try, the .30-30 will NEVER be a .308 or .30-06. It makes no sense to try to make it something it was never intended to be......such as using a lightweight bullet (130-150 grains) in an effort to flatten trajectory and thus losing the one thing it does well......penetrate!

The .30-30 made it's reputation with a 170 grain bullet and that bullet still works today. It's not spectacular, but it does the job it was intended to do with a heavy bullet at relatively mild velosity. Dropping down to a 150 grain bullet will not gain enough extra velosity to make the .30-30 into a flat-shooting killer......but it will reduce penetration to the point that it may (or may not) do it's job on heavy game.

The .303 Savage was basically identical to the .30-30 ballistically, but had a reputation for being a better killer on larger game (elk, moose, ect.) due to one thing......a heavier 190 grain bullet. It penetrated better and thus killed better. THAT is the "secret" to using a relatively mild round on heavy animals......bullet weight!

The Buffalo Bore loads with a 190 grain bullet in the .30-30 duplicate that performance. Will it kill better than a "standard" 170 grain load???? Probably not in most circumstances.....but it DOES give a bit of an edge if things aren't just right. It will duplicate those eary .303 Savage loads that earned a reputation over the typical .30-30.....for a REASON. They work!!!

Thanks TR

Even old war horses like the .30-30 benefit from advances in propellents. The performance offered by B.B.s new load wasn't (safely) possible until fairly recent times. That's no critique of a proven cartridge/bullet combination. It's just some added icing on the cake. I could see a place for this load. It starts the 190 gr. bullet out at about what most factory loads push 170's. What's not to like (beside price-grin)?

Just remembered: Sam Fadala has written about pulling 190 gr. bullets from .303 Savage to load in his .30-30s "back in the day".

PC

One thing nobody has mentioned about the buffalo Bore 190's is their "hard" construction. They're specially made for BB by Hawk bullet co. with an extra hard core with only 20 gr's worth of soft lead poured in on top for a soft tip. As a result, they expand VERY little even when shot through heavy bone. They do penetrate well but I seriously doubt they'd kill deer sized game as efficiently as a softer 170 gr. that will expand to much greater degree.

So penetrate better on larger game?

Yes, but at the expense of a narrower wound channel. If I needed to shoot through elk/moose shoulders or stop charging grizzlies with a .30-30 for some reason, I'd consider the BB ammo. Outside of that, I'd stick with 170's.

I noticed BB describes them for elk, moose, bear defense. I believe the intent is to offer a 30-30 loading with an advantage for use on the bigger critters.

We used to use the 150gr load on deer, and it always blew right through with a big exit on broadside hits.

The 30 WCF did not make its reputation on 170's. For decades after its debut, the standard offering was a full patch, or a semi-patch 160 bullet that nipped at 2,000fps.
Over time, velocities increased, and bullet weights offered grew more varied, including light for caliber small game loads with lower powder levels, and the familiar 125, 150, 170 weight split we have today.
The differences in velocity between the 150 and 170 grain bullets can be as much as 400 fps, which is significant in the venerable 30. In order to boost any 190 grain bullet to 2,000 fps, which is the nominal velocity for most 170 weight cartridges, it is necessary is to exceed maximum mean pressures. This is possible for BBA because they are NOT a Saami manufacturer. This also means that you accept certain givens if you choose to use this ammo, and that includes risking yourself and your gun.
In the days when loading 190s into the 30 WCF was popular, the prevailing idea was that ballistic coefficient was the key to controlled expansion. This was only true given equal quality of bullet construction. In similar bullets, the one with the better b.c. often penetrated better. The limits of standard cup and core construction were reached and exceeded on a regular basis in those days, by many, many factory cartridges from America to the tropics.
The true secret to better performance was discovered by custom bullet makers like Mr. Nosler. True controlled expansion was accomplished via better alloys of core and jacket, together with tapering the jacket, and exposing less lead. It was this advance that revolutionized bullet technology, and provided for superior performance without resorting to dangerous pressures and heavy for caliber projectiles.
The use of 190s in the 30 WCF is a small, short chapter written by tinkerers and long since closed. Last I heard, Mr. Fadala, who remains a stalwart fan of the 30 WCF, is fond of premium loads by Winchester Ammunition, all of which feature a 150 grain bullet.
If you want or need penetration the premium offerings from Nosler, Hawk, and Barnes will provide better performance without the risks.
As to why anyone would wish to use premium bullets? Simple, because they make the 30 more effective in marginal, or difficult shot situations, and increase the effectiveness of the cartridge as an efficient and deadly round.

Thanks Mak

Looking at the ballistic stats between the factory 170 grn. loads and the Buffalo Bore 190 grn. loads at similar velocity, it would seem clear the advantage for larger game lies with the 190 grn. loading (given proper bullet construction). However the question of whether the Buffalo Bore loadings may be more taxing on your forearm seems legitimate (we need presure info to properly evaluate this).