Firearms B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I removed the claims relating to Leverevolution ammo. The "superiority" of the loading has not been verified by unbiased testers, and seem to stem mostly from Hornady's advertising department. A quick study of the ballistics using commercial software indicates that the gains over flat-nosed bullets is less than 10% in actual usable range. I think it's best if we avoid perpetuating hype.

From http://www.chuckhawks.com/leverevolution.htm, a report by Guns and Shooting Online staff:

It has taken some 145 years, but we finally have spitzer bullets in high performance, factory loaded .30-30 ammunition... Congratulations to Hornady! Those are the best averages ever achieved with either rifle shooting factory loaded ammunition. It is superior both ballistically and in accuracy to all previous .30-30 factory loads tested to date.

I'll put it back and put in a link to the article as a reference. scot 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • The original source for the G&S and most of the other magazine and Web articles stem from press releases from Hornady, or from magazine writers from publications who carry full page ads from Hornady. Careful study of even their published data indicates a 10% superiority at best, and there is some debate as to whether the ammo meets SAAMI specifications in regard to pressure levels. The claimed "advantages" can mostly be attributed to this cause. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual... not corporate hype. *****

You are incorrect. Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. I have provided a non-Hornady source for the information in the article, which included independent testing of the ammunition in three different firearms, in addition to Hornady published information on ballistic coefficents and test velocities. If you have objections to the validity of that information, then you need to provide a source to support that objection, and put it into the article; accusing Hornady of exceeding SAAMI pressures is a serious allegation, especially given the number of .30-30 rifles on the market that are as much as 110 years old. And any ballistics table will show you the ballistic superiority of a spitzer bullet over a flat point bullet at long range, so I see no reason to doubt the G&S report. scot 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely comfortable with NPOV of last paragraph. If anyone has suggestions for rewording, please feel free to edit. The LEVERevolution information is newsworthy, but I would like to avoid sounding like a commercial for their products. Kemkerj 08:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what does the second "30" in ".30-30" stand for? Maybe it should be included in the article. Graham Bould 15:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Legendary Sporting Rifles by Sam Fadala, it stands for the amount of smokeless powder. Even though having the powder charge as the second number is generally a blackpowder thing, the practice was still around at that time. It is true that originally Winchester did not call it a .30-30, but .30WCF. After widespread use of the former term, however, they changed references to the cartridge in their literature.

I've added to the first paragraph and fixed the reference indicating the second thirty was for reloading with black powder. I've confirmed in my sources and here: http://www.leverguns.com/articles/3030history.htm that the second "thirty" was added by Marlin to avoid having to put "Winchester" on the side of their barrels. The .30-30 was never a black powder round, though the use of a powder weight was a convetion taken from the era of black powder cartridges such as .45-70 or .50-70. It's doubtful thirty grains of black powder would fit in the small .30-30 case even if compressed.

I use a .30-30 in the Black Powder Cartridge matches at the local club. The .30-30 will take a 2.5cc measure of BP (or pyrodex or Triple7) as an uncompressed load (the Lee chart lists 2.5cc of FFg BP as 36.8 grains). Naaman Brown (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add: the 1897 Sears Roebuck & Co catalog shows Winchester products listing the original black powder cartridges with the .caliber-charge designation (.38-40, .44-40, etc) and the .30 Winchester Smokeless without charge weight to distinguish their smokeless cartridge from the original black powder cartridges (which were offered in black powder and later smokeless loadings). The Winchester naming scheme was an attempt to break with the past. While .30 WCF can be loaded with black powder, the rifling of .30 WCF barrels is optimized for smokeless powder velocities and jacketed bullets. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naaman - I'm a little confused about what you're asking. Are you asking if you can use the Sears Catalog? Or are you proposing an actual paragraph? Or are you somehow responding to the paragraph above yours? Or maybe I missed it entirely and you meant something else. ;-) AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where is the attribution for the Hornady LEVERevolution polymer tips getting "mashed up" in the magazine? I've not heard, nor read that anywhere and would like to know where the information came from. I found a few forum comments from armchair ballisticians who speculate that they will deform in a day of hunting and the warning on the back of the box that extended storage in the magazine may deform the tips. Kemkerj 01:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that claim as regards Hornady, but it is a common issue. For a recent article see the August 2007 (#248) of Handloader magazine - Bullet Runout by Dave Scovil, see the section entitled Deformed Polymer Tip Bullets. Arthurrh 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7.62x51R? I've never heard of this cartridge being called anything except ".30-30" or ".30-30 Winchester". --Commander Zulu 11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7.62x51R is a European designation; the only place you're likely to see it is guns intended for the European market, such as combination guns. See http://www.deerstalker.com/european_cartridge_equivalents.htm for a source to back this up. scot 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request to move this page, since the cartridge is much more often referred to as the .30-30, rather than .30 WCF, and I can't do it myself because there are already redirects with history at .30-30 and .30-30 Winchester. Night Gyr 22:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT Isn't Winchester .30-30 more common? 132.205.45.148 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In common usage, Winchester .30-30 refers to a gun made by Winchester and chambered in .30-30, just like you'd say Ruger 9mm or Marlin .30-30. Wincester's name for the cartidge is .30 WCF, and Marlin came up with the name .30-30 to avoid having to write Winchester on their rifles. The .30-30 Winchester name is a hybrid of the two and (pure speculation here) might have come about due to the common naming convention used for cartridges such as the .56-56 Spencer, the .45-70 Government, the .30-40 Krag. scot 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Either would do, actually, as long as .30-30 and Winchester are in the name, since they're both common usage and fairly official, but google gets [1] >40,000 for .30-30 winchester vs. [2]~16,000 for winchester .30-30. I think it just rolls off the tongue better. Night Gyr

2/2/07 by John Kort aka w30wcf Thank you for your accurate description of this grand old cartridge. The misconception that the -30 meant wt./grs. of black powder is alive and well based on other definitions I have read. Thank you for setting the record straight. (The .30-30 case will actually hold close to 45 grs. of b.p.)

I wrote the .30-30 History on the Leverguns forum that you referred to. One thing I will mention is that the original powder used was called DuPont .30 Caliber Smokeless and in testing, I found it similar to 4064 in burning rate rather than the 3031 referenced.

Over time, faster burning powders (like 3031) were used to increase the muzzle velocity to 2,220 f.p.s.(170 gr.). The original muzzle velocity was 1,970 f.p.s. under a 160 gr. bullet.

Thank you again,

John

I, too, would like to thank all the contributors who have helped make this article accurate and informative. I did some of the early editing on the article, as the .30WCF is one of my favorite cartridges to hunt deer with in Georgia. Everyone who has contributed to this article has done a fantastic job. Kudos to all!

And thanks, John, for your Leverguns history on this cartridge!

Kemkerj (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

the article twice mentions the article twice mentions the fact that the 30 30 has a flat tip or whatever in order to prevent premature detanation.

The article correctly states that the -30 refers to 30 grains of smokeless powder. Just to add detail, I believe the original round used 30 grains of cordite. Can anyone confirm/deny this? I'm not going to add it without a source. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so, that does not make the statement incorrect, as cordite is a type of smokeless powder, particularly a double base extruded powder. It's questionable whether cordite would have been used, as it was primarily used by the British. I'll keep looking, though. So far, I've found references in Google Books dating back to 1900 referring to "30-30 smokeless-powder carbines", and no references to the .30-30 containing cordite. scot (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Barnes' Cartridges of the World, 10th ed., and he states "smokeless powder" sever times in the article, no mention of cordite. Ditto for the .30-30's military predecessor, the 1892 .30-40 Krag. There was a lot of variation in the early smokeless propellants; the French used Poudre B in the 8 mm Lebel in 1886, and the British switched the .303 British (developed 1887) from a solid compressed black powder charge to a cordite charge in 1892. For a change, the Americans seemed to be ahead of the curve, as the early smokeless powders used in American cartridges weren't too far removed from modern powders. scot (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/PerCaliber2Guide/Rifle/Standarddata(Rifle)/308Cal(7.82mm)/30%2030%20Winchester%20pages%20253%20to%20254.pdf
  • In .30-30 Winchester on 2011-05-20 21:36:21, 404 Not Found
  • In .30-30 Winchester on 2011-06-20 02:59:22, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.gunsandhunting.com/3030.html
  • In .30-30 Winchester on 2011-05-20 21:36:26, 404
  • In .30-30 Winchester on 2011-06-20 03:01:26, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=198
  • In .30-30 Winchester on 2011-05-20 21:36:37, 404 Not Found
  • In .30-30 Winchester on 2011-06-20 03:01:28, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the .308 Winchester was the commercial derivative of the military item 7.62 x 51mm, and in the 1980's Winchester created a rimmed version of the .308 called the .307 Winchester for its USRAC model 94 lever action rifles. I second the motion to dump (kibosh) the metric system international, as the said link is dead and most google hits revert back to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on .30-30 Winchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160615010723/http://www.hensleygibbs.com/edharris/articles/35winchester94.htm to http://www.hensleygibbs.com/edharris/articles/35winchester94.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computers and electronic use of data continues to increase and is being relied on more and more.  Incorrect use of data exponentially causes issues when left in an inconsistent error state.  There is a lot of confusion when people are looking at cartridge or firearm chamberings.  It is extremely important that effort is put forth to remediate these issues.  Everyone needs to represent caliber the same way, which would be the correct way.

WikipediA is misleading many regarding to this issue.

The unit or designation of measure is Caliber.  This unit is the standard for industry, standards, documentation, and other.   Caliber is a unit "based" on inches and/or millimeter (mm).  When using the designation of caliber it is not represented directly as a measurement of inches.  Refer to the definition of caliber.  Caliber is based on dimenstions of n hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits.  When referring to cartridges, or chambers and in some instances the bullet, the units or designation used is caliber.  This would be expressed without any leading decimal.   Example: 22 LR is the 22 caliber Long Rifle cartridge.  It may be approximately 0.22 inches in diameter; however, the Caliber is 22.   If one were to  say/list ".45 Cal" , this would convert in inches to 0.0045".

Leaving the decimal out of imperial specifications is intentional.  It is not common language to say "Point 22 LR"  or "Dot 22 LR", the common phrase is "Twenty Two LR".    It is also easy to miss read or not see markings with a leading dot, thus another reason the unit of caliber is used.   If it was desired to have the decimal in place, the units would be left as inches and not caliber.   This would also be a little misleading as most of the time the caliber does not match the exact measurement of inches.  When specifying exact measurements in drawings the units of inches (") or millimeter (mm) are used.

It is important to know that Caliber is its own "Unit" of measurement.   It is quite unique as it is based of inches and/or millimeters, however caliber is it's own unique designation.   Knowing and using the correct unit designation is important.

The most common units are Kilograms (kg) Meters (m), and Seconds (s).  Kilograms cannot be interchangeably uses with Pounds (lbs).  Meters cannot be directly interchanged with Yards, Caliber cannot be directly interchanged with inches.  When misrepresenting caliber, it is similar to using minutes for seconds without doing proper conversion of value "and" units.  They are directly related but they have a different value and units.    Values and the units used are separated by a space.   Example 7 mm is correct,  7mm is accepted in some cases depending on font and spacing, however it is not correct, (proportional spacing with fonts). Correct case of letters (upper, lower) is critically important, mm = millimeters, MM who knows that that would be.   Another example (5.56 x 45 mm).  Both 5.46 and 45 are in mm (millimeters), note the spacing around the x and between the number (value) and the units (mm).

Finding reference that support something that is incorrect does not validate arguments of incorrect designation.  Propagated misunderstanding of the difference of physical dimensions in inches rather than the correct reference of caliber does constitute a reference as reliable.  https://saami.org is your best reliable reference.

To summarize, the units are Caliber not inches.    The reference is for the cartridge,  not specifically any dimension for the bore diameter or bullet diameter which is often not represented as the same exact number as the caliber for the cartridge.   The inches are not an exact or consistent  measurement  depending on where they are measured, lands, grooves, bullet diameter…. , therefore caliber is the unit used, and not a specific dimension, and it does not have a leading decimal.

~~~~Scimernet

Scimernet (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]