1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

.300 Savage

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Shawnee, Nov 23, 2008.

  1. Shawnee

    Shawnee member

    Today the .300 Savage is thought of by many or most as an "obselete" cartridge.

    But it was close to being the .300 Win. Mag. of its' day. It was brought out to be close in performance to the .30 Springfield with 150gr. bullets but what made it special was that it was brought out in a popular sporting rifle (the lever-action Savage 99 as opposed to the less-than-handy military Springfields and the Krag) thus enabling sportsmen to have pointy bullets in a powerful cartridge in a classic and popular rifle design. The .300 H&H magnum came out a couple years later but was strictly an expensive custom proposition for its' first 15 years or so.

    The .300 Savage was a big step above the .30/30 and old .303 Savage and, if one looks closely, it is still shoulder to shoulder with the much newer and much-ballyhooed .308 Win. And yet the .300 Savage (like the .308) can be downloaded (Gee, what a novel idea) to 30/30 levels (more or less) which is a real "plus".

    I don't claim to be a fan of .30 calibers (except the .30/30) but I think I've met three people who were using 99s in the .300 Savage and I don't recall any of their rifles being for sale.

  2. justice4all

    justice4all Well-Known Member

    That's what my dad uses for deer/bear. He's not letting it go. He used to use an aught six, but as he got older he realized he could do much the same task--hunt in PA--with much less bang and kick.
  3. Afy

    Afy Well-Known Member

    The .300 Savage remains popular in Europe... given our classifications of @war@ versus civvie calibers.
  4. woof

    woof Well-Known Member

    I have a 99 from the late '20s that was bought by my grandfather. It's the .25 cal version, .250-3000. Also considered obsolete, it was a high tech marvel in its day - the 3000 means 3000fps because it was the first cartridge to achieve that mv. Over the years the .257 Roberts beat it and then the .243 came along. But the .250 is the equal of either. At least the .22-250 continues the legacy. Many today don't know that the .22-250 is so named because it is based on the .250-3000 case, which in turn was based on the .300 Savage case.
  5. Shawnee

    Shawnee member

    You're right on about the .250 Savage (aka .250/3000), Woof.

    I know some Folks who have used them a long time and wouldn't trade them for anything.

  6. Z71

    Z71 Well-Known Member

    The .300 is a good round. My father owning a Savage 99 in the caliber. I couldn't tell any real difference between it and a .308 Winchester preformance wise.

    I never considered it the equal of a .30-06, but really not too far behind.

    The .300 was once chambered in bolt action rifles by several manufactures, and was quite popular.

    Would seem more modern calibers claimed it's market share, the .308 being the most mentioned, and closest cartridge in size and caliber.

    Sort of like the .243 Winchester and .244/6mm Rem, or .270 Win, and the .280/7mm Express Rem cartridges. Two similiar rounds hit the market, and one comes out ahead, whether it's a better cartridge or not.

    Lots of interesting old chamberings floating around. Many being quite close in performance to currently popular rounds, but that have fallen by the wayside for some reason or other. Many like the .300 Savage superceded by newer cartridges of near identical performance.

    I never really understood why one once populer cartridge would falter yet a near identical round would thrive.
  7. moosehunt

    moosehunt Well-Known Member

    Most of you probably know this, but the .300 Sav received it "death knoll" when the military adopted the .308 instead of the .300 Sav. They were in very close compitition for that selection, but the .308 won out. I just recently hunted caribou (and shot 2) with my 1938 vintage M99 in .300 Sav. I had absolutely no need for anything bigger, and one was at near 200 yds. Great gun--my only desire is to improve the trigger pull, not an easy objective to accomplish. It's not for sale!
  8. stiab

    stiab Well-Known Member

    I'ts not hard to find ammo. I see it at almost all the gunshops I go to, including the Gander Mountain I was at yesterday. I know where there is a Ruger 77 in .300 Savage with a pretty steep price tag on it. There are still alot of Rem 760's out there in .300 Savage also. If I'm not mistaken, Rem has also chambered some of their Classic line in the .300. I agree it did not keep pace with the .308 for obvious reasons, but I think it is still a highly respected round.
  9. moosehunt

    moosehunt Well-Known Member

    Stiab, all you say is correct, with the exception of your comment that it didn't keep pace with the .308 for obvious reasons. If what you mean as obvious reasons is that the military selected the .308 instead of the .300 Sav, OK, but if you mean because it isn't there with the .308 cartridgewise, then not so. They are near twins. Look at reloading data--they are basically interchangable with the same results.
  10. stiab

    stiab Well-Known Member

    Yep, that's the obvious reason. There are no other reasons I can think of. The .308 was too close akin to the .30-06 not to win that battle.
  11. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    The .250-3000 Savage was my Dad's favorite cartridge. He killed a tiger in Sumatra in the '30s with it, and a host of big game in Etheopia in the '40s.

    The .250-3000 and the .300 Savage were indeed killed off by the .308 Winchester and the .243 Winchester (which is simply the .308 necked down to .243.)

    The original 99 Savage receiver was too short to accomodate the 51mm case of the .308, so Savage lenthened it a bit in the mid-50s to accomodate those two cartridges -- and from then on, it was only a matter of time until they killed off the Savage cartridges.
  12. moosehunt

    moosehunt Well-Known Member

    Actually, the .308 isn't any closer kin to the .30-06 than the .300 Sav. You can easily make either case out of '06 cases. I have heard the "reason" the .308 was selected over the .300 Sav, but can't recall it. I do recall that it was a pretty flimsy argument.
  13. earlthegoat2

    earlthegoat2 Well-Known Member

    My main rifle battery consists of the 257 Roberts, and the 300 Savage. Two bulletproof calibers that should never have been pushed to the backburner.
  14. USSR

    USSR Well-Known Member

    The .300 Savage DID NOT compete with the .308 for adoption as the new round to replace the .30-06. The .300 Savage only served as the inspiration for the new .30 caliber round (T65) that eventually became the .308 Winchester and 7.62x51 Nato.

  15. fineredmist

    fineredmist Well-Known Member

    I have done a fair amount of study of the Savage lever action in comparison the Winchester design and IMHO the Savage it the better of the two. The bolt lockup of the Savage is far stronger than the Winchester and the rotary magazine is a work of genius, it handles both rimmed and rimless cases smoothly. The cartridge counter is also a pluse which is not found on the Winchester. The easy and fast top loading, a user friendly safety just add to the overal quality of the gun. I have often wondered where would Winchester be if Arthur Savage has produced this fine gun 20 years earlier.
    The supposed fault of the .300 Savage round is the short neck. I have a .300 Savage and load for it and have not found any problem with the "short" neck.
  16. moosehunt

    moosehunt Well-Known Member

    USSR (that's kind of an unhandy set of initials I wouldn't want)--I'm not into a pissin match, but that is not the way I recall the story. My understanding is that both the old .300 Sav and the (at the time) relatively new .308 were the "finalists" in a quite competitive and argumental contest--yet mayhaps you are correct. I don't claim to be an authority. It's been a long time since since I read the entire tritise, but I'd certainly would enjoy rubbing my eyes across it again if you have it.
  17. USSR

    USSR Well-Known Member


    The "USSR" stands for "Unique Soviet Souvenirs and Relics", an internet business I have. In addition, I have traveled extensively to several FSU (former Soviet Union) republics. Below is a link detailing the relationship between the .300 Savage and the developmental T65 cartridge which became the .308/7.62x51 cartridge.


  18. B BRI

    B BRI Well-Known Member

    +1 on the 300 Savage being the parent round for the 308 ( and it's ballistic twin ). Great round, I've got a 300 Savage Remington Model 81 that can reach out and touch something far beyond my eyes capabilities . . . as long as I do my part, the 300 Sav does its' part.

    I also have a 250 Savage 99, that my daughter has put to good use for the last year or so . . .

    Both of the old Savage chamberings bring a lot to the table and aren't really outclassed by the new "gee-whiz-bang" chamberings brought out since their introduction; they both do their job, and do it well.
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2008
  19. Ulysses

    Ulysses Member

    300 Savage

    The 300 Savage was the 308 before they invented the 308
    The limitation on the 300 Savage is the lever action & that isn't much of a limitation
  20. B BRI

    B BRI Well-Known Member

    . . . not a limitation at all in a Remington Model 81 Autoloader.:D

Share This Page