Savage 340 rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gwen Auel

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
4
Which Savage 340 rifles are marked with "proof tested cal. 222 Rem". As in just the first few or all of them.
 
We have a Savage 340 made in the 1950s - 1960s. It has "proof tested cal. 222 Rem" marked on it. I'm wondering if all the Savage 340's from that time period have that mark or do just a few have it
 
Last edited:
I would hope that ALL the barrels are marked with the cartridge the barrel was chambered for...

I, too, would hope all the barrels were proof tested as well. I know this is not always the case, especially in Spain...
 
Sorry, I can not help with your question. There is no official proof house or testing in the USA. Several foreigh countries have proof houses and all firearms must be proofed. Here, we trust the manufacturer to build us a safe product.

Kevin
 
We have a Savage 340 made in the 1950s - 1960s. It has "proof tested cal. 222 Rem" marked on it. I'm wondering if all the Savage 340's from that time period have that mark or do just a few have it
I'm going to guess that only the ones chambered in 222 have that mark.
 
Relatively few take the now-obsolete .222 cartridge. Most 340s are chambered for .30-30 Winchester. Some were also chambered for .223 and .22 Hornet.
The 222 Remington is nowhere near as popular as it once was, but it's not yet obsolete either. Savage still makes rifles and ammo is widely available.
 
There is no official proof house or testing in the USA. S
Quite correct. There is no federally run official proof house in this country. At least not for civilian manufactures. Military contracts were different. Springfield Armory ( the real one, not the guys in Geneseo ) and the Rock Island Arsenal always proof tested. The standard .30 caliber proof was 70,000 PSI. When Colt assumed production of the M-16 they would have proof tested as well.

You would be shocked at the number of smaller manufactures that do not proof at all. They simply test fire with standard factory ammo and out the door it goes.
 
I would hope that ALL the barrels are marked with the cartridge the barrel was chambered for...

I, too, would hope all the barrels were proof tested as well. I know this is not always the case, especially in Spain...
Sorry, I can not help with your question. There is no official proof house or testing in the USA. Several foreigh countries have proof houses and all firearms must be proofed. Here, we trust the manufacturer to build us a safe product.

Kevin
Quite correct. There is no federally run official proof house in this country. At least not for civilian manufactures. Military contracts were different. Springfield Armory ( the real one, not the guys in Geneseo ) and the Rock Island Arsenal always proof tested. The standard .30 caliber proof was 70,000 PSI. When Colt assumed production of the M-16 they would have proof tested as well.

You would be shocked at the number of smaller manufactures that do not proof at all. They simply test fire with standard factory ammo and out the door it goes.
Quite correct. There is no federally run official proof house in this country. At least not for civilian manufactures. Military contracts were different. Springfield Armory ( the real one, not the guys in Geneseo ) and the Rock Island Arsenal always proof tested. The standard .30 caliber proof was 70,000 PSI. When Colt assumed production of the M-16 they would have proof tested as well.

You would be shocked at the number of smaller manufactures that do not proof at all. They simply test fire with standard factory ammo and out the door it goes.
Our gun was made somewhere between the 1950s - 1960s in the USA and it has the "proof tested" markings. Any idea on what company might have done that?
 
Depends on your definition of obsolete, I suppose- but fair enough.
Here's a useful definition:

A cartridge is obsolescent if nobody offers new guns for it.

A cartridge is obsolete if none of the major manufacturers offer ammunition for it.

So the 222 is on the verge of becoming obsolescent, because only Savage is making guns for it, and only one model at that. It will be a long time before it becomes obsolete, because there are a LOT of 222 rifles out there that will need to be fed.
 
Here's a useful definition:

A cartridge is obsolescent if nobody offers new guns for it.

A cartridge is obsolete if none of the major manufacturers offer ammunition for it.

So the 222 is on the verge of becoming obsolescent, because only Savage is making guns for it, and only one model at that. It will be a long time before it becomes obsolete, because there are a LOT of 222 rifles out there that will need to be fed.
I like that, well said.
 
That's funny, thinking the 222 Rem is obsolete.

222 was the second highest volume chambering of the 340; hardly a "relatively few". They, the nearly identical Springfield 325 (by Stevens) and several store brand versions, were manufactured for 35 years. There are tens and tens of thousands of 325s and 340s alone chambered in 222, plus a plethora of other manufacturers guns and the many, many benchrest competition rifles chambered in the cartridge that ruled the sport from the early fifties until 1975.

And you can buy a new Savage Walking Varminter in 222 Rem right now, one of which I also own, allowing you to shoot small dogs, ground squirrels, and other small critters for which it and the 223 are equally appropriate, but more efficiently.

I have a Savage 340 "C" suffix in 222 Rem so marked. Caliber markings were moved from the receiver to the barrel with the "B" suffix.

For more information than you could possibly want:

https://www.leeroysramblings.com/Gun Articles/stevens_325_savage_340_bolt_act.html
 
I have a Savage 342 .22 Hornet , I have been fooling with replacing the ejector for a year ! year difficult rifle to work on IMHO, but still I like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top