The development of the .250-3000 cartridge question

[orpington]

It was much to my surprise when I decided to reload for the .250-3000 when I discovered the parent case is .30-06. Not .303 Savage, which was developed for the Savage Model 1895. And chambered in its successor, the Savage Model 1899. Then Savage developed the .250-3000 round circa 1915 for the Savage 1899. It seems it would have been easier to neck down the .303 Savage round to .25 cal for a .257 bullet.

Has the .303 Savage ever been necked down to .25 cal and, if so, what is/are the round(s)?

 

[mm93]

I believe PO Ackley did something close as a wildcat off of the .30-40 Krag and called it the .25 Ackley Improved Krag? I believe it used .257" bullets. A very similar cartridge to the .303 Savage in dimensions, but not interchangeable.
I think Savage chose to make their .250 Savage off the .30-06 case to handle higher pressures than the .303 Savage case could handle. Later in the early 1930's wildcatters used the .250 Savage case as the basis for the then wildcat .22-250 that became so popular that Remington claimed it as theirs and made it the .22-250 Remington.

 

[AWS]

Savage was already chambering the 1899 in 25-35 so a necked down 303 wouldn't make sense. Rimless rounds like the 7x57 and 30-03/30-06 were impressing the world. So building a rimless round would make sense.

 

[25-20 WCF]

Charles Newton designed the .250-3000 for the M99 rifle, the successor to the M1899. Savage wanted a new, high performance caliber for their rifle and Newton had already experimented with similar cartridges. The 30-06 case was chosen due to its larger diameter, maximizing case capacity in the short M99 action. This also maximized velocity and performance of the new cartridge. The story goes that Newton wanted a 100-grain bullet for best performance on game, but Savage wanted the wow factor of 3000 fps so to reach that goal the 87-grain weight was chosen. Reliable reports from the era state that the lighter bullet was stoutly constructed for medium game, but eventually the 100-grain loading was introduced. My father used the 87-grain load to take numerous deer, I never heard him complain about bullet performance.

Newton designed a lot of case taper into his .250 as this was thought to improve feeding in the Savage rifle and was a common design feature at the time. The cartridge's performance could have been improved with less case taper - as has been demonstrated by the later .250 Ackley Improved caliber, which gave the biggest velocity gains of any Ackley Improved creation. It supposedly feeds fine in rechambered M99s.

The .303 is really a .30-30 case with very minor changes and since the .25-35 was also based on the .30-30 case, using that brass for a new .25 caliber would be pretty redundant....and with its smaller case capacity it would not have equaled the performance of the .250. They had already chambered the M99 in the .22 High-Power, a necked down .25-35 using a .228" bullet at 2800 fps. I imagine they wanted something different with improved performance.

.

 

[tmd16556]

It’s more useful to consider the 250-3000 as a companion to the 300 Savage than the 303 Savage. They were all chambered in the Model 99 at some point. The 250 and 300 are both based on the standard Mauser case. In fact the Model 20 can handle stripper clips.

 

[Dr T]

Interesting. So, is the 300 Savage a necked up 250 Savage? And so the 308 Win (7.62x51) a modified 300 Savage.

And, The 303 Savage is a modified 30-30 (7.62x51R).

 

[lysanderxiii]

And so the 308 Win (7.62x51) a modified 300 Savage.

Technically, no.

7.62mm x 51 is a new design, it shares no dimensions with the 300 Savage, other than the bullet and rim diameter. The extractor groove, and rim thickness are larger, the length is longer, the body taper is less, the shoulder angle is reduced and the neck longer

 

[orpington]

Interesting. So, is the 300 Savage a necked up 250 Savage? And so the 308 Win (7.62x51) a modified 300 Savage.

And, The 303 Savage is a modified 30-30 (7.62x51R).

The parent case for .250/3000 (.250 Savage) is .30-906, and so the parent case of .308 Winchester is also .30-06, as is also the parent case of .300 Savage. Wikipedia lists the parent case of .300 Savage as .250 Savage, but I believe this to be incorrect, as, technically, the parent case of .300 Savage would be .30-06, even if it was introduced in 1920,

The .30-30 (.30 WCF) cartridge was introduced in 1895, as was the .303 Savage and .25-35 Winchester. The parent case of the .30-30 and .303 Savage are themselves, as the first cartridge of that design. The dimensions are different enough such that they are not interchangeable.

.303 Savage and .30-30 are similar rounds, obviously, and the .303 Savage is arguably the superior of the two rounds. I tried to figure out which one came out first in 1895, to see if one was the response by a competitor, but I believe this was simply the development of similar rounds simultaneously, but I wouldn’t say coincidentally. I think it was the development of a .30 cal round designed for smokeless powder, which became popular about 1895. I think the .30-30 became more popular than .303 Savage because, at that time, Winchester was the larger and more recognizable of the two companies. Had the reverse been the case, it’s likely .303 Savage would be the more prolific of the two rounds.

From my research, I think the .303 Savage as chambered in a rifle was the first of the two to become available, as .30 Winchester was not listed in a catalogue until August 1895, and listed as such, as a smokeless round, until producing ammunition to be marketed to owners of Marlin rifles chambered in .30-30, and so the hyphenated black powder terminology (.30 cal/30 grain’s black powder) was used. The .30-30 was a natural evolution in the Winchester 1894 rifle that was originally chambered for black powder rounds, .32-40 and .38-55.

The idea for the design of the Savage Model 1895 rifle predates the year 1895 by several years, and, thus, was not in response to the .30-30 chambering of the Winchester Model 1894 rifle. Savage Arms Company was founded on on 05 April 1894, and, unless Savage failed to manufacture a rifle for sale by August of that year and/or Winchester’s sale of the Winchester 1894 rifle chambered in .30 Winchester predated advertising dated August 1895, the .303 Savage Model 1895 rifle was available for sale commercially marginally earlier than the Winchester 1894 in .30 Winchester.

Had I realized that the .25-35 Winchester round was also from 1895, and not several years later, it would perhaps have become much more evident as to why the parent case of the .250/3000 was not .303 Savage, as it came out in 1915, 9 years after the .30-06. It should have been completely obvious to me without further research that the introduction of the .25-35 had to be no later than about 1895, as, after that, the black powder hyphenated nomenclature had been abandoned.

However, what isn’t so obvious is why Savage waited until 1915 to create a .25 cal round, as it would have been very easy to neck down .303 Savage brass to seat a .257 cal bullet, in response to the .25-35 Winchester round chambered in the Winchester Model 1894 rifle.

And, as others on this forum reminded me, the goal in 1915 was to develop a 3000 fps round, which is accomplished using a .30-06 parent case and not that of .303 Savage.

 

[orpington]

I see below in the Similar Threads section I created this nearly identical thread exactly three months ago today, which I had zero recollection of whatsoever. However, the responses to this thread are much more intellectually stimulating than those of the earlier thread.

History behind development of .250-3000 Savage

I fired 20 .250-3000 rounds yesterday in a Savage 1899 rifle, and I would have to say it was a delight to shoot. Accurate, low recoil, etc. However, when Charles Newton developed this round in 1915, how did it come to be a .257 caliber bullet in a necked down ( from .308) and shortened (from...

www.thehighroad.org

 

[Dr T]

This helps put some of the discussion regarding the 6.5CM into perspective. As I have stated elsewhere, one reason I have two 6.5CMs is that I couldn't get a 250 Savage.

La plus ca change, le plus ce le meme chose.

 

[Jim Watson]

The .303 Savage and .30 WCF had to be parallel developments to take advantage of smokeless powder. They are similar but not the same. People will form .30-30 to shoot in .303 but it is a sloppy fit in a somewhat larger diameter chamber. Savage understood Winchester's market advantage and soon added calibers standard in Winchester; .25-35, .30-30, .32-40, and .38-55.

They got in cahoots with Charles Newton who necked .25-35 down to .227" as the .22 Savage High Power, which got some Pukka Sahibs eaten or stomped when they mistakenly concluded that sheer velocity was a killer.

But Mr Newton was a bolt action man, he imported a few Mausers before WWI and then went through a succession of gun designs and corporate entities trying to sell velocity. None amounted to much in the market but the idea hung on. Many years later the .338 Winchester Magnum necked down to .308 was often called the "Belted Newton." So he stayed in touch with Savage and based the .250 and .300 on the .30-06 rimless head diameter. He was probably involved in the 1920 Savage bolt action in those calibers, too.

 

[mm93]

Interesting. So, is the 300 Savage a necked up 250 Savage? And so the 308 Win (7.62x51) a modified 300 Savage.

And, The 303 Savage is a modified 30-30 (7.62x51R).

Yes, the .300 Savage came out 5 years after the .250 Savage, so it's simply a necked out .250 case.

 

[s4s4u]

Interesting. So, is the 300 Savage a necked up 250 Savage? And so the 308 Win (7.62x51) a modified 300 Savage.

And, The 303 Savage is a modified 30-30 (7.62x51R).

More of a shortened 30-06

 

[someguy2800]

The only dimension a 250-3000 shares with 30-06 is the rim diameter. Kind of a stretch to say it's parent case is 30-06 despite whatever wikipedia might say. I can form a 30/06 case into a 257 roberts, a 300 savage, a 243, a 6.5 creedmoor (with fireforming) a 6mm benchrest, and on and on and on, but that doesn't make 30-06 their parent case.

When you take a cartridge and neck it up or down and leave the shoulder angle and location the same, that is a parent/child case. Ie 30/06 and 25/06, or 308 and 243. When you move the shoulder back 1/2 of an inch and change every single dimension and angle, its not a parent case anymore. 30/06 is most definitely not the parent case of 250-3000, and 250-3000 is not the parent case of 300 savage

 

[tark]

Interesting thread.. Learned something. I'm just glad no one has stated that the 250 Savage, aka the 250-3000, was the first cartridge to break 3000 FPS...

...because it wasn't. That title goes to the .280 Ross, which was introduced in 1907. Kynoch listed the .280 with a 140 gr SP bullet @ 3010 FPS with a 150 gr bullet about a hundred FPS slower.

Today , 63 gr. of H-4831 pushing a 140 gr bullet will get you just over 3000 fps.

 

[orpington]

More of a shortened 30-06

Yes, Wikipedia has it wrong! The parent case is NOT .250/3000 but .30-06.

 

[orpington]

The only dimension a 250-3000 shares with 30-06 is the rim diameter. Kind of a stretch to say it's parent case is 30-06 despite whatever wikipedia might say. I can form a 30/06 case into a 257 roberts, a 300 savage, a 243, a 6.5 creedmoor (with fireforming) a 6mm benchrest, and on and on and on, but that doesn't make 30-06 their parent case.

When you take a cartridge and neck it up or down and leave the shoulder angle and location the same, that is a parent/child case. Ie 30/06 and 25/06, or 308 and 243. When you move the shoulder back 1/2 of an inch and change every single dimension and angle, its not a parent case anymore. 30/06 is most definitely not the parent case of 250-3000, and 250-3000 is not the parent case of 300 savage

View attachment 1248898

View attachment 1248899

View attachment 1248901

Wouldn’t anything with an identical rim that predates the particular cartridge be the parent cartridge as long as it’s at least nearly the same length as its “offspring”, or less.

By your definition, .45/70 cannot be the parent cartridge of .38-56 nor .33 Winchester but I do in fact use .45-70 to create brass for .38-56 and .33 Winchester.

 

[someguy2800]

Wouldn’t anything with an identical rim that predates the particular cartridge be the parent cartridge as long as it’s at least nearly the same length as its “offspring”, or less.

By your definition, .45/70 cannot be the parent cartridge of .38-56 nor .33 Winchester but I do in fact use .45-70 to create brass for .38-56 and .33 Winchester.

Like 80% of the cartridges we use in modern hunting rifles plus 45 ACP all use the same .473" case head. That originated with 7x57 mauser, not 30/06.

 

[someguy2800]

I guess this is just my opinion and you can do whatever you like with it, but it takes more than just sharing the case head dimensions. For example 223, remington, 350 legend, and 22 nosler all share the same rim dimensions but nothing else. And the ability to form one thing into another isn't enough either. I have made 358 Yeti and 375 Raptor out of 270win and 30-06 cases, but they are most definitely not their parent.

 

[Larry in wyoming]

I'm just glad someone created it

 

[lysanderxiii]

308 Win (7.62x51) a modified 300 Savage.

More of a shortened 30-06

No.

7.62mm x 51 is a new design altogether. The only thing .30-06 and 7.62mm x 51 share is rim diameter.

Whether a case is a "variation" of an existing case is the designer's intent. The British .280/30 has the same rim diameter and rim dimensions as an FAT1E3 (T65) case, but it is not a "variation". The British .280/30 started life as the British .280 case. This case had a 11.5mm (0.452") rim, and rim thickness and groove width matching 7.92mm x 57 Mauser. In an attempt to woo the Americans to this case the rim diameter and groove profile was altered to match the T65 case. This was done so bolt face dimensions would be the same and it would be easier to rechamber weapons between cartridges.

The result is you wind up with two cases that are quite similar, as similar as 250-3000 is to .30-06, but how they got there is entirely different.

 

[tark]

Yes, Wikipedia has it wrong! The parent case is NOT .250/3000 but .30-06.

Wiki gets lots of things wrong... The have the wrong velocity listed for the .280 Ross, quoting "Cartridges of the world" who also has it wrong. This pic is from the 4th edition of "Cartridges of the world." Not sure why the current edition lists the lower velocities.

Wiki also says that the Remington rolling block was chambered in 30-06. Nope. Never happened! That round was a bit too much for the Rolling block to withstand.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Another thing.

Many cases share head dimensions, but are not "related".

If cases share head dimensions, the tooling design, if not the actual tooling itself can be used. Designing and manufacturing cupping dies and rim machining tooling is expensive. The more of it you can use between different cases the better.

Also, as stated above, sharing rim dimension allows for common bolt face designs, and increasing commercial viability.

 

[Jim Watson]

The T series of cartridges leading up to .308/7.62 started with the .300 Savage.
Hey, they all go back to the head diameter of the Patr. '88 8mm "Mauser."
Although I have read that Ordnance was watching what the French were doing with the 7.5mm.

 

[orpington]

I was contemplating what defines a Parent Case and, further research reveals the following, which I had forgotten: The predecessor to the .30-06 was the .30-03 Springfield, and in Wikipedia the parent case of the .30-06 Springfield is listed as .30-03 Springfield. So, technically, most everything in my thread is wrong with regards to parent cases and .30-03 Springfield is the parent case of the .30-06, and by default, then the .250/3000, .300 Savage (as well as .270 Winchester and a few others. Am I correct? A similar question to be posted to another section of the forum with little information so as not to sway the discussion.