In it's day it was the all time favorite. My Rem 722 will still put deer down like no one's business. What's the term I have seen? 'Bang-flop' out to 150 yards and where I live if you get a shot that far? Its the wide open spaces!

This round doesn't capture a lot of attention like others do. In fact a check of a number of reloading sites has only revealed one reload and that was over three years old.

I've just started reloading and while info is listed, there isn't alot. Most powder companies only list two weight bullets: 150 and 180 grains in their reloading data. Some reloading manuals list more. I was hoping to find others who reloaded this round. Does any one have favorite data for this round?

Thanks

Mike

Richard Lee's second editionof Modern Reloading is about as good as you are going to get for a lot of info.The short neck and 2.6" OAL necessary for use in it's intended rifles really handicaps full potential when using heavey bullets. In a single shot or bolt action with a sufficiently long throat it theoretically would out perform the standard chambered .308 with bullets above 180 gr. For it,s day and intended marketing target it was a great compromise cartridge. roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
... In a single shot or bolt action with a sufficiently long throat it theoretically would out perform the standard chambered .308 with bullets above 180 gr. ...

Hey Roger, Would you expound on that a bit more? Not sure I agree with that thought.
---

Hey Mike, I've always used 150gr Bullets in the 300Sav rifle - when I had one. I do remember a Lot of IMR-4320 that was a bit erradic in mine, so I went to IMR-4064 and it did great. Don't remember the Loads though.

I was using a M99, with the rear lock-up, and Case Separations would occur on about the 3rd or 4th Reload "if" I went a bit on the Hot side. That should not be an issue in your rifle though.

I also used reformed Military Cases because they lasted a bit longer, but I did have to cut the Final Load a bit.

Fine old cartridge.

I also loaded it with IMR-4320, 3031 and 4064 back when it was considered a magnum in my part of the elk and deer woods. It killed elk and deer like the hammer of Thor. I always said when I grew up I would own one in a M-99. I used one for a year or so and the .308 came out, I still have that one, its worn and crusty looking but shoots an inch and has killed everything I pulled the trigger on, but so did the 300.

I have 200 brand spanking new Winchester cases. While I love to shoot, the rifle was a gift from my grandfather to me before he died. I dunno if I will shoot enuff to get 4 reloads. LOL! Heck I still have rounds I purchased for this rifle that are over 20 years old. They've taken the last deer I got with it.

I was considering loading something a little lighter than 150's. When everyone says a great eastern US woods gun...this is it. I live in the thick of lumber company pine woods and a full grown 6-8 point buck might weigh in btw 140-150lbs. I was wanting to try some of the newer all copper or bonded bullets and wondered if anyone had tried them in a 300 before. I'm sure they would work well, but wondered what was thought. 4064 huh? That would also fit the bill for a .30-06 also. Might just have to try it.

Mike

My friend has a 300 savege in a savage 99 and he loves the 300 so much he went out two weeks ago and picked up a remington 700 classic in 300 savage. He only uses the 150 grain bullets and finds it great on deer. His father in law and brother in laws all use the 300 savage and have taken many caribou with it.

quote:

It killed elk and deer like the hammer of Thor.

When it first came out, the .300 Savage was rated to duplicate the U.S. military M1906 service load, which was a 150-grain bullet at 2700 FPS. There is no doubt this round would do that, even in the Savage 99 action. When loading this round for use in a good strong front-locking bolt action like the Remington Model 722, I suspect one could do better than when loading for the Savage 99.

According to one old Hornady manual I have, you can get 2800 FPS from it with 44 grains of IMR 4064 in a Savage 99. In addition, 41.4 grains of IMR 4064 will give 2600 FPS with a 165-grain bullet. These are maximum loads in the Savage 99.

The Barnes No. 2 manual shows 36 grains of IMR 4064 with a 200-grain "X flat-base" bullet at 2282 FPS. 35 grains gives 2158 FPS with a 220-grain bullet, and 33 grains gives 2017 FPS with a 250-grain bullet. I guess IMR 4064 is pretty useful in the .300 Savage!

The Barnes manual did not give bullet seating depths, nor identify the rifle used.

My experience with the .308 Win. cartridge in a Savage 99 required a charge of 48 grains of H380 with the 165-grain Sierra HPBT bullet to avoid having to use a ramrod for extraction! Using the same brass, bullets, primer, and powder, I could use 51.5 grains of H380 for 2800 FPS in a Win. Model 70 Feathrweight bolt action. Very accurate load too! So I'd bet you could work up beyond those Savage 99 loads a little bit anyway in your Rem. 722. Worth a try, anyway. Be careful, good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
... In a single shot or bolt action with a sufficiently long throat it theoretically would out perform the standard chambered .308 with bullets above 180 gr. ...

Hey Roger, Would you expound on that a bit more? Not sure I agree with that thought.

OK , Hot Core, here we go.First of all my comment was intuitve but not necessarily incorrect.---What I'm defining is a .300 Savage unrestricted by magazine length or depth of throating. We are talking reloads only. ---This would be contrasted to the .308 restricted by its own design criteria of OAL and Throating.-- At times the max. oal of the .308 can not be achieved due to the form of the bullet and is restricted by the throating.

While I should have been working on my income tax I did a little measureing and calculating just for you ole buddy.

In looking at both cartridges it is apparent that the case capacities of both are almost identical from base to shoulder. The .308 picks up a little capacity over the .300 Savage in the shoulder angle. The capacity offered by the necks does not come into play as both cartrige necks are going to be full of bullet when over 180gr.

The premise of my statement was that the intrusion of the heavier bullets deeper than the neck shoulder junction begins to significantly decrease the useable powder capacity in the .308. This of course does not occurr in the .300 Savage as the significantly long throat of which I spoke will accomodate seating the bullet far enough out to prevent that.

Bullet.
[LIST]Weight--length----intrusion--comments

150gr fmj-1.075"----ZERO

165gr ----1.200"----.125" ***

180gr. ----1.325"----.250"

220gr, ----1.658"----.583"

250gr. ----1.908"----.833"

*** With the 165gr. bullet the available powder capacity in both is about equal. I guess that's about the size of it.
Made me work a little didn' ya? roger

Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone..

I shoot 165 gr bullets in mine but then I load them a bit on the light side at 2400pfs. Haven't had any trouble killing a couple of dozen deer with it out to 300yards.

If I want 308 vels I use a 308 if I want 06 vels I use a 06 if I want 300 mag vel I use a 300 mag.

I shoot mine out of older 99 don't want to stress it any.

I am sure in a bolt gun you could up the pressure and vel. But why If you need something faster or bigger buy some thing bigger and faster.

No matter what you can't turn a 300 sav into 308 or 06 because if you want to stuff as much powder as you can into any of them the next biggest will out preform the next smallest.

So I take the 300 for what it is a nice mild round that is very capable of killing any thing I want to shoot with it.

I have found that its best to load about 2 grs. below max with the 99 Savage. No big deal here, in fact if most of us would slow the bullets down in many calibers we would get better bullet expansion performance, better accuracy in many cases, and surer kills.

I'm using a relatively mild load of 37.5 gr. of IMR 4064 behind a 180 gr. Hornady in reformed Lake City Match brass. Absolutely deadly.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have found that its best to load about 2 grs. below max with the 99 Savage. No big deal here, in fact if most of us would slow the bullets down in many calibers we would get better bullet expansion performance, better accuracy in many cases, and surer kills.

Sound advice, Ray. roger

I had a Remington 722 in a 300Sav, several years back (original "300"). My 150gr (best) loads were 42.0gr of AA2520 and 43.0gr of RL12(no longer made, but available in my area). Both delivered 2670 and 2690fps, respectively, with Hornady bullets. With a 3X Weaver scope in place, either load would shoot under 1" and were very pleasant to shoot. I also had good luck with the same powders and 165gr bullets from Hornady, Speer, and Sierra at about 100fps less velocity than the 150's. I didn't see much point in loading 180gr or heavier bullets with its short neck, small powder capacity, and having larger cased rifles on-hand. Plus the fact, the 300 didn't seem to need the extra weight or speed to do the job intended, even though the Remington could handle more pressure and thus, more speed than the 99 Savage (of which I am a fan). Alas, I sold it to my Brother for a "pittance" and get to look at it oaccasionally when I visit .

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
... What I'm defining is a .300 Savage unrestricted by magazine length or depth of throating. We are talking reloads only. ---This would be contrasted to the .308 restricted by its own design criteria of OAL and Throating.-- At times the max. oal of the .308 can not be achieved due to the form of the bullet and is restricted by the throating....

Hey Roger, I missed that part of your first post. Now I see where you are coming from.

The last two 308Wins I've had exhibit just what you described. The current one has a rather short throat which allows it to shoot the current fad of super-sleek Bullets right well. The previous one had a deeper throat which allowed me to Seat RNs out enough to gain some benefit with the slower powders.

But, I'm sure the Deer and Paper never knew the difference.

Other than short case life in the M99s, I always enjoyed the 300Sav. They sure carry well due to their balance and shape of their Receiver.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

Guys: I need to work up a load using a 165-grain Partition or TSX for my brother's early 1950s .300 Savage Model 99. It was a gift from our 90-year-old uncle (I got the 99 in .250), and Dave plans to take it to Namibia for kudu and gemsbok. I'm going to try to come up with 2500 to 2600 fps, and I am thinking that 42-44 grains of Re 15 might be the best way to get there safely. Anyone have any advice, experience they would care to share?