How do we feel about the .300 Savage?? I have no experience with the round, but I have always thought of it as a ".30-06 lite", capable of most things with big game and adequate for most anything in the first 48. What do you folks think??

The 300 Savage was introduced in late 1920 as a short action equivalent to the 30-06 which would function in the Savage 99 lever action and 1920 bolt action rifles. It is a nice cartridge, but offers nothing that the 308 and 30-06 can't do at least as well.

Jeff

300 Savage was, and still is, a good cartridge for big game hunting. It's been pretty much made obsolete when the 308Win. came along, but as you suspect, there isn't anything in the lower 48 that it can't handle at reasonable hunting ranges.

Well, I'd say the .300 Savage can do one thing better than the .30-'06 - shoot a killing shot on deer with significantly less recoil. As Virginia7 says, however, the .308 has kind of replaced it on ammo shelves. It's a niche round for those of us who handload and appreciate fine rounds from the days when deer and elk hadn't yet grown all the armor they seem to have now that requires magnums to penetrate.

Jaywalker

My first Deer rifle was a Remington Model 722 in 300 Savage. Actually. it served as a ground hog rifle too.. Bought it in 1950.
Don

The BIG question. Are you going to use it in the correct rifle? The only gun to use it in "properly" is the Savage 99! If you use the Sierra 150 grn RN it will kill anything in the whitetail range and 180 grn RN works wonders in the elk class. The wife had an uncle who used it out west in the 50s, 60s, and 70s on elk with great success. I hope to own that rifle some day. I have more modern guns but none as elegant as my 99 358 brush gun. It does the bang flop each time. That's the way Uncle Cliff talked about the 300/180. Yes, I know the Savage takes pointed bullets but the RNs seem to impart their energy better without going to premium bullets and sharp pointy things. Packrattusnongratus

I think the 300 Savage is a great deer cartridge, as to it being a "good" elk rifle? I think that's open for discussion...

It really isn't a lot more powerful than a 30-30. The 308 Win is a much better cartridge than the 300 Savage if elk are going to be hunted.

My Dad shot his biggest elk with a 300 Savage. A beautiful 7 pt. that scores 350 pts. He shot a handful of others as well. But he also lost 2, one that he claimed was as big, if not bigger than the 7pt. he had killed. Both were hit multiple times, but didn't stay down. One of them, a spike, was killed by another hunter, and after my Dad saw the elk, he realized that the bullets weren't getting into the vitals.

The problem with the 300 Savage is penetration. If you are within 150 yards, no problem, but if the range starts to push that, you are going to have penetration problems when hunting elk.

With todays elk hunting, and the possiblitiy of a shot coming in thick timber with a less than ideal shot, I would really encourage anyone to use a 30-06 as the standard. I've used a 270 and that's as light as I would go, and won't use it again.

If you must use the Savage 99 for elk,(a classic rifle indeed) get one in 308 Win. but I wouldn't use a 300 Savage, unless I was guaranteed my shot would be less than a 100 yards...

Isn't penetration more a matter of bullet construction than it is a matter of what cartridge a bullet is launched from? I'd think that a 165 grain Partition would be a nice all-around black bear/deer/elk/moose bullet in the 300 Savage within 200 yards or so. I like the 170 grain Remington RNCL that is intended for the 30-30 when I use the 300 for deer, as the jacket is more fragile and a deer shot in the lungs is dead on the spot. I've seen moose shot with a Remington 81 in 300 and 180 grain Remington(?) factory loads that only went about 25 yards.

Jeff

Thanks folks...appreciate all the feedback!!

I must agree with 260remguy, good bullets will penetrate big game as they are designed to do.

I don't think the game will know if the round came from a .300 Savage or something else....good bullet+good shot= DEAD game!!

Energy wise, a .270 150 gr at 2800fps and a .300 at 2700 fps is so insignificant a difference to not be considered. The 270 will have a better BC though, which does add a bit to the useful range.

I'm looking at putting together a 6 pound rifle and the .300 seems to fit the bill perfectly since I don't want a lot of recoil, but still want to have the capability of using it on moose if I want. My other two calibers I'm considering are 7x57 and 6.5x55, both of which I love, but the .300 Savage seems to add something in the way of flexibility, but they are all GREAT rounds and I don't think I can go wrong with any of them.

Again, thanks for the opinions!!

I would have to take exception to the remark that the 300 savage isnt much better than the 30-30. Night and day. Try getting 2650 fs from a 30-30 with 165 gn slugs, aint gonna happen. The fact is that it is nearly identical to the 308 and is in fact the round that the 308 was built around.

The 308 is a bit better though due to its longer neck and and thicker brass. I like forming 300 cases from 308 brass, that puts a quick end to the case head seperation issue inherent with the 300. If you want to know how good the 300 really is just look at the 308 then subtract 100-200 fs and then you will have a good idea of what it is capable of.

The 300 S enjoyed a very vibrant existence before the 308 came along and was at a time one of the most popular rounds in America. It still comes close to matching the 30-06 in a short action, the purpose for which it was originally concieved.

For starting a project I wouldnt do a 300 because the 308 as I mentioned is nearly identical and a more modern design with tangible perks over the 300. However for a rifle that is already chambered in 300 it is still a very viable and capable round for most NA game. Part of its current problem is that not many reloading manuals bother upgrading their data on it due to its obolescence from the 308 and as such it is generally thought of today as it was used 50 years ago. The 30-06 of today compares very well with the 300 H&H of those years.

In many ways it compares very well with rounds like the 7mm mauser, low recoil, similar trajectory and power and very underrated. The are both rated by SAAMI @ the same pressure.

I'd be far more likely to build a light 6.5-284, or buy a light 270 WSM, for deer/elk than I would a 300 Savage.

Jeff

Thanks Harry..I'll do just that!!

I already have a gaggle of 6.5x55s and a 6.5-06AI, 7x57s,280s and 7 Rem Mags.. and .30-06s and others.....all great guns but they weigh 8-10lbs and they are big!! I want something around 36" long or less and right at 6 pounds ready to shoot in a round that will do elk, caribou and a moose if I need to without knocking the snot out of me everytime I shoot it. That is why I came up with the idea of the .300 Savage. It may not be the first pick for moose, but it will work with good bullets and a good shot placement. Recoil won't be light in a 6 pound gun, but I believe it will be OK since it is not a gun that I will shoot everyday. I know some of the recoil stuff is in your head...a Win mod 94 in 30-30 with a steel butt plate hurts more than my 8 pound 375 H&H. The older I get the less I like big guns that make a lot of noise and kick a lot!! Hmmmm...maybe a 260 Rem is a possibility too!!

Thanks guys for all the insight and inspiration!!

I have a friend who re-created the rifle of his PA youth. He re-did an original Remington 760 slide-action in 300 Savage. He found an original one pc. steel tip off mount and a Lyman scope w/ #2 reticle. He said it was a deer killing machine then and has since taken it on his annual hunt in PA and it aparently still works quite well. I have a 1955 copy of "Larry Koller's New HUNTING ANNUAL" in which this rifle is procalimed the fastest woods rifle ever designed. Very NOSTALGIC.

Unrelated, I think this makes my 100th post! Hopefully I'll qualify for any future drawings.

Gary

It amazes me on how many times I see people saying that this cartridge won't do this, or that.....

then you run across people who have had one in that caliber for years and have used it on everything from rats to Elk and it has always done the job....

The real difference... most of the people that use them and get the job done, just don't read gunmagazines..... All the people that owned that caliber, and read gun magazines when something new came out, got rid of that caliber, because they were told it wouldn't work anymore....

Just read something the other day, a piece by Jack O'Connor published back in the late 1940s or so..... Tell how the 257 Roberts was an excellent Elk rifle for someone who could not take the recoil of a larger caliber such as women or kids as he put it....

Elk must have been real weenies in those days, or smaller... Or maybe shot placement was given a lot more weight than big footpounds and recoil as a standard judged to take a game animal....

If you build your 300 Savage, good luck with it!
Personally I like the idea of the Remington 722 in 300 Savage mentioned above!

cheers
seafire

From my 1955 manual on elk hunting:

-Elk Rifle in general:
"Most of your shots will be at fairly long range. You'll want a rifle capable of delivering the goods out to 200 yards and a 2.5- or 4-power scope to put the bullet where it belongs."

-Popular choices of that time were:
-For Timber - Winchester 71 in .348 (considered ideal all-around for elk and large game).
-Best Choice - Remington 760 in .270 or .30/06
(considered the fastest high-power rifle of the time).
-Long Range - .300 Weatherby Magnum
(a deluxe custom arm for the heaviest North American game).

I would think that if this was published today most readers would recoil w/ shock and immediately criticize such claim. But, even in 1955 the writers favored those who paid their way. Lyman Gunsight Corp. of Middlefield, Conn was a big player back then and almost every gun writer who published anything tried to put a plug in for Lyman in everything they wrote.

A lot has changed but then again it hasn't changed as much as we think.

Gary

From Remingtons Ballistic tables...

30-30 Winchester Energy Muzzle, 100yds, 200 yds, etc.
Remington Express 150 SP CL 1902 1296 858 565 399 316
Remington Express 170 SP CL 1827 1355 989 720 535 425

300 Savage Energy Muzzle, 100yds, 200yds, etc.
Remington Express 150 PSP CL 2303 1845 1462 1143 806 685
Remington Express 180 SP CL 2207 1639 1193 860 626 482

30-30 Winchester Velocity
Remington Express 150 SP CL 2390 1973 1605 1303 1095 974
Remington Express 170 SP CL 2200 1895 1619 1381 1191 1061

300 Savage Velocity
Remington Express 150 PSP CL 2630 2354 2095 1853 1631 1432
Remington Express 180 SP CL 2350 2025 1728 1467 1252 1098


I stand by my previous statement that it isn't much more powerful than a 30-30 Winchester, it is, but marginally so. It lies almost exactly between the 30-30 and the 308 in regards to energy. The 308 has 2700 ft. lbs, at 100 yards, almost 500 lbs. more energy, and more energy at 100 yards than the 300 Savage does at the muzzle. If you want to shoot Elk with a round that is less than ideal, that's your choice. I think the animals deserve more.

A good rule of thumb is to have 2000 ft. lbs. of energy on target for an Elk, neither of those 2 have it at 200 yards. You may feel differently, my own opinion is that a 308 Winchester is the minimum I'd use for Elk, and a 30-06 is better yet. I don't shoot at Elk to see if the cartridge will work, when I shoot, I want the Elk to die quickly.

We often "wax eloquent about the days gone by", but when you talk to those who hunted then, (like my Grandfather, my Dad, Uncles, their hunting partners etc.) there was a reason why they started using 30-06's and 7mm Remington Mags, they killed game better.

Buy a chrono if you're going to use velocity figures. I NEVER saw a 30-30 that would do what those charts say! 300 has been proven in real life situations to make cleaner and quicker kills than the 30-30. Packy

JB,

I hate to start this, but my first elk was taken with a 7 Rem mag at 60 yards or so. The second was taken with a .44 Mag out of a Super Blackhawk at 40 yards or so and the third was shot with a 55 lb compound bow at 25 yards or so. They all were dead when I got there and they all ran about 40 - 50 yards after being shot thru the ribs with double lung damage and lots of blood lost.

I shoot 2 -3 deer a year with a bow and none of them are hit with more than about 60-80 foot pounds of energy. They die quick and I believe with less pain than if shot with a big ass gun. I shot a nice 7 pt last year that went about 15 yards after the little "bee sting" jump and he just went in a tight circle and fell over dead....complete pass thru of left lung and heart. A .22 rimfire will do the same thing, almost as quick, although I don't approve of their use on deer.

I really like the .25-06 because they destroy the lungs so quickly and completely, but I have had one deer run off for a quarter mile after having his heart and lungs destroyed...don't know how he did it, but he did.

My Grandfather (I'm told) shot squirrel, rabbits and deer with a .32-20 because he didn't know any better. It killed them just fine, so he used it. I'll bet you won't find that round recommended for deer in any gun books, but it worked for him for years and years. I remember stories of him hunting during the Depression where he supplied 3 or 4 families with fresh meat. He cast his own bullets from lead pipe and tin he could scrounge.

Ya gotta wonder how the pioneers killed deer with smooth bore .32 cal musket and a round ball...bet they used it on elk too!!

Just trying to make a point....it is the shot you make, not what makes the shot that counts.

In France the .300 Savage is a common and useful cartridge. If one remembers that the 30-06 and the .308 are controlled "military" cartridges in France, your choices start getting smaller, like .300 Savage and then up to .300 WinMag with not much in between.

JBabcock:

JB;

I am not criticizing your statements.... I have read other of your posts and highly respect your knowledge and experience....Sure a lot of guys did switch to bigger guns with the idea that they did a better job....But something had to influence that need to switch.....

People who are not necessarily exposed to the concept that something bigger is better... will find out that a lot of cartridges that are "not good killers" of game will actually work just fine...

Compare a 308 to a 300 Savage, with the velocities you quoted above....Then take a look at a trajectory chart and see how much farther a 308 with the same bullet will travel before it is down to the 300 Savage's velocity....The difference is what... 25 yds or so and then we have the same cartridges....200 yds versus 225 energies are equal...

I stand by my statement... Too many people are hung up on velocity and footpounds...

Many guys will tell you that a 30/30 won't kill and elk at 50 to 75 yds but a 300 Weatherby will drop them like a bag of rocks at 500 yds.... Well if they compare their divinical ballistics charts they tout so much, they will find the energy of a Weatherybe at 500 yds is about the same as a 30/30 at 75 yds or so....( extreme but it proves the points, that guys think velocity and recoil are accurate indicators of game killing potential)....

Submitted with all due respects!

cheers
seafire

Well said!

In both of my .300 Savage's, Remington M722 & Savage 99 DL rotary, I use 42.6 gr. of RE12 for 2,628 fps. ahead of 150 gr. Barnes TSX bullet. Works on Mule Deer, Black Bear, and Elk within it’s range(275+/- yards). Lawdog

seafire/B17G,

I agree with you completely. One of the reasons I went to a 338 Winchester for the majority of my hunting, was for exactly the reasons you stated. I was hung up velocity. Hung up on the 300 Weatherby to be more specific. I handload now, and I don't push my handloads as fast as some, I'm not interested in high velocity, I am interested in more bullet weight, thus my choice of the .338 caliber. I hunt elk, and I hunt deer mostly.

I hunt elk on public land, when I pull the trigger, I want the elk to drop as quickly as possible. I watched a elk I shot with a 270 wander around dead on his feet longer than I liked. It works, for some maybe perfectly. I want more oomph! My last elk was shot with my 338, bang, flop, I like it like that...

I hunt deer on public land too. I got a nice little spot that I've taken real nice bucks out of. 4 of them to be exact. A 5 pt, a 4x3, a 3x3 and a smaller deer, before they switched the regulations. It borders an almost vertical side hill, when I pull the trigger, I prefer them to drop dead, bang, flop. I like it like that... saves me lot's of work, and maybe a lost deer.

I've also used a 30-06 for a nice high alpine buck that I shot 3 years ago, and for almost all of that kind of hunting, it's as close to perfect as it gets.

But, in regards to the 300 Savage for elk, I believe more power is needed. Not because a 300 Savage won't kill them, of course it will, but because elk are hard to came by in todays age of permit based, allocated bull tags. You only have a limited opportunity in todays hunting, unless you live in states that sell tags over the counter. The state I live in doesn't. When a shot at a bull presents itself, I want to be prepared. I don't advocate, nor would I recommend the 338 Win Mag for everybody, but I do think you are selling yourself short if you limit your range with a 300 Savage. It will kill an elk just as dead at 100 yards as a 300 Weatherby will, but at 300 yards? I wouldn't take the shot, I've shot Moose at 300 yards with a 300 Weatherby, and yes they are bigger, but, when you have to go through the shoulder to get to the vitals... I don't want a 300 Savage.

We all want the perfect, broadside shot. But it don't happen very often. I love Savage 99's. It was the very first gun I carried a field. Caliber? 300 Savage. I have a picture of my Grand dad sitting on 3 cow elk that he shot as they walked out in front of him. Caliber? 300 Savage, model 99E. I know they work. I also know they lost elk with those same guns, following blood trails that dried up, with elk that died somewhere.

A 308 is the smallest I'll go, and the lightest I'd recommend.

By the way, you keep this just between you and me, don't tell nobody else... I think the 338-06 would make a fine elk gun, in spite of the post I started about bashing it,

This picture was taken in 1955. My Dad used a 300 Savage to kill the big bull. He shot it 5 times, knocked it down every time, but it kept getting up. He was afraid he was going to have to club it to death!

[image] [/image]

Yakima County, 1955. 350 Boone and Crockett points. Now those were the days! That's him on the right, he was 16 years old. Grand dad shot a 6x7 with his Remington 30-06, and Gene Terry shot a spike. Dad's elk was a 7x7. I still have those racks. About 1967, Dad lost a bull that he swears was bigger. He had it down on the ground 4 times, with the same 300 Savage, but each time it got back up. They followed the bull all the way to White Pass, and when it crossed the highway, they lost it.

Oddly enough, he shot it right where I've killed those big bucks After that experience, and another one earlier, he bought a 300 Weatherby, bang, flop, he likes it like that too!

This is a good one....and I want in.....IMO the .300 Savage belongs in a M-99 lever gun and confined to deer hunting in the woods states where shots are not to exceed 150 yards. I say this not because it's not capable of a lot more but because there are much better choices for longer shots and much more power today and in cheap packages as well.....a few for example are the .308, .30-06, 8X57 Mauser and a bunch of other choices .

If, however, one insists on taking his .300 Savage elk hunting go right ahead.....it's as good as it ever was and range is limited to every cartridge as well as the .300 Savage. The only problem wiuth the .300 Savage is that so many other better choices exist and for a very small price. I don't believe the .300 Savage is in the same league as the .308 or .30-06.

I did a leopard hunt in the Kalahari. The guy handling the dogs and running the hunt was employed by some of the big ranches in Botswana for leopard control. His rifle was a M-99 in 300 Savage. He told me he's killed a couple hundred leopard with that rifle. That's a dangerous way to hunt leopard with a light rifle.

Wow, I don't have any African experience, and don't even know how they hunt leopard. I think I've read over bait? I know that typically they don't use rifles as big as the other DG in Africa.

I wouldn't hesitate to use a Model 94 Trapper in 30-30 for lions here in the states though, if I was hunting behind dogs. The shot would be real close, and chances are I'd have just chased the dogs a good long ways to get to the tree. Works perfect for that kind of hunting, I've used a 22 magnum for bobcat.

quote:

I wouldn't hesitate to use a Model 94 Trapper in 30-30 for lions here in the states though, if I was hunting behind dogs.

It's very common to hunt lions (mountain) with dogs and on horseback in western states and the scabbard gun of choice is the .30-30

I'm not sure I'd compare that to Leopard or African Lions however.

Let's see, I have an older friend who hunts with a 300 Savage in a custom 98 bolt action with a 4x leupold scope. He kills antelope, lots of deer and usually a cow elk every year, generally one shot, run a bit, fall down. I would prefer more gun but I can't say that he's done poorly. The thing is he has all season to hunt, often on private land, picks his shots, uses good bullets and is a very good woodsman.

It all depends on the hunter, the weapon is important but never a subsitute for hunting skill.