I would like to read some opinions on the 250 Savage used as a deer cartridge in the south eastern U.S.

I think it's an excellent cartridge for southern whitetails. It is an over-achiever cartridge, at least when used in a strong action, where pressures can approximate modern cartridges.
Lyman and Nosler list some of the strongest data for the 250 Sav.
This year I will try some of the Barnes 100gr TSX. If accurate, could be the ultimate combo out of my Rem 700 Classic.

quote:

Originally posted by Mulerider:
I think it's an excellent cartridge for southern whitetails. It is an over-achiever cartridge, at least when used in a strong action, where pressures can approximate modern cartridges.
Lyman and Nosler list some of the strongest data for the 250 Sav.
This year I will try some of the Barnes 100gr TSX. If accurate, could be the ultimate combo out of my Rem 700 Classic.

The Barnes 100 TSX works great out of my rebarreled Rem. M722 .250 Savage(first barrel wore out). Accuracy is MUCH BETTER than any of the other Barnes bullets and even surpasses Ballistic Tips which gave me the best accuracy before. You should be very happy with them, I know I am. Lawdog

In the M-99 Savage the 1-14 twist barrels failed to stabilize the 120 grain bullets and I'd recommend to stay with the 100 grain Spitzers or the 117 round nose from Hornady.

This is one amazing cartridge and will harvest deer and other 200 pound animals easily. It's as good as any of the 6MMs and on a par with the .257 Roberts and this puts it in pretty good campany.

I've used the .250 Savage in both rifle and single shot pistol format over the years and have the utmost of respect for this grand cartridge. It is extremely efficient (check the powder charges versus the velocities produced) and works extremely well for everything from vermints and vermin to whitetail, pronghorn and many of the plentiful exotics found here in Texas.

One of my favorite projectiles for the .250 is the 100 grain Ballistic Tip. Launched at 2650 fps (pistols) to nearly 2900 fps (20-24" rifles), the 100 grain BT expands well to the outer limits of the cartridge's effective range and yet, due to the moderate starting velocity and adequate retained mass, will exit on most broadside presentations of medium-sized game.

My favored powder is Re-15 as it has shown exceptional consistency and accuracy in a number of .250 Savage firearms.

What bullet, buller weight & barrel twist would you guys recommend? I have a combination coyote & whitetail use in mind. The range for whitetail would probably 100 yards or less, more than likely alot less.

quote:

Originally posted by hvy barrel:
What bullet, buller weight & barrel twist would you guys recommend? I have a combination coyote & whitetail use in mind. The range for whitetail would probably 100 yards or less, more than likely alot less.

A twist rate of 1-10" will work for bullet up to 100 grains which will cover both varmints and deer. Lawdog

If I was building a .250 Savage It'd be a short action M-70, Douglas featherweight barrel 20" long, 1-10 twist, and it'd shoot the 90 grain sierra hollow point. This bullet is a fine deer round and for varmints I'd try the Hornady 75 Gr V-Max

quote:

Originally posted by hvy barrel:
I would like to read some opinions on the 250 Savage used as a deer cartridge in the south eastern U.S.

I think the 250 Savage is a most underated cartridge. I have a cartridge called a 25 Hunter based on the 250 Sav. It is a shortened to qualify for HBR. I have two rifles in that caliber. One HBR and one for hunting.

I have used this hunting rifle for several years for both deer and Antelope. Using 100gr bullets for deer MV 3150 ft. There is absolutely no shortage of power for deer out to 350yrds.

My records show 19 0ne shot kills with 23 shots.

So a 250 Sav with a bit more powder capacity is more than adequate for deer,

Here is the 25 Hunter compared to the 250 Savege
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/Zermel/casecompare.jpg[/IMG]]

The 250 Savage used properly is just another good example of why magnum mania needs to end. There are many fine low recoiling rounds that do the job effectively.

Ditto That!
Stepchild

i have killed several does with a remington 700 classc in 250 savage.. i use a case full of h4831 & speer 120 gr flat base bullets..i rarely use it any longer because i don't want to try it on a 200# hog but it does the job on does..

"The Barnes 100 TSX works great out of my rebarreled Rem. M722 .250 Savage(first barrel wore out). Accuracy is MUCH BETTER than any of the other Barnes bullets "

How much better was the accuracy than the 100 XLC's ?

quote:

Originally posted by 9.3nut:
"The Barnes 100 TSX works great out of my rebarreled Rem. M722 .250 Savage(first barrel wore out). Accuracy is MUCH BETTER than any of the other Barnes bullets "

How much better was the accuracy than the 100 XLC's ?

I had to really work to get good accuracy out of the 100 gr. XLC's. Seating depth was just one of the problems I ran into. Not a problem with the TSX. Also there is was less copper fouling with the TSX over the older X version. Lawdog

I think enough of it to be having a Rem 700 SA in .22-250 rebarreled into a .250 Savage. I have few thoughts on the cartridge FWIW. From the standpoint of ballistic details it isn't quite capable of what the Roberts can do, anymore than the Roberts is equivalent to the .25-06. They are close enough however that from one to the next there is little practical difference, especially concerning use on medium sized game such as hogs, deer, antelope etc. I feel they are all superior to the 6mm bores if for no other reason than they're of larger diameter, and if pressed they will shoot heavier bullets.

That said, I think the .250 Savage is in its best realm with bullets of 100 grains or less, and am inclined to suggest the use of Nosler Partitions or the Barnes TSX for larger game, and the 75 VMAX or 85 Ballistic Tip for Varmints. In this scenario a 1:10 twist is ideal, but I'd suggest a 1:9 if you intend to shoot 120 grain bullets.

The 1/4 bores are easy on the shoulder, your ears, and they are killers. The .250 Savage is no exception, and after my conversion is completed I shall most certainly dispose of several rifles as they will no longer be used. I intend to build with a 22" barrel, 1:10 twist, add a new trigger, probably Timney. The gun will retain the original wood but I'm removing the cheekpiece and doing a few other things to reduce weight. Glass bedding of course and most likely an older reconditioned Weaver K2.5. It'll do anything I want on deer inside 250 yards, which based on past experience is about 170 yards more than I need. When I get out west one of these days it may not go to the varmint fields as I have better rifles for that. Still, it would do there as well. Great cartridge!

The 250 Savage is the most pleasant to shoot "deer capable" rounds I've ever used and I've taken several deer with it. It is to deer hunting what the 223 is to varminting... fun!

quote:

Originally posted by Old Elk Hunter:
The 250 Savage used properly is just another good example of why magnum mania needs to end. There are many fine low recoiling rounds that do the job effectively.

Awww Come ON! Old Elk hunter!

We need magnums because the deer and elk and antelope are a lot more bullet proof nowadays!
Any armchair ballistician can tell you that all of his reload books and all of his Hunting magazines continually prove that over and over again! ( )

Cheers
seafire

I've got two - a Remington Model 7 from the custom shop with the laminated Mannlicher style stock, which I bought used, and what has to be one of the coolest .250 Savages ever - a German double rifle from the 1920s, which I picked up a few years ago from a dealer in Montana (bless the Internet). I've seen three other DRs in .250 Savage - two British DRs (a Westley Richards droplock and a Holland & Holland sidelock), both of which were priced more than a high end pickup (the H&H was over $100,000), and a German boxlock almost identical to mine except for having ejectors which had a $12,000 price tag on it. Mine was a fraction of that.

The cartridge is very accurate and both of my rifles will shoot minute of deer out as far as I should be shooting them. The Model 7 will shoot minute of woodchuck, at least off a bench, out to past 200 yards, which is about as far as I'd ask of a low powered scope. The DR only has iron sights and my limit with them is about 100 yards.

The .250 Savage will kill deer sized game with no trouble, especially using the 100 grain bullets at 2800 fps or so. Lots of load data for that velocity at reasonable pressures.

The .243 and the 6mm got a lot of attention when they were introduced and really hurt sales of the .250 and the .257 Roberts. If I were limited to one cartridge today for all of my rifle hunting (deer, eastern black bear, woodchucks), the .250 would certainly do.

Is factory loaded ammo still available for this round or is it strictly hand load only?

Factory ammo is still offered by Remington, but it is rather anemic. The .250 shines as a handloader's proposition.

I love the 250 savage in a contender with the nosler 85gr BT at about 2650fps, and the 100gr nosler bt in a 250 improved rifle that I have. Here we are talking about 200lbs++ deer. A great round, why the 243 ever put it in the back seat I don't know.

The .250 Savage is an excellent round for deer hunting, and has done quite well, even in the Southwest on large mule deer.....

Thanks for the input guys, I think that I am going to eventually build a mountain rifle in the caliber. How would the recoil be in a 6 or 7 pound rifle. I am thinking about this eventually being my nephews first deer rifle.

The recoil of a 250-3000 in a 6 or 7 pound rifle would be nonexistant. An easier solution might be to buy a 700 LSS MR in 260. Also minimal recoil, a great deer cartridge, a slightly better selection of factory ammo, and plenty of great components.

It is a fine cartridge, if used within its performance envelope, but it doesn't possess any special magic. It won't do anything that the 243 can't do as well, or better, except allow you to reload bullets greater than 100 grains. If you really need a bullet heavier than 100 grains in a 250-3000, you probably need more powder capacity and, maybe, a bigger bore.

Jeff

Winchester still occasionally loads their 100 grain Silvertip....I've been a 250 fan for a long time.....it is superbly accurate and very efficient.....has it all over the 6mms......

I just picked up a Ruger RSI (mannlicher) in 250 Savage today. Look forward to playing with it.

I found this beauty on gunbroker.com #34204481
BTW, when did FNs skyrocket?? The last one I bought I gave 600ish for and thought that was plenty.

quote:

Originally posted by Ketchikan:
I just picked up a Ruger RSI (mannlicher) in 250 Savage today. Look forward to playing with it.

Lucky find!!

I've hunted with the 250-3000 quite a bit, mostly for deer and black bear. I've used 100, 110, 115, 117, and 120 bullets of nearly every style. I've owned a half dozen or so 250s, and all have been acceptably accurate to exceptionally accurate. For medium range in openish cover the 115 Nosler BT is my first choice. I also like the 117 Horn RN for close work; the Sierra 120 Gameking is a good choice too. The 250-3000 is an outstanding round, and is often pooh-poohed by people who have never used it.

Yes, but.....

1 of the issues with the 250-3000 is the rate of twist of a particular barrel. The long standard 1-14" rate of twist is usually too slow for the longer/heavier bullets. With a quicker twist, like 1-10", they handle the heavier bullet well, but I question whether there is enough case capacity to drive those heavier bullets fast/flat enough to make them a better choice.

While the 250-3000 is a nice cartridge, it isn't common, it isn't magical, and for a hunting rifle, it probably isn't worth paying a premium for when compared to an equal rifle in 243. I'm not pooh-poohing it and I have used it. The 3 neatest looking rifle in 250-3000 are probably the Ruger 77 RSI, Savage 1920, and Winchester 70 Lightweight Carbine.

Jeff

You're fussin' about the 99s, which I don't care for. All mine have been bolt guns with the faster twist.

Cost premium? Huh? My current 250-3000 is a 1949 722 action which I bought as a beat-up used rifle for $175. I had pac-nor spin on a matte finished featherweight SS barrel on with a custom throat for heavier bullets (this included all the standard action tweaking) then bought a semi-inlet piece of select walnut which is fashioned and finished myelf, had Ahlman's put on $50 worth of checkering, all for a grad total of $700. Weighs 6.75lbs scoped and shoots an honest 0.5-0.75 3-shot moa with full-power hunting loads. If I'd used the factory stock and gone with a Shaw barrel instead, the total would have been around $500.

As for performance, there are number of VERY experienced hunters on this forum who firmly believe that the 250-3000 is superior in the field to a 243. My experience, though not nearly as extensive, with these rounds is consistent with this observation. Anyone who has doubts about the 110-120s not perfmorming simply hasn't used them enough.

Also, just to be clear, you ARE pooh-poohing it using all the standard and largely specious armchair reasons.

Besides my Savage 99s and 1920s, my pre-'64 and post-'64 Winchester 70s all have 1-14" twist rifling. I currently own a number of rifle in 250-3000 and have owned, in total, around 80+/- over the past 47 years. I have shot at least 2,000 rounds from a variety of 250-3000 rifles and I have taken a number of deer, coyotes, turkeys, and woodchucks with the cartridge. If I am pooh-poohing it, it is not based on any "specious armchair reasons", but from a good deal of actual, BTDT, experience. Everytime I see a 700 Classic in 250-3000, I think about how much better it could be with an application of 25-284 reamer.

Jeff

Well, what are your non-specious, non-armchair reasons then? Everything you've presented as evidence so far is the mark of the avid collector of 250s not a serious user of 250s.

In my experience big game hunting with the 250, a dozen or so black bears and 60-65 deer, I have become absolutely converted to the efficacy of this round. It has dropped 85-90% of these critters in their tracks; the remaining never made it out of my sight. Ranges from 10-300ish paces (mostly less than 150ish). All this with a mere 1700-1900 ft/lbs ME, a respectable trajectory, a dash of powder, a hiccup of recoil, excellent barrel life, and a wonderfully mild muzzle blast. This is as close to "magical" as it gets in the world of centerfire rifle rounds.

Besides, I'll bet you'd opt for a stoutly loaded 250-3000 with 120s over a 243 if you were hunting over bear bait. 12% more frontal area and 20% more weight may seem less academic when 350 lbs of hungry bear comes paddin' in at dusk.

You guy's obviously haven't been keeping up with the times, have you? the .250 is obsolite, and will not kill todays deer. They are made of kevlar, and nothing but a .375 Ultra mag is capable of killing them up close, or a .300 Ultra at their prefered range of 800 yards. Isn't that what Colonal Craig was saying? Actually, I have great respect for that little popper, and am searching for a nice 99 in that chambering. I've had my fill of magnumness, and am sticking with the standard stuff just to be a non-conformist. I don't care if you shoot a deer with a .22 hornet, or a .600 Nitro, if you shoot it in the foot, you've got a problem. Put the bullet in his heart/lungs, you've got meat on the table. Good shooting.

OK, you win! I admit it, I've never even seen a rifle chambered in 250-3000, much less shot a deer, turkey, coyote, or woodchuck with 1. Everything I know about the 250-3000 was gleaned from reading COTW and POA's Volume 2. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, etc.

In all of the years and places that I've hunted, I've only run across a couple 250-3000s in the field, so it sure isn't popular. I'll grant that the 250-3000 is a nice cartridge, but if it was really outstanding there would be more consumer demand than there is. As a whole, U.S. hunters aren't totally dumb and they would demand rifles chambered for the 250-3000 is it offered something that other cartridges didn't. 'Sorry, but the cream almost always rises to the top and the 243 is way out in front of any of its small bore medium case capacity competition. All you have to do is look at how popular it was in the pre-'64 Winchester 70 to judge the value hunters in that era placed on it.

If you want to buy a nice 250-3000, I have a spare Winchester 70 carbine that used to belong to writer John Barsness and a Ruger 77 that was tuned by HCR. Both are just languishing unused in a safe and could perhaps be had for the right amount of $$.

Jeff

Quality = popularity? I've owned some BRNO 21s and 22s - not too popular, but certainly not low quality. Pre-64s as well. The 9.3x62 languished in obscurity for three decades only be to recently re-discovered. The 270 wasn't popular until a decade+ after its introduction; the 280 never received the popularity it deserved. The 35 whelen took almost 70 years to make factory spec; the 25-06 almost 50 years. How long did your beloved 260 skulk about as the 6.5-08?

Pairing a "more power and/or faster is better" advertising push with the firearm tastes/mindset of joe-blow hunter, add to this one part cost saving engineering and the precipitant may well be popular, but it is hardly the cream.

The 243 had the good fortune to be introduced in modern-pressure times, in a legendary rifle, and with an advertising campaign that would make Geico blush.

Thanks for offer, but I am sure I can't afford your model 70, and I am not much of Ruger fan. Plus, still gotta choke down the bill for my new S&W 657 PC...

This isn't a debate on what's better. The .243 deserves a discussion of it's own. It too is a wonderful little cartridge. Perfectly capable of any deer sized critter. Heck, I even know of a few fellows up here who use them on elk and moose. Not somthing I'd try, simply because I don't have to. And that's the whole point. No one is saying the .250 is the perfect for everything caliber. It is what it is, a sweet little, light recoiling round that was capable of getting the job done. Both when it was new, and today. Chances are it won't be your only rifle, so why not experiment, and add a little spice to your safe? From the view of a follower, the popular, more common cartridges are the way to go. From the perspective of a leader and innovator, who want's to stand out from the crowd and take on things with a different approach, there just might be somthing to this little gun. Think of all the good chamberings out there that you could use, but are simply being untouched. Grab life by the horns, and have some fun. Good shooting.

My point is that if the 250-3000 was clearly superior to the other cartridges in its class, there would be more market demand. Even Ruger, the Company that has done more for obscure cartridges than any other in recent times, has had its share of starts/stops with the 250-3000 in the 77R, 77RL, and 77RSI.

There are plenty of nice cartridges that will never achieve great popularity in the U.S. because they are redundant and overlap the same market niches as cartridges that are more common. I like the 222 Magnum, 6mm Remington, 25 Souper, 256 Newton, 260, 284, several 284 based wildcats, 7x57, 8x57, and 338-06. That said, none of them will provide a performance platform that is superior to these much more common cartridges; 223, 22-250, 243, 270, 308, and 30-06.

You make my point with your "legendary rifle" analogy. The Winchester 70 was among the most sought after hunting rifle from its introduction until it was re-engineered in 1964. Despite being offered in 250-3000 for the majority of the pre-'64 production run, there were far more 243s sold during the 8/9 years that they were available. The same hold true for the 300 Savage - 308 comparison and, to some degree, the 7x57 - 270 comparison.

The cartridges that you have cited are nice, but either have a limited niche, like the 35 Whelen and 9.3x62, or are not clearly superior to similar cartridges that are more common, like the under-appreciated 280 vs. JO'Cs 270.

BTW, I don't love any cartridge or other inanimate object. They are just things and their value pales in comparison to important things like family, friends, and your own physical/mental/spiritual health.

Jeff

I am now implied to be idoltrous - who was the one who owned 80+/- 250s?

Pure market efficiency is rare. The 250-3000 IS superior to other rounds in its class (SA varmint/deer/blackbear rounds), when all thoughtful factors are taken into account. Bob is a close runner up, but burns too much powder to make an ideal varmint rig. The 243 is also a close runner up, but burns more powder and is marginal for larger deer and blackbears.

Pre-64s do not make your point - your account ignores a poor twist, anemic factory ammo, two huge and interveneing wars, a long-forgotten ad campaign, an association with the savage 99 (perhaps the ugliest, IMO, rifle ever produced), and the baggage a flat-shooting round carried in the pre-optic era. The 243 had none of these disadvantages in addition to numerous and distinct (though not necessarily deserved) advantages, moreover by the time it was born, the model 70 was already the firmly established standard for all factory hunting rifles (stateside). Add in the 243's zealous ad campaign, and the 243 had virtually no chance of not succeeding. Progress in action strength, re-barreling facilities, and handloading components has steadily expanded the capababilities of short-shanked rounds, especially those such as the 250-3000, Bob, 6.5x55, 280, and any number others.

Following your logic. Are we to expect the 270, 280, 30-06, 7-08. and 308 to disappear given the recent shortmags? Why has the 30-06 remained, despite the superior 300 mags. How did the 7-08 ever make a place for itself, when the 284 had failed only a decade or so earlier, and in a field crowded with superior performers like the 270 and 280. For that matter, why did the 280 rise from the ashes (albeit modestly) as the number of 7mm mags increased? What of the 7x57 - by all accounts this round has zero raison d'etre, yet if anything its popularity is on the increase. Where did the 6.5x55 come from - it fits clunkily in our long actions, has embarassing factory specs, has a goofy headsize, yet nearly every one peddles ammo for it, and CZ, Ruger, Win regularly make rifles for it, as has Remington in lesser numbers. Tell me what a 6.5x55 offers that a 270 doesn't? Superiority is not so plain sometimes.