What did the 300 Savage do?

dan belisle said:
It was originally pushed as achieving 30-06 velocities in a handy lever gun. Which it did at the time, 30-06 velocities being not very fast at the time. As mentioned, when the military was looking for a more efficient 30-06, they used the 30 Savage as the base for the 308. I've had my step dad's for many years, used it on mostly moose. A few deer and bears. It works fine. - dan
Click to expand...

While I agree with last part, is some of us who think the replacement for 30-06 might have been the much older 7.65x53 (or multiple alternate names) - same .473" case head, was shorter than 30-06, etc. - just was not invented in USA - was Paul Mauser's baby circa the 1890's. Is not to take a thing away from 300 Savage, 308 Win or 30-06 - just history says was a different time back then. Original 1906 30-06 rounds were 150 grain at 2,700 fps - we would look down on that today, I think - but what it was - what USA used to take back Europe in WWI.
 
Some folks are under the assumption the 308 Winchester was derived from the 300 Savage. It was not. The 308 Winchester was derived from it's parent cartridge the 30-06. By the 1950's advancement in powder was such that the original 30-06 could be replicated in a shorter cartridge allowing for rifles with a shorter receiver to be chambered for it. Two years after the 308 Winchester came to be Nato adopted it as their cartridge. Nato had considered the 300 Savage but went with the 308 Winchester and the rest is history.
 
What it did was outperform the 30-30 by a significant margin, essentially duplicate 30-06 performance, and allow lever gun users to use spitzer bullets.

It's basically the prototype for the 308 which came out 32 years later. It's popularity among general purpose shooters (as opposed to gun nuts like us) has seriously dwindled over the years, but you still see people using it occasionally. I worked with a guy in the North who hunted with a 300 Savage in a Remington Jerk-o-matic. He didn't have a bit of difficulty with caribou or moose. Dandy little cartridge that really should be more popular than it is.
 
Potashminer said:
While I agree with last part, is some of us who think the replacement for 30-06 might have been the much older 7.65x53 (or multiple alternate names) - same .473" case head, was shorter than 30-06, etc. - just was not invented in USA - was Paul Mauser's baby circa the 1890's. Is not to take a thing away from 300 Savage, 308 Win or 30-06 - just history says was a different time back then. Original 1906 30-06 rounds were 150 grain at 2,700 fps - we would look down on that today, I think - but what it was - what USA used to take back Europe in WWI.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too...that stubby Little neck on it, makes looks like 7.65 x 53.
Pretty similar ballistics too I'll bet.
 
"similar ballistics" - sorta - Hornady #9 manual calls it the 7.65x53mm Belgian Mauser - one of it's several names. Uses similar bullet to 303 British - .311"-.312" -ish. Hornady lists 150 grain at 2700 fps and the 174 at 2600 fps - from a 29" barrel with an Argentine Model 1891. Allowing for barrel length difference, seems fairly similar to 25 1/4" Lee Enfield No. 4 in 303 British, as per Hornady numbers. Also showing similar numbers with similar weight bullets from a 22" barrel 308 Win. So, not far away, at all, from 1906 USA military 30-06 loadings.

I suppose the real question to ask, is how much was spent, of who's money, by Winchester and NATO to "invent" the T65 series - which became the 308 Win / 7.62 NATO - when the 300 Savage and the 7.65x53 already exited?
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
While I agree with last part, is some of us who think the replacement for 30-06 might have been the much older 7.65x53 (or multiple alternate names) - same .473" case head, was shorter than 30-06, etc. - just was not invented in USA - was Paul Mauser's baby circa the 1890's. Is not to take a thing away from 300 Savage, 308 Win or 30-06 - just history says was a different time back then. Original 1906 30-06 rounds were 150 grain at 2,700 fps - we would look down on that today, I think - but what it was - what USA used to take back Europe in WWI.
Click to expand...

Other options do not change the original intent behind the 300 Savage. And would the 7.65 fit in a 99? - dan
 
dan belisle said:
Other options do not change the original intent behind the 300 Savage. And would the 7.65 fit in a 99? - dan
Click to expand...

Tough call...were the original 99's able to chamber .308 Winchester? Only a 2mm different in length from a logical standpoint ( 7.62 x 51 vs 7.65 x 53)... I can remember my grandfather having a 99 in .308. I've not drank the Kool Aid on 99's...very little hands on experience with them. I see nothing wrong with them, just not handled them.
Good question I suspect... waiting for an informed answer now.
 
Largest claim to fame for the Savage 1899 - a lever rifle that could safely use pointed bullets. Better ballistics more range.
 
Largest claim to fame for the Savage 1899 - a lever rifle that could safely use pointed bullets. Better ballistics more range.
 
tokguy said:
Tough call...were the original 99's able to chamber .308 Winchester? Only a 2mm different in length from a logical standpoint ( 7.62 x 51 vs 7.65 x 53)... I can remember my grandfather having a 99 in .308. I've not drank the Kool Aid on 99's...very little hands on experience with them. I see nothing wrong with them, just not handled them.
Good question I suspect... waiting for an informed answer now.
Click to expand...


In 1955 when Savage was introducing the .308 into the 99 the receivers were slightly lengthened to accommodate.
 
I wouldn't buy a rifle chambered in .300 savage today, because the .308 fills the same role, just a tiny bit better IMHO. But it was a historic, innovative cartridge and deserves a lot of respect.
 
tokguy said:
Tough call...were the original 99's able to chamber .308 Winchester? Only a 2mm different in length from a logical standpoint ( 7.62 x 51 vs 7.65 x 53)... I can remember my grandfather having a 99 in .308. I've not drank the Kool Aid on 99's...very little hands on experience with them. I see nothing wrong with them, just not handled them.
Good question I suspect... waiting for an informed answer now.
Click to expand...

I believe (as mentioned) that the earlier 99's had to lengthened slightly for the 308 family of cartridges. - dan
 
Longwalker said:
I wouldn't buy a rifle chambered in .300 savage today, because the .308 fills the same role, just a tiny bit better IMHO. But it was a historic, innovative cartridge and deserves a lot of respect.
Click to expand...

There you go. I bought one just because it is "different". In this case old and not so common. That latter is probably why I have so many wildcats too
 
Grey_Wolf said:
There you go. I bought one just because it is "different". In this case old and not so common. That latter is probably why I have so many wildcats too
Click to expand...

Must be my age thing, if and when I make it through the 550 miles to home in this forecast blizzard of “decades”, I’ll try to get a pic of the Rem 760,81,722 and 6 or 7 Sav 99’s. Don’t ask me why, they just keep showing up.
 
450yukon said:
Must be my age thing, if and when I make it through the 550 miles to home in this forecast blizzard of “decades”, I’ll try to get a pic of the Rem 760,81,722 and 6 or 7 Sav 99’s. Don’t ask me why, they just keep showing up.
Click to expand...

I think I might have seen your table at the gun show… hahaha
 
riiight, i see i see!

interesting an thanking you guys for the dicussion here.

so breifly lookin over numbers in this thread...... my 303 british Ruger 1 is right up there on levels with the 300 savage...... an my current 30-06 loads are proberly on par with 180gr 300 savage performance..... which is all round about a 308 win performance.

the replies covered alot of loaded questions i had , so thats a bonus here.

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom