Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors 220gr in 300 Savage ??

275 views & nobody has a recipe for the 220gr RN in the 300 Savage ?

Got myself wondering about loading the 220gr in the 303 Savage too.......


Mike

I would think unless you were moose or bear hunting it wouldn't be practical, must be the ammo manufacturers and savage didn't think it was needed either. probably the added recoil would see how well the buttstocks around the tang would hold up, just saying. Don

Im sure it could be done, but the bullets would have to
be seated deep. 180s are probably all you need for this
caliber.

Barnes #3

220gr Barnes solid

H4895 start 32gr Max 36gr 2218fps

RL15 same charges 2157fps

IMR4064 31 to 35gr 2158


________________________________________

300 Savage 250gr Barnes Original

H4895 28.5 to 32.5 2009fps

RL15 29 to 33 1948fps

IMR4064 29 to 33 2017fps

Ron T , Loggah , Jericho , you guys are looking at this all wrong , this is not about need , this is not about logic , THIS IS ALL ABOUT LOONEYISM


Mike

Without doing the math, I would guess that a 220 at those velocities would have about the same recoil as a 180 going 3-400fps faster.

A "need" to see if it can be done usually defies logic. "Here, hold my beer a second..."

Given there is published loading data in the Barnes manual, I see no problem or danger in giving it a try. I also have that Barnes manual. The 250 grain load in a .300 Savage seems a bit out there - the bullet is nearly as long as the case. It seems the base of the bullet would nearly be sitting on top of the primer and the majority of the powder would be laying along side the bullet vs. beneath it.

You guys think I was just pulling this number out of my arse? You Savage boys are sloooooooooooooooow to come around to anything different.

Interestng thread, but I agree with those that recommend a .358 Win. chambered 99, if you want to throw lead 200+ grains out of your 99. There's just too much projectile sticking too far into the case to enable it to function in the rotor. Not saying it can't be done, just seems out of whack, like when people put 26" rims with low profile tires on their H2 Humvees. Seems silly.
I think some of my old Hornady, Speer and/or Nosler books from the 1960's / 1970's have "recipes" for 200+ gr bullets in the .300 Sav., but it just doesn't seem "right" to my brain. Besides, there's not much a .300 Sav. with 180gr. Nosler partitions won't kill if you keep your shots under 200 yards.
I think I have a box or two of 180 grain factory "bronze tip" loads (Remington if memory serves) that are supposed to be pretty nasty on dangerous game.

-TomT

If its in the case it has NO effect on the rotor!

Of course it doesn't effect the rotor function if it's stuffed in the case, but you still have to stuff that big projectile down into the case to stick to the 2.6" OAL (if memory serves) so the rotor can turn and the ammo doesn't bind. -TomT

And we had two new words added to the English language with this thread - "kersplodes" and "whompuscat"

I've got an 8 twist Rock 308 and been thinking very much about this same thing.....

Ok, I'll bite. What is an "8 twist Rock 308"? Speak English! Or is it some New Wave Indy Rock band?

Yep, we Savage 99 afficianados are slow to change. And your point is? Some of us fool with pretty old cars too, and are married to/dating some classy older women. To each his own.

Rock Creek (http://www.rockcreekbarrels.com/) barrel, with a 1-8" ROT (that is rate of twist)

Point is that it's funny.

Yes, I guess it is kind of funny. It's just that as I get older (and I'm only 57) I wonder more and more about whether people embrace new technology because it really is an improvement over the old, or simply because we can. I gravitate toward the practical side of things. Always have. But at the same time, I'm easily bored. Using the same load over and over in one gun has it's advantages (and like I said I have a pet load for each of my rifles that is the "go to" one for serious use) chief of which is becoming intimate with the ballistics of said load. But it's boring and the inquisitive side of me won't let me not find out if, for example, a 220 gr. bullet has merits in the .300 Savage. (And y'all were wondering if the thread was going to get back on track!) Practically speaking- probably not. From an inquisitive point of view- let's find out.

Some is an improvement, some isn't. Some is easy to tell on the surface if it is/isn't, some not so much.

I have an old Speer manual that gives recipes for 200 gr. at about 2200 fps, but no 220s.

I don't think a 220 will shoot in a .308 Win or .300 Sav bbl, because they have 1:12 twists. The 220 works in .30-06 and .30-40 rifles due to the 1:10 twist.

220 grains in a .35 Remington could work, and would have about as much energy.

My point was I'm a tinkerer too. I know what works for me and now and again I'm willing to try something different just for the sake of doing it......i.e. a fast twist for a 300 savage might be a way to some subsonic tinkering with a 220. Trail Boss has leveled the field somewhat in that area however and the 300 savage's advantage over the 308 might not be as great.

My Barnes loading manual lists four loads for the Barnes 250 grain original bullet in the .300 Savage. Three of the four loads all exceed 2000 fps. Not bad at all - especially considering how fast 2000 fps was considered around the time the .303 Savage was introduced. I assume the 250 grain original bullet should open up at 2000 fps so this might be a real interesting hunting option. The ability of the barrel twist to stabilize the bullet and hence, achieve acceptable hunting accuracy would need to be established but for a short range heavy woods situation....