Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Closer to .303 Savage ammo

I missed a box of .303 Savage ammo on an auction but I am not so sure I wanted it $75 worth anyway.
<br>
<br>I did recently get 200 primed Winchester .303 Savage
<br>cases. My plan is to load up 40 or so with a good factory equivalent load. I may sell the remainder.
<br>
<br>What bullet weight would you recommend? I understand the original .303 Savage came in 190 grain JSP. What would be a good load for this bullet?
<br>
<br>What is the best powder for the .303 Savage 190 grain bullet? I'd like close to factory power and decent accuracy and do not have time for experimentation.
<br>
<br>Beside which I only plan to shoot 5 or 6 rounds then clean and store the gun.
<br>
<br>Reload tips appreciated.
<br>
<br>Thanks, Deputy Norm
<br>
<br>

Deputy_Norm,
<br>
<br>If I was you, which I ain't, I'd keep 100 cases to use with different loads in this rifle and I'd keep the other 100 on the shelf ready for the next .303 Model 99 that you buy. Since the bug has bitten you, you won't be able to resist the next one that comes along, will you?
<br>
<br>Any of the bullets made for the 30-30 work fine in the .303 Savage, I particularly like the 170 grain Remington RNCL, but have also had good success with the 130 grain Hornady Spire Point. I haven't seen any of the 190 grain Winchester Silvertip bullets available as components for at least 20 years. If you find them, they'd probably be too valuable to shoot. I believe that Remington loaded a 180 grain RNCL bullet in the .303 Savage, but I don't know if it was the same bullet as their "standard" 180 grain RNCL that they load (or loaded) in the 300 Savage, 308, and 30-06. It wouldn't seem likely because of the lower velocity of the .303 Savage, but one never knows. Well, perhaps someone out there knows, I know that I don't.
<br>
<br>I believe that the older Lyman reloading manuals, pre-1970, had a page on the .303 Savage and Ken Waters wrote a Pet Loads article back in that era, but I don't know of anything that is a more recent vintage.
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

I was at a shop the other day and they had a box of winchester 190grn cartridges on the shelf. This is the later white and orange box. Are you telling me that box of ammo is going for $75 on the auctions, wow.
<br>
<br>
<br>The box was marked $25, maybe could get it for $22-23 since I know the guy but I don't have a 303 and won't ever get one.
<br>
<br>Good luck, TX
<br>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Beside which I only plan to shoot 5 or 6 rounds then clean and store the gun.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>If you only plan to shoot it five or six times, I don't know why you'd even bother to go to the trouble of buying loading equipment, etc.
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Are you telling me that box of ammo is going for $75 on the auctions, wow.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>He was bidding on some ancient UMC stuff, AA #2830169 that was more along the lines of collector ammo. The Winchester X3032 190 grain Silvertip is still going for $25 a box on average. Here's what he bid on:
<br>
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>I believe that the older Lyman reloading manuals, pre-1970, had a page on the .303 Savage and Ken Waters wrote a Pet Loads article back in that era, but I don't know of anything that is a more recent vintage.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>The Lyman 46th edition from 1984 has load data for the .303 Savage.
<br>
<br>While Winchester loaded it with the 190 grain slug for many years, Remington always loaded the .303 Savage with a 180 grain RN. Both Hornady and Sierra offer a bullet like this and that'll be the closest thing to a factory duplication load if you choose to use jacketed bullets.
<br>

Norm,
<br>
<br>If you planed on shooting that $75 box of shells it's just as well that you did not get it. That was a sealed box made before 1911. It's likely that the shells would not fire, if they did the cases are probably bittle and the opened box would have lost most of its value. Leave the early stuff to the collectors. Opening a sealed box is like D&T'ing a pre war rifle. If you were only going to fire 5 or 6 rounds, a $25 box of fresh rounds seems the way to go.
<br>
<br>Like I have a lot of room to talk,
<br>Rick.....
<br>
<br>

Rick99,
<br>
<br>Trust me Rick. I'm smarter than that. I wanted the box to keep with the rifle.
<br>
<br>Norm

Robert,
<br>
<br>I have the loading equipment. I just need the dies and, possibly a shell holder plus the powder and bullets. Who knows I may find shooting the old gun more fun than I can stand and shoot it all the time.
<br>
<br>Also I was thinking having a set of dies with the rifle might be a plus too.
<br>
<br>Besides I got to spend money on something. Darned stuff keeps coming in so quick that I have to burn a bale at the end of the month to clear out space for the new stuff.
<br>
<br>Norm

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>I have the loading equipment. I just need the dies and, possibly a shell holder plus the powder and bullets.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>That's what I mean. The dies will set you back at least $20 (if you buy Lee, other brands will go higher), bullets will run somewhere around $15 for 100 count, and powder will cost you in the neighborhood of $17 for a pound (shell holders are included with Lee dies, but have to be purchased with others). You're looking at spending around $52 just to shoot your gun five or six times, or around $10 per shot. It might be better if you just sought out some factory loads.

Deputy Norm: Consider using a cast bullet. Easy on the bore, a variety of load levels can be had. The RCBS 180 FNGC mold actually casts bullets with wheel weights and a bit of tin that weigh in at 187-193 depending on mix. If you aren't into casting your own, they are available commercially from an outfit named Dry Creek. I'm pushing oven hardened bullets in excess of 1900 from my 30WCF 99. besto

I am not sure of this, the experts on this forum will know for sure, but my impression is that the early .303s might have been .310-.311 groove diameter and the later ones the standard .308. I don't know when this changed. Might make a difference what diameter bullets you use.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>The RCBS 180 FNGC mold actually casts bullets with wheel weights and a bit of tin that weigh in at 187-193 depending on mix. If you aren't into casting your own, they are available commercially from an outfit named Dry Creek.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>Why use a flat nose bullet in a gun that doesn't require it? At any rate, for many years, the cast bullet of choice has been the Lyman #311334 and is available from Penny's Hand & Machine Casting of Topanga, California. The nominal weight is 187 grains and comes the closest to duplicating the Winchester factory load with IMR 4227.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>I am not sure of this, the experts on this forum will know for sure, but my impression is that the early .303s might have been .310-.311 groove diameter and the later ones the standard .308.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>This is totally false. The manufacturing tolerances of the day, and the fact that there was no SAAMI, allowed for bore sizes in ALL .30 caliber rifles to vary over a range of about 0.306" to 0.311". There's a fair chance of finding older .30-30, .30 Remington, .30-40 Krag, .30-06, etc. bores of a 0.311" diameter.

Deputy_Norm,
<br>
<br>That was a nice box. I was temped myself.
<br>
<br>Rick....

Robert: I use a flat nose because I'm convinced flat nosed cast lead bullets are more effective as a hunting bullet than a cast spitzer style. stocker

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Robert: I use a flat nose because I'm convinced flat nosed cast lead bullets are more effective as a hunting bullet than a cast spitzer style. stocker<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>stocker: they're not. Robert

Robert: I said I was convinced.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Robert: I said I was convinced.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>stocker: based on what? Surely you won't try and say better expansion, will you? When cast out of linotype or Lyman #2 alloy, bullets behave more or less like solids. A .30 caliber hole is a .30 caliber hole. Don't give me any of that "brush bucking" bull either. The main concern is then to find a bullet that offers the correct crimp ring for the optimum overall length and seating. I don't see any advantage gained using a flat nose bullet in this application (Model 1899/99) at all.
<br>
<br>I kind of like this little number from NEI:
<br>
<br>

Robert: Well since you asked here's my take on it after using flat noses for an awful lot of years and quite a big pile of game. First I believe a flat nose bullet penetrates inside an animal on a straighter line than a pointed bullet and is less likely to be deflected by bone. So when I shoot at an angle through an animal with the intent of getting to the opposite shoulder bone it does. This concurs with the thoughts of a lot of the big bore shooters who frequent the dangerous game haunts of Africa and who knows where else. Some of John Buhmiller's solids were flat and some were dished inwards to encourage that straight line travel. Secondly I am not particularly concerned about expansion as my hunting loads are hard cast and oven hardened. Third I 'm not shooting at particularly long range with these bullets so don't need any ballistic advantage the spitzer might offer. Fourth, when shooting hard cast a larger frontal area is one of the best ways to transmit bullet energy to the target. So I guess you could say I'm basing my preference on experience using it. It works for me and I am not going to try to change your mind if you believe otherwise. Perhaps your choice works just as well for you. I've used a variety of Lyman moulds over the years and am currently using an RCBS. From three different 30 cal cartridges and several rifles they have been extremely accurate. Meets my needs. besto.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>First I believe a flat nose bullet penetrates inside an animal on a straighter line than a pointed bullet and is less likely to be deflected by bone. So when I shoot at an angle through an animal with the intent of getting to the opposite shoulder bone it does. This concurs with the thoughts of a lot of the big bore shooters who frequent the dangerous game haunts of Africa and who knows where else.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>stocker: totally untrue. Don Zutz debunked this myth a few years before his death. Flat nose bullets deflect just as much as if not more than a spitzer of the same weight fired at the same velocity. However, a flat nosed bullet will most likely expend more energy upon impact than a spitzer, and therefore penetrate less. The only practical use of a flat nose slug is in a tubular magazine which precludes the Model 99. The "spitzers are bad, flat points are good" BS originated in WWI after a representative of Rigby was struck by a stray 8x57mm bullet fired from a great distance. By the time he was hit, the bullet had nearly petered out and didn't penetrate. Thus, a myth was born. Just more limey nonsense.

Robert: My last post on the subject: it's getting boring. If I recall the Zutz tests he was shooting through dowels or sticks. We try to avoid wasting bullets on wood. These bullets will pass completely through a moose or black bear so whether penetration is less than a spitzer seems immmaterial to me. The flat point does expend more of its energy on the way (good) and does make a larger permanent wound channel (good).A pointed non expanding tends to displace a lot of tissue while a flat point tears it. Let's say it's all in my mind and leave it at that- but it's my mind and my opinions are formed on extensive use of them. cheers