Guess on how I view the 30/06 vs 300 Savage controversy, is that I've always understood it that the 300 Savage was developed to near (hopefully maybe equal) the 30/06 in performance, but in a shorter overall length cartridge to fit the Savage 99 magazine. Expecting the 300 to equal the 06 in all aspects is expecting alot out of a brass with smaller powder capacity, shorter neck, and sharper degree shoulder. The Savage having the shorter neck limits longer, heavier bullets and even with loadings of the same grains, certain aspects of brass construction affect alot. Maybe Savage back in the day advertised the 300 as a equal to the 06, but then they were advertising the 22 Hi-Power for taking on all sorts of big game. "Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My"! Advertising in the early 1900's, probably even later on from what I've seen of it on many products sometimes exceeded the limits and failed to reach the claims of its manufacturers. Not saying the 22 High-Power wouldn't drop 'big game', but if it were of the dangerous variety, I'd want some back up. I'd want a cartridge and bullet that can be a more reliable knock down stopper. Be like in the days I wore a badge, carrying a .380 Auto instead of a .357 or 45 ACP for duty/patrol. I never carried a .380 period-had one for a while as a shooter, but not impressed with it or the gun I had at the time.
Expecting the 300 Savage to equal its big brother is like expecting a 38 Special to equal its off spring the .357 Magnum or the 44 Colt or Special to equal their big brother, the 44 Magnum. Can come close or try, but never equal day after day-load after load. When the US Military took the 300 Savage and developed the 7.62 NATO round, from which the commercial .308 Winchester resulted from, that off spring from the 300 Savage did equal and in some respects out classed the 30/06. That's why the 30/06 shooting M1 Garand was retired in favor of the 7.62 (.308 Winchester) M14 rifle. I as a shooter and reloader of both the 300 Savage in a 99 R and two Remington 81 semi-auto's and a shooter of four 30/06 rifles (1917 Enfield, 03A1 Springfield, 03A3 Springfield, and two M1 Garand's, I don't reload the 300 Savage to try and equal or out do any of the 06's. I don't hunt with any of them, so knock down power and bullet performance isn't real critical, but in some loadings when I get the notion, they could be used for 'big game', even bigger than deer.
Same with the 300 Savage, some loadings are basically a target,(no mouse loads though), but others could be a hunting round. I use loadings out of bullet and powder manufacturer manuals, Lymans, known reliable magazine author's recommendations, and others taken from forums like this one and others (but they're compared with known loadings). I have a basic idea what the loadings will develop in fps and energy from the muzzle to various yardages, so I have no use or desire for a coronagraph. The bullet will get there, accuracy is more important to me. I'd rather spend the money for the cost of a corno on other shooting endeavors and use the time involved on other things than use it in set up/maintenance and worrying if I'm getting another 50 fps by adding another grain or so. My manuals and such can give me the approximate fps and energy information, adding and subtracting for any difference in barrel length. Some of my loadings are rated at or really near the 2700 fps speed. Might be straying from the original OP intent some, but guess that's normal sometimes on these threads and posts.
