Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 300 Savage

300 is cool. I'd love to have another. I think it recoils noticeably less that the .308 Win.

I have taken 5 whitetails at ranges from 30 to 200 yards and 1 antelope at a measured 285 yards with my 300 99 featherweight. I doubt they would have died any quicker with a 308.

From my limited samples, the .300 Savage generally makes the game appear at powder-burn distances, versus distances requiring sights for the .308.

I like to say that the .300 Savage seems to have a lot less bark than a .308, while sacrificing hardly any bite.

Sure, one new to hunting would be a fool not to go for the .308 just for the availability of rifles and ammo. However, if one started with a bequeathed .300 Savage, they might eventually travel the known territory of Loonyism and beyond, only to discover that they had started with perfection.

As for the coolness factor, I'd nearly go so far as to say that the .300 Savage is to .30 caliber, what the 7x57 is to 7mm bores. [I can't go all the way there to say it, as 'twould deeply offend Der Poobah, and condemn me to smoking a turd in hell.]

FC

(read: REAL hunters use the 300 Savage)

Read: Real hunters get it done, headstamps matter little, avoiding extremes.

Load them 300 Savages up with 30-30 red tip lever Rev bullets [They kill]

My dad bought a 300 Savage in a 99 in 1946, right after he mustered out of the navy. He had it for years. It was his only center fire rifle. It was the rifles I used when I was a young boy for hunting deer.

I hated it!

It was a pre-war rifle, used when he got it in 46. My guess is that it was made in the late 30s.
It had the barrel so thin it looked like it should have been on a 22, with a dog-knot where the rear sight was. the thing was VERY light and it seemed to a young boy (me) that the kick was from a mad mule. It was quite accurate however.

Some years later when I was a young teen my dad said he'd give it to me, and I told him I didn't really want it. Said it kicked me too hard. I didn't want to be a sissy, but I had to tell him, and he laughed and said "I didn't want to seem like a sissy either, but I always hated shooting that D--- rifle. It kicks!"

So he sold it and I got a M-70 in 270.
Now days I wish I had taken the 99 and bought the 270 later too.

But with all that said, I will admit it was a deer-killing machine. I never used 2 rounds on any deer with it, and it always put them right down. I used 150 grain bullets only. My dad said he tried heavy bullet (I think they were 180s) but they kicked even harder so he stopped buying them. We used mostly Remington ammo but I do recall seeing some other ammo too. I can't remember if it was Winchester of Federal.
We killed ranch horses and sometimes a few cattle with it when there was a need. When killing stock animals we shot from very close but it always worked fine.

THat is what prompted me to post this topic. I have been watching Trophy Quest where the guy is hunting all North America game with his 30-30. Intrigued, I looked up the velocity and was surprised to find the 170's running a lowly 2000 fps. I then looked at 300 Savage which put 500 fps on the 30-30. So, I figured, for its time, the 300 Savage could have been considered a magnum.

FWIW, Savage didn't catalog any Models 99 with a barrel boss for the rear sight dovetail until the 99F was introduced in 1955.

When I hunted with a 300 Savage, I loaded Remington 170 SPCL 30-30 component bullets. IIRC, I loaded them over 41.5 grains of H4895 for my Remington 760 and reduced it to 39.0 grain for my Savage 99.

The 300 Savage comes in much cooler rifles. The Savage 1920 series is a sweet bolt action while my favorite semi-auto (Remington 81) never came in 308 Win. In 300 Savage I own Remington 700, 722, 760, and 81 as well as Savage 99 rifles and they tend to be my "go to" rifles for deer. I have a 1953 Win M-70 in 308 Win as well as a Springfield M1A but they do not hold the same allure as the Savage. Performance is close enough to be equal but the 300 Savage has more mystique.

Hornady has introduced a 150gr SST designed specifically for the 300 Savage (says so on the box). It's very accurate in my 99. Haven't poked it into a deer yet.

The vanilla 150 Interlock, flat base or boat tail, works well.

I got this one worked up to about 2,680 fps with good accuracy in a 700 classic, but wasn't able to try it on a hog when I had it out last. Perhaps this Fall.

FC

"FWIW, Savage didn't catalog any Models 99 with a barrel boss for the rear sight dovetail until the 99F was introduced in 1955."

Hummm --------that's interesting.

I only have the info my dad told me. He said he got the gun right after the war. He bought it in Colorado.
He had if for several years before I was born so I have no details to pass on other than what he told me but I do remember it had a swell in the barrel with the rear sight on it. The neighbor over on the ranch across the river had one too, but his was heavier, longer and had a pistol grip. My dad's gun was very slender at the forend, and the barrel was a bit shorter then our neighbors M99.
I was 13 when my dad sold the gun, but I am fairly sure I remember the detail correctly ---- even if it was half a century ago.

The .300 Savage is one of my favorites. I have a .30-06, a .308, a 300 Savage, .30-30 and others, but I really like taking the 99 in .300 Savage to the deer stand.

http://www.guns.com/2015/09/22/five-underrated-rifle-cartridges/

Between 1945 and 1960 Savage only cataloged three styles of the Model 99; the 99EG had a 24" barrel and a forearm with a schnabled tip, the 99F had a light 22" barrel and a slender, rounded, forearm, and the 99R had a 24" barrel and a heavy, rounded, forearm.

The only .300 Savage I ever owned that I kicked myself for even buying in the first place was a Remington 81. Heavy for a rifle that would be in my hands all day, exaggerated forward bias with said weight (atrocious balance)- which could possibly have been lived with. But it was the weird recoil impulse that I just couldn't abide. Like Loggah said years ago, it was like shooting a pogo stick!

Hmm... you sure he didn't mean Korean War? Otherwise we get a lot of folks who come asking about a 99 or 1899 and the original owner misremembered when they bought it by 10 years or so. Heck, I've had original owners who swore up and down they bought a 99 in 197x the year they graduated, but the serial number put it 5 years later. Memories play tricks on a guy.

My negative bias toward the Remington 81 and 300 Savage combination came about when Bearrr264 shot a Maine moose with one shot through the lungs and instead of shooting again to try and break it down, he allowed it to run into a beaver pond before it died. If you've ever had to retrieve a dead moose out of 4' of nearly freezing water, you might have a similar bias.