Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer -- .30-06 and .300 H&H

300 H&H in Fedaral factory load and Winchester Factory load with the 180 Failsafe,both loads broke 3000 FPS when chrono'ed despite publish factory claims of 2880 FPS...........The 300 H&H has been killed by low published speeds, even tho it is capabile of better.... Why did the factory claim lower speeds than they were actualy loading to?...........

That's a good question!

The 300 H&H was killed off due to (perhaps) ignorance, even on the part of some prominent guwriters who should have done it better justice, including Jack O'Connor. But there were those writers, like Dave Harbour and John Jobson (both of Sports Afield in the '60s & '70s) who truly understood the 300 H&H, loved it for what it was, and weren't afraid of saying so. From what I could tell, Harbour (a great, talented, and today a largely unsung writer) hunted with almost nothing other than a pre-64 Model 70 300 H&H, and he used it extensively.

It was also killed off by cost accountants at Winchester, who not only wanted to boost sales with a new cartridge introduction (300 Win. Mag.), but wanted to reduce production costs; thus they'd rather boost sales of the 300 Winchester and kill off the 300 H&H for another reason: The additional machining work required to make a Model 70 action work with the 300 H&H added cost to production, whereas the 300 Win. Mag. fit into a regular Model 70 action, without the additional loading port work, plus no material was machined away from behind the lower lug seat (right in front of the magazine box mortise), which materially decreased action strenght with the old pre-64s. Thus, the 300 Win. Mag. became a more profitable proposition for Winchester right off the bat, and a safer one as well. But you couldn't go out of your way to make the 300 H&H appear to be just as, or almost as good as the 300 Win. Mag. and do new rifle (and ammo) sales any good, could you? Sort of like today's malarky where the 300 WSM is protrayed as just as fast or faster than the 300 Win. Mag. with bullets of equal weight, which, on average, is far from the truth.

Savage, the 30-06 is also easy to load, of course, we all know that. But it won't produce 3000-3100 fps. with 180s, whereas the 300 H&H CAN and WILL...............

AD

The beauty of at least my 300 H&H, a pre-war 70, is that is shoots EVERY bullet, from 220gr Hornady RNs,200gr Swift Aframes & Partitions, 180 Partitions, & TSXs to the SAME POI at 100 yards (at 200 the 220RNs are a few inches below as expected). MV for the 180s is just a tad over 3000 fps the 200s@ 2750. jorge

JWP: What Allen said about the H&H is true; Winchester saved dough bringing out the new 300 Win Mag by eliminating a lot of machine work in the old M70 action. Course, the 300 Weatherby was hot in those days and I think it stole a lot of thunder from the H&H. Plus,then, as now, gunwriters influenced a lot of people and O'Connor did not do the cartridge any good with his negative comments about how it barely edged a 30/06. I really do not know what factory ammo gives for velocity because I have never fired a round of the stuff, but I have used many handloads with 165-180 gr bullets in the 300 win, Roy, and H&H. As you'd expect, the Roy is the fastest but not by as much as you'd think.

I have had no problem getting 3050-3100 with the 180 in the H&H, about what I've gotten with the 300 Win. Some of the lowest SD's I've recorded with any cartridge has been with the 300 H&H. I have hunted more with the 300 Win, but honestly could never see any difference between the two, in the field, or at the range.

One more thought while it's on my mind, concerning the shape of the 300H&H, aside from the use of cordite in the loading and manufacturing process......

First, because of the tapering shape, the cartridge feeds slicker than anything in a Mauser-type bolt action. More than once,as I worked the bolt from prone, I swore the bolt failed to pick up a case, only to find it chambered.But 30/06 cases feed super-slick, too.

Second, it was a cartridge designed by the Brits for the tropics,and for tough conditions where rifles did not get a lot of TLC, where things are always dusty, dirt, damp, rusty, etc. If you think about it, PRIMARY extraction occurs as you first lift the bolt handle on a Mauser or M70, slightly moving the case to the rear, and "pulling" the fired case back a bit; a tapered case would move away from the (dusty, dirty,rusty?)walls of the chamber for the full length of the cartridge, facilitating theoretically easier extraction than a straight walled case that may not break free from the walls of the chamber as easy. Those who are mechanical engineers here ( I am not)may have their own views.

The cartridge was not designed to be a handloaders dream; it was designed to be used as a HUNTING cartridge over the breadth of the British empire, from Africa to Asia, under diverse climates and conditions; rather have it than a WSM (good lord) anyday.

Bob, here's another aspect of this supposedly "obsolete" and "awful" case design that is overlooked by the ignorant, and some of these New-Age cowboys who are more theorists, paper-punchers and cartridge experimentors than they are hunters:

The British (Holland & Holland) designed these belted cases in order than the cartridge will indeed headspace on the belt, and NOT the shoulder. This is so that there is a bit of room between the case walls, the shoulder, and the chamber, and this deliberate design feature was developed so that the cartridge will chamber properly even under the extremely dusty hunting conditions that were (and still are) encountered in Africa and Asia. Like the gentle shoulder angle which facilitates perfect and effortless feeding, the belt is a carefully-calculated design feature that enhances feeding and reliability under the worst possible hunting conditions. The belt is far from "useless" as has been stupidly and ignorantly stated and parroted so many times that it's now become accepted as truth, when in reality is should be rejected as a falsehood and a misconception.

Now, when I resize belted cases for practice ammo, I do set the resizing dies so that the cartridge will headspace on the shoulder, rather than the belt (partial resizing), but for HUNTING ammo, I load new cases ONLY that have simple been neck-sized and trimmed square for purposes of uniformity. I WANT belted cartridges, in the field to operate as they were originally intended to function, and I DO prefer the belted case for hunting purposes, for the reasons previously stated......

AD

Sounds like something we already have in a short action with a 22" barrel.

300 SAUM.

Just a note on O'Connor . . .

IIRC, he actually had the 300 H&H ammo chronographed and it barely edged the 30-06.

It may well be that the 300 H&H was great then (it certainly is cool today), but Jack did not see any advantage in the field, and the chronograph results (only one factory loading) were unimpressive.

Just my poor old memory . .

YMMV,

BMT

I had a chance to buy a very nice condition Remington 721 in 300 H&H last November. It was well maintained and not shot alot and came with a 26" barrel. I talked myself out of it. It was a great deal for sure.

I recall years ago reading Townsend Whelen on the .300 H&H, he thought a proper hunting rifle in that calibre ought to weigh about ten pounds. That certainly did not help sales. Of course a pre64 in that calibre when you got a decent scope onto it did weigh pretty near that much.

Allen - good points about the marketing aspect of the situation. One needs to look no farther than the auto industry to see the truth to the fact that production is not driven by what people actually want, but rather by what manufacturers want to produce and then tell people that what they produce is what the people want. Best, John

I don't think JOC could romantic a 1920 British brain fart.
It was their lazy approach to market rifles.

The cartridge design was for obsolete cordite powder, the belt was added for headspace.

The only thing it really has going for it, it's a natural slick feeder but overly long at the same time.

The only reason I would want one is if I inherited my uncle's
Pre 64.

Or, to be cool like me!

That's right JIM!!

To all,

The 45th edition of Lymans manual has these actual velocities taken a 15 ft with factory ammo in their test guns.

The 300 HH goes as follows: 180 Rem. 2873 fps 26", 180 Rem. Match 2881 fps 26", 220 Win. 2550 fps 26".

The 30-06 Springfield showed: 180 Win. 2666 fps 26", 220 Win. 2409 fps 22".

Others

308 Win.: 180 Win. 2604 fps 26".
300 WM: 180 Win. 3048 fps 24".
308 Norma: 180 Norma 3115 fps 24".
300 Weatherby 180 Weatherby 3164 fps 26"

The pre 64 M70 in 300 HH on the right weighs nine pounds.

The real solution is to own both. The 165gr bullet is optimal, in my view, for the 06. If something needs shot with a 180gr bullet I pick up the .300H&H which pushes the heavier bullet a bit better.

As I get older so does my taste in cartridges. In the last few years I've 'discovered' the 7X57,300H&H,303 Brit and the 9.3X63. Guess what? They all work just as well today as they did back then. In fact, if a guy wanted a 4 gun battery for hunting most of the world, those four would do him quite well.

Savage: You really ought to get rid of that antiquated, old, heavy thing. Just taking up a lot of space in the safe.........

Federals Premium Safari ammo for the 300 H&H does push 180 grain Noslers right around 3000 fps. I got some with my rifle when it was built. As far as handloads 3000-3100 is no problem at all with 180s and you can get very nice brass from Nosler at this time. The cartridge does feed beautifully and I've had no reloading problems at all. It really runs neck to neck with the 300 Win or 308 Norma and it's something a little different from what everyone else has at elk camp.

Yeah, me too. My battery consists of these "oldies": .30-06, 8x57JS, .35 Whelen, 9.3x62, .375 H&H and .416 Rigby. My two newest cartridges are the .280 Remington (intro'd in 1957) and the .338 Win Mag (intro'd in 1958). Of course, they are my "poor man's" versions of the 7x64 Brenneke and the .333 Jeffery!

Heck, I've even been known to hunt using heavy (high sectional density), round nose bullets!! Oh, the shame, the shame....

I had a Winchester Model 70 XTR (post-64) that was factory chambered in .300 H&H but I sold it to a friend. I'd like to get another .300 H&H one of these days. I never hunted with mine but it was a real sweet shooter.

Cheers!
-Bob F.

Bob: I'm planning to use 220gr Hornady RNs @ 2500 fps next time as they also shoot to the same POI as all the other bullets I've tried! jorge