Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 300 Savage Article

I hear you there mathman I have a savage 110 wle and my 150's are closer to 2800 fps. MB

Heck, I'm not even looking to go that fast. Full on original 300 ballistics is beyond some data listings.

Does one of the books cover reduced velocity lead bullet loads? Looking for 32 Winchester special class cartridges.

41

Not a specific chapter, but there's quite a bit of cast bullet data in both Gack books, including the chapter in GG2 on reduced loads.

mathman,

Had a 722 Remington in .300 Savage for a while, and found the same thing.

And yes, some the published data for the .300 is even more anemic than it needs to be for 99s....

Bingo! Scored 2 pounds.

Thanks again.🤗

I haven't loaded for the old .300 in quite a few years, as I figured a good way to stock up on brass was to shoot factory loads while I could still get them. Several years ago I chronographed some of my old H335 loads, and was surprised to find I was only getting 2550 fps with 150 grain bullets. At first I was disappointed...then I remember the dead deer and a couple of dead coyotes from the 17 years I hunted with that rifle. Guess they were ok at that. I've wondered about newer powders, and have the articles on loading the .300 saved, so I might have to make a few up this summer.

Has anyone tried the 130 Barnes in the 300 Savage? I loaded some for a 99. They shot well, but haven’t had a chance to try them on deer or pigs.

Not in the .300, but the load my wife uses in her .308 Winchester is the 130 TTSX at around 2850 fps, which would be easily achievable in the .300. The last animal she took with it was the biggest cow elk either of us has ever taken, so I reckon it would work on deer or pigs.

Rummaging around for Weiland's article on the 300 Savage, I found Mule Deer's article on the Savage rounds. If looking for it one will have to go back to the December 2005 issue of Handloader.

Weiland' article isn't that far back though it could be 5 years or so back. He was looking to get 2600 fps from a 150 gr bullet without locking up a Savage 99. 41.0 grs of Varget seemed to get the job done in his 99 as did 41.0-42.0 grs of 748. I am careful of what level I load the 300 Savage as I shoot lever and semiauto rifles so chambered in addition to bolt and pump guns. Remington 81s are a pain to work on and parts aren't always easy to find.

There was another forum member who got great results with the TTSX and H4895 in the 300.

Steelhead, IIRC.

It was Steelhead. I have shot H4895 in several 300's with a variety of 150 bullets with excellent results.

I used H-4895 with the 130 TTSX. I really like that powder. Lots of good uses.

Used the 130 TTSX on Deer, with a rebarrel Kimber Montana, at around 2900FPS...Varget and W748....Wasn't surprised it worked well....

What would be a reasonable top end velocity with 130's in a 300 Savage 99? I don't think one would want to push it as hard as a bolt gun, although they are strong actions.

DF

Don't know with a 99....I've only used it in the Kimber......

Some of these new powders can make old rounds really shine and without excessive pressure.

I haven't studied the 300 Savage, as I don't have one.

I think the OP with his vintage 300 Savage 99 should load appropriate rounds, see what works and go kill stuff on his mini deer plot

And, I agree that tree stands would work well, shooting into the ground. Should have no issues outside his acreage...

DF

In my experience the .300 Savage (like the .308) works well with just about any powder in the 4895 burn-rate range. Have used both 4895s with typical deer-weight bullets, along with RL-15 and TAC--which also worked great with 125-grain Ballistic Tips, at right around 3000 fps.

My hunting buds and I have had great success with 125's, 130's in .30 cal rifles, shooting them at 3K+ in '06's and 308's on hogs and WT's.

We don't use them for long shots, mostly under 200 yds and they kill with authority, impressive results.

I think light, fast .30 cal bullets are often overlooked. They kick less and IME, tend to be very accurate, surprisingly so in some cases.

DF