Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors 300 Savage vs the 30-06 Springfield

So to get this train back on the tracks the question asked really focused on the difference, if any, between the 06 and 300 at the time the latter was introduced. After going through this exercise I'm inclined to think that Savage may have been closer to it's claim than history gives it credit. Anyone know what powders were used in their early configurations? Seems to me deerstalker said 3031 comes close to the burn rate of the early 06 round. If I was actively reloading and going to the range at the moment I would find modern powders that came close to the originals and load up some 150-grain pills in both and go see what happens. Obviously this experiment would not exactly replicate the performance of the original rounds but I think it would suffice good enough to draw reasonable conclusions. And yes, velocities could be taken at the muzzle and 78-feet to satisfy the concerns of all. And again, I put this question up as a simple topic of discussion and not as an argument or a contest in spelling.

You had the Spanish American War ending in mid 1898. This is the watershed that caused all this. The Battle of San Juan Hill convinced everyone that the 30-40 Krag wasn't cutting it. They tried in 1899 to bump up the Krag's performance, but the Krag couldn't cut it. This started the search for what became the 30-03.

The Mauser was the stronger action. They could copy it, but they couldn't quite copy the powder. They also had in mind a different performance envelope. The wonks wanted something that would shoot the same 220 grain bullet as the Krag, only farther. DuPont delivered a powder that could do that, and thus the 30-03 was born.

Almost from the start, they saw the problem. Launching a 220 grain round-nosed bullet cause all kind of problems. It caused barrel erosion. It caused a big looping trajectory. The 30-06, with a smaller pointer bullet fixed all that, but they kept using the same DuPont powder.

WWI happened. By war's end, everyone had seen what the 30-06 could do, as well as all the other chamberings. 30-06, .303 Brit and the 8mm Mauser. The powder chemists had also been working on the problem. 300 Savage is a civillian attempt to adapt and improve.

1) It was supposed to be an improvement on the 303 Savage's performance in the same way 30-03 improved on the 30-40 Krag using existing components where possible.
2) It used the new powders developed after 1900.
3) It produced 2600 fps with a pointy 150 grain bullet which put it into the same ballpark as military rounds like the 30-06 (close, but not quite).
4) It could do all this in an existing lever action package that did not require a lot of redesign.

France and Britain both looked at this development. I don't have access to what the Brits did, but the French developed the 7.5X54 for their new MAS 36 about 7 years after the 300 Savage. The Americans started to play with the idea, but it didn't produce a cartridge until after WWII-- the 7.62X51. Nobody took the 300 Savage and stole the idea, but a lot of people were working on the same problem and Savage just had a product out there earlier than the others.

. . . at least that's how I understand it.

So, just how many fairies CAN dance on the head of a pin?😁

Savage designed the .300 so it would work in an unaltered 99 action. They got it right in that it delivered great performance in the game fields. (And the wonderful package it came in didn't hurt either.) But the unalterable truth is that then as now it was/is straining at its leash to keep up with the .30-06 which is loafing along. Add to that shear versatility (for example with bullets a lot heavier than 180 grains) and it's longer neck for bullet support and the '06 remains champ IMO.

IMO the 300 savage cartridge is the novel invention that started the " short action". The .308 Winchester .........on now 2 the creedmore.

The 300 savage was way ahead of its time and a wonderful cartridge.

The 30 govt......to 30 govt 06. Is a wonderful long action. Not many Lever guns are made in long action.

"and how far did they drift apart with the advent of more modern powders?"

This is something we can probably sort out with personal experience. I haven't loaded for the 300 Savage, but I've doted on the 30-06 for decades. With my handloads, all from mainstream loading manuals with the 24" barrel:

200 gr @ 2600 fps (and probably up to 2700 fps)
180 gr @ 2800 fps
165 gr @ 2940 fps

Those are all from my 24" Remington 700 with "book" loads.

I have no recent experience with the 150's and the 30-06 cartridge.

Regards, Guy

Any photos of the fairies?

Only things I would argue in that is that #3 should be 2700fps rather than 3600fps (I know it was a typo), and that the 300 Savage used new powders designed probably after 1915.

Add that the 300 Savage was another Savage cartridge almost surely conceived and prototyped by Charles Newton, and finished by Savage engineer Charles Nelson (like the 250-3000 was). Charles Newton was definitely a guy who kept up with powder developments.

Thanks. I fixed the typo.

I've only got a few sources, and I don't have any actual reloading data from back then.

However, I do have an Outdoor Life comparative ballistics chart from their "Cyclopedia" that comes from the late 30's. They list the 300 Savage with a muzzle velocity of 2660 fps with 150 grain and the 30-06 as having 2960 fps with the same weight. Of course, this is well after the 300 Savage's introduction. P.O Ackley lists his fastest 150 grain load for 300 Savage as 44 grains of H380 with a ML of 2650 fps. That's from 1962.

Could an enterprising reloader have gotten 2700 fps out of a 300 Savage in the 20's? Possibly, but it was not something I'd have wanted to shoot. Maybe it was Paco Kelly's grandpa. It certainly was not factory ammo.

Yes, the Savage catalogs dropped the muzzle velocity from 2700fps to 2660fps somewhere between 1935 and 1939. Due to better measurements, or slightly reduced load because better pressure measuring showed they were loading hot? Dunno. It's only a 1.5% velocity reduction.

1950: still at 2660fps
1953: cataloged at 2670fps
1972: still at 2670fps

Even with today's powders, you do not find many 300 Savage 150 grain loads listed in manuals with max load velocity 2700-2800fps. Lilkely due to improved pressure measurement technology.

Quick question:

Has anybody here ever gotten a chronographed validation of advertised factory muzzle velocity? Because I sure haven't. Factory loads always test lower than advertised for me.

Generally, you can't believe any factory published MVs especially from the old days. So much fudge in factory claimed MVs it's borderline criminal.

If the 22 HP was a tiger gun, why couldn't the 300 Savage be as good or better than the 30-06?

Smoke and mirrors.

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.

Might it be fair to surmise the 06 at the time of WWI was pushing 2700-fps and the 300 at introduction a few short years later somewhere around 2600 to 2650-fps? If so then that's not a huge difference. Certainly not enough for a deer to tell the difference with a 150-grain bullet. That's the answer I've come too out of this discussion. So maybe Savage fudged the ballistics a bit, but perhaps not so much to be full on bologna. And certainly not in the spectrum of the 22HP tiger killer - but that's another story for another day.

Canada Rod and Gun Club, April 1922, about 7-8 months after the 300 Savage was introduced.

"The .300 Savage is loaded to equal the .30-1906-150-2700 service cartridge..."

Which was the most prevalent cartridge for the 30-06 that was available, with a ton of army surplus on the market. But there were other hotter 150gr loads, and heaver/hotter loads. They list a 150gr / 2900fps load. So the 300 Savage matched the prevalent 30-06 market loads.. but everybody knew it couldn't match what the 30-06 COULD be pushed to.

Not looking for what a hand loader could push the rounds to, but instead what the factory ammo did to substantiate its claim to being an equal to the 06 at the time the 300 was introduced. And with the above information I'm inclined to say that maybe Savage's claim to the 300 being the same as the 06 in factory loads was not too far off base. And most likely was close enough for most shooters to have probably not given it a second thought. So was Savage's claim market hyperbole or fact. Right now I'm thinking it leaned more to the latter than the former.

It'd probably be similar to saying the factory 150gr 300 Savage load now is 2630fps - which is the Federal, Winchester and Remington advertised velocities.

Then arguing whether that's right because Hornady makes a 2,740 Super Performance load.

The last factory loads I chronoed was in '01 out of an F's 22" barrel. Remington 150 PCL averaged 2619 fps (instrumental) and I could not handload a more accurate load for that rifle. I took that as a direct insult....'bout drove me crazy.

Read the whole thread, some good points made. But not what I consider the most important 1. All of you compare the std 300 sav commercial load of 2700 fps or the later one of 2660 to the 150 30-06 @2700fps that was the service military load not the commercial load for the o6. The only thing that compares the same is the .308 bullet dia. The 6.0 edn. Of western powders reloading data shows every 150 max load over 2700 in the sav with a 24" barrel and they were held to 44,000 cup . When you slide over to 30-06 data most 150 loads with suitable powders run 2900+ to over 3000fps.
When I bought my 1st 300 sav I was able to load 150's & 4064 to well over 2700 in my 110 wle model, I sure as hell would not run that ammo in my 99. While a guy can run the pressures up a bit in a bolt gun the case is not designed heavy enough for extra pressure from what I have seen. If a guy wants to hot rod his 99 use one in 308 then it's the guns limit you need to be mindful of. Just my thoughts. MB

In 1920 the gov't 06 load was the gold standard. There weren't any commercially made 06 rifles yet. (The ill-fated Winchester 1895 notwithstanding. Winchester dropped that chambering when they realized that .30 Gov't ammo was a little too hot for that gun.) Factory bolt guns in .30-06 didn't come along until a couple years later, and America's devotion to the lever started to slip.