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

You all seem to misunderstand. There were no chronographs the way you understand them today. Velocity was not measured at muzzle. Le Boulenge method was used. If you don't understand this system, look it up. It didn't measure velocity at muzzle. It measured the time it took the bullet to get to the second screen, which was set at 78 feet.

We are talking about two different things here, Whelen's understanding of MV, versus ours today. Stop pretending you "know" if you can't even spell his name right.

Well pardon me all to heck and back for the typo but I wouldn’t be to quick to hang your hat on that. If you go back to the start of this thread you will see I presented a question, which by nature carries no context of conceit or knowing as you seem to imply.

So I will state it again, what was the difference between the 06 and the 300 when it was introduced given that Savage claimed it to be the same and that many in the years since then differed in opinion?

This is a topic of discussion put up for guys who are interested in these sorts of things. Not an argument.

I don't think you really want to argue about what Townsend Whelen did or did not know.

He shows a chronograph in his book. And given that he lists muzzle velocity AND velocity at 100yds, I think he knows very well what muzzle velocity is referring to.

PS: The book metadata shows 1918 as the publishing date, but this copy has a model 1920 in 250-3000 in it, so I think the date needs to be revised to 1920.

You know I bet you that those guys, even with what might be perceived as primitive equipment, were sharp enough to simply pencil out many of the problems that today we rely on digital read outs to solve. And who on this forum has a shooting range as sophisticated as the one depicted above? I'll lean on Mr. Whalen's, er Whelen's, data any day of the week.

In my earliest manuals , HiVel and HiVel 2 are listed as producing 2700+/- in both the 300 and the 3006. I can't find my lyman #1 right now but Speer #1 from 1954 lists them both at 2700 with the 150g and a almost identical load of hivel. HV 2 is very close to 3031.
Jst my 2 sheckles worth I still have a tiny amount of hivel just for because!!!

And a good 2 sheckles worth they are. I guess one could try to duplicate the loads with 3031 and come to some conclusion on possibilities. Or read the load data tables but that wouldn't be as much fun.

Not an answer to the OP question, but loaded with modern powders the little 300 is quite capable of achieving its originally claimed ballistics.

Not absolutely sure, but "1909 Military Powder", aka Du Pont Military Rifle Powder No. 20 is what seems to be listed in Whelen's book for the 30-06.

Found one magazine reference to 47gr of No. 20 for the .30 Springfield to get 2700fps.

A 150 grain, .308 projectile traveling 2700 feet per second is what it is, regardless of what case it came from.

I have gone over 2800 on a chronograph with a a 150 grain bullet and my early 99 with a 26 inch barrel with handloads and I ain't a hotrodder. Maybe it is the Lightfoot scope mount. Just thought I would throw that out there.

All things being equal the 300 isn't a 30-06. No way no how not yesterday not today and not tomorrow. With smoke and mirrors you can make the argument that it is. But it doesn't have to be an 06. It does just fine on it's own.

Comparing the 300 to the 308 is a much fairer fight.

How about .22 HP vs. .219 Zipper?

OMG

😂

The M1906 ammo specification was developed in 1905-6. The "chronograph" used was not a "chronograph". The velocity was measured at 78 feet, per military testing spec using the Boulenge method. Do you want to refute any of that, or just keep talking out your ass?

I wasn't talking about the ignorance of Whelen. I was talking about all the inaccurate statements made here, including the misspelling of Whelen's name.

Seems to be an ass in this thread, and it's not Calhoun.

Hatcher wrote that instrumental velocity taken at 78 feet was high 2600-something and stated 2700 at the muzzle. He should know because he took the measurements. I can quote the passage when I get home tonight.

Everyone thinks that the ancients 100+ years ago lived in the Dark Ages technology wise. 'Tain't necessarily so. Dr. Mann, whose chronograph is pictured above, did some amazing experiments in the late 90's-early 00's that disproved/proved a lot of conceptions, many of which pop up and are argued about all over the internet today still. I guess nobody reads anymore....

"The Bullet's Flight", Dr. F.W. Mann, 1909.

If my memory serves, there was a bunch of work done after ww1 that culminated in the 7.62X51 (308 WIN). The Frogs were busy with their MAS 36 7.62X54. Savage went down the same road with 300 Savage. The idea was to get most of the performance of a 30-06 into a smaller case.

Also, if my memory serves, you couldn't get a powder to function at those levels in the early 1900's, but you could by 1920.

I have a MAS 36 for deer hunting under the worst conditions-- it is what you think of when some says "beater." It's a 150 grain/ 2700fps-ish rifle. My Savage 99 in 308 WIN is knocked back a bit; it's shooting 165 grainers at 2600+. Believe me, that metal butt plate feels a lot better when you're not shooting full-house 308 WIN loads.


300 Savage was a lot closer to 30-06 performance in the 20's than some of the modern comparisons. 7.62X39 is NOT just like a 30-30 WIN, but it's kinda/sorta in the same ballpark. 357 Mag is NOT like 30-30 WIN, but some folks claim it shoots just like one. I could go on.

I remember reading an old magazine reprint that was one of the first bookable arctic hunts in the 20's. Two guys went way up to hunt whatever they could. They were using 300 Savage in Savage 99's. Yikes! The first thing they ran into was a polar bear. The bear charged, and the guy was taken by surprise. He emptied the mag into the beast and managed to bring him down. There was no description of the condition of his shorts. However, it gives you some flavor of the esteem 300 Savage was held in those days.

This is essentially it, as far as I know.

The 30-06 was still using powders from before 1910. Powders had improved by 1920, I found a quote that listed the 30-06 as getting about 3000fps with one of the new powders. But that's not what the factory loads or the military loads were.

So Savage was able to match an older powder and provide similar ballistics in a short cartridge.