Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 250 Savage varmint ammo

Did any manufacturer ever produce a varmint load for the 250 Savage? I have only found 87 grain and 100 grain loads which appear to be intended for medium size game.

Thank you.

because ammo has been so hard to find for many cartridges /calibers, a good friend had me load ammo for his 250 Savage .maybe a friend can do that for you if you can find one that reloads ammo ? good luck,Pete53

When I started loading for the 250-3000 in the late 1960s, Winchester offered a pointed soft point 87 grain bullet and a 100 grain Silvertip, the same bullets that they loaded in their 257 Roberts ammo. I shot 'chucks with the 87 grain factory load and whitetails with the 100 grain Silvertip and both the Remington 100 grain PSP and RNCL factory loads. The 250-3000 rifles that I had at that time were a 99G with a Lyman receiver sight and a pre-WW2 99R that had been fitted with a G&H side-mount and a Lyman Alaskan. Neither were precision varmint rifles, but served the purpose as walking varmint rifles. Dairy farming was on the decline in northern New England and since pastures were no longer being grazed, they were growing up into prime 'chuck habitat.

I reloaded 75 grain Sierras in the 25-35, 250-3000, and 257 Roberts for shooting 'chucks thru the mid-1970s. I currently have 1 varmint rifle in 250-3000, a Ruger 77 with a heavy/varmint contour Douglas barrel. I haven't shot it for several years, but have nearly 100 rounds loaded for it with 75 grain Sierras over 38.0 grains of IMR 4895 and around 70 rounds loaded with 90 grain Sierra over 36.8 grains of IMR 4895. These loads were worked up back in 1993, shortly after I traded a Savage 99E for this Ruger 77. I'm sure that there are better powders now than there were 30 years ago, but since I never use this rifle and seldom even think about it, I haven't bothered to work up any new loads for it.

If I was going to build a new varmint load for the 250-3000, I'd probably start with the 75 grain VMax over Varget.

I reload, so I can produce some if needed.

I have always heard it said that the 243 Winchester and 6mm Remington killed the 250 Savage and 257 Roberts as a dual purpose cartridge. It looks to me that neither of those 25's were every set-up to use varmint weight bullets in factory ammo. Thinking out loud...the dual purpose nature of the 243 Winchester and 6mm Remington led to the demise of these single purpose cartridges. To those of you who were alive when the newer 24's came out, would my last statement be correct?

Not that I`ve ever seen, the 87 gn. bullet had always been considered the varmint load.

I do have partial boxes of Winchester 60 gn. HP, and Speer 60gn. spitzers. Both were hell on crows and chucks to about 150yrds...furthest I could hit either with the Mod. 20. Dad had a Weaver 2.5 post and cross hair mounted on it.

Well, that's what the gun and ammo companies would've had you believe. Their advertising and the gun rag advertising that passed as journalism made them out to be the Second Coming of Christ. Whether that was true or not is for y'all to decide, but I never bought into it. (Why have one gun do it all and take the place of multiple toys? Where's the fun in that?!) The .250-3000 and .257 Roberts (note I didn't say "Bob") took a shellacking in the market place for sure, but it was mainly due to fickleness on the part of ignorant shooters/hunters who took the gunning "authorities" at their word. People could be "sheeples" back then as easily as nowadays.

Good for deer, all of them were, and certainly would kill groundhogs but at the expense of more sturm und drang and expense over smaller .22 CF's with each trigger pull. Y'all out West who never hunted groundhogs in the far more densely populated Eastern climes don't realize that the quieter your gun is and the more frangible your bullet is the better for everybody - old sayings that actually held some truth, at least in my experience.

In my opinion, if push came to shove and a guy absolutely had to make a .243 or .250-3000 do it all there were/are bullets to choose from to allow for that, but in a compromising role nonetheless - if you're a handloader. As the OP found out, .250 ammo is thin on the ground to start with let alone in 60-75 grain loadings. RCBS is your friend in that regard.

Uh, no the 87 grain .250-3000 was considered a medium game load from the git-go, and has remained so even when supplanted by 100 grainers. Again, take your pick between bullet weights. They both do a darned good job. Your old Savage 99's rifling pitch might have a say in it as far as what you can get away with, but otherwise whichever you pick will do nicely in the deer woods. Don't overthink this.

My re-barreled Ruger #1 .250-3000 has fast pitch rifling, 1-10" (but more nearly 1-9 1/2" as far as I can tell). It'll handle heavy/longer bullets beautifully but I mostly shoot 87 grain Speers through it anyway. Why? Because they're very accurate, and I have a metric [bleep]-ton of them, and why not. They kill deer just as dead as 100's do. Again, don't overthink that measly 13 grains difference in bullet weight.

One thing I can't be bothered to investigate is the usage of lighter bullets in the .250 for varminting. I have way to many other rifles that are more ideal for the purpose anyway.

True, but the 250-3000 and 257 Roberts didn't sell particularly well in the Winchester 70 during the 10 years between the end of WW2 and the introduction of the 243/244. During that decade Remington didn't bother with the 250-3000, but did chamber their Models 722 and 260 in 257 Roberts. FN made some Model 98s chambered for both cartridges, but they don't seem to be common anywhere that I've been. There were, of course, Savage 99s chambered in 250-3000 during that time, but no other common makes/model that I can think of.

Come to think of it, other than the Remington 700 Classic in 1984 and the Winchester 70 Lightweight Carbine in 1987, the only regularly cataloged bolt action rifles chambered in 250-3000 have been Ruger 77s and, intermittently, the Savage 110 series. Ruger has also cataloged the 257 Roberts for more post-WW2 years than any other manufacturer who I can think of.

I considered the 87 grain PSP Winchester factory load in both the 250-3000 and 257 Roberts to be more of a varmint bullet than a medium game bullet. Why would Winchester have loaded the same bullet in the 257 Roberts if not for varmints? No factory built 257 Roberts that I know of had a slower ROT that would require a shorter bullet. I can say from experience that the shorter Remington 100 grain RNCL was consistently more accurate in my 1-14" ROT 99G and 99R than either of the other 100 grain factory loads from Remington and Winchester.

I remember filing the lead point off of those 87 grain bullets and then drilling a hole a 1/4" deep in an attempt to aid expansion. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but I don't recall that it produced any great degree of expansion on 'chucks. I do recall that it didn't aid in accuracy.

Haven't the 87 grain bullets across the board been constructed heavier than what we have long considered to be "varmint" bullets? I can't state that to be a fact from empirical observations, but it's what I've been led to believe. If so, I would surmise that 87's in .257 Roberts' were put there for the purpose of capitalizing on the .257's higher velocity with attendant higher performance on tissue and bone. Kind of akin to employing 55 grain TSX's in both a .223 and a .22-250 - they'll serve admirably on deer in both applications (but I'll also surmise that the wound channel will be more impressive from when fired out of a .22-250).

In 1958, Remington and Winchester were only offering 2 bullet weights in 250-3000 factory ammo, 87 and 100 grains. They were offering 3 bullet weights in 257 Roberts factory ammo, 87, 100, and 117 grains. While the 87 grain load in the 250-3000 might be aimed at the 1-14" ROT rifles, the same bullet in the 257 Roberts would seem to be out of place given the lack of ROT restrictions and the other available bullet weights.

I have used and killed deer with 87 gn. bullets out of the Mod. 20. I also used the 87 gn. bullet on chucks, before I began to reload. In a factory offering, I have not seen anything factory loaded, lighter bullet, than the 87 gner specifically for varmints. I believe that`s what the OP asked.
In my neck-of-the-woods, the 87 gner was used as a varmint load, the 100 for deer.

YMMV

Hammer bullet company offers a bunch of 25 caliber bullets , for a old rifle with 1-14 twist they make a 25 caliber 57 gr. shock Hammer $101.00 for 100 bullets ,they do have 15 bullet sample packs too. i have had very good accuracy in a 1 in 257 Creedmoor ,2 in 257 Roberts and 3 in 257 Weatherby mag. have killed a bunch of critters with my 22 K-Hornet with a 22 caliber 33 gr. Shock Wave bullets . the best part is they have these bullets in stock to buy right a way . >the 257 Roberts is a favorite cartridge , in our family we have 10 - 257 Robert rifles 5 - Ruger #1`s ,1 - Rem. 30 Express, 1 - Ruger 77 , 2 Mauser , 1 Winchester 70 pre -64 , this is a great old classic cartridge plus we all hunt with this same cartridge and that makes everything much easier for me. 2 of these 10 257 Robert rifles have 1-8 twist too !

Maybe, maybe not. The 87gr. loads in the Roberts could've likely been to assuage gunner's desires for higher velocity/flatter shooting ammo, while using a suitably constructed bullet.

Like you say, maybe, maybe not.

Either way it is a moot point since nobody has offered an 87 grain factory load in the 250-3000 for many years, I have some white box Wincheter 87 grain 250-3000 and 257 Roberts factory ammo that I bought in the early 1980s.

Doesn't Roundoak use a 250-3000?

Maybe see what Speer bullet he uses??

Both the 87 and 100-grain Speer Hot-Cor spitzers are "designed" as deer bullets--the 87 especially for the 1-14 twist .250s. Other manufacturers have produced 85-87 grain bullets designed for varmints in larger, faster .25s.

Even the 100-grain Speer Hot-Cor will stabilize in many 1-14 250s, since it's about the shortest 100-grain lead-core spitzer available. I've used it in more than one here in Montana, where the elevation is generally high enough to allow it to stabilize. On the other hand, some older 99s don't always have 1-14 twists. I had a take-down that would NOT shoot the 100-grain Speers, and finally measured the twist--which turned out to be 1-15. That sort of thing wasn't uncommon when many were rifled with adjustable sine-bar machinery--but it shot the 87 Speer just fine.

The 700 Classic is the only .250 I have that's dual purpose. 75gr V-max at close to 3400 and 100gr Hornadys at 3000 hammer chucks and deer respectively. The V-max is much more spectacular on the chucks than the Sierra hp, but that's a fine choice, too.

I have the opposite experience. I have a '59 99F 250, which is supposed to be twisted 1:14. Instead, it is 1:10.25. It stabilizes 100 Cor-Lokts and Interlocks beautifully.

I agree, the old sin-bar machinery accounted for a lot of variance, depending on who was setting it up.

Yeah, Savage started transitioning to the 1-10 twist about that time. Have owned a couple of the later 99 .250s with the 10 twist--but some other companies stuck with the 1-14. Winchester made a lightweight Model 70 in the 1980s that was chambered in the .250 with the slow twist. It shot 100-grain Speers very well, and probably 100 Interlocks as well, but I'd have to look at my loading notes to see. This doe was facing me at around 150 yards, and a 100-grain Hor-Cor at the base of the neck dropped her right there.

I have a partial box of 60 grain WW shells. The 250 brass measures only .260" at the base. The most undersized brass I have ever seen. GD

.460" maybe?

[quote=Mule Deer]Yeah, Savage started transitioning to the 1-10 twist about that time.

1960, with the post mils.

Yep--which is what the two 99A .250s I've had were. One was pretty darn accurate, in fact I took it prairie dog shooting a few times with handloads using the 85-grain Ballistic Tip. Also killed some deer, at least one with a 115-grain Nosler Partition.

But then somebody else wanted it, and by then I'd used it enough to sell it. Then, of course, felt an empty space in my collection, so bought another at a gun show a couple years later. Didn't shoot worth a hoot, even though I tried every accurizing trick I know for 99s--and know quite a few....

Yeah. Sometimes I don't type so good. GD

Anybody want to buy John's old Winchester 70 Lightweight Carbine in 250-3000?

Yeah I would Jeff but I'm up here in Canada so I'll just have to content with my hoard of 250 Savages:




P.S. The Sierra 90 gr. Blitzkings shoot equally well in my SAV 250s as my Kimber 257 Roberts. Same loading as the 90 Gamekings 34.5 grains of H4895 in the 250s while 40.5 grains of IMR4895 shows similar promise in the 257.

If you swap stocks to a 70 Featherweight style and squint a little, you can imagine what the Model 1920 might have evolved into.

Yep!

According to my handloading notes, I've owned 14 .250s, ranging from a very early take-down 99 to one 21st-century style custom rifle, built on a 700 action by Charlie Sisk. But if various factors hadn't killed off the 1920 (including the prejudice of the times against light bolt-action rifles) it might have ended up being another "classic."

Ya got me beat. I've only owned eight .250-3000's, to include three Model 20's, four 99's and 1899's, and the current one- a Ruger #1A. None were dogs, some were outstanding, but the Ruger showed them all who's the boss so the last M20 and M99 went down the pike. I'm pretty much done with hanging onto rifles for sentimental reasons.

I have Mule Deer beat as far as 250's go.Beside's these a few more have came and went.Hey John..when you let go of that 70 carbine I found an empty spot in the safe

I only have two 250-3000's. A Ruger #1 and a custom Mauser on a shortened action. I like the cartridge a lot but I favor the classics anyway.

sqweeler,

The reason 260Remguy asked if somebody would like to buy my Model 70 Lightweight is I sold it to him some years ago. You need to contact him!

John

I realized that after I typed.

It is going to a new 24HCF home soon.

I had the same experience! I picked up about 5 boxes of Winchester Silvertip loaded ammo several years ago. I noticed the cases sometimes fail to eject as expected, sometimes falling back into the ejection port. I Called Ruger, suspecting the rifle was out of spec. To their credit, they asked me to send it in to be checked out. Before I did, however, I measured a few Winchester cases and compared them to Remington .250 cases. Yes, the rim diameters were .460 and .473, respectively. I certainly have plenty to learn about guns/ammo/handloading and such, but this is the only time I ever have known factory cases to be that far undersized in rim diameter. I never sent the rifle to Ruger. It works perfectly well with Remington cases and had it been out of spec, I expected they would have offered to just replace it, with another in-production chambering such as .308 or .243. I like my .250-3000 and didn't want to do that. I think the .250 chambering may have been a special distributor run, and so not currently in production.

So why would Winchester do that? Or how could it have happened accidentally? From the little I do know about factory loading machines and setup, a change in case dimension is bound to cost LOTS of money, starting with production of the cases themselves, and then followiing through to the loading process.