Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Pressure differences in 99's

OK here is the question for 99 pros. I have a 99eg and a 99F both 300 savage. Common thought wisdom is factory ammo pressure levels for reloads. Yet same 99 in a 308 win handles ammo loaded significantly higher in the same design. I load some 300 sav with 150's higher than factories for my sav m110 wle with no problems. How is it the 99 in 308 can handle more pressure than one in 300 sav? Just asking a simple question don"t need any flaming bs..mb

WTH ????

I shoot green box 150s in both with good accuracy and the result is dead deer.

I don't try to over analyze it.

There is a saying in engineering. Paralysis by analysis.

Suspect it may apply to your question.

The 300 Savage would probably handle the higher pressure but the 300 probably isn't meant to be pushed out the barrel that fast ,for one reason or another. I heard the 300 Sav. was a shortened 30 06. The 308 develops a lot of pressure, but it's probably also a derivative of the 30 06. The 1899 was a 303 savage ,a pressure down around a 30 30 when they first came out. Bob you probably know this stuff already ; a lot of probablies but nothing higher in pressure than a .308.All that said the 22 high power might develop a lot of pressure. The only pressure question I ever had so far on the 1899 was how heavy the barrel (how thick ) has to be right ahead of the reciever ring if one has been scared by a failed pipe wrench removal attempt.

The 300 Savage case isn't built to handle that much pressure. I'd think the receiver would likely be fine, but you'd be looking at ruptured primer or case head separation or other case failure. And that can cause a lot of pressure to blow back inside the receiver. Saw one 99 with side panels blasted off by case failure.

If I understand you correctly, it isn't that there is any difference in receivers between 99s chambered in 300 and 308, but instead its the cartridge. A 300 can be pushed harder and I have an older Wolfe Publishing Powder Profile that has data in it for making a 300 into a 308. That wasn't the crux of the article but the ballistics table certainly shows it. My reponse to anyone wanting to push a 300 harder has always been why? Why, when Savage also made the 99 in 308. I'm a big fan of the 300, but I got to admit that the 308 does provide for a better case.

When it comes to differences in the ability of 99 actions to handle greater pressures then that applies to vintage of manufacture. I would never barrel an early receiver for something like a 308 due to the different forumlations of steel used in earlier rifles. But on top of that you couldn't as Savage had to change the internal archetecture of the 99 after WWII to accomodate for the extra length of the 308 (243 and 358) based cartridges.

At least that's how I understand it.

Thanks guys got it..mb

sticky extraction is a good sign that your case pressures are (way!) too high. That has happened with some hot factory 308 ammo in my 99s, but never with any 300 ammo.

I believe with most chamber pressure limits, rifles are designed so the brass will fail first, and gasses will have a safe exit.

There is historical data about receivers cracking on 1899's at the hard corner behind the square-back bolts, and at least one example of a 284 win receiver that cracked behind the bolt heel back to the first tang hole.

Excellent info/replies fella's.
Not a reloader, but this all makes sense.
Not all cartridges are created equal even if 99 receivers are. How I think of it anyway.

300 Savage was developed from the 30-06. 308 was developed from the 300 Savage. So 308 was indirectly developed from the 30-06.
I have that cracked 284 receiver if anyone wants to see a picture.

At the end of the day, you simply can't expect a 99 to handle obscene pressures that a top quality bolt gun or falling block single shot can. That's not meant as a disparaging statement for it's certainly capable within the standards of its intended use. Some new(er) cartridges are designed to run at 60K+ psi, and I would blush to try and force that kind of thing onto even a late-issue 99, at least on a regular basis.

Agreed 100 percent

I am getting all your view points. I would still like to know if the rifles chambered for the 308 family of cartridges are made stronger than the rifles chambered for the 300 sav or 250 sav? Or is it solely a case of the 300 sav having a weaker designed casing? Mb

I would say that with post WWII 99s that the strength of receivers is all the same and that the issues you talked about had to do with the cartridge. Given the fact that all recievers of that era were the same, there is no other logical answer. Savage made no special receivers for any cartridge chambered in 243, 308 and 358. And for specificity, I am talking about the rotary magazine receivers.

Not special except in terms of internal dimensions to accommodate the longer cartridges, and after that the receivers were all made that way even for the archaic chamberings. I have no clue as to if any changes in metallurgy happened at that time, or even if the basic metallurgy remained the same forever after the big change that coincided with the intro of the .250-3000. All the conversations we've had on the subject over the years have boiled down to conjecture. Has anybody unearthed any new info in that regard?

That's what I read in the above comments.

Thank you all for your opinions. I now have all the answers. Carry on gentlemen with important stuff..mb

So if I made 300 savage cases out of 308 brass i could load to a higher pressure lol

In my experience reloading the model 1899/99 savage:

I needed to use the lower end of the book to prevent “ sticky” extractions.

This was especially noted in the .308 Winchester, and 250 savage. The 303 savage was also not that able to load up.

However I only have owned one 250 savage……and it was the first model. I owned several .308 s

The 300 savage was much better IMO.

I think the 1899. / 99 action and the 300 savage

Is like Blackberries and vanilla ice cream.

A very wonderful combination.

Couldn't have said it better myself!