Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Interesting data for 150gr barnes for .300 Savage

Been looking and looking for load data for ttsx 150gr to no avail until now.

Feel like a dufus for not checking barnes themselves. Anyway, in case anyone else is looking:

www.barnesbullets.com/copper_manual/300%20Savage.pdf?

In other publications from Barnes they have said to use the same charge for ttsx as tsx so even though this doesn't specify ttsx i'm assuming it's okay.

I'm kinda dumbfounded that the data goes all the way up to 250gr original bullet. How do they manage 33 grains of powder with such a long bullet and keep the oal to 2.6?

As an aside, why is 2.6 the max oal? Is it magazine dimensions or is it where the lands start in the barrel or something else? I may be wrong but i think i read someone on here loaded to 2.7?

Also interesting that Barnes recommends H4895 for all of their loads.

The magazine is going to be your limiting factor. If you want to try loading it long, it's easy to figure out what a specific 99 will handle (not all 99's will be the same).

Load up 5 cases with bullets, no powder or primer necessary. Seat the bullets to the desired COAL and see if they load and feed properly. If not, shorten them a bit and try again.

If your 99 jams in the middle of a hunt on a 2nd or 3rd shot, you screwed up.

+1 Calhoun. I have the most trouble when trying to eject one that is a little too long. I found this when trying some I had loaded for another 99. I think it is almost impossible to reach the lands if fed through the magazine.

Yep, I've never had a 99 where I could seat close to the lands and have it load in the magazine.

Guns still shoot well, though.


antiacus, the reason I say that all 99's aren't the same is because 99's were hand made and hand fitted. So all 99's should accept anything that was loaded to SAAMI specs since they were all tested and QA'd for that. But if you find that a max length in one rifle is 2.72", you may very well find that another 99 has a max length of 2.68".


And, yeah, a 250gr bullet out of a 300 Savage doesn't sound real smart. But if you're hunting forests and max shot is 40 or 50 yards it'd be a heck of a smack down round.

Thanks guys, i'll do some experimenting and see what i can do. Seeings how the 150 ttsx is boat tail it has me dubious about barne's data, but if i could get an extra tenth of an inch it may end up helping.

If your rifle is above serial 900,000 you should gain another two tenths. That's when Savage modified the action to accept the slightly longer .243, .308 and .358 Winchester calibers. If you've got one of those newer rifles you should be able to load to the same OAL as the .308 Win. Not saying it will work that way in your rifle but it should.

Those 150 Barnes are longer than most (or all???) other bullets of 150 weight, and will really cut into the available powder space. Have you considered 130's?

This must be data from their Copper Club, so I take it you are a member? I'm not a member and can only load the front page from your link. Seems to me this is all old data with some bullets no longer made by Barnes, they no longer make 140s and they have no 250s. I don't think this is current with their TSX or TTSX. Data from powders and bullets of years back may not apply to powders and bullets of the current year production. You'll often find loads that are in spec in older manuals that are now out of spec due to production changes as the years go by.

Best

Heya Skidrow: my rifle is 693xxx so it may be a bit tighter.

Fireball2: I considered 130's. Very attractive for deer, but i'm hoping to have one all-purpose load for blacktail, mulies, roosevelts, and Rocky mtn elk. Seems 150's might be a bit "more" ideal.

GaryVA, i do know that doubletap makes a 150gr ttsx (http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_93&products_id=423) so i know it can be done. Doubt they would be too keen on sharing their recipe though

Yeah, nothing to stop a 150ttsx from making a great Savage load, just saying that particular Barnes data sounds like it was developed using powders from years back and the older X-bullets. Post your results, I plan on working up a Barnes load for my 99 as well.

Good Luck

From the horses mouth, hope this helps:

We recommend the X Bullet load data from the #3 Barnes manual for use with the TSX Bullets of equal weight.

See attached.

Thanks, Ty


We Aim to please, reloading is a great hobby, enjoy it.

Ty Herring
Barnes Bullets
Customer Service Director
P.O. Box 215 American Fork Utah 84003
Tel 801-756-4222
1-800-574-9200
Fax 801-756-2465


p.s., I've heard some who load for the 300 Savage report that they have had success using starting data for the 308 Winchester and reducing it by 5% for working up a load.

Good Luck

Thanks Gary!

Also, i think i have this right but want to make sure:

my rifle ser: 693xxx
lever boss code: 3e

that makes it a 1953 model 99g?

cruddy pic that may be useful nonetheless:

I don't recall seeing what kind of powder yer gonna pack in there?

The barnes manual referenced recommends h4895 so i figured i would go with that. Others on this forum seem to like it as well for 99's.

*edit* i'm going to look for a reference somewhere that shows powders by density. Seems like with a longer bullet like this the denser the powder the better eh?

1953 model 99EG. The 99G was discontinued in 1941 and was a takedown.

Load the 130?

************************************************

Since I don't use Barnes bullets, I dunno if they're longer or not, but going on what Fireball (above) sez... you'll have a "good time" putting 42.0 grains of H4895 in a .300 Savage cartridge case together with a "longer" bullet.

I load 40.8 grains of H4895 (just .1 of a grain short of my loading book's MAXIMUM LOAD) behind a 150 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip, boat-tailed bullet and I always hear a few powder granules "crunch" as I seat the bullet.

Thus, I very much doubt that you can get 42.0 grains of H4895 in the case and seat a longer, boat-tail bullet without crushing the heck outta a lot of powder... not a smart thing to do!

My 40.8 grain H4895 powder load behind a 150 grain Nosler BT bullet yields a velocity deviation of only �4 fps (+1/-3 fps) and very good accuracy while chronographing 2635 fps making my 1953 Model 99 (EG) a 250 yard deer rifle... all the rifle and cartridge a man could want.

Jus' my 2�......


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Okay, so i think i may have a solution. Accurate 2460 powder. According to Lee it has virtually the same burn rate as 4895 (Barnes recommended powder for their old x bullet) but not near the density.

Check it out

accur 2460 .0656vmd x 40gr = 2.624cc's
h4895 .0728vmd x 42gr = 3.0576cc's

40.0 is the max load from my lee manual for 2460, at 2.624cc's it's leaving much more room from the .300 sav max case capacity of 3.18cc.

The accurate is listed as the 48th fastest burning powder where the 4895 is listed as the 50's fastest burning.

May as well give it a go. Also, i'll be doing an expiriment seating at 2.65 and 2.7 oal with no primers or powder to test feeding & extraction, so that may help as well.

Antiacus, Acccurate 2460 at 40 grains behind the 150 TTSX is predicted in my QL to not be compressed (about a 93% fill) but is pretty hot to start with, but not quite over the max pressure. About at the top though. I'd back off a couple of grains and look for a sweet spot between 38 and 40. If you get over 2668 fps with a 24 inch barrel you might be pushing too hard. 2623 fps with a 22 inch barrel. That's at 70 degrees F. It is reputed to get unstable at higher temps.

Thanks Zooka, i appreciate it.