I have a 225 Winchester that I am getting ready to load for. This is not a Winchester, but rather a Savage model 340. I figured this should make a neat varmint gun. Most times when you read articles concerning the 225 winchester, they are based off a model 70. There have been several people who have questioned the strength of the 340 action. I was one who believed that had the action been unsafe, Savage would not have produced it. Some say the reason that Savage didn't produce them long was due to the fact that they realized that they were pushing it with those pressure levels. I thought it was more due to the fact that the 22-250 came along and pretty much killed the 225. Anyway, there are very few places that I know of that I can actually research the action strength of the 340. When you look at loads developed for the 225 Winchester, I found 2 sources with pressure data. Hodgdon shows pressure levels up to 50,000 CUP and accurate shows up to 60,000 PSI. This does seem high for the gun but I don't really know.

Here is the question I have concerning if this is BS. I was researching on the internet, (not sure where else), and stumbled across an interesting post in another forum. I can't remember what the forum was, but they were discussing the 225 specifically in the model 340. One poster claimed that at full pressure the action actually flexed rather severely. His case was that new brass shot fine and grouped well, but he could never get the 2nd firing of his brass to group anywhere near as accurate as first time. When he inspected his brass, he said it was bent and no amount of resizing could get it out. His claim was that the action flexed violently enough to bend the brass. Now if it were just one guy, I would probably have written him off as a bit loony, but there was another owner that said he noticed the exact same thing in his model 340 as well, and for that reason he shot some pretty low pressure stuff. BS or likely?
Some will say just go and test it yourself. The problem is that 225 brass is rather rare and expensive, and I only have 50 or so pieces to load. I do not relish the thought of ruining brass in order to test it, plus if the action is flexing to that extent it seems like I am sitting on a time bomb.

I did think of running lower pressure, and I will try that. In Hodgdon data, they show one powder that produces lower pressure and that is H414. That is with a 40 grain bullet. It shows pressures at 40-43k CUP instead of the normal 45-50k CUP. But if that powder does not work, (it does seem pretty slow) all the others listed are at the higher pressure levels. I am just not sure what to think, so I would like some input please.

Throw the steaming pile of schit off a fhuqking cliff and never look back.

Hint...………………….

I don't know, but your idea sounds like a good one. Question is, if the stories are true, will the lighter loads do the same thing? Gonna cost you just a bit to find out, I suppose. Good luck.

Back in the 60s, one of those in .222 was the main choice of a guy I knew that liked hunting "under the lights", so to speak.

That's certainly an option as well.

I would try it yourself. Lyman 50th edition has load info for the .225 Winchester and Quality Cartridge makes the brass.

http://www.qual-cart.com/22%20cal.htm

What other cartridges were they chambered for in similar case head size and pressures?

If I was really interested as you are.... I would try it with 2 (two) cases. See how many Xs they will last.

Jerry

I don't buy the cases "bending" IMO the person has no clue as to what they are doing.

i have had and used the 340 for 40 years in one chambering or the other . have never had a .225 but have had many in 222 and 30-30.
have fired uncounted rounds of 222 at 48k cup with no sign of action flexing.

if you want to throw one off a cliff do it in my direction.

I would keep bolt thrust in line with the .30-30 the rifle was designed for. Since the .30-30 and the .225win have the same base diameter, I'd stick with the .30-30's SAAMI max pressure of 42 KPSI.

I'm in this boat.

Jerry

[/b]I found the quote I was referring to.[b] Original question was as follows:
Originally Posted by tanker
I have just picked up a savage 340 in .30-30. I'm fairly certain the action will take more pressure than a lever gun and I should be able to use pointed bullets. I know they chambered this rifle in .223 and .225 win., both of these are loaded to 50,000 plus pressures. Anyone have any load data expressly for this rifle?
The 340 action can live pretty happy with a .223 sized head at 50K or a .30-30 sized head at 40K.


This was the response:

The .225Win. was a mistake...Savage pulled that one pretty quickly. Still have a 340V in the gun safe, and I can testify that it was a mistake to chamber that round in the 340 action. Best measure has the bolt face and bore nearly square...but at 50K, the cases that eject have out of square case heads...the action evidently flexes latteraly. Once "cocked" they stay that way, no amount of sizing is going to un-cock them.

This drove me nuts at first. New brass...loads shoots great...same load in once-fired cases shoots an improved pattern. Same powder, bullets, primers, etc...but once fired at full pressure, cases never did shoot well again.

Run it at .219zipper pressure (estimated) and they shoot fine, reload fine, and the case heads stay sqyare with the body. Evidently, it takes a specific amount of pressure to flex that action to the point the case takes on the flexed shape.

Go for it if you like...but if you find you can't duplicate your loads with once fired brass, you'll know where you might look.

Just to mention...there is one locking lug on that action. The bolt handle isn't a decnt safety lug (and isn't made to be one). As case head size increases, the amount of pressue to the bolt also increases (bolt thrust)...so a small case (like the .223) can run at 50K without a problem...make it a big case (like the .30-30 or .225) and there just may be a problem.

I wouldn't worry so much about the gun truing into a grenade...but I would worry about that single locking lug's health, and the possibility of beating a recess in the reciever as that thrust is transmitted to the action.
-------
Sounds harsh...I actaully like the ugly 340. I just don't press them very hard. As to ultimate strength, believe a Marlin lever gun is stronger...flexible, but so is the 340.

first off the cases are enclosed in the chamber so to follow his thought the barrel and action are flexing sideways.
that dog don't hunt.

That's what I did when I put you on ignore.
I wish other people wouldn't quote you.

Just looking at the respective pressures of the .30-30 and .225 suggests that there is likely to be trouble though. Moving to a cartridge with a 50% increase in bolt thrust over what the action was designed for is not trivial.

Cryper,

It's your Imagination,simply Pretend with it as you MUST. Congratulations?!?

You Whining CLUELESS Fhuqks are a hoot!

Hint...………………….

The 340 was sold as a very inexpensive entry level rifle in its day and it has been surpassed by newer entry level rifles that are more accurate, have better triggers and designed to handle high-pressure loads better. More than likely someone out there who collects Savage 340's and an odd caliber like that in one should attract a buyer. I would sell it to someone like that and use the funds to purchase one of the newer entry level rifles like the Ruger American or something along that line. I know that they are not available in 225 Win but the 22/250 will do everything the 225 Win does and with a lot less worry. A 22/250 or 223 will make your life easier, cheaper, and possibly even safer.

drover

An 18" Krunchenticker in 223,will simply fhuqking crush an OEM 225,upon any receiver...and especially the piece of fhuqking schit cited.

Hint...………………………..

My first hunting rifle was a Savage 340 in 30-30. Firing it was painful as it had awful stock design. But even with factory loadings, it never felt like it was going to hold up long. In other words, these weren't Savages' proudest achievement and pushing it with modern loads is just asking for trouble or headaches, IMO.

And the bent brass story and flexing action? Absolute nonsense and anyone who thinks that way probably shouldn't be around rifles.....

Bob

As noted previously, the 340 series of bolt action rifles chambered in 22 Hornet, 222, 223, 225, and 30-30 were inexpensive entry-level hunting rifles. There are 3 things about the design that I don't care for:

1. The single locking lug raises the questions of strength/safety and asymmetric bolt thrust/accuracy.
2. The split receiver bridge requires the shooter to use a side-mount.in order to install a scope.
3. The triggers aren't particularly crisp.

I've always thought that the 340 action is probably just marginally strong enough for the 225, but that is a personal bias that isn't based on any empirical data. I've owned a few 340s in 225, but never shot any of them and sold them to Savage collectors. I can buy into the action flexing asymmetrically because of the single locking lug design, but not the barrel flexing such that the fired case in the chamber would be in any shape other than that of the chamber itself and since chamber reamers cut symmetric holes, the bent case story sounds like BS.

If you're looking for a rifle to shoot, there are lots of inexpensive 223s and 22-250s out there that will fire cheaper and easier to find ammo. I can't remember the last time I saw a box of 225 factory ammo on a dealer's shelf and component brass usually costs around $1 case when you can find it.

My advise is to avoid the 340 in 225, but if you choose not to avoid that combination, proceed with yellow light caution.

If you think you need to load it lighter then you are probably right.

To me shooting a 340 Savage would be for nostalgia. I have one passed down in 30-30 that I plan on using for deer for a few years.

I tried last year but the deer did not cooperate on those days.

If you really need the round to do more, then yes there are a lot of other rifles and cartridges that will do it easier, otherwise there would still be a lot of 225's around (not that there was ever a lot of them).

i am wondering if that 30-30 was one i had in the early 80's?
it would give me a nose bleed after about 10 rounds.
being young dumb and full of myself i just gritted my teeth and shot.
finally my mentor made me slug the barrel. it slugged at .302 bore. wonder what the pressures were?
traded it for a tumbler, still have the tumbler

Several of my deer hunting high school classmates shot some version of the Savage 340 in 30-30.

I've owned and shot Savage 340 in .22 Hornet , 222 Remington, 30-30 , as well as 4 chambered in .225 Winchester.

My fathers big game rifle is a Savage 340 in 30-30. I still shoot it occasionally .

The triggers suck, some are accurate, most are not what I'd consider accurate, but they get the job done.


Of the .225's I've owned One was very accurate, with both factory and handloads, I'd be cautious with loading too hot.

I have a Ruger #1 chambered in .225 Win that will chase 22-250 velocities with excellent accuracy.

Great oddball cartridge .

F

I had a Savage 340 30-30. It had bulging chamber. The rounds would eject fine but would have a definite bulge about 1/2 down the cartridge to just about the base. They would FL resize just fine and the reloads would shoot about the same about 1.25-1.5" at 100 yards. Did seems to kick out of proportion to what I expected. Traded it and another inexpensive gun for a 788 243 and still have that 243.

Every 340 version in 222 that I have been around shot extremely well, I see the 30-30s fairly often, I have only encountered 2 of them in 223 and 1 in 225

Yes I want the cartridge myself just not in that platform.

I did get the trigger worked on and it is much better. Still heavier than I like, maybe 4-5# but a vast improvement over what it was. I also found a way to modify a weaver base in order to get rid of the side mount scope. So with the improved trigger and the vastly improved scope mount, I am not planning on getting rid of it! With what I have been seeing and reading, I plan on trying to keep pressures < 45k CUP, and I think it will be fine. I just had to readjust my expectation. And that is ok, because at the end if the day, I am not a long range shooter. 400 yards is a really long shot for me, and I expect most groundhog shots to fall between 100 and 350 yards. A 40 grain vmax moving at 3500 or a 50 grain moving at 3200-3300 should be more than enough for what I need!

I just wish there was an easy way to switch between CUP and PSI. Hodgdon uses CUP and Accurate uses PSI. Those are the only ones I have found so far that include pressure in their data.

Trade it for a 788.

Reduce loads would be the way I would go. Hodgdon lists starting loads with around 38-42 KCUP. I'd go with those if they proved to be accurate.

For higher velocities or pressures I'd get a modern rifle in .223 or .22-50.

If you haven't bought a side-mount for it yet, CDNN had the B-Square side-mount on close-out for $10. The B-Square side-mount is probably the best designed mount for the 340 series, head and shoulders above the Weaver.

I should have clarified, the weaver is a normal top mount. I despise side mount scopes!

Given the split receiver bridge, how can you use a Weaver top mount on a Savage 340?

I've had Savage 340's in .222 {x2}, .223 and .30-30. The .30-30 didn't kick except maybe to little girls. Both of the .222's were very accurate, the .223 acceptably so and the .30-30 was pretty good too. Killed some nice bucks with the .30-30 and a couple truckloads of chucks with the .222's and .223. None ever gave me a lick of trouble.

Joan,

You couldn't critique a glass of water,by yourself. Congratulations?!?

Hint................

You coudn't reach one without a ladder if it was on the kitchen counter. Shrimp.

Joan,

It's your Imagination,simply Pretend with it as you MUST. Congratulations?!?

Hint................

You're wanted over on the campfire forum numb nuts. Go stomp your bitty little feet over there. Maybe somebody will listen to your useless tripe and you can get the attention you think you deserve.

I had one in 30-30 and I agree it didn't kick.

Joan,

When you fill out your next VERY Tender Feelings Report,do not "forget" to "convince" yourself that you "do not care". Congratulations?!?

You Whining clueless Fhuqk.

Hint................

I have one in 30-30 Dad bought for my birthday almost 50 years ago. Mine is the a Foremost model that I think was sold at J C Penny’s. It will shoot around 1” and is deadly to 200 yards with Hornady 160 FTX. Still has the original Weaver 4x scope, I’m wondering if one of the Leupold compact variables would fit and clear the bolt throw? I still drag it out and hunt with it every few years just for grins, it’s killed a truck load of hogs and deer through the years.

I cannot speak to the possibility of flex which might result in brass which is no longer square but I have no reason to doubt it. On the strength or lack thereof, of the 340, I do know of one fellow who decided there was no reason not to rechamber his 30/30 to 307 Winchester. Now, this might have worked out fine if he had stayed with factory equivalent loads or lighter but he figured he could push it a little and was definitely in the lower end of 308 territory when the single lug broke off. He was lucky to have not ended up with a 340 bolt as a facial decoration. This led me to the conclusion that the 340 action was definitely limited to what it could be expected to digest. I think the 225 is a little more than the action can be expected to take over a long period. If I had one (and the odds are slim), I would load it to 222 velocity levels or very slightly higher. This way, I could be sure the bolt would stay in the rifle and my ruggedly handsome face would be unaltered by flying pieces. GD

Throw the steaming pile of schit off a fhuqking cliff and never look back.

Hint...………………….

Steaming pile o [bleep] he said....epic

Not too many schittier rifles,made it to Market.

Hint................

Saving mine for the grandkids to kill a deer with, shoots good, no kick and has too much sentimental value.

Stumbled across this when I was looking for info on the Savage 340. Sent the link to my gunsmith who said that was the way to go. From what he told me it as easy to do. About halfway down the page the guy talks about mounting scopes, and he refers to modifying a weaver base.

http://leeroysramblings.com/Gun%20Articles/gunsmithing_the_savage_model_340.html

I plan on loading some up today, keeping 43k CUP as my max pressure.

Please keep us updated on your loading/shooting as this is very interesting,to me at least.

I've seen that article before and thought that it was a lot of effort for the value derived. I'm a tinkerer of the first order and even I recognize that spending any meaningful amount of effort and/or money to upgrade a Savage 340 series rifle is turd polishing. The practical solution is to sell it and buy something like one of Whtaker's 1-8" ROT RARs in 22-250

The B-Square side-mount accomplishes variable Weaver-style ring placement directly over the center-line of the bore far easier and cheaper without ruining whatever collector's value it might have down the road.

But, it's your rifle and your money, so you should do whatever makes you happy.

Collector value? I suppose it could happen. I had a friend who collected Italian Carcanos. He said they were the one rifle he could afford to collect because nobody wanted them. He never thought of the 340, I guess. GD

This one is mine.

ooopsie did I hear bigsh#t is throwing himself off a cliff!!!

340s in 225 aren't real common and nearly everything under the Sun is collected by someone.

Not really worried about collectors value. I already painted the stock, and with mounting the top scope any collector would turn up his nose. This will be a groundhog gun, pure and simple. With my shooting limitations, I am sure I can get it to do what i need it to.
And "throwing it off the cliff" may work for some people, but I like different chamberings "yes I know head-stamp doesn't matter" and this allows me to shoot a different caliber for fairly cheap. Pus on a limited budget, my purchase of rifles is few and far between. So this one is here to stay.

Good luck with your project, sounds like you've already started with the FUBAR modifications.

Schit brass,schit chambering,schit twist rate and frosted in a schit rifle...undoubtedly wearing schit glass,ain't much of a fhuqking "Blueprint". Congratulations?!?

Flush the turd and move on.

Hint.................

Got some loads developed and took it to the range yesterday. Made sure the necks were relatively straight,(John Barsness method) loaded it with Win 760 Powder over CCI #250 Primer, and 40 grain V-max bullets. Before I shot I loosened the barrel band and tightened it snug, not tight. The 38 grain load seems to be what the rifle likes. It put 4 in .73 inch at 100 yards, with a velocity of 3,780, and an E.S of 54. I will play with seating depth, but to be honest I am pretty happy with this. This should be good for groundhogs out to 300 yards. I had shot some 55 grain factory loads. and couldn't keep it under an inch and a half. I am suspicious that the slow twist barrel is happier with 40 grain bullets. Factory said 14" twist, but my gunsmith measured it at 15. Wish i were a smart one that could post pictures! It would make some people fuss because I "Butchered it" with painted stock, top scope mount etc. But it was meant to be a groundhog gun, nothing else, and I think I have achieved what I set out to do!

340's were the worst piece of schitt ever designed for a modern center fire cartridge.

The designer never gave metal fatigue a second thought.

If you have one, better sell it. Better yet, cut it in half.

If you read the thread you would have noticed that I have set my max pressure at 43k CUP instead of SAMMI 50k. I have no fears of blowing the gun up

More of the issue is working hardening of the lug, it shearing off, with the bolt coming back into your face. I shot one in 30/30 growing up, and the rifle was plenty accurate.

Be safe Jevyod, be safe.

I shoot a 340 in 222. It's been a great groundhog gun. After playing with the barrel band tension it shoots 3/4 inch groups with factory Fiocchi 50 grain vmax. I have no fear of being injured using a 340. I use the b square mount scope mount. It's not pretty, but it shoots.

Almost certainly neither did Mauser before he designed his bolt actions. .

Have you seen examples of fatigue failure on these actions? Documented cases? Where have the cracks appeared? How many load cycles? Do you have any good pics of the fracture surfaces? Have you done any crack testing (MPI, dye penetrant) on these actions?



Again, any actual examples? Work hardening required repeated plastic deformation - a fair bit of it too, to be significant, so how much plastic deformation had there been of the lug before failure? What of the root of the bolt handle? Got any pics?

sell it ,like has been said it might bring a a decent price ? and just buy a new normal cartridge ? its a thought ?

Here is a picture of the rifle in question. I kinda dig it! Sorry to those who think I ruined a fine rifle. I am 34, not 84

Other side

That's funny.

Yup I suppose my choice of wording left some to be desired!! I should have said some will fuss that I took an ugly worthless rifle and made it even more worthless and ugly!!

Throw it in a creek and take photos.then I couldn’t tell if it’s big schtick’s or your photos.

Cool paint job.

I enjoy it when certain folks get all riled up. That's what quality entertainment is all about. Rusty

It looks pretty good and you sound like you know what you're doing with it. Just enjoy it and ignore the negativity here.

Some years ago, a crochety old bird hunter & writer (George Bird Evans) bought a high dollar Purdey SxS. Decided that it did not fit him just right, so took a file to it, until it did. He did a nice job, but lots of traditionalist really cried the blues.
When it belongs to you, you are free to do whatever you wish with it.

Hey keith, maybe you missed this. I am genuinely curious as to the basis of these claims. As a metallurgist I used to do quite a lot of failure investigation, and to be perfectly frank I have my doubts about your claims, but before dismissing them as BS I'd be happy to see the evidence, if you have any.

Have you found Mr. Denton Bramwell's equation for calculating CUP >> PSI ?

If you "goggle" (grin) CUP/PSI you'll find his treatise and EQUATION. He has talked about it here and I have the info but I also found it quite easily on the 'net'.

Good Luck

Prejudice runs deep as do personal opinions. On this rifle, I have NO opinion. I like the looks of what you did with it.

Jerry

I really am fascinated by the cartridge but I've passed on a couple Savage 340V's now. Still waiting for a model 70 that isn't out of my price range.

In the example I mentioned, I cannot say whether or not there was any work hardening involved but the lug definitely failed. It did not fail on the first shot so metal fatigue was obviously in play. GD

That was my thought too. Kinda of like calling a Yugo a fine motor car.

While it distresses me a little when I see a fine firearm irrevocably modified in such a way that its value is diminished, I understand that whoever owns a firearm has the right to do with it whatever he/she wishes to do.

Work hardening is unlikely, to say the least, as you'd have noticeable plastic deformation before failure in order to produce work-hardening - enough plastic deformation that the rifle would already be unserviceable.

As well, just because it didn't fail the first time doesn't mean it was fatigue. There have been many examples of rifles which have failed after some period of service - sometimes years of service - because something has changed or gone wrong, such as an overload or failed case, but which failure has nothing to do with fatigue. I suspect that in the case you cited it was about rechambering to .307 and loading hot, pushing the pressures up well past what the rifle was designed for, rather than fatigue. It is also possible that there was more than one contributing factor.

The appearance of the fracture surface is the key. With fatigue you'll see an area where the fatigue crack has grown progressively over a number of load cycles, before the remaining area is no longer sufficient to support the applied load and the crack proceeds to failure. It is quite distinctive.

You can also pick up incipient fatigue failure by crack testing, before the piece has actually let go. due to the fact that the fatigue crack progresses gradually under the influence of multiple load cycles - and usually a lot of them, which is why it tends not to be a factor in sporting rifles. .

You can also see a clear difference between that and say, brittle failure, or the effect of a defect, or an otherwise sound part which has been overstressed, eg by overloading.

That is why good pics of the failed piece, and especially the fracture surfaces, would be so useful.

Having said that, I'd also say that one swallow does not a summer make. These rifles were built to a price, but they were made for nearly 40 years. While I might not choose one for myself it seems to me that if the bloke who owns it is happy with it, and it shoots well enough to do the job he has for it, then that is really about all that matters. You example is a good one as to why you might not want to try pushing things past the design envelope, though it would be interesting to know a bit more about what might have caused the failure. The bloke who opened this question seems to be pretty clear on not being overly ambitious with loads though.

I say good luck to him, and hope he knocks plenty of critters off with his rifle.

We know what caused the failure; the rifle was being asked to do more than the design would allow. I said fatigue simply because the action did not fail on the first shot but after a few. I was not there for the firing so was not able to monitor headspace change or lug deformation.
I have seen lug and seat deformation in various actions. Some as the result of severe overloads and others from using loads which were just a bit on the hot side for a period of time. A Sako L61 had gained about .006" in head clearance after firing around three hundred rounds of a load which I considered to be too hot and had warned the owner. On this rifle the lugs were visibly deformed.
A Browning A-Bolt showed just the opposite. The lugs looked fine but the seats were set back over .010"
These were cases where deformation was evident and I considered the rifles to be unsafe. With the 340, I considered the rifle in that chambering to be unsafe from the get-go but, as I said, I wasn't there for the shooting; I only saw the result which confirmed my initial assessment.
I agree that the OP is on the right path and should get good service from his rifle. As to the original question regarding brass deformation as a result of bolt deflection; I don't doubt it. GD

Often, old cheap stuff seems cool. Perhaps precious memories of when we were younger. I think you can trust Greydog.