As you all know Savage made claims to its new round equaling the 30-06 Springfield in performance when it was brought out after WWI. For sake of discussion, does anyone know what the original muzzle velocity was of the round and how that compared with the 06 in it's WWI configuration. I know the latter was stoked to about 2700-fps with a 150-grain pill for the Garand in WWII, but I don't think those specs held true for the Great War. So how close were the two in performance when the 300 was brought out and how far did they drift apart with the advent of more modern powders?

October 1921 ad introducing the 300 Savage:

150gr at 2700fps.

2700fps was the standard 150gr ball load for gov't ammo from 1906 through the modern era, even after they dropped the ill-starred M1 Ball load and adopted the M2 Ball load right before WWII (which was nothing more than the old WWI load but with a gilding metal jacket instead of cupro- nickel.

Did the original .300 loading truly generate 2700fps? If so, pressures had to have been high given the smaller case capacity compared to the Caliber .30 Ball, Model 1906 😊 case and the powders of the day. (Which were all what we would call fast to medium burn rate compared the wonderful selection we enjoy today.)

It doesn't seem complicated, but maybe it is. Smaller case can't equal a bigger case, when talking pure physics. Now wives, that's a different story!

So if it was 2700-fps then Savage's claim wasn't a bunch of advertising hyperbole? That is assuming that the service round was clocking out at the same speed and bullet weight. I always thought the general consensus was that Savage dipped its toe into the pool of marketing with this one when the round was introduced. Interesting reading the new round as described - a necked up 250. Implying the quarter bore was the parent round. That helps square up the 300's historical context.

Anyone know the powders that were used in the two rounds circa-1920? That would address questions and limitations on pressure with the technology they had at that time.

I suspect real world .300 velocities were more like 25-2600fps. Advertising claims notwithstanding. Anybody have some old 1920-era .300 ammo to shoot and chronograph?

They continuously said it was 2700fps for a long time.

Catalog #62 in 1922
Catalog #63 thru 1927
Catalog #68 in 1934
In Catalog #73 in 1939 they lowered it to 2660fps.

Nothing that's available today. I could look up the powder used for gov't ammo, I don't remember off the top of my head.

As Gary said, it would be interesting sacrificing a hand full of original 300 rounds to the modern chronograph.

Could you guarantee that their velocity at 100 years old is the same as it was when they were new?

No, but it would constitute the best observation we could make. And if a whole box was tested odds are the results could land in the ballpark. My biggest concern would be with neck splits. Back in the 90s I bought a 99F in 303 and because trying to find fodder for that gun was a real crap shoot back then I went around to every table at gun shows and bought all the ammo I could find. And I ended up with a fair amount of case splits with old Remington ammo, but still experienced a respectable number successful firings. If I was to do this today I might be inclined to pull the bullets, dump the powder and anneal the cases before reloading.

Perhaps side by side testing of .30 gov't ammo of the same vintage?

Kool thread!

It's a fallacy that the original ball 150 grain load for the 30-06 had a muzzle velocity of 2700fps. The military didn't measure velocity at muzzle. They measured it at 78 feet. The velocity at 78 feet was spec'ed at 2700fps. The actual muzzle velocity was closer to 2780. The 300 Savage was never going to get to that number in a sporter-length barrel.

"Perhaps side by side testing of .30 gov't ammo of the same vintage?"

That would somewhat level the playing field for a low budget, low tech practical experiment such as this.

And that gets back to the question. What was the difference?

Townsend Whelen's "The American Rifle", printed in 1918 gives a muzzle velocity for the '30 Gov't Model 1906" with 150gr bullet as 2700fps. Velocity at 100 yards as 2,465fps.

180gr was 2,509fps muzzle, 2,290fps at 100yds.

I'd consider Mr. Whalen a creditable source. So the 06 with a 150-grain bullet can be identified as a 2700-fps round in 1918. Was Savage's claim for the 300 accurate at 2700 or close enough to make little difference?

What type of "chronograph" would have been used ~1900-1920 ? What was its accuracy = 1%, 5%, 10%, ??

List of thing to NOT talk about;
1) politics
2) religion
3) projectile speed
4)...

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.

So to get this train back on the tracks the question asked really focused on the difference, if any, between the 06 and 300 at the time the latter was introduced. After going through this exercise I'm inclined to think that Savage may have been closer to it's claim than history gives it credit. Anyone know what powders were used in their early configurations? Seems to me deerstalker said 3031 comes close to the burn rate of the early 06 round. If I was actively reloading and going to the range at the moment I would find modern powders that came close to the originals and load up some 150-grain pills in both and go see what happens. Obviously this experiment would not exactly replicate the performance of the original rounds but I think it would suffice good enough to draw reasonable conclusions. And yes, velocities could be taken at the muzzle and 78-feet to satisfy the concerns of all. And again, I put this question up as a simple topic of discussion and not as an argument or a contest in spelling.

You had the Spanish American War ending in mid 1898. This is the watershed that caused all this. The Battle of San Juan Hill convinced everyone that the 30-40 Krag wasn't cutting it. They tried in 1899 to bump up the Krag's performance, but the Krag couldn't cut it. This started the search for what became the 30-03.

The Mauser was the stronger action. They could copy it, but they couldn't quite copy the powder. They also had in mind a different performance envelope. The wonks wanted something that would shoot the same 220 grain bullet as the Krag, only farther. DuPont delivered a powder that could do that, and thus the 30-03 was born.

Almost from the start, they saw the problem. Launching a 220 grain round-nosed bullet cause all kind of problems. It caused barrel erosion. It caused a big looping trajectory. The 30-06, with a smaller pointer bullet fixed all that, but they kept using the same DuPont powder.

WWI happened. By war's end, everyone had seen what the 30-06 could do, as well as all the other chamberings. 30-06, .303 Brit and the 8mm Mauser. The powder chemists had also been working on the problem. 300 Savage is a civillian attempt to adapt and improve.

1) It was supposed to be an improvement on the 303 Savage's performance in the same way 30-03 improved on the 30-40 Krag using existing components where possible.
2) It used the new powders developed after 1900.
3) It produced 2600 fps with a pointy 150 grain bullet which put it into the same ballpark as military rounds like the 30-06 (close, but not quite).
4) It could do all this in an existing lever action package that did not require a lot of redesign.

France and Britain both looked at this development. I don't have access to what the Brits did, but the French developed the 7.5X54 for their new MAS 36 about 7 years after the 300 Savage. The Americans started to play with the idea, but it didn't produce a cartridge until after WWII-- the 7.62X51. Nobody took the 300 Savage and stole the idea, but a lot of people were working on the same problem and Savage just had a product out there earlier than the others.

. . . at least that's how I understand it.

So, just how many fairies CAN dance on the head of a pin?😁

Savage designed the .300 so it would work in an unaltered 99 action. They got it right in that it delivered great performance in the game fields. (And the wonderful package it came in didn't hurt either.) But the unalterable truth is that then as now it was/is straining at its leash to keep up with the .30-06 which is loafing along. Add to that shear versatility (for example with bullets a lot heavier than 180 grains) and it's longer neck for bullet support and the '06 remains champ IMO.

IMO the 300 savage cartridge is the novel invention that started the " short action". The .308 Winchester .........on now 2 the creedmore.

The 300 savage was way ahead of its time and a wonderful cartridge.

The 30 govt......to 30 govt 06. Is a wonderful long action. Not many Lever guns are made in long action.

"and how far did they drift apart with the advent of more modern powders?"

This is something we can probably sort out with personal experience. I haven't loaded for the 300 Savage, but I've doted on the 30-06 for decades. With my handloads, all from mainstream loading manuals with the 24" barrel:

200 gr @ 2600 fps (and probably up to 2700 fps)
180 gr @ 2800 fps
165 gr @ 2940 fps

Those are all from my 24" Remington 700 with "book" loads.

I have no recent experience with the 150's and the 30-06 cartridge.

Regards, Guy

Any photos of the fairies?

Only things I would argue in that is that #3 should be 2700fps rather than 3600fps (I know it was a typo), and that the 300 Savage used new powders designed probably after 1915.

Add that the 300 Savage was another Savage cartridge almost surely conceived and prototyped by Charles Newton, and finished by Savage engineer Charles Nelson (like the 250-3000 was). Charles Newton was definitely a guy who kept up with powder developments.

Thanks. I fixed the typo.

I've only got a few sources, and I don't have any actual reloading data from back then.

However, I do have an Outdoor Life comparative ballistics chart from their "Cyclopedia" that comes from the late 30's. They list the 300 Savage with a muzzle velocity of 2660 fps with 150 grain and the 30-06 as having 2960 fps with the same weight. Of course, this is well after the 300 Savage's introduction. P.O Ackley lists his fastest 150 grain load for 300 Savage as 44 grains of H380 with a ML of 2650 fps. That's from 1962.

Could an enterprising reloader have gotten 2700 fps out of a 300 Savage in the 20's? Possibly, but it was not something I'd have wanted to shoot. Maybe it was Paco Kelly's grandpa. It certainly was not factory ammo.

Yes, the Savage catalogs dropped the muzzle velocity from 2700fps to 2660fps somewhere between 1935 and 1939. Due to better measurements, or slightly reduced load because better pressure measuring showed they were loading hot? Dunno. It's only a 1.5% velocity reduction.

1950: still at 2660fps
1953: cataloged at 2670fps
1972: still at 2670fps

Even with today's powders, you do not find many 300 Savage 150 grain loads listed in manuals with max load velocity 2700-2800fps. Lilkely due to improved pressure measurement technology.

Quick question:

Has anybody here ever gotten a chronographed validation of advertised factory muzzle velocity? Because I sure haven't. Factory loads always test lower than advertised for me.

Generally, you can't believe any factory published MVs especially from the old days. So much fudge in factory claimed MVs it's borderline criminal.

If the 22 HP was a tiger gun, why couldn't the 300 Savage be as good or better than the 30-06?

Smoke and mirrors.

Guess on how I view the 30/06 vs 300 Savage controversy, is that I've always understood it that the 300 Savage was developed to near (hopefully maybe equal) the 30/06 in performance, but in a shorter overall length cartridge to fit the Savage 99 magazine. Expecting the 300 to equal the 06 in all aspects is expecting alot out of a brass with smaller powder capacity, shorter neck, and sharper degree shoulder. The Savage having the shorter neck limits longer, heavier bullets and even with loadings of the same grains, certain aspects of brass construction affect alot. Maybe Savage back in the day advertised the 300 as a equal to the 06, but then they were advertising the 22 Hi-Power for taking on all sorts of big game. "Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My"! Advertising in the early 1900's, probably even later on from what I've seen of it on many products sometimes exceeded the limits and failed to reach the claims of its manufacturers. Not saying the 22 High-Power wouldn't drop 'big game', but if it were of the dangerous variety, I'd want some back up. I'd want a cartridge and bullet that can be a more reliable knock down stopper. Be like in the days I wore a badge, carrying a .380 Auto instead of a .357 or 45 ACP for duty/patrol. I never carried a .380 period-had one for a while as a shooter, but not impressed with it or the gun I had at the time.

Expecting the 300 Savage to equal its big brother is like expecting a 38 Special to equal its off spring the .357 Magnum or the 44 Colt or Special to equal their big brother, the 44 Magnum. Can come close or try, but never equal day after day-load after load. When the US Military took the 300 Savage and developed the 7.62 NATO round, from which the commercial .308 Winchester resulted from, that off spring from the 300 Savage did equal and in some respects out classed the 30/06. That's why the 30/06 shooting M1 Garand was retired in favor of the 7.62 (.308 Winchester) M14 rifle. I as a shooter and reloader of both the 300 Savage in a 99 R and two Remington 81 semi-auto's and a shooter of four 30/06 rifles (1917 Enfield, 03A1 Springfield, 03A3 Springfield, and two M1 Garand's, I don't reload the 300 Savage to try and equal or out do any of the 06's. I don't hunt with any of them, so knock down power and bullet performance isn't real critical, but in some loadings when I get the notion, they could be used for 'big game', even bigger than deer.

Same with the 300 Savage, some loadings are basically a target,(no mouse loads though), but others could be a hunting round. I use loadings out of bullet and powder manufacturer manuals, Lymans, known reliable magazine author's recommendations, and others taken from forums like this one and others (but they're compared with known loadings). I have a basic idea what the loadings will develop in fps and energy from the muzzle to various yardages, so I have no use or desire for a coronagraph. The bullet will get there, accuracy is more important to me. I'd rather spend the money for the cost of a corno on other shooting endeavors and use the time involved on other things than use it in set up/maintenance and worrying if I'm getting another 50 fps by adding another grain or so. My manuals and such can give me the approximate fps and energy information, adding and subtracting for any difference in barrel length. Some of my loadings are rated at or really near the 2700 fps speed. Might be straying from the original OP intent some, but guess that's normal sometimes on these threads and posts.

Might it be fair to surmise the 06 at the time of WWI was pushing 2700-fps and the 300 at introduction a few short years later somewhere around 2600 to 2650-fps? If so then that's not a huge difference. Certainly not enough for a deer to tell the difference with a 150-grain bullet. That's the answer I've come too out of this discussion. So maybe Savage fudged the ballistics a bit, but perhaps not so much to be full on bologna. And certainly not in the spectrum of the 22HP tiger killer - but that's another story for another day.

Canada Rod and Gun Club, April 1922, about 7-8 months after the 300 Savage was introduced.

"The .300 Savage is loaded to equal the .30-1906-150-2700 service cartridge..."

Which was the most prevalent cartridge for the 30-06 that was available, with a ton of army surplus on the market. But there were other hotter 150gr loads, and heaver/hotter loads. They list a 150gr / 2900fps load. So the 300 Savage matched the prevalent 30-06 market loads.. but everybody knew it couldn't match what the 30-06 COULD be pushed to.

Not looking for what a hand loader could push the rounds to, but instead what the factory ammo did to substantiate its claim to being an equal to the 06 at the time the 300 was introduced. And with the above information I'm inclined to say that maybe Savage's claim to the 300 being the same as the 06 in factory loads was not too far off base. And most likely was close enough for most shooters to have probably not given it a second thought. So was Savage's claim market hyperbole or fact. Right now I'm thinking it leaned more to the latter than the former.

It'd probably be similar to saying the factory 150gr 300 Savage load now is 2630fps - which is the Federal, Winchester and Remington advertised velocities.

Then arguing whether that's right because Hornady makes a 2,740 Super Performance load.

The last factory loads I chronoed was in '01 out of an F's 22" barrel. Remington 150 PCL averaged 2619 fps (instrumental) and I could not handload a more accurate load for that rifle. I took that as a direct insult....'bout drove me crazy.

Read the whole thread, some good points made. But not what I consider the most important 1. All of you compare the std 300 sav commercial load of 2700 fps or the later one of 2660 to the 150 30-06 @2700fps that was the service military load not the commercial load for the o6. The only thing that compares the same is the .308 bullet dia. The 6.0 edn. Of western powders reloading data shows every 150 max load over 2700 in the sav with a 24" barrel and they were held to 44,000 cup . When you slide over to 30-06 data most 150 loads with suitable powders run 2900+ to over 3000fps.
When I bought my 1st 300 sav I was able to load 150's & 4064 to well over 2700 in my 110 wle model, I sure as hell would not run that ammo in my 99. While a guy can run the pressures up a bit in a bolt gun the case is not designed heavy enough for extra pressure from what I have seen. If a guy wants to hot rod his 99 use one in 308 then it's the guns limit you need to be mindful of. Just my thoughts. MB

In 1920 the gov't 06 load was the gold standard. There weren't any commercially made 06 rifles yet. (The ill-fated Winchester 1895 notwithstanding. Winchester dropped that chambering when they realized that .30 Gov't ammo was a little too hot for that gun.) Factory bolt guns in .30-06 didn't come along until a couple years later, and America's devotion to the lever started to slip.

I often said that if Savage had designed the M1920's action a skinch longer and built a little weight into the gun to tame recoil it would've been a world-class contender as an '06 (and later .270). The gun would've survived a lot longer than 8 years. But no, Savage was stuck on designing their stuff around their proprietary cartridges, and only allowing in those other ones that happened to fit.

(As for the recoil bit, that was the main reason I got rid of the only 1920 .300 I owned. That skinny little beauty kicked like an Army mule. I wager that fact as being contributory to the demise of the gun.)

Thanks. All I'm trying to do is compare the two rounds with each other circa-1920 to determine if Savage's claim to equal power was accurate or marketing hype, as many have made the claim to in the decades that followed.

Heck yeah. I think a long action 20/26 would have beat the pants off any contender. Could you imagine what that would that rifle would have been like with a barrel the weight of a Model 54 or 70? Savage could have owned a big share in the lever gun market as well as maybe owning the whole then burgeoning bolt gun market. And the 40/45 was never going to do that. Too bad they terminated their shot at top shelf and settled on second shelf instead. "Say it isn't so Joe."

And by the way, I also like the Super Sporters so no digs intended.

S99VG- - that's what I assumed you were referring to, ie Savage's claim of equalizing the 300 to the 06. As previously pointed out, they didn't have the technology we have today to really measure and determine the accuracy we have today, besides, they were out to sell rifles and what better way than to equate it to the 30/06. Just tossed in my reloading I've done so far and some of what is known about reloading the 300. Loads of the day probably were close to the 06 or as near as they could make it and/or get away with claiming. Calhoun's last post with the old Newspaper article was interesting.

Magnumn Bob- -I don't hot rod my 300 Savage loads, the rifles I advised I have that are chambered in it are no longer made and need to be treated with a bit of TLC-parts aren't everyday go to Brownell's and order either. In fact, none of my loadings near maximum, the most I get are in the middle or maybe barely making it near the 2/3 grains in published load manual. In fact alot of of shooting is with cast bullets, way down in the pressure scale. Just fun shooters. Even my so-called modern guns, none are hot rodded. Paid my dues years ago with that on hand held howitzer .357 Mag loads back in the 70's/early 80's, reload some healthy loads at times, but nothing that when ya pull the trigger ya regret your endeavor.

Just think of what the 99 could have been if after Savage introduced the 300 Savage and a bit later evolutionized it and created what the .308 Winchester is today. Probably be called the 308 Savage. The whole story of the M1 Garand may have been different, military firearms/ammo a whole lot different. The 300 Savage may have died a sure death back in the late 20's/early 30's, firearms history and hunting would have a different history and story. Can't recall, did Savage change the magazine dimensions when they did chamber the 99 in .308-seems to me I may have read that or my mind is fantasizing.