... always wondered but never asked. Why did Savage name it the “.303” Savage?

I suspect that the true rationale behind that decision went to the grave with Arthur. There is evidence that .311 bullets were factory loaded at one time or another but I don't think a real .311 bore was ever produced. There are some oversize .308 barrels but I believe that was due to the machinery in use and attention to tolerances in that era.

Million dollar question.

I found this little snippet about the .303 British: The .303 British (designated as the 303 British by the C.I.P. and SAAMI) or 7.7×56mmR, is a .303-inch (7.7 mm) calibre (with the bore diameter MEASURED BETWEEN THE LANDS as is common practice in Europe).

... so could it possible that Arthur was toying with the European naming convention and the .303 Savage was .303” measured between the lands and he added the “Savage” after it to differentiate from the .303 British? That might actually give some credence to those rumors that the early .303 Savages had a larger bore diameter. ... I know, speculation at best, but it would explain the “.303” part of the name.

A savage collector I know told me the following. (I suspect it's true, but I have no proof) This is as close to a quote as I can give you:

The Savage Arms Co started in the 1890s and one of the target markets for their guns was Canada. The 303 British was the well accepted caliber and quite popular. So Arthur Savage named his shell the "303" to capitalize on the allure of a familiar "name" to cause the northern market to warm up to it easier.
The .308" bullets were what was available in the US because of tooling of the "new" military 30-40 round and the acceptance of the 30 WCF in civilian circles, and because of that the cost of having bullets made to the British standard made no sense to Mr Savage when the .308 sizing was standardized in production within the USA.
So the name 303 Savage was distinctive enough to bait the Canadians and also differentiated the new shell from the 30 WCF which was the "big teem to beat."

It worked to some extent in Canada but didn't have as high an acceptance in the USA.
The rest is academic, but that's the inside story"

Good question. I heard Savage originally wanted to call it the .303 WTF!

Probably the same place that 270 Winchester came from

Looking at some barrel specs fro here http://mcgowenbarrel.com/bore-groove/

A .25 caliber has a.250” between the lands and .257” grooves (Note Savage named the .250-3000 Savage)
.270 Win has a .270” between the lands land and .277” grooves (Note the .270 Win name matches the land diameter)
.30 caliber has .300” between lands and .308 between grooves (Note the .300 Savage name matches the land diameter
A .303 caliber has .303” between the lands and .311 grooves (Note the name of the 303 British)

Sounds good to me.

Across the lands= bore diameter. (Ie: bore as it was before the grooves were cut.)

I think y'all are over thinking things. I believe Arthur and his crew believed in naming cartridges with eye catching monikers. .22 High Power, .250-3000 for example. I think .303 falls into the same boat. A play on words to mimic the .30-30 without bring obvious about it. (And self appointed allusion to a famous military round- the .303 Brit which had been around ten years by the time of the .303 Savage. Pretty good coat tails to ride on.)

Never forget Arthur Savage was an entrepreneur first and an inventor second. Heck just look at his name- it conjures up images of stark baseness without ever applying an Indian head to it and probably set his imagination to work by the time he was wearing short pants.

What do you mean by that?? Factories and arsenals could make any darned size bullet they had a whim to. It wasn't the dark ages in the 1890's you know. In fact Savage did specify .311 bullets in a . 308 groove diameter in a vain effort to boost velocity/performance.


As for the Canadian Connection, that sounds like wishful thinking on the part of a jealous Canuck.

Bore diameter of .30 caliber barrels is universally nominally .300 not .301, or .302, or .303, always has been, always will be.

We Americans sometimes use bore diameter to name cartridges, sometimes groove diameter. In the case of .30 calibers it's bore diameter (except for the pesky .308 Winchester and the red-headed step child the .303 Savage.

I always thought it was to enter savage into the military market? Large military contract could put a new company ahead fast.

I think Savage's aborted foray into military musket contracts was due largely to the underpowered cartridge (in a world where romper-stompers like 7x57, 8x57, .303 Brit, .30-40 Krag, 7.65 Mauser, .30-06, etc. ruled the roost), as well as its lever action. Military rifle shooting at the time was centered around classic position shooting and that lever is/was a royal PIA to operate in prone position.

I always marveled about the Winchetsr M95 contracts with Russia in WWI for that reason. Of course the Russkies were desperate for anything that went bang.

I've never thought a lever gun a good idea for a battle rifle when a bolt gun is as about as simple, strong and easy to keep running as it gets. Could you imagine trying to clean the mud of the Western Front out of a 99 or 95!? Nice actions but way too complicated for infantry rifles.

And he was English.

Best answer so far...

Never quite figured it out, except that maybe Arthur designed the cartridge first and then was talked into a .308" bore rifle by American investors/companies and found that he could combine them. Or, that the very early smokeless powders were so weak that he thought he needed to up the pressure this way to "beat" the competitors.

Third option I always wondered about was whether Marlin made the barrels as .308" even though Savage designed them for .311"?

307 Winchester be another.

The real question is "why .30 caliber in the first place". Why not .29, or .31, or better yet .312" which is an even fraction of an inch- 5/16". And if you really want to count angels on the head of a pin, why not an even metric number like 7mm or 8mm. After all, the metric system was the only officially adopted measuring system in the U.S., since 10 years prior to the Savage rifle. It remains so to this day but obviously ignored by one and all. The English system of measurement was never officially adopted by Congress, but the Metric system was.

I think Savage just picked it because it wasn't something like "30-30 Winchester." It is misleading and ya have to wonder if any guns were damaged by guys who reloaded 311 bullets? Anyone know of any instances of this happening?

While we are at it, someone please tell me where 38-55 or 25-35 came from. And don't mention black powder.

The .38-55, as well as .32-40, was a holdover from the tail end of the black powder era, and was offered with black powder charges long into the smokeless era. You're right though re: .25-35, .30-30, .30-40, etc. being firmly in the smokeless era. My guess has always been that the nomenclature is a carry-over from the black powder era, denoting the charge of smokeless powder used in the initial cartridges- as a sop to the old stick-in-the-mud gunners who couldn't relate to any other means of identification.

You can't get 55grs of black powder in a 38-55, just as you can't get 35 in a 25-35.

What smokeless powders were these cartridges originally loaded with?

I never tried BP in a .38-55. Can it not be done by employing fine grained powder inserted via a drop tube, and compressing the heck out of it? (BP needs be compressed anyway for max efficiency.) Also, BP is measured by bulk with a measure, not by weight- would that have been an influence? Dunno, just asking.

As for the .25-35, it was never a BP cartridge. Woulda/coulda been the weight of the original smokeless charge? Anybody have an 1890's-vintage factory cartridge they could break down and weigh the powder charge? I certainly don't know the makeup of those early smokeless powders- if they were super dense and a caseful would've weighed 35 grains or not. I looked in Phil Sharpe's Guide to Handloading and even the old obsolete powders ballyhoo'ed in that pre-war tome came nowhere close to 35 grains as a full charge- stuff like #17 1/2, Lightning, Sharpshooter, Hi-Vel, etc. Maybe some guy at Winchester just liked the euphonious ring to ".25-35". Who knows?

I think it's agreed that the .30-30 employed 30 grains smokeless whatever in its original factory loading. Makes sense because today 30 grains 3031 and a 150 grain bullet is a safe/sane load. I doubt you could get 35 grains of 3031 into a .25-35 and have enough room to seat a bullet. It's a lot smaller than a .30-30 case.

I promise you that 55 grains of anything was never the charge for the 38/55.

Maybe they were bragging.

Modern shooters typically run charges of 40-50 grains FFg, depending on bullet weight. Considering that FFFg is finer grained (and hence more weight per volume) it would be nearly possible or entirely possible to get 55 grains in a modern case, again depending on bullet weight/length of bullet and how deeply the bullet needs to be seated determined by length of throat- and depending on case capacity of said case and how much powder compression one is seeking. Bear in mind also that modern cases are more heavily constructed thus further restricting capacity compared to early cases made before smokeless pressures were a concern. [I don't know if .38-55's were made initially with folded head (balloon head) cases or not- if so then there would've been scads of room for a 55 grain charge.] That said, I see no reason why the original BP loadings couldn't have contained 55 grains of fine grained cartridge powder under the common 250 grain lead bullet. Of further note is the old trick of trickling powder into the case via a long brass drop tube while vibrating the case a bit to settle the powder. I wish I had an empty 130 year old .38-55 case to prove this empirically.

Chuck Hawks say the 38/55 had 55 grains of black powder in it.

The folks doing the press work screwed up and dropped the 0 from the end.
So they went with it.
303 does sound larger than 30-30.