I see Barnes Bullets has 190 gr FNSP 30-30 lead core bullets on their website, http://www.barnesbullets.com/bullets/originals/ . Anyone tried these? Seems like it might be a good fit for 303 Savage (and 30-30 too).

Lee

I like that, I'm gonna have to try those , thanks for the link

plab

Bought a box a couple weeks ago; have not had tried them yet. Midway has a few in stock.

Bought a box a couple weeks ago; have not had tried them yet. Midway has a few in stock. Just an FYI, Barnes also makes a Barnes original 255 gr for the 375 Win.

Looks like the best thing I’ve seen for replacting the factory original round.

Even I, being the cast bullet nut that I am, plan to try them, if for no other reason than to show support for Barnes in doing this.

Haven't yet purchased any but have e-mailed them twice asking for load data-once last week and once this week. I have all 4 volumes of their manuals and its not even hinted at in them. Neither is it on their updated load info page on-line but they do say they are working on manual V.

Awesomeness!

I would use .30-30 170 grain data minus a couple grains powder, or data for .303 out of an older Lyman manual, and start a couple grains low and work up. I would also use a chronograph and stop when I got to 1900fps out of a 20" carbine or 2000fps out of a 24" rifle. No point in pushing it hotter than the old factory ammo was.

On Feb 19th Barnes responded to my email for load data and said they are working on shooting new data for this bullet.

I did get hold of a page from Lyman #45 that has 30-30 load data for a 190 grain jacketed bullet that would be a place to start.

That's cool. Though that cannelure looks too far forward.

It does

But, the only way to make a bullet heavier for caliber is to make it longer and the extra length only has one place to go.

In the case...

I'd be willing to bet that bullet is a sledgehammer even at modest 303/30-30 velocities.

I wouldn't volunteer to stop one...

Ooooh ooooh, pick me pick me!!

Cannelures matter only if you crimp your handloads. May be needed for M94's and 336's, maybe not. Certainly not needed for use in a 99. If a cannelure lays way outside (or way inside) a case neck it machs nix to me.

Not to get way off topic here but the 190 grain bullet in the 303 was really the way the 303 survived for 25 years after the 30-30 was introduced because it was the only way it could separate itself from the 30-30. Hell you could even buy a 30-30 99, why would anybody buy a 303 when no other gun maker other than Savage chambered it? It was thought by many sportsman of the time the 303 190 grain was able to penetrate better than the 170 grain bullet fired from the 30-30. There may have even been a shred of truth in that because of the increased sectional density of the longer bullet. Although in practicality it probably only really separated itself from the 30-30 in that regard if the rifleman was shooting at elk, moose or the biggest North American bears. If the 303 had only been loaded with a 170 grain bullet it would have died very young.

Anyway, the 303 hung on another 20 years after the 300 Savage was introduced in 1920, but the 300 essentially put the 303 on life support shooting a 180 grain bullet another 400 ft +/- per second than the 303 190 grain bullet. Ironic because when Savage introduced the 300 they essentially cannibalized the 303. If you were going to buy a brand spanking new 99 in 1925 and you only have the money to own one rifle, you going to buy a 300 or 303?

I think that pretty well sums it up.

Own one rifle in 1927? Me I would've opted for the .303. Even today I would opt for the .30-30 (or .303, same difference) in a high end single shot, thank you very much. But, gasp, I'm not your average bear! Another gasp, I've never been a huge huge fan of the .300- I would never denigrate it for it's proven its worth millions of times over, it just doesn't hold much magic in my eyes. I own one and that's probably it for me in the .300 department.

I've been preaching about 190 grain flat nosed bullets in .30-30's for darn near 40 years since I acquired my first bullet mould in that configuration. The .303 was merely in my periphery back then and I really couldn't have cared less about it and its platforms. I did see the value of that configuration of bullet moving at 2000fps though, and that as much as anything brought me into the fold.

Took the 1926 F to the range with Gary and John. Had the new mount from Mike on it and an old K4. Was sighting in with 150 grain from Graffs. Got the windage on, but it was still shooting several inches high at 100, with the scope all the way down. Broke out the box of Remington 180's I got with you a year or two back. They dropped right down in the bull. John picked up a box of Winchester Silver tip 190's at a show for $5. That's what will be stuffed in the F opening day come November. The 303 is the only one I need to complete my slam.

Unless I talk you into shooting away all your bullets between now and then!

Bottom line, shoot whatever works. If it's 150's, so be it. If it's heavy's, so be it. They'll all kill stuff dead as dead can be.

Funny how we loonies tend to adopt such things as bullets and rifles as talismans. We really are but two steps removed from our days of running barefoot through the jungles dodging saber toothed tigers. (Except Joe. He still does that sometimes.)

Funny too how we tend to overthink this stuff. But that's what separates us gun nuts from the hoi poloi gun owners.

You sure use a lot of funny words I never hoid of.

I always liked the term "Pet Load." I think just finding what works the best for you in your gun is the fun in it all. And the only funny word I have for this morning is bananas.

Looks like Gnoahhh moonlights for Barnes. Just heard back from them this am. Said they were working on "official" load development to post on their web site. Recommended to use the data from(1)-A 170 gr jacketed reduced by 2.5 grs and work up--OR-- (2)-Find a 190 gr jacketed recipe in a loading manual and start at their starting load and work up.

No moonlighting here. Just being a student of The Gun for a half-century.

Don't bull poopy me......barnsey boy!

Just to further clarify, Barnes was recommending starting at 2.5 grains below the starting load of 170 grain jacketed bullet.

And if you're a real nut, here's some loads recommended by Phil Sharpe in his "Complete Guide to Handloading", copyright 1941:

All with 190 jacketed bullet-

HiVel#2, 30.1 grains, 2080fps, 41,000psi
HiVel#3, 27.4 grains, 2150fps, 41,000psi
Hercules 300, 33.4 grains, 2070fps, 38,000psi
DuPont 17 1/2, 32.6 grains, 1982fps, no pressure listed
Lightning, 25.8 grains,1990fps, no pressure listed
Sharpshooter, 17.6 grains, 1695fps, 33,000psi
DuPont SR-80, 14.0 grains, 1250fps, no pressure listed (actually that stuff is comparable to SR-4759, but that's moot because 4759 was discontinued 3-4 years ago)

These are max loads, so start low and work up. And if you actually mess with any of these old powders, bravo to you!

I looked that up last night myself. But pray tell of a source for either of the HiVel powders or Hercules 300. The others I had at least read of in my 40+ years of reading and handloading.

Which Lyman edition is the illustrated page from? Prior to the 44th edition. I have from 44th to the present.

Speaking of Hercules Powder and a bit of irony, it was made out here in a town called, of all things, Hercules. The town sits along the northeast shore of San Francisco Bay and, as I understand it, there are still the remains of powder bunkers in the hills above the bay shore.

There is no source. That stuff was discontinued 60 years ago, give or take.

Squeeler,

I can't read the picture of the load data on the 190 gr jacketed bullet or the 170&180 jacketed bullet table. Can you try to get a better picture, or just type the data in for us? It looks like there is data on 3031, 4895, and 4064, all of which are of course available and are proven performers. Thanks!

That older data always seems pretty hot. Those loads exceed what the current Hodgdon web site lists for 30-30 170 grain jacketed bullets. When lacking data for the 303 Savage, I've looked at the 30-30 for comparison.

Just loaded 3 cartridges each of 190 grain Hawk with 29,30 and 31 grains of IMR3031. Once spring gets here I will run them over the chrony (20" 1899H .303 savage) I will report back with the results.

Darryl

Just a FWIW, this old data seems pretty hot. Hodgdon's current load data lists the max load for a 30-30 with a 170 grain jacketed bullet as 29.2 grains of IMR 3031. I'd think a current load for 30-30 with a 190 grain jacketed bullet would be 2-3 grains below that 29.2 grain max load. Granted, a 30-30 is not a 303 Savage, but the case capacity is very similar and many of us have used 30-30 data as starting point for 303 Savage loads.

I have researched this topic pretty thoroughly. It seems the biggest concern with older data is if the powder composition has changed over the 40 to 60 years since the data was published. Having talked to people who know powder it seems IMR 3031 is the least likely to have any change. Having said that I feel starting at 29 grains will be enough margin of safety. From there any attempts to shoot the other loads will be based on observations of the 29 grain load results. The loads are from a trusted source I might add.

Darryl

Everybody's a prize fighter till they get punched in the face.

Well I will test the loads tomorrow. If I survive the "punch in the face" I will report back.

Darryl

I waz pondering Reeeloading with my brother a few years back.

I waz learning him, and finally he said......


" my lord why don't you just tie baling string to the trigger and hide behind a rock?"


Crickets.............

What would you hunt with a 190gr .303? I'm guessing Elk, Moose, Black bear and things bigger than mulies?

Anything up to what you mention. Anything below that is fair game too!

For what it's worth, I worked up 3031 loads with 190 cast bullets and stopped at 28 grains because I had reached my velocity goal, accuracy was excellent, and I felt I was edging into territory that would see case life suffering. I have no idea what pressure I'm getting, but I bet it's fairly healthy. I actually took some grief on another forum for going that high with 3031. I dunno, it's a case of uncharted "Beyond this Pointe There Be Dragons" perhaps?

Never tried the 190s. Had such good luck with the Sierra and Hornady 180 gr RN I didn't feel the urge to look further. Have one magic target (will NEVER be able to repeat) of <.750" @ 100 yards peeped with my 1899 B. Other 99s in 303 I've had performed quite well also with said projectiles.

I loaded some of the 190 gr Barnes bullets up with 28 gr of 3031 this winter. It's been too cold here to get an accurate velocity, but spring is in the air. I will try to get some chrony data on them within the next couple of weeks.

Well I survived the shooting/testing of the 190 grain Hawk loads. Carbine is a 1913 1899H in better than average condition, 20" barrel. I loaded 3 rounds (each) with 29,30 and 31 grains of current production IMR3031 powder. Charges were weighed on RCBS scale. New PRVI brass and Winchester large rifle primers.

29 grain results: (1) 1789 fps (2) 1800 fps (3) 1800 fps AVE> 1796 fps. Primers backed out slightly with no flattening of other signs of pressure. Easy extraction.

30 grain results (1) 1850 fs (2) 1860 fps (3) 1850 fps AVE: 1853 fps. Slight flattening of primers. No backing out. No other signs of pressure. easy extraction.

31 grain results (1) 1899 fps (2) 1885 fps (3) 1876 fps AVE: 1886 fps. Slight flattening of primers. Very slight cratering on one primer. Easy extraction.

Conclusion: 30 grains gave the best velocity with least pressure signs. 31 grains did not improve the velocity enough to be worth the extra wear and tear on the rifle. 29 grains, while a good starter load is somewhat slow and allowed slight backing of primers. In my carbine I will loads 30 grains and see how the accuracy rings out once I can get 100 yards snow free.

Disclaimer: These loads are considered to be safe in MY carbine. I cannot endorse the use of them in others firearms. Also I have no control over how people load so there for not responsible for the use of this data.

Darryl

Been shooting 28grs since 2012,24" bbl. He didn't like it.

Damn !!!! nice !

Hard to argue with the results! 28 grains it is.

I suspect 28 grains in a 24" barrel will be right at 1850fps. Just about the same as 30 grains in my 20" carbine. Look's like it performs well. Nice deer.

Darryl

Damn! .....Nice buck!

Lee

Yikes! Nice deer!

My 28/3031/190 load chronos at 2065fps out of a 24" Winchester M54 barrel (assuming .30-30 and .303 are identical for our purposes). 1930fps out of a 20" carbine .303.

What a deer!!!!!!


gnoahhh are you shooting 190gr bullets from a M54 chambered in 30WCF?

wow! wish we had those genetics here!

Yes. One of my top favorite rifles.

Squeeler, buddy, you been holdin out on us!

Mine too.

Gnoahhh, I got 1853 fps with 30 grains of 3031 in my 20" carbine. Your carbine gets 1930 fps with 28 grains of 3031. Do the cast bullets register higher velocities over jacketed? Curious because of the big difference in velocity between our carbines and loads.

Darryl

Good question, and I thought I always knew the answer, but now I'm not sure. Some say that cast bullets seal the bore better and hence generate more pressure and velocity. Other's say that lead bullets offer less friction than jacketed bullets and hence generate lower pressure. Either way, I sent for some of those Barnes 190's and intend to conduct side by side tests over the chronograph. I'm curious too. (But in the long run I'll stick with the cast bullets because, well, they're insanely cheap, accurate, and kill like lightning- not to mention easier on 100+ year old barrel steel.) I'll report my findings either in this thread or a new one. Stay tuned.

I first tumbled to 190's and 3031 back in the mid-80's when I was messing with my first M54 .30-30 and chrono'ed them over a first generation Oehler owned by a buddy. Since then I took my velocities with that load on faith with a variety of .30-30's and .303's until recently when I got another chrono and lo-and-behold nothing had changed since 1985. Results are the same. (Verified via my old loading journals- I have a record of every single cartridge I've loaded for almost the last 40 years now.)

Could be just a simple case of variation between guns, brass, powder lot, and moon phase. We shall get to the bottom of it!

Thanks for the reply. No doubt even apparently identical rifles and the same loads can produce very different velocities. I think my 190 Hawk loads at 1850 will be a good deer load. A quick ballistics check shows 1" high @ 25 yards will hit 2" low at 150 yards with 1000 foot pounds of energy. @ 100 yards the bullet is about 1" high. Pretty flat shooting load for what it is. Well my older eyes and my Lyman receiver sight are OK to about 125 under perfect conditions. I am looking forward to your report on the Barnes bullets. They are a lot cheaper up here than the Hawks by far. I have to admit they LOOK good hopefully they perform as well as they look.

I wouldn't turn my nose up at any flavor 190 moving out at 1850 fps. Look at it this way: the old standard .30-40 Krag round that has been getting critter's attention for 120+ years has been and always will be the 220 grain bullet at 2000 fps, forever and ever, amen. (And then only 18-1900 fps out of the Carbine version.) Our 190's at 2000 fps are only 30 grains less bullet weight. Think about it.

Wait'll y'all see what's gonna happen with a 210 grain RN cast bullet. Coming to a theater near you soon. (Hint: an old mentor of mine loaded his deer/bear .30-30's with the Lyman 311284 220 grain RN cast bullet over a case full of either H4831 or 4350 and left a trail of dead bodies of both species up and down the Virginia Blue Ridge. Frank Marshall was his name and he made many a convert in the Cast Bullet Association back in the 70's-80's with that load, fired out of, drum roll.......... a Savage 340. That man had more common sense in his little finger than anyone I knew. What a character.) I have meant to replicate his findings on my own, I'm finally finding the time and resources to do it.

150's, 170's, 180's, 190's, 210's. Any way you cut it, there's venison in the freezer when a guy pokes a .303 at a deer. Period. It's just fun experimenting and drawing one's own conclusions is all.

That deer is a TOAD.


WOWZA!

Just got back from range with a 1929 model F--190 gr Barnes with both IMR 4064 and Varget. Also a 170 Sierra with IMR4064. Ran the 190s with 27,28,29 gr IMR 4064 and 28,29,30 gr of Varget. The Sierras with 30.5 gr IMR4064. POLLEN HERE HORRIBLE! All will fall out of chamber. 3/4" groups close in with 170s and the Varget 190's. No chrony. Sneezin so bad I left before I stretched it out. Will measure out case expansions and further evaluate. Believe my chamber a little rough. Even with the 150's from Graf & S, I have a slight amount of primer protrusion. Only With the 30 gr charge of Varget did the base become totally smooth. Edges of primer still rounded though.

How "close in"?

Case expansion and primer flattening are terrible means to gauge pressure, Ken Waters notwithstanding. Ask John Barsness. It sounds like you're shooting some pretty sane loads regardless. I gotta try some .303's loaded with 190 Barnes, but other experiments keep pushing them onto the back burner. Interested in following your progress!

I'm thinking a caseful of 4831 just might be the shizzle with those 190 jacketeds.

I ran into a guy at the range last year who wore a face mask to limit pollen intake. He claimed it helped. Luckily I've never been bothered by it, knock on wood.

During the rain yesterday, I had time to evaluate the fired cases. SOME LARGE SURPRISES RESULT!! Both Lyman #46 and Lee 2nd edition show headspace measurement 2B 1.418 in from the head to a datum line of 0.375 in dia. Using a hornady headspace comparator kit and a Lyman stainless 6 in caliper, I found the following: The unfired Graf by Hornady 150 gr RN measured 1.405 to fired 1.414 with a primer protrusion of 0.006. My hand load of 170 gr Sierra RN with 30.5 gr IMR4064 went unfired1.404 to fired 1.416 with a primer protrusion of 0.005. My handload of 190 gr FN Barnes with 29 gr of IMR 4064 went 1.404 to fired 1.417 with primer protrusion of 0.004. My handload of 190 gr Barnes with 30 gr of Varget went 1.405 to fired 1.418 with primer protrusion of 0.004. Just as a comparison, 20 rds of vintage Remington 180 gr RN unfired went 1.395 avg with variance of +4 to -8 for 19 rounds. #20 measured 1.422 unfired and triple checked. Previously, I had observed the water capacity of a fired, but resized, Graf's ammo case to be 42.7 grs and that of a resized Win 30-30 case to be 44.1 gr. These closely paralleled a posting here by Mule Deer some years back of an experiment he had ran. I remembered reading about his results in the pages of Handloader years ago but could not find it in my stockpiled copies so I called them and purchased a reprint of #238 from Dec of 2005. My technique was NOT the same as his. I had weighed a resized case with a primer filled to the brim. He used a fired case with a 170 gr Speer inserted to the cannelure. In evaluating the 3 cases from the 30 gr Varget loading, I found the following: Weight of unsized, fired PPU case-171.63 gr. Weight of same case filled to brim with a Sierra FN 170 gr inserted to cannelure and then exterior well wiped with a paper towel-208.08 gr or water weight of 35.45 gr. This is a reduction of 11.74 % vs what MD found. Repeating these steps with the 190 Barnes FN yielded a water capacity of 34.84 gr or a reduction of 15.64%. Now MD utilized a Speer which in 2005 would have been a Hot-cor. All I had on the shelf was a deep curl. I didn't repeat the weighing with it but did observe the bullet to be longer than the Sierra and the cannelure further from the base, almost as far a the cannelure on the 190 Barnes. This would yield even a greater reductionof water capacity inthe PPU brass. MD used a Win case from a 190 ST loading.

Your mileage may vary as these measurements were taken from firings in my rifle and with my caliper. That PPU 303 Savage brass runs from 20-30 grains heavier than win 30-30 brass and is very strong but does offer less capacity. Think I wont Tiptoe any further than these loads in my Tulip patch. I suggest you develop your own loads and don't use these. The lot # of the PPU brass is 1701 and was purchased from both Graf and Midway usa. I've polished the chamber a little with some JB bore paste using a case as a lap. Well C if that helps.

It's way too early in the morning to digest that but thanks for posting.

Stop pushing the shoulder back when you size and you will have zero protrusion...lightly oil new brass so it doesn't adhere to the chamber,then size without touching the shoulder.....A little tip from P.O. Ackley.....end of story

Brass was sized with sizing die about the width of a nickle above the shell holder--Shoulder never touched. Factory brass as evidenced both in my handloads and the factory loads of Graf's ammo loaded by hornady comes with a really short headspace. When resizing this brass discussed above, I will raise the die even further, trim to length, and see if it will chamber. As the dia is reduced there will be a growth in headspace measurement. I'm curious as to how long this chamber is to the neck. Once the brass reached the point where it won't chamber, then I will begin to lightly kiss the neck and work the shoulder back .002-.004 in. The factory length of headspace was not altered in loading and this was the first loading of this brass. I feel like hornady did the same . Chamber had residual Rem oil certainly present when the firing of the Graf's ammo took place, as they were fired 1st. in this series. Thanks for the tip but it just don't apply.

This, plus headspace is determined by the rim of the case and its relationship with the bolt face, as with all rimmed cartridges. This data, while interesting and appreciated merely proves the sloppiness (or lack thereof) of the rifle's chamber. Sloppy headspace can be corrected by switching the dynamic from rim-based to shoulder fit (as with a rimless case), but that is achieved after the first firing and then not touching the shoulder with the sizer die like sqweeler said. The alternative, with new brass, is to expand the neck to a larger diameter and then re-sizing to proper diameter leaving a tiny adjunct shoulder that effectively stops the case from entering the chamber too far.

That's all well and good, but remember too that once bad headspace has been corrected for in this manner you are ending up with the case protruding back out of the chamber farther before firing, leaving just that much more of it unsupported by the chamber walls.

If the new brass is purposely oiled with a cloth,there's no way your primer's will protrude,unless your chamber is like a sewer pipe which would not allow the case to slide back against the boltface.

gnoahh, we are on the way to changing from a factory hull dimension to a custom fit for a chamber that probably is oversize, but may not be. I've never made a practice of trying to memorize SAAMI drawings but I do recall that they include a tolerance of some amount for size. Seems like they vary from cartridge to cartridge as it won't make a lot of sense to have the same size tolerance for a 25 ACP as a 460 Weatherby. I haven't found a SAAMI drawing of chamber size for a 303 Savage. Don't know whether one exists. Have read on this forum that the spec calls for a 0.311 in projectile so there is some kind of SAMMI comparison. Just as a Swag, I'd gues a +/- dimension of between .003 to .005 for a Sammi spec length for this cartridge. This one may be a little longer. Yes, on a rimmed case, actual headspace is controlled by the depth of the rim--its thickness--and the condition of both the bolt face and the rim face of the chamber. What these 2 manuals quote as headspace is the distance from the back of the cartridge rim to a datum point of 0.375 dia. located on the shoulder, like with a rimless necked cartridge. Now, I don't know what was done by all manufacturers back in the day, but these Rem rounds I have closely mirror the PPU in length from the back of the head to the datum line. As you so well pointed out, case measurement is a poor way to evaluate case pressures, but until case growth is limited, pressures will certainly vary as will velocity and accuracy. Case capacity will increase to some degree and that too will provide more variance in velocity and accuracy. Makes a fellow wonder why the manu would make it so short. If growth cannot be restricted, then even with out over working the brass, head separations will occur. This PPU is good heavy brass, but it won't stretch but so far.

Yep.

Just one note: .303 Savage bullets are .308. Always have been except for a brief period after inception when they loaded the ammo with .311's in a mis-guided attempt at higher velocity via higher pressures induced by tighter fitting bullets. That dynamic was dropped around 120 years ago.

Seems to me that you could also end up with a “custom” case that may not fit into other guns. However I do realize that sometimes you have to do what it takes to make a rifle work.

Just a couple of notes on 303 Savage cases, PPU vs. SuperX

I had 12 old fired SuperX cases, average weight with spent primer 147.1 grains; water capacity to the mouth 48.7 grains

I had a couple fired PPU cases, average weight with spent primer 170.0 grains; water capacity to the mouth 45.0 grain.

Takeaways
o PPU brass in quite a bit heavier than the old 190gr SuperX cases (15.5% heavier).
o PPU brass internal capacity is 7.5% less than the SuperX cases ... the same grain load of powder and OAL in a PPU case is going to generate higher pressure.

Right there with you friend. That was the major point of 2 long posts above. The loads listed in old manuals and even most recent(10-20 yrs) magazine articles, though well done, really don't apply to this wonderful PPU brass. Don't know how the internal capacity of the current Norma offering compares. Maybe someone here could share their info if available? I've always thought that was the purpose of the BS going on around the "CAMPFIRE".

Loggerhead these weights by my RCBS scale.

Norma case with spent Winchester LR primer 164.8 grains
Filled with water 208.9 grains
water capacity 44.1 grains
I know a lot of .303 savage shooters have been using .303 savage Norma brass with current and older data and there does not appear to have been any reported issues with over pressure that I am aware of. I agree that Norma and PPU with 190 grain data will generate higher pressure than old WW or Remington brass will. Just how much of an issue is it?

Hope this adds to the discussion.

Darryl

Thanks to all of you. Great info.

I don't think it'll make a whole lot of difference unless one skates around with maximum loads. Switching to PPU brass I'll be sure to work up to the hunting load I'm now using with the W-W and Rem-UMC brass I'm currently using. (But I have so many hundreds of the older ones I may never get a chance to break open the bags of PPU's that I have in reserve.) Most of my .303 Savage loads are lower velocity mid-range loads and plinker loads, so my brass lasts forever.

20190416 - Velocity Test of Barnes 190 FP with H4895

Put some of the 190FP grain Barnes Originals over the chrono today. Since madtrapper413 tested some with 3031 and loggerhead is working with 4064 and Varget, I thought I would try some with H4895.

Hodgdon online reloading data for a 170 grain 30-30 Win lists 27.5 starting and 30.5 max, so I decided to try 25.5, 26.0 and 26.5 grains of H4895 with the Barnes 190 seated to 2.520” with no crimp. PPU brass; CCI 200 primers. Fired from a 22” 1937 Savage 99G with open sights. Chrono set at 25ft.

No issues with extraction, primers all looked similar after firing. First two sets grouped under an inch at 25 yards. 3rd set opened up to 2” (might attribute to old, tired eyes with open sights … I could barely see the 1” orange bull ).

Set 1, 4 rounds, H4895 25.5 grains – average velocity 1723fps
Set 2, 4 rounds, H4895 26.0 grains – average velocity 1734fps
Set 3, 4 rounds, H4895 26.5 grains – average velocity 1786fps

Thanks to madtrapper 143 and KeithNyst for the capacity info and the loadings with H4895. What brass and primers were utilized with H4895?

Even at 1785 fps the 190 Barnes/Hawk bullet carries very near 1000 foot pounds at 150 yards. Dead on at 13 yards puts it 4" low at 150. Very usable trajectory for a woods rifle. Ballistics based on peep sighted rifle/carbine. I am confident the two bullets will expand well out to 150 yards at least. Velocity at 150 is still near 1500 fps.

Darryl

Someone once said there are lies, damn lies, and damn statistical lies. While fooling around with the numbers last evening, I calculated the volume in ccs of the volumes of the PPU and Super X brass. 1 kilo=1000grams=1000ml=1000cc at a standard temperature I don't recall and using distilled water. Using Keith Nyst #s for the Win brass capacity combined with my #s of displacement of water by the 190gr Barnes, we get 48.7 gr-11.51 gr=37.1 gr. 37.1 grains/ 15.432 grams/grain =2.404 grams or 2.404 ccs. Using my #s for the ppu with the 190 Barnes Yields 34.84grains /15.432=2.258 ccs. The Varget load was 30 gr. The VMD pf Varget is 0.0731grains per cc. .0731*30=2.193 cc. In the ppu case that would be a case of 2.258 cc with 2.193 ccs of Varget or a case 97.12% full. In the win case of 2.404 cc with 2.193 Varget, it yields a case 91.22% full. another way of looking at it is the win capacity of 2.404 cc minus the ppu capacity of 2.258=0.146cc .146cc/0.0731cc/gr=2.00MORE GRAINS TO FILL THE WIN CASE TO THE SAME LEVEL. Any second now I expect the Black Pepper POPO to descend upon me. Thats the folks that weigh the fly poop in black pepper,covertly sneak into our bedrooms to check for the mattress tags, and other necessary functions of our benevolent Government. None of us used distilled water or heated/ cooled to the unknown temp. And we're not. We're just trying to get close for a reasonable comparison.

PPU brass; CCI 200 primers.

Had my first test tonight with the Barnes 190 Original loaded in the .303 Savage fed through my 99H. Using new Prvi brass, H4895 and CCI200 primers, I accomplished an average of 1719FPS with 26.1gr (had one rip at 1762?), 1706FPS with 27gr, 1766FPS with 27.5gr and 1803FPS with 28gr. No pressure signs at all. I'm sure I could push it further, but I'm not really sure I need to.

I think I'll accuracy test the 28gr load, but unless it's a massive disappointment, I think a 190 at 1800FPS should be more than enough for deer at less than 125 yards.

Not recommending these powder charges as they're not book loads (at least that I found).

Cory

Thanks!

I received this e-mail from Barnes this morning asking about recommended impact velocity

"The 190 gr Original was designed for very high weight retention for a lead core bullet. At a muzzle velocity of 1803 you may only see marginal expansion at closer ranges. It will provide extremely deep penetration. With that bullet for deer hunting I would try taking out both front shoulders and the heart. Due to the penetration if taking a direct chest shot it will penetrate most likely from end to end of a deer. If not then the bullet I recommend for that muzzle velocity is our 150 gr TSX FN (30-30) bullet. It only requires a minimum impact velocity of 1450 fps. Yet due to the 100 percent weight retention it will out penetrate any 170 gr lead core bullet. "

Cory

Hmmm. That's kinda sobering. I think I'll stick with my 190 grain soft flat nosed cast bullets. I push them at 1900 fps chrono'ed out of 20" barrels, 2000+fps out of a 24". Being of 10-12 bhn hardness they are, shall we say, expansive.

Wow, why would they come out with a 190 bullet for the 30-30 that wouldn't expand well at expected velocities? Guess I'll save up some 1-gallon milk jugs and and when I have enough for a couple tests, head to the back field.

Hi all,

I have been busier than a one armed paper hanger just trying to survive this year. But I do have some data for you all on the 190 Gr Barnes bullets and Leverevolution powders out of my 1899 A with a 26" barrel. CCI 200 primers and PPU brass was used in all tests. Usual disclaimer, I have no idea what I am doing so kids, don't you dare try my loads at home!

32 grains of LVR gave an average velocity of 2,157 fps. Average measured primer backing was 0.009" in this rifle.

33 grains of LVR gave an average velocity of 2,169 fps. Average measured primer backing was 0.006" in this rifle.

Some interesting comparisons:

I also fired 180 grain Sierra FN hunters in this rifle with both 33 grains of LVR and 28 grains of 3031.

33 grains of LVR averaged 2,122 fpts, primer backing was 0.009". Not sure why this was slower than the Barnes 190 gr bullets at the same powder charge.

28 grains of 3031 averaged 1,963 fps, primer backing was 0.008". Brass was visibly imprinted by the milling marks in the chamber, where the LVR was not. Looks like LVR gives more V at lower P, which is how it is advertised.

About primer backing. It is obviously specific to each rifle. Here is some data from shooting 150 grain Hornady RN bullets in 4 different rifles with different barrel lengths. Anyone know how much primer backing is considered safe? These do not flatten, so I assume these loads are actually too light to seat the case against the bolt.

Rifle Primer Backing

1899A 0.006
1895 0.005
Saddle 0.008
SRC 0.005

These were the Velocities for 36 gr (I think - don't have my note book handy) LVR and 33.5 gr IMR 4895 in these rifles.

Velocity Summary, 150 GR RN

Rifle Barrel V (LVR) V (4895) Difference
1899A 26" 2347 2232 116
1895 24" 2315 2172 144
Saddle 22" 2286 2187 99
SRC 20" 2206 2127 79



The 150 grain bullets hit too high with factory buckhorn sights on 1899's. The 180's and 190's are pretty close to point of aim at 200 yds.

Thanks for sharing this information. As to the primer protrusion, I'm not knowledgeable enough to render a verdict. I, too, have protrusion in a model 99, manued in 1929, model "F". Like you, I don't have my notes with me but with the Graf and Sons ammo put up by Hornady, I believe I'm getting about 0.008". It is rated at 2300fps on the box. My thought on the causes are twofold. I have used a fired case as a lap and covered it with JB bore paste to smooth the chamber and it has helped to reduce the protrusion. Also, using a headspace comparator from Hornady, I find the new PPU brass to measure about 1.405". This is the same brass used by Hornady in the above mentioned factory loads. In handloading new PPU brass with a load of 30.5 gr IMR 4064 under a Speer 170 grainer, headspace measurement grows to about 1.412", about the same increase as the factory loads do. If you fire the same case about three times with the sizing die raised the thickness of a nickle above the shell holder, it will expand to fill my chamber-about 1.421". This reduces protrusion down to about 0.002. I measure the case and then decap and measure again to arrive at these numbers. The only drawings of this shell I've found are in # 46 Lyman and Mr. Ken Waters pet loads collection. Both show a hull to be 1.418" from the back of the rim to a datum line(0.400' in dia). Anytime now, some wise ass is going to chime in and tell us that on a rimmed cartridge, headspace is determined by the rim. They are correct but I don't know the term to use to describe this measurement other than headspace. I don't know if there is a SAAMI drawing of the hull and the chamber or not, but I can't find one. Seems like their chamber drawings give a + to the dimensions for the chamber over the hull. I've just got in a 20 rd sample of new Norma cases and will be trying them with some of the loads I've used in the PPU case to determine if this is case specific. I've measured these new cases and they are about 0.001-0.002" shorter in the "headspace" measurement than are the PPU. Also in checking 30-30 Win brass of recent Manu, I find a similar shortness to the "headspace". I used a 2" #6 or #8 brass screw with the primer hole drilled out to accept the screw insert into the case with a washer and nut, both brass, to secure the screww to the hull. Then put a gentle bend to the screw and coat with JB. Took 3 sesions with this rig to show improvement. Be sure and use a fired case that has expanded to fill the chamber diameter and really set down on the nut and get it farmer tight or you will be wasting your time. Can't recall now what size screw I used. Hope something here helps.

All that stuff about datum lines and case body length is all well and good, but it means nothing unless the case is too long for it to fit in the chamber. Shortness in that regard has no bearing whatsoever as, like was mentioned, these cases' headspace is determined by rim thickness- a too short case body will simply blow out to fill the chamber. Has anybody with "primer protrusion" issues measured their rim thicknesses? Has anybody actually employed a proper set of headspace gauges to determine the headspace of the suspect rifle? How about measured chamber pressure, rather than guesstimated pressure?

Primer protrusion is a result of two things: excess headspace (actual headspace, as measured for a rimmed cartridge, not as measured for a rimless one), and lower than optimal pressure upon discharge. Too low pressure will be insufficient to drive the case firmly back against the bolt face (because of its "grippage" of the chamber wall, and pressure not being sufficient to fully overcome that) but regardless is enough to back the primer out a tad. A well polished chamber will alleviate some of that by reducing the "grippage" of the brass against the chamber wall. But, in the end it doesn't really matter. Those of us who have fired thousands and thousands of reduced loads in rifles have long noted this phenomenon, and shrugged it off.

Guesstimating chamber pressure by measuring primer protrusion is as much voodoo as is observing primer flattening and measuring case head expansion- Ken Waters notwithstanding. He wasn't a god and much of what he preached 40 years ago has since been disproved.

gnoahh, I seldom attempt to change someone's opinion whether I think it to be correct or not. I agree the late Mr Waters was not a god. I don't have god(s). I and many others have and are willing to share God. A complete self tutorial can be found between Genesis 1 and Revelation 22 inclusive if you so desire. Earlier in this thread you suggested I check with John Barsness to confirm one of your opinions. I've previously asked him 2-3 questions and he replied with timely, informative, and friendly answers. This time I saw no need to. He is a favorite gun writer of mine and I've read many of his magazine articles. I bought 1 of his books the summer of 2016 and another, bought 2 weeks ago. They are the BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK and THE BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK II. Both are good reads and full of timely info and hope you have or will obtain both. In the first volume in an article dealing with loading the 264 Win, Mr Barness employs the exact method Mr Waters used during his career to develop loads. My opinion is imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, so I think I know the opinion held by Mr. Barsness about Mr Waters. I've not completed Vol II yet, as I've singled out certain topics scattered thru out the book. Saturday pm I was coursing thru it and found, starting around page 90, a section dealing with pressures, brass expansion, and primer protrusion. The next article deals with a rimmed, bottlenecked cartridge and some loads of lower pressure. He too was measuring from a datum line to the the back of the head as an evaluation aid. He also speaks of a very real danger of loading lower pressuure rounds and it is not that of using a slow burning powder to produce a detonation. I suggest you could glean some useful information from these two sections. Of course as you are a student of the gun and having spent a lifetime shooting low pressure rounds you may have ghost written these articles for him. In this world anything is possible. Mr Barsness's wife is also a handloader and author having written a novel, some children's books and several cookbooks. I have one of her cook books as well as the LL Bean cookbook but can not find either a recipe for crow nor humble pie. Bon Appetit

ps--I'm 68+ yrs and have been handloading since Feb of 1972.. My shelves have 42 different set of dies for different calibers as well as several duplicates for different rifles in the same caliber. I have no idea of how many sets I've sold when the arm was traded or sold. I learn something each time I load either for a well known old cartridge or one which is new to me. I'm basically blind in my right eye, not due to a loading accident. Still, no one is as blind as he who will not see.

Had some time this morning so I did some "science" stuff. The Barnes Original 190 was sectioned length wise. The jacket thickness from the exposed lead point to the crimping groove ( cannelure) measured .030" (same as my Hawk 190 grainers.) Below the groove the jacket thickness increased gradually until it was .056" very near the base. There was no notable "bonding" system just the crimping groove. The lead was very malleable and scratched easily with a thumb nail. I took another Barnes and placed it on the anvil portion of my vice and let a 8 oz. ball peen hammer free fall about 6" to impact it. The exposed lead point easily expanded and upset in a very evenly distributed manner. None of this is conclusive and I can't argue with Barnes Tech. staff but these bullets in my opinion, will expand easily at 1800 to 1900 fps when impacting a game animal. Looking at how they are constructed I believe they hold high weight retention due to the relatively low speeds they are propelled at out of the .303 savage and the old .30WCF. Another Canadian forum member here tested some Barnes 190 grainers in his .307 Winchester. Penetration looked good ( wet paper media) but at 2400 fps the bullets were shedding jackets. It may be possible the Barnes tech was referring to the 190 spire point meant for the .300 heavies like the '06 etc. Just my two cents hope this adds something to the conversation.

Darryl

I'd say your surmise is a pretty good one. Barnes originals are advertised to be a pure copper tube filled with pure lead. It wouldn't make sense for them to produce a bullet they identify for a 30-30 and build it too tough to expand at that round's achievable velocity. Never say never though as Hornady did that very thing with a 220 gr interlock FN dedicated to the 375 Win. They kept it in production for a long while before it was discontinued . Barnes also advertise the original to achieve 2X expansion.--cb

Now that makes sense with the Hornady 220 in the .375 Winchester. I shot a Big Woods Buck with a handloaded 220 in my Marlin 375 (I owned at the time). It was a perfect lung shot at about 50 yards. I could not believe how far that deer went before he dropped. I had snow and he just kept on at a trot for well over 150 yards. I had actually written off that calibre for deer as more appropriate for moose. Always learn something here.

Darryl

Thanks Darryl, great info. This makes a lot more sense than the info Barnes CS sent.

Sometime in the next couple months I'll try a reduced H4895 load and fire though some water-filled milk jugs. Hodgdon's reduced load guidance for H4895 is low as 70% of max load. We don't have actual max load data, but if I assume 2 grains below max 30-30 170gr as max for a 190, that puts max at about 28.0, so I'm thinking I'll try something like a 24 grain reduced H4895 load; that ought to get the velocity down around 1650 fps (I actually had 1723fps with 25.5 grains H4895 with the Barnes 190 3030). Should be a good test to see if the bullet expands at that lower velocity (which I bet it will) and a good proxy for what the bullet would do at 100yards with hunting loads.

Bring a couple rounds with you next week and we'll go up in the woods and whack a doe and settle the debate once and for all. Fire up the spit!!

Today I fired the Barnes 190 from my 303 Savage through some water-filled gallon milk jugs set at 25 yards.

I used reduced H4895 loads to try to determine if the bullet expands at lower velocity. Had the chrono setup.

I fired once at 1205 fps. The bullet passed through all seven jugs that I had set up. The exit hole of the 7th jug was round and looked to be about the same as the entry hole on the 1st jug … so I’d say no expansion at 1200fps.

Next I fired twice (1485 and 1510fps). Both times, there were two irregular exit holes out the side of the 4th jug; nothing entered the 5th jug. No bullet recovery, but some form of expansion and/or separation occurred based on multiple exit holes.

check "ken waters pet loads" that's where I got the info, the 190's did not work for me, BUT did no spend a lot of time increasing powder charge ect

I know this post is several months old .. Just checking to see you fellows are doing with this 190gr Barnes Bulllet ... Im curious

Since this thread has resurfaced I'm curious about what you mean by saying "the 190s did not work for me." Was it accuracy, performance as a hunting bullet or feeding problems? Thanks.

Although not quite 190gr as per the original design, I have had very good success with the Hornady 180gr Interlock Round Nose in my .303 Savages. Even they were a bit tough to get but once I started loading with them I was very impressed.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt.../re-the-tale-of-two-savages#Post13763845

Hornady 180gr Interlock Round Nose

Some Barnes 190 grain testing today with 20" 1899H 303 Savage with Leverevolution:

Shot a couple trial 303 Savage loads today with Leverevolution (LVR) and the Barnes 190FP bullet. I put them over the chrono.

There is no load data for LVR with the 190grs. Hodgdon online lists a 30-30 Win LVR starting and max load for a 170gr Sierra FP as 33.0 and 36.3C (2145 and 2332 fps) in a 24" barrel.

Based on the 170 grain 30-30 data, I loaded up a few 303 Savage with 30.0 and 31.0 grains LVR with the Barnes 190FP in new PPU brass.

I fired two of each from my 1920 1899H 303 Savage at 50 yds. 30.0 grains averaged 1772 fps, 31.0 grains averaged 1823 fps. About a 1.5" group, Lyman 57SA sight. Easy extraction, no signs of any pressure on casing. For comparison, back in 2015, I chrono'd six of the factory Super-X 190 grain silvertips in the same 1899H rifle; they averaged 1791fps.

And the moral of the story is......??

Just curious. I don't reload and run Super-X.

You have to just search the ammo dealers at the gun shows and watch the online auctions, but every now and again you can find these, albeit a little on the pricey side but this is what I shoot out of my .303 Savages.

Just last week I ran 5 rounds over the chrono from my 1899 H (made 1913). 20" barrel. Carbine in very good mechanical condition with no head space issues. I used the data published by Hand loader magazine, authored by Terry Wieland. I won't state the powder charge load data (you can look that up online easily). The bullet was 190 Hawk and the brass was once fired Winchester Western. The powder was Hornady's Lever evolution. The carbine averaged 2100 fps in the 5 shot string. Absolutely no issues whatsoever. I did not target the shots so I cannot speak to it's accuracy performance. I will do that when the snow goes away. I am posting this as the Wieland authored data used the Barnes 190. I would imagine the velocity of the Hawk would pretty much be the velocity of the Barnes. Wieland used a 26" rifle in the tests and got even higher velocity. Lever evolution puts the .303 Savage into a higher performance class than the .30-30 by far. The Hand Loader article gives some very good updated data for the 190 grain in the .303 Savage.

Darryl

Shot this bear two nights ago. Well over 300 pounds. 65 yards with my 1899H in .303. The 190 Hawk worked well.

Darryl

That's awsome picture!
Congratulations!

That rifle sure looks like an EG, but nevertheless:


THAT IS AN AWESOME BEAR!!!!

It is an 1899H. The front sight is not original as the old one was damaged. For some reason the photo makes the barrel look longer than it's 20". better pic of carbine in this one.

Darryl

I'll take your word on it.

Nice bear.

Never been bear hunting, but that looks like a great black bear. Congrats!

Congrats! Darn nice bear!!

1899H, with ramped front sight and no takedown? New one on me!

I posted this little guy in the 2019-20 kill page. Took him with my 26 F in 303. I wimped out and just bought 10 boxes of 190 Silvertips from Roy. This one is for you Oldotter!

Very nice bear!!!!

Yeah, that straight stock sure does disqualify it as an EG, but it sure does looks like one in the crook of his arm in that first picture.

But, it's about the bear, not the gun...

Barnes has now published 30-30 load data for their 190 grain Barnes Original; Listed on page two. Many of us use 30-30 as a reference when working with the 303 Savage.

https://www.barnesbullets.com/assets/data/308/30-30-Winchester-Web-Data-5-12-2020.pdf

Outa stock everywhere. Who’d have guessed it??!!?

What's the rate of twist in the old .303 and .30-30 barrels? I'm assuming it's the standard 1-in-12 twist of my 50's versions in .300 Savage(?)

Some say the 1-in-12 twist is not enough to properly stabilize any bullet over 150 grains. To stabilize heavier bullets you need a tighter twist. For instance, a Remington 760 chambered in .300 Savage has a 1-in-10 twist (or slight tighter in some guns it seems, 1-in-9 more like.) This could be predicted to shoot heavier bullets more consistently.

A 2014 issue of Handloader ran some tests and found the ultimate round for the Savage 99 in .300 Savage was a 150 grain roundnose bullet intended for .30-30 tube magazine lever guns over 42 grains of Varget. They got 0 spread from this one.

Seems the heavier bullets intruding into the case with the .300 do strange things to the pressure curve. Dunno if any of this translates to the .303 or .30-30 - perhaps not in given the longer neck on these cases. I am sure the rate of twist applies. On the other hand, if you are hunting larger game with it you don't need MOA and i'd much rather have a heavier bullet going after elk for instance. I feel somewhat undergunned with a 150 grain bullet when elk are a possibility.

You are failing to understand how bullets are stabilized. It's not the weight that's important. It's all about length. So would a 190gr spire point stabilize well in a 303 Savage? Probably not. But a flat nose/round nose works just fine, and has for 125 years.

And... 1-10" twist.

A 1-12 twist is plenty fast enough to stabilize any bullets you might shoot out of a Savage .30 caliber rifle. I don't know where you heard the differing malarkey. If the gun shoots 180's better than 150's and you like the 180's, then by all means use them.

Calhoun is right as rain - it's all about bullet length not weight when it comes to stabilization in a given twist.

As for shooting thin jacketed .30-30 bullets at .300 velocity, you'll experience tremendous expansion for sure.

Short necks on .300 brass aren't much of an issue, and then mainly in the area of concentricity. It's easier to attain straightness in a loaded cartridge with a long neck than a short one. Beyond that don't sweat it.

Frankly, if I were hunting where a swipe at an elk was a possibility I would probably load Barnes TSX's of 130 or 150 weight. Note they are monolithic bullets and will equal the length of heavier cup-and-core bullets, but offer the advantages of higher velocity coupled with excellent expansion and penetration. And they'll certainly stabilize in the twist of your rifle.

Doncha love it when someone prefaces their response with "You are failing..." Ha! Can you fail posting what is essentially a question?

Here's another one i'll risk failing at - is the extra length of a spire point relevant when you consider that most of that length, if i am envisioning it right, is made up in a longer taper that doesn't contact the rifling? I can absolutely see the spire point creating issues with case length and potential intrusion of the bullet into the powder space, but would a flat or round point bullet not actually have more surface area in contact with the rifling than a spire point and so actually be the longer bullet where stabilization is concerned?

Thanks for the info on twist rates in the 99. Interesting stuff.

Why wouldn't a 190 spire point (if such a thing existed) stabilize in a 1-10" twist? Krags, Springfields, and God knows every .30-06 in existence, handle 220's with aplomb in their 1-10" twists.

Yes, it's the entire length of the bullet from the tip to the end. A long spire point or a boat tail which has more surface that doesn't touch the rifling doesn't matter - it's the entire bullet length.

I've done trials on this myself with 100gr Nosler Partitions in old 250-3000's with 1-14" twist. Without modification, the long Noslers (which Nosler says won't stabilize in old 250-3000's) get 8" groups at 100 yards. File the lead point off them (which never contacts the rifling), which reduces the weight about 2 grains but the length goes down 1/10th of an inch - and the groups tighten up to 1.5"-2.5".

Again it's all about bullet length, no matter its shape (or weight).

I see. Thanks!

It's not intuitive, we all go through it.

Just have to realize that it's not an issue of stabilizing the bullet in the barrel, it's a physics question of how much spin is needed outside of the barrel to stabilize a projectile of a given length and diameter in the air.

I do like the voodoo you do!