https://www.gunbroker.com/item/807420699

Why caution? Are we afraid someone will inadvertently be hurt or what?

What’s the point of the post?

To talk about 340’s in 225?

Or to complain about the live auction community practices here?

You don’t mention anything about the 225..

Here’s one that’s not a live auction if it IS a 225 discussion.

https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...---340v----225-win-.cfm?gun_id=101195147

As far as I know no one has ever complained when someone posted a live auction they were actually biding on themselves... but maybe that because it's never happened for some odd reason?

Very odd indeed.

Anybody else remember Hunter Dan? Oh... <shudder>

Well, I'll make an assumption here and move forward. I don't know a lot about the 225, but the cartridge always struck me as pushing the 340 to the outer limits of its design. Do 340s in 225 suffer stress problems?

There was recent discussion on the 340 and 225 together. perhaps it was on another forum. My apologies. Thought it of interest to the Savage collectors forum.

Wasn't it 260Remguy who had some insight into the .225/340 combo?

I'm not a fanboy of the 340, but acknowledge its place in the scheme of things. Intuitively I would shy away from one in .225 in its marginally strong enough action. On the other hand I would welcome a .225 chambered in a stout single shot, but not really enough to go out of my way for one.

The 340's claim to fame was its ability to put a decent rifle into the hands of a deer hunter or varmint shooter who couldn't afford a Winchester, Remington, or Savage 99.

I agree:

The 340 really only made sense in 222 Rem and 30-30. They wouldn't have sold any more or any less if those had been the only 2 chambers offered.

I suppose they would have had some appeal to me if I were I kid that sold newspapers all summer and wanted a shinny new new gun to hunt with that fall. There isn't anything interesting about them to me now though nor do I have any desire to own one.

Not sure we needed a live auction to discuss this point. I don't really see the live auction thing as a rule, just more of a courtesy. Either way, no skin off my nose. People can do what they want.

I think it better for a discussion to wait until the auction is over so you can include if it sold and for what while the post is still new and people have not lost interest. The recent listing of the Rock Island Auction seemed to have lost a lot of it's interest by the time prices were available for comparison to the prices the same items brought a few years earlier. Are people worried someone else might list it before them? If it's just for a good discussion who list it first would not matter.

Apologies for offending the more sensitive in the group. That was not my intention. I remember people talking about how the 225 in the 340 was hard to find, so I posted it up as a courtesy.

No apology needed for me, I really am not offended, just have a different opinion & perspective and explained some of my reasoning for it, you don't have to agree with me..... people often don't and I accept there will always be differences in opinions and all sides have a right to express theirs. Since you already had listed the link I think I should apologize for not saving my opinions until the discussion on the .225 chamberings and the scarcity was slowing down, it appears I have slowed it down... or even stopped it. You feel it was a courtesy to post it, I feel it would be more of a courtesy to wait until the auction were over to post it, just a difference in opinion (and it would have been a courtesy for me to save my comments for later also, my bad), I will compromise and say that I guarantee to keep my opinions to myself if you wish to post an live auction of a rarity you find that you are actually bidding on yourself.... just let me know ….

I think the slow down of conversation really has to do with the little interest guys have in the 340. Unfortunately, it is the "redheaded stepchild" of the Savage family and nobody will ever spend time talking about them in minutia like with the 99. Having said that, I wouldn't mind knowing more about the 225, either in the 340 or not.

i would be interested in that 340 or actually more in the 225 but i am old enough to have bought 340's for 50.00.
that starting price is full bore plus in my way of thinking. of course my way of thinking is wrong according to the bride.

Not a savage, but a single shot in 225 is a t/c contender I have. It was originally a 14 in 223 but the empties were a pia to get out with the vxiii on it. I rechamberd it to 225 and never looked back. That little rim made a big difference in removing empties. I load middle of the road reloading data and never have had a problem.

OK, so while we're wandering all over the Savage galaxy, I was just asked if a 219 could safely by rechambered to .225 Win. Said "no" because I'm an old chicken (actually a rooster) and don't think the .22 Hornet barrel is the right twist or maybe even bore diameter for a .225. Am I right? Or just chicken?

Wandering further, did Savage R&D ever try a .22 Savage HP in a 219? I never saw one when I was perusing Utica R&D remnants for sale at Numrichs around 1990, but didn't think to ask if they'd seen one.

Watch out for that black hole!!!!!

I've seen 219's re-chambered to some mildly hairy conversions but I don't have a really good feel for their strength characteristics. Theoretically the Hornet bore should be of a correct diameter, and even if it is a .223 groove diameter not much would happen if you fired a .224 bullet through it- a little higher pressure sure, but as long as max loads were avoided I don't see an issue. Of much greater concern would be the slow twist of a Hornet barrel from a couple generations ago. 40 and 45 grainers ok for sure, perhaps 50/52's if driven fast enough. Forget about shooting any of the long streamlined whizbang .22 bullets of today.

My best guess is that .22 Savage HP factory loads wouldn't shoot for crap in a Hornet spec barrel, either. That's a guess.

"No good deed goes unpunished" - Oscar Wilde LOL

T.S.

Especially so given the huge disparity in bullet/bore diameters, not to mention the even slower rate of twist of a Hornet barrel than even the already too slow 1-12" twist of a Savage .22HP barrel. .219 Zipper might not be a bad choice though, as long as shooting nothing but lightweight bullets is ok.

On topic - check
Auction completed - check

Sounds like an accurate rifle.

When Savage started making their Stevens Model 325, 30-30, and 322, 22 Hornet, around 1947 they were priced under $50, putting them within the budget of most hunters. At some point, Savage took over the 325/322 as their Model 340 and subsequently added the 222, 225, and finally 223.

I think that they are plenty strong for the 22 Hornet and 30-30, but wonder about how much of a strength/safety margin there is when they are chambered in 225.

The guy doing the video about the 340V in 225 must have tested an outstanding 340V along with a really poor Remington 788 if he was able to grade out the 340 higher than the 788. I've owned multiples of both and would take the 788 over all but one 340 series rifle that I've owned.

IMO, the 788 is a superior design when compared to the 340s. More rigid receiver, much better trigger, and no need to use a side-mount to install a scope.

I know that some people like them, but I think that there are better current production options.

1950.

My 340V in 225Win

If you're going to shoot this rifle much, you might want to buy one of the B-Square side-mounts from CDNN for less than $10. The B-Square side-mount is the best design for the 340 that I know of. It comes with B-Square Sport Utility Weaver-style rings and allows the owner to mount a variety of different scopes with proper rings spacing on a rail and is much more forgiving in terms of eye relief.

www.cdnnsports.com