In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
why not varget for 300 savage
earlwellman
Member Posts: 645 ✭✭✭✭
I reload a ton of 243 and 308 with varget. I picked up a 300 savage (pretty much a 308) recently. There is no load data for varget for the 300 savage... What gives??[?]
Comments
110 grain up to 180 grain bullets.
My .300 Sav likes 41.5 grains of Varget behind a 168 grain Hornady BT HP. Not the fastest, but the best group.
YMMV.
37.5 grains = 2300 fps
38.9 grains = 2400 fps
40.3 grains = 2500 fps
41.7 grains = 2600 fps
43.1 grains = 2700 fps
43.8 grains = 2750 fps
44.5 grains(MAX)= 2800 fps
Cartridge O.A.L. = 2.600"
As always, start low and work up(my advice).
I would take what ever bullet you reload in your .308 drop two grains from starting load and work up a 1x1 ladder from there with the same bullet in .300 Savage. Work up until you see pressure signs. Back off accordingly and find your most accurate .300 Sav. load there.
Yes, the .300 Savage is pretty much right on par with the .308. Actually, the .308 Win is a variation of the .300 Savage, if people know that history. You should work up to almost the same load as you do in .308
As many are aware, the propensity for a lawsuit is what gives these older, completely shootable guns, the reputation that the loads need to be severely reduced. I just looked on Hodgdons website, and to their embarrassment, they have nothing.
-good luck
Until they start making rifles from cheese, they won't get stronger with age. Lowered maximums for older guns is prudent and reasonable.
One reason why some cartridges don't have data for the most recent powders is a simple lack of time. The labs prioritize their work, and nearly obsolete, seldom-used cartridges are not at the top of that list - sad though that may be.
Until they start making rifles from cheese, they won't get stronger with age. Lowered maximums for older guns is prudent and reasonable.
Varget has been out for twelve years now. The .300 Savage, ninety-one. They have data for it in rounds introduced since then. I would hardly call that a reasonable excuse to not have the data for the .300 Savage.
Also, reducing recommended loads on older guns is reasonable. But, the start loads should still be where they were when the load was first published. Also, when pressures are cut so that the velocity is reduced by 300 fps it raises flags to me that the OMG! people are at it again.
There is a huge responsibility of the shooter of the older rifle firearm to know if the condition of that rifle firearm continues to allow it to be shot to it's designated pressure specs, or if it should be reduced, or simply time to clean it and hang it on the wall one last time. To me this is why safe start loads are critical. Then the shooter can work up safely at his own comfort level. Hopefully, along the way he gains enough knowledge as to know when to quit with certain round/firearm combinations.
If it's the latter, perhaps you could see such loads before long. Hodgdon updates loads for a number of older rounds every year. This year's annual manual has "Updated Loads for 31 Rifle and Pistol Cartridges" for example. Maybe 2012 is the year for the 300 Savage.
I'm confused, SW. Are you saying that the older a round is and the less popular it is, the faster they should drop everything else and develop data for it? Or are you just saying that they ought to have found time to develop those loads by now?
If it's the latter, perhaps you could see such loads before long. Hodgdon updates loads for a number of older rounds every year. This year's annual manual has "Updated Loads for 31 Rifle and Pistol Cartridges" for example. Maybe 2012 is the year for the 300 Savage.
Rocky,
I don't know why you are confused. I can see not having time to publish data for a round that was not produced at the time the new powder was introduced. I can see not having that data for a number of years. But when the round still shows a strong following, I believe it's in Hodgdons interest to serve their customers and produce some data for this round. I am confused as to why you think the .300 Savage doesn't have a strong following still? Because it is now again, being produced. The only way to get good rounds for it is to reload.
It's called marketing. I'm not sure if you understand how marketing works, but if you want to sell a product, then give the customer a reason to buy it. One must also consider how many of a product have sold in the past, not just selling this year. There are well over a million .300 Savages out there. Since Varget works well in the case, I would think that just providing data would help increase sales of that powder. In the case of waiting 12 years I feel that Hodgdon is letting down it's reloaders by not providing that. In short, they are hurting themselves.
The point about the older guns is that some, maybe many, are not in the same shape as when they went out the door of the factory. That still doesn't mean Hodgdon can't come up with a starting point, and let the reloader determine how far he/she may want to take those loads. Again, it's been 12 years and the round is chambered in factory rifles again.
Are you confused still?
Oh, I think I do understand marketing. Marketing is the process of making people want something they don't really need. Like a .300 Savage.
I think you mistake the fact that YOU like the round for thinking that lots of people like it. Or use it. Except for limited editions, the 300 Savage was chambered in one gun, and they dropped that chambering almost the minute the 308 came out. It may be listed in factory rifles again (which ones?) but that doesn't mean they are putting on extra shifts to make any. Now, don't get me wrong. I think the .300 is a fabulous little round. I wish it WAS more popular. But it's as obsolete as the .222 Rem Mag.
Oh, I think I do understand marketing. Marketing is the process of making people want something they don't really need. Like a .300 Savage.
First of all, the .300 Savage is not obsolete, and neither is the .222 Rem Mag. If you want Obsolete, try the .45-70. Now, there's a round that gets nowhere fast. Yet, all of a sudden, it was the 'greatest piece of history' and everybody wants to shoot it. The .22 Hornet, another sub-performer that has a big following again, but really is just about the poorest example of a high-power centerfire .22 cal rifle. Obsolete means it can no longer compete in physical terms with competitors in it's class. Not because it lost a popularity contest. The two you mentioned can compete, the two I mentioned, do not.
Speaking of which, in it's early days The .300 Savage was chambered in much more than one rifle. Savage had it in their 1920 and successive bolt guns and of course the great Model 99. Winchester chambered it in the models 54 and 70, Remington in the Model 30 Express and the 722 and the 725 and 760. It is currently being built by Savage in their model 11 and 14 and 16. The model 10 is the anniversary model and so won't count.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=248272521
Point is, Rocky, if Hodgdon wants to sell powder to reloaders, it would be good to get the data to them that would show a powder to use. We are going to go around and around on this while YOU make one excuse after another for Hodgdon not getting some data out. We're not talking make new powder, we're not talking make new bullets. just the data.
FWIW, I happen to think the .300 Savage is a great round too. But, I don't have a need for it, so I don't own one. I still say there are plenty of reloaders out there who would just like the information. And I see no reason why Hodgdon can't get it out there in twelve years.
I'll just say it again: Hodgdon would develop data for Varget/300 Savage if they a) had lab time to do so; b) thought there was a significant demand for it; and c) thought there was enough market to justify the added expense of doing so.
Since they haven't done so -- yet -- it would seem that one of those three conditions hasn't been met.
(And as a final observation, there are a heck of a lot more guns in .22 Hornet being made and used today than in .300 Savage. It's popularity is rapidly growing, not hanging on by a fingernail. Just sayin'.)
Good shooting, my friend. This discussion has been great.
Well, we could go round and round on this with each of us sticking to our positions. So that's fruitless.
I'll just say it again: Hodgdon would develop data for Varget/300 Savage if they a) had lab time to do so; b) thought there was a significant demand for it; and c) thought there was enough market to justify the added expense of doing so.
Since they haven't done so -- yet -- it would seem that one of those three conditions hasn't been met.
(And as a final observation, there are a heck of a lot more guns in .22 Hornet being made and used today than in .300 Savage. It's popularity is rapidly growing, not hanging on by a fingernail. Just sayin'.)
Good shooting, my friend. This discussion has been great.
Again, there is confusion as to what is obsolete and what is popular. Yes, I know the .22 Hornet is gaining ground in sales. That doesn't mean it's a great round in the cutting edge of it's class of cartridges. It's the worst. But, due to marketing, it is getting more new sales. That is classic marketing as you called it, getting someone to not only buy something they don't need, but something that's not exactly good at what it's supposed to do. Take the .45-70 Again, popular, but as a rifle, not exactly cutting edge since 1865. No doubt because it's a movie gun. I've even heard the 'less knowing' state something to the effect of "Why don't we bring it back for the military?....." Uhhh...because it's not a popularity contest, it's an effectiveness contest. Neither of the rounds I declared "obsolete" are truly effective anymore. The two rounds you mention as obsolete are VERY effective at what they are designed to do.
Another thing about marketing is you want to sell YOUR product. Do you think the Rem .30 AR or T/C .30 are obsolete? Because right now, neither one of them is selling worth a hill of beans. Yet there is data on three websites for them.
My point is too often Hodgdon and other powder companies put data out based on 'new' die sales and new rifle sales. Not a very accurate metric for what people want in the reloading world. Cartridges that have been out there for a long time get ignored not because Hodgdon doesn't have time for them, it's because they won't MAKE time for them. FWIW, there is RE-17 powder loads for the .300 Savage, and that powder only came out a few years ago.
They are pushing what they want you to buy, not what you want to buy. In the case of the .300 Savage, it would benefit the company to at least put data out for Varget. They'd sell more powder that way.
I prefer to use the concept of usable, practical, or suitable. Looked at that way, and in light of the sprawl of housing developments, the .22 Hornet is "better" than any other .22 centerfire because it is quieter, has all the range and lethality needed, and is cheap to reload.
On the lab time issue, anyone who imagines that a lab could work up all new data for every powder, using every bullet, for every cartridge ever made, and do it every year is just dreaming. Because they can't do that, something has to be left out. Older, less popular rounds are done on a rotating schedule, such as every five or more years. Rounds chambered in few if any current rifles, with low die sales, low brass sales, and few if any customer questions being asked get lowest priority. If that fits the description of somebody's pet round, perhaps they should call and ask rather than gritch about it anonymously on some obscure internet board.
As I said, we differ. That doesn't make me confused. I know EXACTLY what I mean, and I think I'm right.
(CLICK) that's the sound of me changing radio stations.
I didn't intend to post again, but have to address your definitions of obsolete and popular. If you say that a round is obsolete because it isn't "cutting edge" then there are hundreds of obsolete rounds, including the 300 Savage. If a round has to outperform everything else to be any good, then outlandish things like the .30-378 makes the .30-06 obsolete. That's clearly nonsense.
I prefer to use the concept of usable, practical, or suitable. Looked at that way, and in light of the sprawl of housing developments, the .22 Hornet is "better" than any other .22 centerfire because it is quieter, has all the range and lethality needed, and is cheap to reload.
On the lab time issue, anyone who imagines that a lab could work up all new data for every powder, using every bullet, for every cartridge ever made, and do it every year is just dreaming. Because they can't do that, something has to be left out. Older, less popular rounds are done on a rotating schedule, such as every five or more years. Rounds chambered in few if any current rifles, with low die sales, low brass sales, and few if any customer questions being asked get lowest priority. If that fits the description of somebody's pet round, perhaps they should call and ask rather than gritch about it anonymously on some obscure internet board.
As I said, we differ. That doesn't make me confused. I know EXACTLY what I mean, and I think I'm right.
(CLICK) that's the sound of me changing radio stations.
Does that mean you are tuning out even more? Cause I don't think you're right, BTW. ......sound of crickets.... [;)][:D]
And FWIW, I did call and get the answer. They just had other priorities. So they didn't publish any data. I got the information I needed to help a friend get his .300 Savage loaded.
Earl,
If you haven't tuned out, start @ 2 gr. below starting on a .308 for the bullet you want to use, and work up. What rifle BTW?
I found some published information for the .300 Savage using Varget in the Lyman's 49th edition.
For a 150 gr. jacketed bullet start @ 38 gr. max is 42 gr.
For a 180 gr. jacketed bullet start @ 37 gr. max is 41 gr.
In this manual the start numbers for the .308 were 42 gr. behind a 150 and 39 gr. behind a 180 gr. bullet. So, anywhere from 2 gr. to 4 gr. under that for a start load for the .300 Savage.
Depending on which rifle you have you can work up as high or have to remain lower. I found lever action 99's don't like hot loads but take to full cases of slower powder just fine.