Just got a Savage m99E in 300 Savage...

[jrothWA]

the DOM is 1964.

Where to locate a .308Win chambered barrel?

As the 300 Savage ammo is sparse.

Will likely have to change the rotary magazine out to a .308WIn spool.

Any thing else I need to know?

thanks.

[ligonierbill]

You don't have to change the barrel, just ream the chamber. I don't know about the need to change the mag, but you can pretty much forget about it. The 99 mag is infamous for difficulty of reassembly, if indeed you could find one. I'm guessing the 308 would fit, though. Only 0.2" longer. They made those later model 99s in 308, of course.

That said, you have to look around a bit, but 300 Savage ammo is available. I load my own, so haven't looked in awhile, but it's out there.

[Mike Irwin]

Take .308 brass, reform it in a .300 Savage die, and trim it to length.

I've done that many times.

[oldbear1950]

truth is if you look closely at the reloading manuals, you will see the 300 savage will do anything the 308 will do. And when Eugene Stoner and others came up with the 308/7.62x51 it was based on the 300 savage case. In fact they started with the 300 savage round and for some reason chose that 7.62x51 instead. Not sure why, as the 300 savage will do anything that will do

[oldbear1950]

my brother has one, and I would like to talk him out of it.
We both reload, so is not a problem.

[taylorce1]

There is plenty of .300 Savage ammunition online. It isn't as cheap as .308 Win, but you can buy enough to enjoy your rifle. While the Model 99 on .300 Savage isn't rare, there isn't a good reason to rechamber one to .308 Win IMO. I'm pretty sure if you can find a .308 barrel you wouldn't need to change the magazine.

[Paul B.]

You'd best take some measurement of your rifle's action. I remember reading in one of the gun rags that when Savage went to chambering the 99 to .308 they had to lengthen the action about a half inch. I don't think you can do that conversion.
Paul B.

[44 AMP]

Any thing else I need to know?

Other than that you will deservedly earn the wrath of Savage 99 fans? yes, a couple of things.

One of them is that when Savage put the .308 into the model 99, they lengthened the magazine box a bit.

You'd be further ahead in terms of effort and possibly money to just get a factory chambered 99 in .308Win.

Or, as mentioned, .300 Savage cases are easily formed from .308 Win brass.

And when Eugene Stoner and others came up with the 308/7.62x51 it was based on the 300 savage case. In fact they started with the 300 savage round and for some reason chose that 7.62x51 instead. Not sure why, as the 300 savage will do anything that will do

Stoner had nothing to do with the development of the 7.62x51mm NATO. The round was developed by the Army. They were looking to replicate the ballistics of the GI 150gr .30-06 load. The .300 Savage couldn't do it. The first prototypes for what became the M14 rifle were in .300 Savage, and couldn't meet the desired performance specs.

SO the designed the .308 case, which could, because it operates at a higher pressure than the .300 Savage.

Also, the Army was not going to adopt a commercial round. They have a LONG history of that.

If you want a 99 in .308, find and buy one. DO NOT rebarrel, or rechamber the gun you have in .300 Savage, and don't even THINK about touching the magazine. The rotary magazines were essentially hand fitted at the factory, do NOT mess with them!!

I mentioned your desire to convert to .308 to my Savage 99 expert, and he backed away hissing, and held up a cross....

Don't mess with the rifle, get a factory .308 if that's what you want.

The .300 is a fine hunting round, the 99s are not target guns, find a low power POST reticle scope and go collect deer or even elk at 300yds or less.

[105kw]

When the .308 came out, Savage lengthened the magazine by .25 of an inch.
Your rifle should have a 20in barrel, and probably a plain walnut stock with no checkering.
IMO, it is a classic, and effective hunting rifle.
150gr bullets can be loaded to within about 100fps of .308 velocities.
The 180gr can get up to 30-40 Krag velocities.
Brass and ammo are available and it isn't a difficult round to reload for.
It might not be the longest ranged cartridge, but I used it to take my last 12 mule deer.
I hope you enjoy your 99, they are great guns.

[44caliberkid]

The last new production 300 Savage I bought, I ordered from Cabelas online and picked it up at a Bass Pro Shop near me, avoiding shipping and hazmat fees. It was Winchester brand and about $40 a box if I remember correctly. It was January of ‘23.

[mehavey]

See:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...99&postcount=1

[Mike Irwin]

Any Savage 99 made after about 1958 should be on the longer .308 action, so that shouldn't be an issue.

This blurb from the Wikipedia write up on the .308 Winchester amply indicates what was going on with development of the round...

"During the 1940s, the .300 Savage became the basis for experiments on behalf of the U.S. military that resulted in the development of the T65 series of experimental cartridges. The original experimental case design by the Frankford Arsenal was designated "T65" and was similar to the .300 Savage case, but with less taper. The experimental cases were made from standard .30-06 Springfield cases which gave a little less capacity than standard .300 Savage cases because the Frankford Arsenal cases had slightly thicker walls. The later T65 iterations were lengthened compared to the original T65 case and provided a ballistic performance roughly equal to the U.S. military .30-06 Springfield service cartridge. Over forty years of technical progress in the field of propellants allowed for similar service cartridge performance from a significantly shorter, smaller case with less case capacity."

Contrary to popular believe, the 7.62/.308 round was not intended to "duplicate" .30-06 performance, it was to develop a shorter cartridge.

One of the primary reasons for that was to eliminate the nearly half-inch of essentially useless case in the .30-06. During WWII there had been SEVERE brass shortages, primarily driven by the extreme need for copper for the war effort, and cutting back that half inch of brass would, when you're talking of the manufacture of billions of cases, really add up.

The T65 series of experimental cartridges used a variety of case lengths, from, IIRC, 45mm to 57mm, and bullet weights from, I believe, 130-gr. to 175-gr.

The .300 Savage was looked at as the starting point because, when it was introduced in 1920, its stated purpose was to duplicate the .30-06's ballistics in a lever action cartridge. Yes, that's how Savage touted it, but no, it didn't match the .30-06's ballistics. Came close, but no cigar.

The biggest drawback to the .300 Savage, something that the military identified almost immediately when it started chambering the round in the M1919 Browning machine gun, was the short neck.

It didn't provide adequate tension on the bullet or, apparently, lateral stability when being fed through the gun's action.

[44 AMP]

Contrary to popular believe, the 7.62/.308 round was not intended to "duplicate" .30-06 performance, it was to develop a shorter cartridge.

I disagree. I think the Army was going after BOTH. Intentionally.

Allowing for the advertising hype of the era, the .300 Savage did come pretty close to matching the .30-06 150gr load of the era. I have seen information showing slightly less than 100fps difference.

This could, (and probably is) "cherry picked data" and the usual difference was probably a bit more than that, but there was nothing else as close to an 06 that you could get in a lever gun, unless it was an 06 in a Winchester 95.

The short case neck of the .300 Savage was of no consequence as a sporting round in rifles, there were even some fairly popular semi autos in .300 Savage for some time. However, it turned out to be "suboptimal" in belt fed machine guns.

I stand by my advice to the OP. Use the rifle as is, or sell/trade it for a .308 if you have to have a .308. Don't convert it. It's your rifle, and of course you are free to do as you think best, but I don't see converting it to .308 as being cost effective, not even close.

[Mike Irwin]

Disagree if you wish, but nowhere in the military literature of the time was duplication of the .30-06's ballistics mentioned as a reason for development of a shortened cartridge.

Original Savage literature for the .300 claimed a velocity of 2,700 fps with a 150-gr. flat-based bullet.

To quote one ad "This is about the same as the .30-06."

The .30-06 military load of the day had an arsenal-measured velocity of 2,740 fps.

With the powders available to Savage in the aftermath of World War I, 2,700 fps out of that case with that bullet simply wasn't possible.

Savage, like many other companies of the time.... exaggerated.

Well, they flat out lied.

Likely the best that Savage could have hoped for in either a 99 or a Model 20 would be around 2,500 to 2,550 fps, and I'd not be surprised if the actual average velocity were in the high 2,400 fps range.

How was anyone to know? In the 1920s measuring velocity at home was virtually impossible unless someone wanted to build their own ballistic pendulum a la Benjamin Robbins.

It wasn't until home chronographs became a lot more available and affordable starting in the 1970s that people began to realize that the velocity figures quoted by virtually every gun maker and ammunition seller were.... enthusiastic. To an optimistic degree.


As for your advice to the OP, I agree with it. You'll even note that I told him to take the same route I've taken over the years and make .300 Savage cases using the far more available .308 Winchester case. Easy peasy Savage squeezy.

[44 AMP]

Disagree if you wish, but nowhere in the military literature of the time was duplication of the .30-06's ballistics mentioned as a reason for development of a shortened cartridge.

So, the fact that the specs for both GI rounds are 10fps different and both have a +/- 30fps is just serendipity?? I think not.

Having dealt with military bureaucracy and the way things get phrased and written more than a few times in my life, I can easily see where not including the desire to duplicate the 06 load among the reasons for desiring a shorter cartridge makes perfect sense.

Desiring to keep the 06 performance is simply not a reason to want a shorter, more efficient round. SO, its not given as a reason in the literature. It is a desire, could be a requirement the shorter round had to meet to be acceptable, but its not a reason to go to a shorter round. Those reasons are cost and weight savings in both the ammo and the arms.

The Army could have adopted any of a number of rounds shorter than the 06 and of less performance. They didn't. They adopted a round 1/2" shorter that gave equal performance. My guess would be that while they might not have stated that performance level as a reason for going to a shorter round, since they could get it, they weren't going to pass it up.

Regarding the velocity claims for the .300 Savage in the pre-WWII era, does that even matter, today?? Sure, you can call it lying, or cherry picking data, possibly comparing apples and oranges,, who knows what barrel they were using to get 2700fps. Most of the .300 Savage production rifles had 24" barrels before WWII, and quite a few still did in the post war decades.

But that doesn't tell us what barrel Savage used to get their claimed speed.

In the 1974 Gun Digest, using data supplied by the ammo makers, the .300 Savage 150gr load is given as 2670fps. However, (again) the barrel length used is not given.

what the Savage did, or didn't do in 1925 doesn't have much to do with putting deer or elk in the freezer today.

[Pumpkin]

I would leave it a 300, classic rifle in a classic and for the day high performance cartridge. Especially if you have other rifles you can use.

[Mike Irwin]

"So, the fact that the specs for both GI rounds are 10fps different and both have a +/- 30fps is just serendipity?? I think not."

Given the starting point for the project had cartridge designs that varied significantly from the .30-06's standard specs, rounds that were in active development and testing for going on a decade yes.

Had the Ordnance Board come right out and said, in 1943 when the project started kicking off in earnest, OK, we want a shorter cartridge but with the .30-06's ballistics, the project would have been done in a matter of weeks -- it wouldn't have dragged on for over a decade.

Once again, there's nothing in the written record that says "we WILL develop a new, shorter cartridge with the .30-06's ballistics! That is our only goal!" There's nothing in the record that even indicates that it was a secondary goal.

Disagree all that you want, but there's nothing in the copious records of the project to back up the claim that it was primarily a .30-06 short project development. And yes, serendipity does, at times, strike.

It probably would have been a lot faster AND cheaper had the original project target been developing a short cartridge with .30-06 specs instead of the decade plus that it actually took.

Don't make the mistake of looking at the end project and saying "Ah ha! This is how it must have started! and drawing a linear line between the two points. Reality doesn't back that up.


"But that doesn't tell us what barrel Savage used to get their claimed speed."

Savage advertised the .300's velocity in the standard barrel length for the Models 99 and 20 -- 24 and 22", respectively.

Had they pulled the velocity numbers using a 30" barrel, which the company didn't offer in any of its guns, that would have meant that Savage... lied. Or fibbed. Or was overly enthusiastic.

But the simple truth is that the .300 Savage cartridge was not capable of reaching 2,700 fps as Savage advertised.



"In the 1974 Gun Digest, using data supplied by the ammo makers, the .300 Savage 150gr load is given as 2670fps. However, (again) the barrel length used is not given. "

And you're still missing a critical point that I made in my statement above.

Read it again: "
With the powders available to Savage in the aftermath of World War I, 2,700 fps out of that case with that bullet simply wasn't possible."

That bolded part is very, very important.

Powder technology advanced dramatically in the 1930s through the 1950s, especially rifle powders, all due to the massive amount of research and development done in the lead up to and during World War II.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, Jroth, I really apologize for taking your post into the land of the esoteric.

To get back to your original post...

1. If you want a .308-chambered Model 99, get a .308-chambered Model 99. Don't try to convert one. It will very likely cost a LOT more than it's worth.

2. As others have mentioned, .300 Savage brass and ammo is available. You'll have to hunt for it, but you'll find it.

3. As I and others have mentioned, converting .308 brass to .300 Savage is a simple task. In my experience you don't even need to neck ream it once you move the case shoulder back and trim to length. If you use a longer case as your starting point (.30-06 or even 8x57) you will have to ream the neck. But that's simply not necessary given the ready supply of .308 brass.

Finally, enjoy that 99 in .300 Savage. It's a classic combination, fully capable of taking any game in the United States.

[snoeproe]

I have a 99E, series A in 300 savage. It’s a 82 year manufacture. One of the last few years of the 300 sav calibre in the model 99. Mine has a 22” barrel. Remington, Federal and Winchester all do one run of 300 sav ammo each year. My local dealer gets it in a couple times a year. It’s easily available online with some searching. 308 is more readily available and less cost. Im reloading my 300 sav ammo these days.
Do not convert your 99 from 300 to 308. Just sell your 300 and buy a 308. I’d get one in a 99C model if I was going that route.
I love the 300 sav calibre and still deer hunt with mine every year.

[jmstr]

First: I don't shoot ANYTHING I own as frequently as I would like- especially rifles.

I have a '54 99EG in .300 and a '57 99F in .308, but I haven't had them out of the safe in over 4 years, and I think I've only shot them 2-3 times each. This comes from getting 3-4 range trips per year and usually using rifles once every other year.

My memory is hazy, but I remember investigating the non-disassembled actions for differences and can't recall finding the receiver any longer in the '57 99F compared to the earlier 300sav.


I can't compare easily to newer production, and it would take me a few months to clear my schedule enough to take them out and measure them properly.

However, I can't recall any difference in the receiver lengths or the ejection port sizes, nor the length of throw on the lever.

[Mike Irwin]

"First: I don't shoot ANYTHING I own as frequently as I would like- especially rifles."

Wow. Tell me about it.

I have a Remington 81 in .300 Savage made right before WW II.

I bought it around 2004.

I've never shot it.

I've not shot my 99EG in .300 Savage (mid 1930s manufacture) since the late 1990s.

And I've not shot my Remington 721 in .300 Savage since probably the mid 1990s.

My other rifles are equally neglected.

Living in Washington, DC, metro it's hard to find a range where I can shoot at distance.

[stagpanther]

"First: I don't shoot ANYTHING I own as frequently as I would like- especially rifles."

Wow. Tell me about it.

I have a Remington 81 in .300 Savage made right before WW II.

I bought it around 2004.

I've never shot it.

I've not shot my 99EG in .300 Savage (mid 1930s manufacture) since the late 1990s.

And I've not shot my Remington 721 in .300 Savage since probably the mid 1990s.

My other rifles are equally neglected.

Living in Washington, DC, metro it's hard to find a range where I can shoot at distance.

I grew up in DC and know your dilemma--I know it kinda sucks to mix with the whackos but I used to go to Clark Brothers in Warrenton to get my fix. Befriending someone with a farm some place to shoot is another option. Rural VA and MD generally have lots of hunters/shooters.

[jetinteriorguy]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"First: I don't shoot ANYTHING I own as frequently as I would like- especially rifles."

Wow. Tell me about it.

I have a Remington 81 in .300 Savage made right before WW II.

I bought it around 2004.

I've never shot it.

I've not shot my 99EG in .300 Savage (mid 1930s manufacture) since the late 1990s.

And I've not shot my Remington 721 in .300 Savage since probably the mid 1990s.

My other rifles are equally neglected.

Living in Washington, DC, metro it's hard to find a range where I can shoot at distance.

I hear your pain, especially since Elite shut down. A few years ago I did mess around at Quantico but those trips were an all day affair and I just phased out of it. I have a friend whose parents have a nice place in the mountains west of Winchester but since his kids started growing up and demanding all his time we hardly ever go out there for a day anymore.

[105kw]

Using Douglas Murray's book as a source for the 99 Savage.
In 1954 Savage lengthened the magazine carrier to accommodate the .308 class cartridges.
Serial number approximately 900,000. Length added was about .25 inch.

[jmstr]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin:

Wow. Tell me about it.

I have a Remington 81 in .300 Savage made right before WW II.

I bought it around 2004.

I've never shot it.

I've not shot my 99EG in .300 Savage (mid 1930s manufacture) since the late 1990s.

And I've not shot my Remington 721 in .300 Savage since probably the mid 1990s.

My other rifles are equally neglected.

Living in Washington, DC, metro it's hard to find a range where I can shoot at distance.

I don't feel so weird now. Thanks!!

I was in DC in January for a week. I did a quick search for gun shops and ranges just for fun but realized what you know. Hens' teeth scarce.

I have a few I haven't ever fired yet myself- but I've only been buying firearms since around 2001. I've been planning purchased since the 1980s though.

I have two Colt OMT revolvers from '37 I need to field test. I've been trying to get their newer OMM versions to ignite properly. Time to go back 20 years to see if the older ones work more reliably. I also have a couple of OU shotguns I bought on clearance about 8 years ago that should be tested.