25-20 for deer?|Page 4|Winchester Rifles|Forum|Winchester Collector

I recall the late Mike Venturino’s chapter on the 25/20, in his book about the classic lever action rifles. Mike wrote the cartridge was likely popular among sodbusters because the ammunition was relatively inexpensive, at the time introduced. 

I have a 92 chambered for the 25/20 and I like the round. But I would have to be starving before I’d shoot at a deer with it. I know it can kill a deer with a high lung shot, much less a head shot, but the former risks losing the animal before it drops and the latter risks something much, much worse. A fine game animal deserves more respect. It’s a rare hunter who has to survive on venison, these days. Just my opinion. 

In my long but narrow experience as a hunter of Texas Whitail deer,  which are not especially large except in the South Texas Brush Country and some counties in the northwestern Rolling Plains, the “next step up” in the 25 caliber lineup from the 25/20 — the 250-3000 Savage — has had plenty enough power for shots at any ethical range, say 300 yards max, with 250 being more prudent, and assuming a good 100 grain, fast-opening spitzer. The majority of the deer I’ve taken over the last 60 years were shot once with that load from a Ruger 77 “stutzen” carbine with an 18.5″ barrel. All high lung shots at a standing animal. The furthest was about 220 yards but the median I’d guess to be around 80. Does and spikes dropped in their tracks; bucks made a short dash and collapsed or tried to clear a fence and didn’t make it. 

Eventually,  I started hunting deer with what I was collecting or interested in and killed Whitetails with a 30-06, 308, 243, 270, 280, 7mm Remington Magnum and 30-30.  None of them killed more spectacularly than the 250-3000, and not all with a single shot.  I think it was less a matter of ballistics and more a matter of the little Ruger being so comfortable to shoot accurately. The Brownell-designed very straight stock and red pad, combined with modest recoil, allowed a novice to concentrate on making the shot. By comparison, my first deer rifle was a Remington 600 in 6mm Remington and its hard plastic buttplate would belt me a good one while ringing my ears. 

If I had been a subsistance hunter/fisherman/shrimp netter/oyster raker/trapline and trotline runner/garden truck farmer, with 7 children in South Louisiana in 1931 and my only gun was a 25/20, I strongly suspect I’d not let a fat doe pass near in the Dismal Swamp without making a serious attempt on her life. But it would be a high lung shot before she spooked. I would then go get my Cousin Beaudreaux with his fice dog to help find her, even though I’d have to share the venison with his family. 

But I’ve never met or even heard of a WACA member who owns only one gun. 

Zebulon said
In my long but narrow experience as a hunter of Texas Whitail deer,  which are not especially large except in the South Texas Brush Country and some counties in the northwestern Rolling Plains, the “next step up” in the 25 caliber lineup from the 25/20 — the 250-3000 Savage — has had plenty enough power for shots at any ethical range, say 300 yards max, with 250 being more prudent, and assuming a good 100 grain, fast-opening spitzer. The majority of the deer I’ve taken over the last 60 years were shot once with that load from a Ruger 77 “stutzen” carbine with an 18.5″ barrel. All high lung shots at a standing animal. The furthest was about 220 yards but the median I’d guess to be around 80. Does and spikes dropped in their tracks; bucks made a short dash and collapsed or tried to clear a fence and didn’t make it. 

Eventually,  I started hunting deer with what I was collecting or interested in and killed Whitetails with a 30-06, 308, 243, 270, 280, 7mm Remington Magnum and 30-30.  None of them killed more spectacularly than the 250-3000, and not all with a single shot.  I think it was less a matter of ballistics and more a matter of the little Ruger being so comfortable to shoot accurately. The Brownell-designed very straight stock and red pad, combined with modest recoil, allowed a novice to concentrate on making the shot. By comparison, my first deer rifle was a Remington 600 in 6mm Remington and its hard plastic buttplate would belt me a good one while ringing my ears. 

If I had been a subsistance hunter/fisherman/shrimp netter/oyster raker/trapline and trotline runner/garden truck farmer, with 7 children in South Louisiana in 1931 and my only gun was a 25/20, I strongly suspect I’d not let a fat doe pass near in the Dismal Swamp without making a serious attempt on her life. But it would be a high lung shot before she spooked. I would then go get my Cousin Beaudreaux with his fice dog to help find her, even though I’d have to share the venison with his family. 

But I’ve never met or even heard of a WACA member who owns only one gun.  

I think the superiority of the .250-3000 you mention, which I agree with, has nothing to do with the next step up from the .25-20, which I like as well.  It has to do with the parent case.  Many would argue that the .30-06 round is the most superior cartridge out there.  It wasn’t until I purchased a Savage Model 1899 rifle not too long ago in .250-3000 AND reloaded rounds for it that I discovered that the shell holder for the round wasn’t the one for .303 Savage but rather the one for .30-06.  It was then I read and learned the parent cartridge for .250-3000 is not .303 Savage but .250-3000.  Which was VERY surprising since I would have thought Savage would have taken their proprietary round of .303 Savage and neck it down to .25 cal (.257) instead of shortening and necking down a .30-06 cartridge.

A huge fan of .250-3000 in the Savage 1899 was Roy Chapman Andrews, who was the real life character whom Indiana Jones was based on.

I think every serious shooter should own a Savage 1899 in .250-3000.  Just make sure there are no cracks in the stock at the upper tang as the Savage 1899 tends to crack there due to a design flaw.

Zebulon said
Agree the 99 stock attachment design is weak. It needs a long, beefy, horizontal throughbolt threaded into a vertical web between the upper and lower tangs. 

Although Newton is almost universally given credit for designing the 250-3000,  Clay Harvey disputed this in his book, Popular Sporting Rifle Cartridges (DBI Books – 1984). According to Harvey, the .25 cartridge Newton proposed to Savage was based on the rimmed Krag case, but Savage wasn’t satisfied with it.  Harvey Donaldson and a Savage employee were discussing the subject and it was Donaldson who suggested they alter their extractor for a shortened version of the rimless .30 Govt ’06. Savage took Donaldson’s advice. Newton got word of it and suggested they load a 100 grain bullet for deer but Savage wanted to market the round as capable of reaching 3000 fs, requiring an 87 grain bullet.  Newton got credit as the designer but Savage wouldn’t listen to him about bullet weight. 

Clay Harvey didn’t mention that Savage compounded their error by making barrels for the .250-3000  Model 99s with a slow, 1-in-14 twist, which precluded handloaded 100 grain spitzers from stabilizing, particularly out of the lightweight guns with 20″ barrels. 

I mention this only because we know Winchester offered the Pre-64 Model 70 (and a few Post-63 guns) chambered for the .250-3000 Savage and I have wondered (but haven’t checked Rule to see) whether WRA or USRA continued the slow twist barrels. Sturm Ruger went with 1-in-10 at the outset of the Model 77 and have stayed with that. 

  

Savage wanted to have the first round to go 3000 fps. So Newton did what they wanted.

Hey, Chuck. I don’t doubt it. 

In talking about the slow twist rate of original 250-3000 barrels — 1-in-14 — have you ever experienced the “over-stabilization” phenomenon manufacturer’s once worried about?  I recall arguments as late as the Nineteen Sixties that .30/06 barrels rifled 1-12 were preferable to 1-10 because the latter might over-stabilize the lighter .308 bullets.  I’ve got a Sauer-built Mark V 7mm Weatherby with the early 1-12 barrel and Norma never loaded the round with anything heavier than 154 grains. The factory has since changed its barrels to 1-10.  

Zebulon said
Hey, Chuck. I don’t doubt it. 

In talking about the slow twist rate of original 250-3000 barrels — 1-in-14 — have you ever experienced the “over-stabilization” phenomenon manufacturer’s once worried about?  I recall arguments as late as the Nineteen Sixties that .30/06 barrels rifled 1-12 were preferable to 1-10 because the latter might over-stabilize the lighter .308 bullets.  I’ve got a Sauer-built Mark V 7mm Weatherby with the early 1-12 barrel and Norma never loaded the round with anything heavier than 154 grains. The factory has since changed its barrels to 1-10.  

  

Longer/heavier bullets need more twist.  You have to know the weight of the bullet to really know the best twist rate.  I have a couple 308’s with 1:9 twist rate and 155 to 168 gr bullets stabilize fine.  I have no experience with lighter 308 bullets.   But I have a 223 with a 1:7 twist rate and it shoots great.  But that’s another math issue I don’t want to get into.  It has been scientifically proven that bullets from the same box are not all the same BC.  The longer ones, of the same weight same everything except length, fly better.  That’s why long range shooters sort their bullets by length.  Base to tip.

OK; thanks for “back on topic”. I gotta say My deluxe mod. 1892,  25-20 is one of the nicest firearms I’ve ever used, and the worst was a mod. ’95 303 with a cres. butt, just plain damn nasty.  Now I can’t say I’m qualified to pass judgement on everything else because I haven’t used ’em all. I don’t get to technical, if it looks handsome,functions properly, don’t rip My shoulder off, and I can actually hit the mark, then it’s a nice gun.