Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
steve004 said
A M70 in .30-06 or .308 does little for me, but one in .300 Savage
I suppose this is illogical given the .30-06 preceded the .300 Savage by many years.
Not illogical at all, if you were talking about the strongest, best designed lever action of all, the 1895 Savage. But the .300 Savage was conceived for a very specific, & limited, purpose–to work through Arthur Savage’s brilliant rotary mag. In a Model 70, or any similar bolt gun, the advantage of its short case was unimportant. There’s a good reason the .30-06 with 220 g. “solids” was praised by Hemingway & other African hunters for non-dangerous game. (Though Hem killed several lions with it.)
Special ordering a Model 70 in .300 Savage is rather hard to rationalize, unless you were already sitting on a footlocker of .300 Savage ammo; most customers of the time thought the same, or they would not be rare.
Iskra and Louis –
Your comments are educational for me. It reinforced my belief that I am best left as a bystander when it comes to these rifles. There’s a lot to know, particularly with the volume of fakery extant.
Clarence –
Your comment was helpful as well. It made me realize that I am drawn to the M70 in .300 Savage, not only because of the low production numbers which make it scarce, but the intriguing mystery of what prompted the original purchaser to select this chambering. Surely they had a reason or rationale, but what it was cannot be logically deduced. Maybe it was a fondness for the cartridge, or they had an excess of .300 Savage ammo on hand, or they were after the light recoil, or it just sounded cool or…….?
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Clarence and Steve-
While I cannot comment on the buyer’s rationale for choosing a M70 in 300 SAVAGE, I may be able to provide some insight into WINCHESTER’S rationale for adding it to the product line. Check out the following two clips out of a January 15, 1943 WRACo. document entitled “Recommendations for Arms – Post war Line”, that includes remarks by Winchester executives discussing the 300 SAVAGE chambering in the M70:
I haven’t looked into how long Mr. Tiefenbrunn and Mr. Wood remained in their leadership positions after the 300 SAVAGE tanked… 
For anyone interested, the scan of this document is available on the McCracken library site. It’s over 100 pages in total and includes the directors evaluation of every firearm in the product line at the time. 
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thanks Lou! I found it fascinating. I wonder what model lever rifle they had in mind for the .300 Savage? We know at the time the .300 Savage was indeed a very good seller for the Savage Arms Company. This sure didn’t transfer to the Winchester Model 70.
What collection in the McCracken library can this be found in?
Louis Luttrell said
I haven’t looked into how long Mr. Tiefenbrunn and Mr. Wood remained in their leadership positions after the 300 SAVAGE tanked…
Tiefy correctly noted .300 Savage popularity was due to the Savage lever-action, so odd he’d jump to the conclusion that would also be true in a bolt gun.
November 5, 2014
Offline
For anyone interested, start here:
http://library.centerofthewest.org/digital/collection/p17097coll30/id/4708
It’s interesting (in what I posted) that Mr. Tiefenbrunn seemed to be unaware that the M95 had been chambered in .30 US (30-40 Krag) for a good long while… The comments also seemed to presage the M43 (bolt action in 25-20, 32-20 and 22 HORNET) with the rationale that the M70 was beyond the reach of many customers. Seems to foretell the “Poor Man’s M70” nickname of the M43.
Good Luck with the Research!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
steve004 said
I wonder what model lever rifle they had in mind for the .300 Savage?
Suppose the ’95 could handle the pressure, though .30-06 was too much for it. But compare a ’95 Win with a ’95 Savage–it’s the 19th C. vs. the 20th C. (In fact, the ’99 almost made it into the 21st!) Personally, I prefer the 19th C., but most shooters thought differently.
I
steve004 said
Iskra and Louis –Your comments are educational for me. It reinforced my belief that I am best left as a bystander when it comes to these rifles. There’s a lot to know, particularly with the volume of fakery extant.
Clarence –
Your comment was helpful as well. It made me realize that I am drawn to the M70 in .300 Savage, not only because of the low production numbers which make it scarce, but the intriguing mystery of what prompted the original purchaser to select this chambering. Surely they had a reason or rationale, but what it was cannot be logically deduced. Maybe it was a fondness for the cartridge, or they had an excess of .300 Savage ammo on hand, or they were after the light recoil, or it just sounded cool or…….?
Steve, just catching up and thanks for the kind comments. I really need to perhaps clarify and defer all Model 70 expertise to Louis. Comparatively, I don’t hold a candle to the brilliance of his expertise! My professional ‘proclivity’, more related to viewing materials critically in terms not just of representations. Also failure to represent – where they resonably should. Where “misleading”, “by commission or omission”. Shakespeare’s “Silence, pregnant with innuendo”, or some such.
The .35 Remington ad with particular ‘odor!
Best & Stay Safe!
John
clarence saidsteve004 said
I wonder what model lever rifle they had in mind for the .300 Savage?Suppose the ’95 could handle the pressure, though .30-06 was too much for it. But compare a ’95 Win with a ’95 Savage–it’s the 19th C. vs. the 20th C. (In fact, the ’99 almost made it into the 21st!) Personally, I prefer the 19th C., but most shooters thought differently.
The Savage Model 1895 was chambered exclusively for the 303 Savage and could not handle 300 Savage pressures. Actually, Savage Model 1899’s that were manufactured until the early 1920’s were also not able to handle 300 Savage pressures.
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Tedk said Actually, Savage Model 1899’s that were manufactured until the early 1920’s were also not able to handle 300 Savage pressures.
Didn’t know that about them, but the letter indicates the reason for this limitation wasn’t the design of the action, but the temper of the steel itself, similar to the problem Springfield Armory had with the heat treatment of early ’03s.
3 Guest(s)
