So recently I picked up a Savage 99 CD series A .243 made sometime between 1975 and 1981 for $400 and I really like it. It is a little on the heavy side for what it is and it has a detachable clip rather than the rotary clip and counter found traditionally on savage 99's. Today I was given the oppertunity to swap it straight accross for a 1946 Savage .300 in a savage 99. This is a more traditional version of the rifle and it is in excellent shape. I am trouble with what I should do. For value the .300 is the way to go but I really like the idea of having a good deer/coyote rifle in the .243. Anyone wanna offer up their 2 cents about the situation?

Ummmmm...buy the Savage .300 as well mate. I fail to see the dilemma here...it's that same as they say about heads, two rifles has to be better than one.

Cheers, Vince

The issue I neglected to mention is that the fella that has the .300 is the one who is selling me the .243. I have not actually paid for the .243 yet. He knows I am waiting for some money to come in so I can pay for it. He is actually asking around $700 for either gun however he has offered one of my choice to me for $400. That is the problem at hand, also my wife is only letting me get one of them because she has plans for the rest of the money.

ok 7mm heres a question for you??? if you have just travelled 4 hours towards your hunting block for the week and that nagging in the back of your head has made you stop and check and YES you have left the ammo on the bench at home... now the general store up ahead will have which lot of ammo on the shelf?????

Is that like leaving your rifle bolts at home when going on a hunting trip?

or your sleeping bag when going thar hunting in winter

oh yeah or forgeting the pig dog when going pig hunting yip that one took some living down

It pretty much boils down to which one will you get the most use from. If your shooting will mostly be varmints and/or game up to mule deer in size, there's nothing wrong with the .243. If you are wanting a rifle for bigger game, the .300 is the answer.

Elvis has a very good point about the availability of ammo too. Ask most "sporting goods" stores for .300 Savage ammo and they will probably start by offering you .300 Winchester and then start scratching their heads. The chances for finding it at your local WalMart are remote...finding someone today that even knows what it is may even be more so! The .300 is a great cartridge that can come awfully close to matching the .308 Winchester, but it is only just lately staging a revival.

If I may...
It is going to come down to which gun you like or want the most.
It is apparent to me that you like the classic version more than the new version. The 300 savage is good for about any game that the 243 is. Ammo is a bit harder to come by but you are going to reload so that isn't important - and nobody ever leaves their ammo at home...mostly.
Get the gun that you will kick yourself for not getting in a year or two. You can pick up a newer version then but that one you have your eye on - the classic - may not be around in two years.
Have fun - its a great day!

tlo7mm wrote:

Today I was given the oppertunity to swap it straight accross for a 1946 Savage .300 in a savage 99. This is a more traditional version of the rifle and it is in excellent shape.

I must have missed this part when I first read your post. If by "more traditional" you mean rotary magazine with counter, it would be a no-brainer for me. I just love that style and would like to find one in .250-3000. Be sure to keep us in the loop as to your decision! And there certainly isn't anything wrong with the old .300 as a cartridge.

It depends what you prefer. My preference would be for the classic .300. They show up on the used gun racks from time to time and I managed to find two of them at decent prices. You could get the .300 and if you ever wear out the barrel or long for a .243, just get it rebarreled. All the best...
Gil