BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
Have you done anything with the 1895 I sold you Joe?
Savage 99 First Rifle?
- Thread starter OldSavage
- Start date
- Location
- St. Joe's Island, Ont
Nothing, but I did get it lettered by Callahan.
Came back as being one of the New York trials rifles and then went back to Savage Arms after the trials and was listed as "return, 9/3/98 "R" special, Chas E Lisdall", doesn't say what was done to it but it was sporterised anyways so it'll never be a collector.
BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
sorry for being OT, OP...
that's too bad...does that mean the shortened barrel was done at the factory?
that's too bad...does that mean the shortened barrel was done at the factory?
- Location
- St. Joe's Island, Ont
It might, unsure what an "R" special is, could have been made into a carbine.
Did the old stock have a carbine butt on it or crescent?
It still has the milled out area on the top of the barrel where an old Springfield type rear sight once sat back when it was a New York trials rifle.
Did the old stock have a carbine butt on it or crescent?
It still has the milled out area on the top of the barrel where an old Springfield type rear sight once sat back when it was a New York trials rifle.
BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
crescent
Browning has the high end cache already. People expect to pay more for Brownings. Savage has been in the budget game since the late 60s.
I never shot anything with my 250 sav, but I learnt a lot about stalking deer with it. I have a nice 30-30 in very good shape and my dad gave my first born son his 300 sav to use as his first gun. Its in good shape so my boy will get to use grandpa's gun. I have my grandpa's 303 sav but my aunt had it for years not knowing how to care for it, sadly now its pitted and the stock is badly weathered. Lots of memories of hunting with dad and our model 99's.
1955 99F in 300 Savage with a Weaver K4 scope on quick release mounts.
I was given this as my first rifle from a family aquaintance about 18 years ago. He hunted deer with 150gr and moose with 180gr bullets. I was in my twenties and though I appreciated the gift, it wasn't what I wanted. Since then I have hunted with it and I will likely never sell it. It is in good condition and holds it's own at the range. I love how it carries and handles especially in the bush. The round counter is pretty cool too. I didn't realize the gem that I was given. The only problem I have now is ammo. Almost $40/box and very little choice, I haven't seen 180 gr in several years. Guess I'll just have to keep hunting deer with her.
I was given this as my first rifle from a family aquaintance about 18 years ago. He hunted deer with 150gr and moose with 180gr bullets. I was in my twenties and though I appreciated the gift, it wasn't what I wanted. Since then I have hunted with it and I will likely never sell it. It is in good condition and holds it's own at the range. I love how it carries and handles especially in the bush. The round counter is pretty cool too. I didn't realize the gem that I was given. The only problem I have now is ammo. Almost $40/box and very little choice, I haven't seen 180 gr in several years. Guess I'll just have to keep hunting deer with her.
I meant a 1956, not sure why I said '54. I gifted it to my father, it's one of the only guns he can shoot with.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The only 99 I ever had the opportunity to hunt with was a C model in .308. The other rifle on that trip was a Winchester 88; the Savage was the better of the two. I like the idea of the rotary magazine on the earlier 99s, and I think a .250-3000 would probably be the one I'd lust over in a 22" E model, although an EG would do. While I was a little turned off by some of the wood from the late '70s, and the crummy checkering, the only ugly 99 I ever saw was the one Robert Duvall carried in Joe Kidd!
I've been taking a long hard look at this 1920s .250-3000 take-down I picked up. I've read a bit about these developing slop in the barrel threads from people playing around with the takedown feature too much etc. But looking at this one and how it's made, I think the problem is much more likely to be barrel whip when firing gradually "working" the barrel and receiver against each other and enlarging the threads and perhaps the receiver ring, at least where it overhangs the receiver walls.
With the inherent weakness of the barrel locking mechanism which relies on forcing that V shaped lug up into the corresponding slot in the barrel and the receiver, this system was less than ideal from the get go IMO. This barrel now has to be overturned maybe 2-3° before it is hand-tight.
If the barrel shoulder was enlarged out to the edge of the receiver face, and even better, if the receiver face was not so heavily beveled on the corner and had a larger surface, the flexing from barrel whip would have been a lot better handled I suspect. Those of course were the days before high-speed photography, so not as much was known about what happens when a rifle is fired and recoils.
The receiver ring is 1.24" dia. and the barrel is 1.025" on this one. I'm guessing the barrel threads were .895" dia. when new. The barrel shoulder bearing against the front face of the receiver is only about .055" wide! I notice that the shiny contact areas on this one are only around the outside edge of the barrel shoulder and the matching surface on the front face of the receiver. That could indicate that the shoulder on the barrel was cut slightly proud on the outside to make that area contact the receiver first (which might not be a bad idea) or it could just mean that as the barrel whips when the rifle is fired, the outside edges naturally take more force and wear more; I dunno!
It's surprising how much the barrel can be moved side to side as it is screwed into the receiver, even almost right up to the shoulder. Unless the barrel was inserted and removed thousands of times with no lubrication, I just don't see people playing with it being a factor in the slop that has developed.
If you take a digital vernier and measure around the receiver ring just behind the front face it varies from 1.226" when measuring from 10:00 to 4:00 to 1.240" at 9:00 to 3:00, to back to 1.235" at 8:00 to 2:00! In other words, the barrel ring is now ovoid by as much as 14 thou, at the outside face. (Assuming the outside surfaces are consistent, which they appear to be, within reason) No wonder there's slop! [Edited: Ignore this part - I noticed there are two slight flats on the receiver ring that explain those differences. Besides, the barrel whipping vertically would tend to make the ring ovoid vertically, not horizontally]
If you hold a steel machinist's 6" rule against the sides of the receiver ring at 9:00 and 3:00, it is obvious that either the ring was not machined parallel originally or the sides have started to flare outwards.
This is probably due to that slot cut right through the outer 3/8" of the receiver ring for the locking lug on the forend. Not such a hot idea...
There is actually only a pretty thin web of steel at the bottom of the threads holding the two sides of the receiver ring together. You can see this clearly if you take out the magazine mechanism.
Not to take anything away from Mr. Savage who came up with a hell of clever design, but I think if the barrel shoulder had been made as large as possible and if the receiver ring was made thicker by continuing the plane of the receiver side walls right over the top, (about .30 thou thicker than present) the threads and barrel ring would be less inclined to develop slop like they do.
Going to have some fun reworking this one sometime.
With the inherent weakness of the barrel locking mechanism which relies on forcing that V shaped lug up into the corresponding slot in the barrel and the receiver, this system was less than ideal from the get go IMO. This barrel now has to be overturned maybe 2-3° before it is hand-tight.
If the barrel shoulder was enlarged out to the edge of the receiver face, and even better, if the receiver face was not so heavily beveled on the corner and had a larger surface, the flexing from barrel whip would have been a lot better handled I suspect. Those of course were the days before high-speed photography, so not as much was known about what happens when a rifle is fired and recoils.
The receiver ring is 1.24" dia. and the barrel is 1.025" on this one. I'm guessing the barrel threads were .895" dia. when new. The barrel shoulder bearing against the front face of the receiver is only about .055" wide! I notice that the shiny contact areas on this one are only around the outside edge of the barrel shoulder and the matching surface on the front face of the receiver. That could indicate that the shoulder on the barrel was cut slightly proud on the outside to make that area contact the receiver first (which might not be a bad idea) or it could just mean that as the barrel whips when the rifle is fired, the outside edges naturally take more force and wear more; I dunno!
It's surprising how much the barrel can be moved side to side as it is screwed into the receiver, even almost right up to the shoulder. Unless the barrel was inserted and removed thousands of times with no lubrication, I just don't see people playing with it being a factor in the slop that has developed.
If you take a digital vernier and measure around the receiver ring just behind the front face it varies from 1.226" when measuring from 10:00 to 4:00 to 1.240" at 9:00 to 3:00, to back to 1.235" at 8:00 to 2:00! In other words, the barrel ring is now ovoid by as much as 14 thou, at the outside face. (Assuming the outside surfaces are consistent, which they appear to be, within reason) No wonder there's slop! [Edited: Ignore this part - I noticed there are two slight flats on the receiver ring that explain those differences. Besides, the barrel whipping vertically would tend to make the ring ovoid vertically, not horizontally]
If you hold a steel machinist's 6" rule against the sides of the receiver ring at 9:00 and 3:00, it is obvious that either the ring was not machined parallel originally or the sides have started to flare outwards.
This is probably due to that slot cut right through the outer 3/8" of the receiver ring for the locking lug on the forend. Not such a hot idea...
There is actually only a pretty thin web of steel at the bottom of the threads holding the two sides of the receiver ring together. You can see this clearly if you take out the magazine mechanism.
Not to take anything away from Mr. Savage who came up with a hell of clever design, but I think if the barrel shoulder had been made as large as possible and if the receiver ring was made thicker by continuing the plane of the receiver side walls right over the top, (about .30 thou thicker than present) the threads and barrel ring would be less inclined to develop slop like they do.
Going to have some fun reworking this one sometime.
Last edited:
- Location
- St. Joe's Island, Ont
Actually Arthur sold out his shares in 1905 and I don't even think he was around in 1912 when the take down models were designed.
He got into growing oranges and then patented an automotive tire after he left the factory.
He got into growing oranges and then patented an automotive tire after he left the factory.
no ,I believe it was called a Stith scope? or Stith base? Looks like it clamps on to the rear sight base, has such a clean look .
Are you talking about Savage brand scopes?
Question for you - who is paying $1,000 (or more) for the M94 30-30's that Winchester is now putting out? I would never consider it but there must be some out there who will.
Jim
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
I think a repro 99 would be great, but the Savage of today is far removed from its former glory. In those days we'll heeled hunters carried a Parker for birds and a 99 for deer. Today's Savage is positioned to provide a solid but basic hunting rifle at a low price point. I don't quibble with this position as there is only so much room in the market and anything that gets new hunters into the field is a good thing. To try to bring back a hundred years old marvel of engineering under the banner of a budget rifle line would be futile. There are only so many of us rifle cranks who would see it for what it is. We would be overrun with Philistines braying about how the new Savage lever gun looks like a rip off of that "crappy Winchester 88" and collectively lose our minds.
