diamondjim25
Inactive
what year did the model 99 savage chamber thier rifles for 308 win
model 99 308
- Thread starter diamondjim25
- Start date
bamaranger
New member
.308
NOt sure when they adopted .308 in the 99, but it stayed in the line till the end of production, which what.....mid 80's?
Inother words, .308 chambered 99's were available for a number of years, say 15-20 or so maybe.
NOt sure when they adopted .308 in the 99, but it stayed in the line till the end of production, which what.....mid 80's?
Inother words, .308 chambered 99's were available for a number of years, say 15-20 or so maybe.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Savage introduced the .308 Winchester cartridge in its lineup around 1954 in the EG, the R, and the RS models. Those were the only three that were in production at the time.
Before they could roll out the new family of cartridges, though, Savage had to make some changes in the 99 to strengthen it somewhat.
Before they could roll out the new family of cartridges, though, Savage had to make some changes in the 99 to strengthen it somewhat.
Gunplummer
New member
The dicey bolts were changed way back before the .308 hit the seen. No strength problem in the receiver unless it was a take-down model. Early receivers were shorter internally and were lengthened inside to accommodate the longer .308, .243, .358, ect. I would not think twice about changing an early .300 Savage to .308 (If I wanted to fire single shot).
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The dicey bolts"
Uhm... Say what?
In addition to the interior length dimensions of the receiver being changed, the interior dimensioning in other areas of the receiver was also changed to "beef up" certain critical areas.
The changes weren't much, but it was considered to be an extra added safety factor givein that the .308 Winchester family of cartridges operated at roughly 10,000 psi higher pressure than the .300 Savage.
Uhm... Say what?
In addition to the interior length dimensions of the receiver being changed, the interior dimensioning in other areas of the receiver was also changed to "beef up" certain critical areas.
The changes weren't much, but it was considered to be an extra added safety factor givein that the .308 Winchester family of cartridges operated at roughly 10,000 psi higher pressure than the .300 Savage.
I have a Sav99 25-250 take down made in 1917 that I made a 6mmBR barrel for.
I drilled and tapped for scope.
There are those that will say that the old Sav99 rifles could not take the 308 bolt thrust, but my old rifle is surviving with the much higher 6mmBR bolt thrust at the threshold of primers piercing. [6mmBR cases are so strong that loose primer pockets are not a problem, like in 308].
I do have more case stretching than in my Rem700 6mmBR.
I drilled and tapped for scope.
There are those that will say that the old Sav99 rifles could not take the 308 bolt thrust, but my old rifle is surviving with the much higher 6mmBR bolt thrust at the threshold of primers piercing. [6mmBR cases are so strong that loose primer pockets are not a problem, like in 308].
I do have more case stretching than in my Rem700 6mmBR.
Attachments
Gunplummer
New member
Thank you Clark
I have a .300 I converted to 22-250 and I am not worried about firing it. What nonsense about beefing up the receiver. I have repaired/rebarreled dozens of 99's and if anything they machined more metal out. The only pressure problems I ever experienced was with a factory put together rifle. I own a .243 and it will give "stickey" extraction with hot factory rounds. That is the result of "receiver spring" common to rear locking rifles. On the real early (maybe 95's) guns the front of the bolt did not really fit in the receiver and they changed that. It is hard to tell when things started and stopped because a lot of the screwed up stuff was sent back to the factory and modified.
I have a .300 I converted to 22-250 and I am not worried about firing it. What nonsense about beefing up the receiver. I have repaired/rebarreled dozens of 99's and if anything they machined more metal out. The only pressure problems I ever experienced was with a factory put together rifle. I own a .243 and it will give "stickey" extraction with hot factory rounds. That is the result of "receiver spring" common to rear locking rifles. On the real early (maybe 95's) guns the front of the bolt did not really fit in the receiver and they changed that. It is hard to tell when things started and stopped because a lot of the screwed up stuff was sent back to the factory and modified.
Jack O'Conner
New member
Don't have a clue but my Savage .308 is a KEEPER!
Jack
Jack
Gunplummer
New member
My .308 was a keeper. Kept in a barn I think, from the looks of it. It is now a .260 Remington. It is a shame that even the beat up 99's are being sold for top dollar. It really doesn't pay to re-work them unless you want it for yourself. They were really good projects for beginners because of all the hand work involved, especially the take-downs. I was at a gun show a while back and a Dealer had a stripped receiver on the table for $ 250.00. The crazy thing is he will probably get his price.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"There are those that will say that the old Sav99 rifles could not take the 308 bolt thrust..."
Funny, I didn't say anything like that at all. I have a 1936 EG that some fool rechambered to .308 and never remarked the caliber. That, at least, made the decision to return it to .300 an easy one.
I said what Savage DID to the rifle, and WHY their production engineers decided to do what they did.
Whether it was needed or not is immaterial. What IS material is that Savage changed the dimensioning of the receiver, including strengthening it in areas, when they redesigned it for the .308 family of cartridges.
"What nonsense about beefing up the receiver."
So you're claiming what, that the receiver design was unchanged from 1899 to the end of production, nearly 100 years later?
That's an easy bet I'd win.
There were at least FOUR distinct service design changes to the receivers during the life of the gun, all internal, and all to rectify what the production engineers saw to be issues with the design at that point in time.
Not sure why that's such a hard concept to swallow.
As for bolt thrust, the bolt's locking seat is but ONE of about two dozen critically dimensioned surfaces in the receiver design.
Funny, I didn't say anything like that at all. I have a 1936 EG that some fool rechambered to .308 and never remarked the caliber. That, at least, made the decision to return it to .300 an easy one.
I said what Savage DID to the rifle, and WHY their production engineers decided to do what they did.
Whether it was needed or not is immaterial. What IS material is that Savage changed the dimensioning of the receiver, including strengthening it in areas, when they redesigned it for the .308 family of cartridges.
"What nonsense about beefing up the receiver."
So you're claiming what, that the receiver design was unchanged from 1899 to the end of production, nearly 100 years later?
That's an easy bet I'd win.
There were at least FOUR distinct service design changes to the receivers during the life of the gun, all internal, and all to rectify what the production engineers saw to be issues with the design at that point in time.
Not sure why that's such a hard concept to swallow.
As for bolt thrust, the bolt's locking seat is but ONE of about two dozen critically dimensioned surfaces in the receiver design.
My father was developing this machine gun, and the gov dropped off lots of cases of 308 ammo so my brother got this 308 to shoot up some of it.
http://www.google.de/patents?id=0cUxAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=3,894,471&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lznsTt62EeiSiALswbnLBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
When my brother was 14, he could really shoot that rifle with open sights. I remember the old men in NRA jackets and one said my brother could shoot better with open sights than he could with a scope. That rifle has a different barrel now. My brother wrecked the old one with flares. My brother is 52 now, and wears glasses.
http://www.google.de/patents?id=0cUxAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=3,894,471&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lznsTt62EeiSiALswbnLBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
When my brother was 14, he could really shoot that rifle with open sights. I remember the old men in NRA jackets and one said my brother could shoot better with open sights than he could with a scope. That rifle has a different barrel now. My brother wrecked the old one with flares. My brother is 52 now, and wears glasses.
Attachments
Gunplummer
New member
You do not know what you are talking about. The receiver changes had nothing to do with strength problems. The bolt and square locking area problems were corrected long before the .308 came along. In reality, there was a section removed from the receiver to allow for the longer cartridges and make it cheaper to machine. I am curious as to how you put the .308 back to .300S. It must be quite a story.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"You do not know what you are talking about." 
May want to look in a mirror for quantification of that statement.
During a fun little time in my life in the 1990s I was associate editor of American Rifleman magazine. During that fun little time, I had a lot of contact with Savage and their designers.
Of course, with my interest in the 99, the subject NEVER came up, at all. All we talked about was the 110.
"I am curious as to how you put the .308 back to .300S. It must be quite a story."
I gave it to my gunsmith, gave him a bunch of money, and told him to make it right.
You're right, that was quite a story.
May want to look in a mirror for quantification of that statement.
During a fun little time in my life in the 1990s I was associate editor of American Rifleman magazine. During that fun little time, I had a lot of contact with Savage and their designers.
Of course, with my interest in the 99, the subject NEVER came up, at all. All we talked about was the 110.
"I am curious as to how you put the .308 back to .300S. It must be quite a story."
I gave it to my gunsmith, gave him a bunch of money, and told him to make it right.
You're right, that was quite a story.
Gunplummer
New member
That is the only story that sounds right to me.
My curiosity has been piqued.
Mike, does anyone have cross section drawings and stress calculations and deflection calculations of the versions of the Sav 99 design?
I KNOW I could do it myself, but that would be work.
I know my old 1918 Sav99 is not failing with 90,000 psi, but the brass is stretching .003". Not much compared to a 303 Brit, but enough to make me not do it.
Mike, does anyone have cross section drawings and stress calculations and deflection calculations of the versions of the Sav 99 design?
I KNOW I could do it myself, but that would be work.
I know my old 1918 Sav99 is not failing with 90,000 psi, but the brass is stretching .003". Not much compared to a 303 Brit, but enough to make me not do it.