Savage model 1920

[Mike Irwin]

"Also incorrect. The Savage bolt-action was designed in the hope of getting military contracts, which is why prototypes were chambered for the military service cartridges of the U.S., Great Britain (.303 British) and the Latin-American market (7x57)"

Dave, you have any reference material to that effect that cites Savage sources?

At the time, just after WW I, military budgets world wide were being slashed phenomenally because of the multiple peace processes that came out of the war.

No one was looking to rearm.

The .303 and 7x57 weren't just military cartridges, though, they were also very popular sporting cartridges in the Western Hemisphere.

Both cartridges were also fairly well known to US shooters at the time, especially the 7x57, leading Remington and Winchester to both chambered sporting rifles for it and rounds like the 7.65 Argentine and the 9x57 Mauser, and Winchester certainly wasn't trolling for military contracts with the Model 54.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Ah, thanks McShotty, I was trying to find a copy of a Savage catalog that might discuss the Model 1920/20.

I also don't buy the idea that stripper clip guides automatically make the rifle a military concept vehicle, or the two-stage trigger.

The Model 54 (a derivation of the Mauser 98, as were most designs of this time) also had a two-stage trigger, but it was never intended to be shopped to military customers.

In fact, the 54 also had stripper clip guides milled into the receiver.

I think the truth of the matter is that a lot of men were returning from military service and they were now familiar with bolt action rifles and loading them from stripper clips and in the years following the war massive amounts of surplus ammunition in many of those cartridges became available (both US and foreign manufactured).

Plus, the same stripper clip would (with the exception of .303 British) work for the .250-3000, .300 Savage, 7x57, 9x57, 7.65 Argentine, and .30-06 because all were based on the Mauser 7x57 case head.

Hell, in the time I hunted with my Savage 99 in .300 Savage I carried 5 extra rounds in a surplus stripper clip.

Not because the 99 had been a military spec rifle (the 95 was, but the 99 was the sporting redesign), but because it was an easy way of carrying those 5 rounds.

 

[Dave Anderson]

The Savage bolt action wasn't designed after WW I, it was designed in 1915 at a time when military arms were in great demand, and every major arms manufacturer naturally wanted a piece of the market.

If you need written proof, it is stamped on the barrel of the model 1920 rifles, as the first patent date listed is March 28, 1916.

I enjoy a spirited debate as much as anyone, I think now though we are reaching the stage of "it depends on what your definition of "is" is. The argument seems to be the 1920 was first because we don't count all the ones that came earlier.

If it pleases you to believe the 1920 was the first bolt-action sporting rifle, and was designed from the start strictly as a sporter, you're certainly welcome to do so.

Personally it pleases me to hunt with my 1920 rifle, just as it pleases me to hunt with my Remington-Lee sporter in .30-40 Krag or my 1903 Mannlicher in 6.5x54. I do wish I could find a nice Lee Speed at a reasonable price.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Yet theres no evidence I've ever found that indicates that Savage made any overtures for military contracts with what became the model 20, or even intended to.

Just as theres no indication that Winchester tried to shop around for military contracts with what became the Model 51, which was also in development during WWI.

That's all I'm asking, Dave, whether there is actual evidence and not just conjecture.

A patent date on the barrel is hardly proof of military intent.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Anderson]

"A patent date on the barrel is hardly proof of military intent." Talk about a non sequitor. It is proof the Savage action which evolved into the model 1920 was designed early in WW I, not after the war as earlier messages imply. Did I really have to explain that?

A basic debating principle is both sides operate under the same rules. In an earlier post, Mike, you wrote "Generally it's said that the Model 1920 was the first bolt action to be designed and offered specifically as a sporting rifle." No mention of who said it, when or where. Apparently we are just supposed to accept it as fact.

So following the same rules, "Generally it is said Savage designed a bolt-action rifle in the hopes of making military sales." Although I actually did include a reference to written evidence in the Otteson book, which has a photo of the Savage military version.

But of course that's not good enough. It never will be enough. It's mere conjecture. Why, in 1915 Savage might have been designing a sporting rifle (incorporating Mauser 98 and '03 Springfield features) and chambering it in .303 British for sale to UK big game hunters. Or maybe they were planning ahead for sale to U.S. veterans at a time when the U.S. wasn't even in the war.

The Savage 1920 did achieve several firsts. It was the first commercially made Savage bolt action; the first Mauser-type short action made in the U.S.; the first lightweight bolt action sporter made by a U.S. manufacturer. Quite enough firsts for one rifle.

To return to the statement that started this debate, here it is, word for word:

"The Savage Model 1920 was the first bolt action sporting rifle to be offered to the hunting public by a major arms company. Yup, the first!"

That's the statement, there were no qualifiers included. Just a flat claim that is flat-out wrong and frankly not worthy of debate. Not to mention tedious and boring. Mike, maybe you should just declare victory and close. the thread

 

[Mike Irwin]

You're the one who was holding out the patent date of 1916 as some sort of proof that Savage was pursuing military contracts with the development of what would become the Model 1920.

Or do these two statements have no relation to each other?

"The Savage bolt action wasn't designed after WW I, it was designed in 1915 at a time when military arms were in great demand, and every major arms manufacturer naturally wanted a piece of the market.

If you need written proof, it is stamped on the barrel of the model 1920 rifles, as the first patent date listed is March 28, 1916."


I never claimed that my statement "Generally it's said that the Model 1920 was the first bolt action to be designed and offered specifically as a sporting rifle (I should have added in the United States to that, but I didn't).

That's not a claim for proof -- that's hearsay, which is more than adequately elaborated by the preface of "Generally it is claimed..."


""The Savage Model 1920 was the first bolt action sporting rifle to be offered to the hunting public by a major arms company. Yup, the first!"

That's the statement, there were no qualifiers included. Just a flat claim that is flat-out wrong and frankly not worthy of debate. Not to mention tedious and boring. Mike, maybe you should just declare victory and close. the thread"


If you go back to the origin of that quote in this thread, you'll note that that wasn't my quote.

But, in any event, since you don't have any indication that Savage developed the 1920 specifically for military service in mind, your claims are moot.

By the way, in looking into this more last night, Phil Sharpe claims in The Rifle in America that the Winchester Model 54 was actually the first bolt action specifically designed for sporting use.

His write up on the Model 1920/20 makes no indication either way.

"Mike, maybe you should just declare victory and close the thread..."

Maybe you should drop the gigantic case of ass that you're developing. Instead of getting your feels all hurt, maybe you should concentrate on the discussion at hand. If you can't do that, back out of the discussion.

 

[Dave Anderson]

No, I'm not worried about getting my "feels hurt", I just hate seeing errors go unchallenged, to the detriment of generations yet unborn. We have to think of the children.

I see we have reached the stage of arguing what the definition of "is" is, as I predicted earlier. Just as the personal attacks are not unexpected.

"...since you don't have any indication that Savage developed the 1920 specifically for military service in mind, your claims are moot."

See Stuart Otteson's book "The Bolt Action", Volume 2, Chapter 2. I mentioned it twice already. Maybe the third time will be lucky. To say in effect, "I refuse to acknowledge any information you provide, therefore you didn't provide any information" is hardly an argument.

"... maybe you should concentrate on the discussion at hand. If you can't do that, back out of the discussion." Good advice, maybe you should take it. Generally it is said the one who wants to shut down an opposing view is the one with the "feels hurt".

 

[Mike Irwin]

Otterson's book gives no indication that the Model 1920 was developed for military contracts first, or was retrofitted after development of a sporting arm started.

In other words, there's still 0 proof that back up your assessment.

Nelson's original 1916 patent application for what would become the Model 1920 offers no insight into the matter other than one of time reference -- it's likely that his work on the design had started months, if not years, before the patent was filed in August of 1916.


"Just as the personal attacks are not unexpect"

You can point to no instance of my attacking you personally in this unless you believe discussion of, and disagreement, with your contents to be a personal attack.

So, once again, and last chance....

"The Savage bolt-action was designed in the hope of getting military contracts"

That's your definitive statement. You made it, own it, prove it, and stop trying to divert the conversation with false complaints about personal attacks.

 

[Al Norris]

Just as the personal attacks are not unexpected.

Personal Attacks?

Maybe you should drop the gigantic case of ass that you're developing.

I can see where Mike's statement, above, might be construed as such.

However, in any spirited debate, things are often said by one side, that are misinterpreted by the other side. Particularly when said debate is conducted by two strong personalities.

The current debating point appears to be from a link posted by McShooty. Certainly nothing said directly from within this thread.

Debating a point that was never made "in-house", to the point where we are now taking the piss on each others Cheerios, brings the thread woefully off topic.

Closed.