Comparing long term reliability of bolts and a lever?

I believe my query is more something for a gunsmith rather than a lever action rifle user. Gunsmiths should have more opportunities to work on rifles about which I query than most rifle owners. Comparing [better] modern push feed bolt actions' long term reliability with circa 1950s Savage Model 99s having side lever safety and chambered for 243/308/358 cartridge family, how well does the 99 match-up? There were nearly one million Savage Model 99 rifles having side lever safeties, and just under a hundred thousand of the 243/308/358 cartridge family with such safeties. I doubt hunting rifles, as a class, are fired a thousand times during an average deer hunter's hunting career. So a sixty-year-old Savage probably is at no disadvantage in long term reliability other than it might need a barrel somewhat sooner than a newer push feed bolt gun.

a bolt gun will always last longer, less moving parts

Agree on boltgun. Certainly well proven in military use.

Attachment 227533

But levers well maintained are fully adequate for outdoorsman, farmer and prepper use.

Attachment 227534

I question the validity of using World War I and II military bolt actions as substitutes for modern push feed bolt action sporting rifles. Modern push feed bolt actions are, with exceptions for snipers' rifles, different from World War I and II military bolt actions - that is, they tend to have: many more parts; to have several of these parts stamped or brazed or press fitted into an assembly; to have the same action chambered for several cartridges rather than optimized for one specific cartridge; and tend to have easier to use yet less reliable mechanical safeties. Excluding bolt actions used by military snipers, modern push feed bolt actions are no longer used by organized militaries. And rifles used by snipers, I anticipate, are babied as well as can be done under their conditions of use.
***
Blanket:

Count the number of parts used in modern push feed bolt actions and the Savage Model 99s made before 1960 (or Model 99-Es made until the 99 was discontinued). You may be surprised at parts numbers of several bolt actions and the 99.
***
While I did not query about semiautomatic/automatic rifles, all of which are push feed, their operating systems are a completely different bag of cats. I appreciate that from you. I hope other responses will also avoid trying to shoehorn any discussion of them.

Push feed bolt guns have not been around as long as the Savage 99 platform so it is difficult to make a true comparison. However, if both systems receive equal treatment and volume of ammo, I doubt three generations of users could wear either one out save perhaps the bore.

I'm not sure why you are so set on using "Push feed" in your description of a bolt action rifle as opposed to a controlled feed bolt action. From a stand point of durability, those are not huge differences (push feed vs controlled feed).
While there's no doubt that a push feed bolt action is different from a controlled feed bolt action, I'm not sure there's a big difference in durability between the two types.

As for lever guns in general, they are more complicated than bolt actions. However not all lever guns are the same and there are many variations of action types.

As for parts being stamped, brazed, press fit, etc., that's not necessarily a bad thing either. It depends on the application. There are plenty of applications where a stamped part is perfectly adequate. If the maker can save money in one place by using a stamped part and apply that savings to a higher quality part some place else, the end result may be a better gun for the same price.

I'm not sure what the OP is looking for.

There are a lot of variables included within his criteria. The question is very generalized, perhaps he can narrow it down a little?

Long time since we corresponded. Strictly my fault.

I chose push feed because that's the method of nearly all affordable (for me) new bolt actions. Savage Model 99s of the version I identified are available at similar cost, perhaps slightly lower. Being a left-handed shooter, I have more interest in essentially ambidextrous long arms than most other people. Oh yes, family members are right-handed.

Regarding parts counts, differences between number of parts in bolt actions and lever actions is surprisingly slight. The extremely reliable and durable Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk. Is and IIs have high parts counts compared with the American version of the Krag, the Krag having the lowest count I have identified so far. How many parts in these older Model 99s? Not out of line with bolt actions. That, plus its longevity, are my reasons for the query. . . . Sorry for being so windy.
***
If you think the query is too general - that is, not focusing on a specific bolt action - let's choose an extremely accurate and popular one. How about the currently made Savage 110 series? According to Otteson's book, it was designed to be manufactured at the lowest possible price while maintaining "acceptable" quality and superior accuracy. I believe this design has fulfilled its purpose nicely. After all, it took the Savage brand name from deathly ill to very successful and profitable. It has been in production since what - 1959 or so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrol & Powder

I'm not sure why you are so set on using "Push feed" in your description of a bolt action rifle as opposed to a controlled feed bolt action. From a stand point of durability, those are not huge differences (push feed vs controlled feed).
While there's no doubt that a push feed bolt action is different from a controlled feed bolt action, I'm not sure there's a big difference in durability between the two types.

As for lever guns in general, they are more complicated than bolt actions. However not all lever guns are the same and there are many variations of action types.

As for parts being stamped, brazed, press fit, etc., that's not necessarily a bad thing either. It depends on the application. There are plenty of applications where a stamped part is perfectly adequate. If the maker can save money in one place by using a stamped part and apply that savings to a higher quality part some place else, the end result may be a better gun for the same price.

I'm not sure what the OP is looking for.

There are a lot of variables included within his criteria. The question is very generalized, perhaps he can narrow it down a little?

---

If you keep your gun clean and use proper ammo the Savage 99 will last two life times. I see very few come in for repair and I have one made in the 1950 that had been carried as an elk gun from 1955 to 1998, killed many elk and rode horseback over the rockies many times. The gun sill shoots under 1 1/2" at a hundred yards and other than work finish is as good as new. My Brother In Laws 99 has been used since 1958. My neighbour collects 99's has 12 right now and other than minor problems like broken sights or stock work they all still work the oldest is from 1899.

By contrast I have had a Remington 700 270 that an idiot fired a 308 in that was reduced to junk. Either gun will last a lifetime. In absolute strength the bolt gun has the edge. But that is in safety with wild overloads. I have seen an overload blow the bolt loose on a 99 and the escaping gas split the stock and dusted the shooters shirt, the receiver redirected the gas down from the face.

Lance, would you please start using smaller font? This is hard to read.

Both the 99 and most modern bolt action rifles are fairly durable.

As for the Savage 110, it does take advantage of an assembly system that significantly reduces cost. By using barrel nut to secure the barrel to the receiver as opposed to threading the barrel into the receiver until a shoulder on the barrel bottoms out on the receiver, Savage found a way to quickly set headspace.

I do think the typical bolt action rifle has a slight advantage in terms of remaining tight over the life of the rifle, particularly with a bolt that has the locking lugs near the front of the bolt. That's not a huge issue but the 99 bolt locks to the receiver in a way that not very forgiving to excess wear. On the flip side of that, I've seen a lot of old Savage 99's that remained tight after many years of hard use.

I think it really come down to personal preference for a hunting rifle. If you want a lever action that can handle high pressure cartridges and pointed bullets, the Savage 99 is a fine choice.

If you want a rifle for a specific cartridge that the 99 isn't chambered for, you may be forced to go with a bolt action.

From a mechanical point of view, I think the bolt action is a bit simpler despite the similar parts counts.

I have a Savage 99 300 Savage that I have fired between 4000-5000 rounds. 150 Hornady Inter-lokts and 44 gr Varget, 5 rounds regularly shoot into MOA when I shoot from the bench. I did run into a roughness developing after 4000 or so rounds. Where the bolt runs into the Auto Cut-off, a notch began to form. Careful smoothing/ removal of the notch and then rounding the impact point of the bolt removed the problem, making the rifle more smooth than before. A bolt action might last longer, as the operator unlocks the bolt, cocks the firing mechanism on most modern rifles (release grip, push up on bolt handle) ejects fired catridge ( pull bolt handle ALL the way back - short stroking happens) load cartridge from magazine (push bolt forward) lock bolt (push handle down), place hand on grip- READY TO FIRE. Lever action Savage 99, unlock bolt, eject fired cartridge (open hand, lever down) feed catridge, cock rifle, lock bolt (lever up) close hand READY TO FIRE, the lever does a lot of work. I ask my wife if she wanted a new lightweight bolt gun, she said a bolt was like driving a 'THREE on the TREE as compared to a 'FOUR on the FLOOR'. She runs tang safety 99's's in 243, 308 and 358. Her Featherweight 243 goes 3/4 MOA with 95 gr Partitions. I have checked the auto cutoff on several rifles I use a lot. NO problem but I did decide to break that sharp edge where the bolt impacts the cutoff for smoothness and durability - thousands of rounds.

Rick:
Here is the same text string as Times Roman #4 ---

On my screen Times Roman #5 appears to be the same size as CAST BOOLITS' default. I use a serif type face ("font" is a facet of "type face - Times Roman BOLD is a font of Times Roman, for example) because serif type faces, having "indicators" and more clearly differing letter shapes, it's easier to tell the difference between lower case "L" and upper case "I" and numeral "1," for example with a serif type face. (That's why nearly all books use serif type faces.) Oh yes, my vision is so poor that I have difficulty reading CAST BOOLITS' default type face unless I blow it up on my screen (1900 x 1200 pixels).
***
Here is the same text string as Times Roman #5 ---

Rick:

On my screen Times Roman #5 appears to be the same size as CAST BOOLITS' default. I use a serif type face ("font" is a facet of "type face - Times Roman BOLD is a font of Times Roman, for example) because serif type faces, having "indicators" and more clearly differing letter shapes, it's easier to tell the difference between lower case "L" and upper case "I" and numeral "1," for example with a serif type face. (That's why nearly all books use serif type faces.) Oh yes, my vision is so poor that I have difficulty reading CAST BOOLITS' default type face unless I blow it up on my screen (1900 x 1200 pixels).

If you are having fun with me, "Oops and never mind."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waksupi

Lance, would you please start using smaller font? This is hard to read.

---

In my experience ,the Sav 99 s weakest point is the long hollow in the stock for the works......and the wood splitting in the grip after a bit of a knock.........

I do wonder as to the conflation between 'reliable' (in the thread title), vs. 'durable' (in many of the replies).

To me, reliability refers to the propensity for parts failure, either through /normal use/ or /abuse/ - this can be on the first cycle or the ~millionth cycle.
While durability refers to the extent of /operational cycles until parts unserviceability/.

High-parts-count designs provide many potential sources for failure, i.e. a theoretically less-reliable overall design.

On the other hand, a few parts in a high-wear situation bodes ill for durability - an aluminum feed ramp was the first thing that came to mind for me.
Only a single part, but could dictate the end-of-life for a firearm, no matter how reliable it is.

98 Mauser still my choice