Savage 99 rotor question

[Otony]

I have a chance to pick up a pretty decent .303 Savage 99 for a very low price. It is decent that is, save for the incredibly shoddy bore.

I realize the 99 is cartridge sensitive specific as to rotors. Does anyone know if a .303 rotor will feed correctly if this carbine were to be rebarreled to .30-30?

[sav300]

Otony,make some dummy 30-30s and try them,BUT do not slam the lever home.U just want to see if they feed from the mag.

[gnoahhh]

It should. I have interchanged them on a custom 1899 that I'm building just to prove that the guys who said so weren't lying. Granted, one example doesn't prove the rule...

Why not re-barrel to .303?

[excess650]

I agree, make up several dummies and stuff 'em into the magazine. See if they will feed reliably as-is. The 303 and 30-30 may be close enough to make it a non-issue.

If the outside of the barrel is good, you might consider a rebore to 35cal. JES might be able to run a 35-30/30 reamer in to clean up the neck and throat. At that point you would need to have dies made.

Another possibility would be to rebore to 35cal and chamber it 35 Remington. Dies would be "off the shelf" and brass could be made from 303 Brit or 30-40 Krag, but would need the rims turned down.

I have a 1899 38-55 that WAS a 30-30, and I reworked the rotor and interior of the magazine well so that it would feed.

[Four Fingers of Death]

Or a rebore to 338Federal or 358Winchester.

[Good Cheer]

Or a rebore to 338Federal or 358Winchester.

Ah, yes, I too am looking at the rebore option for a 99 with SBS (shoddy bore syndrome). The 338 vs 358 question is currently on the dock. 338 is a great cartridge. 358 is better for cast. Neither though are designed for cast and that in itself is a huge argument against either.
Making the cases a little longer (trimmed back 3006) and having the chamber neck lengthened may help. That too is being looked at.

[old turtle]

I have a 35 Rem. and have bought brass for it not to long ago. I think this would be an excellent round as the case capacity is good for cast bullets. The older Savage 99s are excellent rifles. I have been trying to beat my brother out of one for some time now but he is wise to me.

[gnoahhh]

The older 1899's and 99's WILL NOT work with the .338 or .358. Firstly, the early (pre-WWI) models are marginal metallurgicaly speaking. Receivers have cracked when chambered for high intensity rounds. They're fine in the calibers they came in. Secondly, all 99's made previous to the introduction of the .308 chambering in the mid-to-late 50's are different inside the receiver from the later models. They altered the internal dimensions at that point to accomodate the longer .308-class of cartridges. External dimensions remained the same. Putting a longer cartridge in an earlier receiver simply will not work. Some have tried, only to give up in abject frustration. Later actions (late 50's- on) are fair game( but not of the same high quality as the early guns, you can't have it all!).

As to chambering one in .35 Remington, well I suppose it could be done but tweaking things to make it work (not the least of which is altering a rotor- if you've ever tried that you know what I'm talking about) would be a frustrating experience. If it were me I would rebore to .303/.35. Neck size (and probably seat, too) with .35 Remington dies. You might have to have a bit cut off the bottom of the dies to allow sufficient penetration by the .303 case. It would be a real thumper, and the envy of all your shooting buddies.

[Otony]

Thanks for all the replies gentlemen. I am pretty frustrated right about now. Apparently a garage beer/bull session last night resulted in the owner selling the 99 to a friend for 245 bucks!

So, no 99 for me yet one more time. At that price it would have been worth a rebarrel job.

I did consider a rebarrel to .303, but had I actually got my hands on it I would have probably taken the easy way out, so as to join my stable of five other .30-30s. Although the rotor mods necessary would have been a bit daunting, a conversion to .35 Remington did sound rather interesting, but a simple rebore to .35/.303 would be a bit more practical.

[gnoahhh]

That sucks, Otony! Keep your eyes peeled. Decent shooter quality 99's are out there. Don't be tempted to pay near collector's prices for ones that have been D&T'ed for scope mounting, have non-factory swivels installed, recoil pads, etc. While all of that stuff may add to the usefulness of the gun, they (should) detract greatly from it's value.

My current 99 project is based on a rusty receiver I picked up at a show for $60. It's getting a stainless barrel in .35/.30-30, to go with an original barrel in .30/30 I had laying around (it's a take down model). I might add another caliber in the future, maybe .38/55 if the rotor will handle it. I like the idea of interchangeable barrels, but don't want to go through the hassle of switching rotors too. No scope- Lyman #30 1/2 tang sight only. Rust blued receiver/color case hardened lever. Custom cherry stock cut using an original perch-belly style factory stock for a pattern. I'll post pics when done.

[Bret4207]

If it's a square bolt 99, the rear of the bolt where it seats against the receiver is almost square, then avoid the higher intensity rounds. Later models went to a much improved rounded bolt that wasn't so prone to creating cracked receivers.

[gnoahhh]

Those square backed receivers were changed to the rounded design in 1909 or thereabouts. Savage swapped out the square backs for a new one whenever one turned up at the factory for repairs after that. In 1916 they improved the metallurgy when they introduced the .250-3000, and as far as I know held that formula at least through the 50's on all the pre-mil guns. (Pre-mil= any gun made before serial # 1,000,000 which occured in late '59/early '60. 99's made after that were cheapened up much the same way Winchester cheapened up their line in 1964. That's why serious Savage collectors tend to look down their noses at post-mil guns.)

[Good Cheer]

I have a 308 with a lot of pitting, original owner was either eaten by hogs or should have been.
So, it's the perfect project gun. As time goes on and I ponder the possibilities the idea of a small game rifle is becoming more and more attractive. The 99 is a relatively light and handy piece. Maybe a 25-08.

[Bret4207]

GC- ya know the development model of the 1899 (1895 IIRC) was in 32-20? Wouldn't a downsized 99 in 32-20 be the cats!!!?????

[Good Cheer]

You bet it would!!!
Even a regular 308 chamber and throat would probably be OK for a small game gun. But then again, reckon a 338 or 358 would work just as good for small game as a 36 flinter. Ya know what? A pointy 338 boolit would work just dandy.

[gnoahhh]

A darn good small game chambering already exists in the 99. It's called the .22 High Power. In full throttle configuration it's a pretty fair deer cartridge. Loaded with cast bullets to any desired level of performance it becomes a dandy small game rifle. What's not to like?

[Bret4207]

Mmmm, the Hi-Power or "Imp" as it was called. Had one on layaway. Got mad at shop owner for selling a primo 32 Remington M-14 out from under me and told him to keep the 22HP and half octagon 30-30 I had on layaway. (Oh yeah, I got a real good temper) Now I can't afford them anyway.

The HP is cursed with that .228 groove. Darn it Art (Savage), what were you thinking?! I'd still love to have one or to build a nice 22 Zipper or another, better 25-35.

[9.3X62AL]

Tales of abused Savage 1899 rifles make me very thankful that my own (in 250) was cared for to a degree that the bore is in good condition. It has a few Bubba-quality scope mount D&Ts, but I bought it to shoot--and gave a "shooter" price for it.

[gnoahhh]

I don't curse that .228 bore. Making a HP work takes a little bit of effort on the part of the handloader, but I think most of us here don't view that as "work". Quite a few options open for .228's, not the least of which is shooting cast.

[Bret4207]

What are you using for the HP?

[gnoahhh]

Mainly Hornady 70 grain .227's. As they come from the factory they don't shoot worth a tinker's dam. I make file trim dies that allow .100" to be removed from the tip, resulting in a loss of only two grains of weight. Accuracy bounces right back into the 1 1/2 MOA neighborhood with tang sights. In addition, I scour the internet and gun shows for stashes of the recently discontinued Speer .228 70 gr. semi-spitzers and old Sisk 70gr. semi-spitzers. They are short enough to work nicely. For cast I use a Lyman Ideal 228367 60 gr. and a forum member here gave me a bunch of lighter .22 cast that I plan on using as-cast after GC'ing and lubing in a .229" sizer. Bullshop also sells a 60gr. RN from I believe an RCBS mould that shoots great. Buffalo Arms sells a 60 grainer that shoots sweet but is pretty thin jacketed, and I'm a little leery of using them for deer.

The reason I doctor the Hornady's is because they're too long as-is. The old 1899 Savages were rifled with a 1-12" twist, which was ok for the original factory loads of 70gr. jacketed which were a RN or semi-spitzer design. The current Hornady's are typical Hornady Spire Points, a lot longer in length, which we speculate were intended for the Euro market and European 5.6x52R's (metric equivalent of the .22HP) which usually have a much faster rate-of-twist. As you know, proper rate-of-twist is dependent on bullet length, not weight. The Hornady's are on the ragged edge of stabilization in a 1-12", hence the shortening operation. Would that Speer brought back their semi-spitzer in .228". A bit of a hassle but it works.

I have the most fun with it shooting lead, but 60 grains at our kind of velocities just seems way too light for deer hunting, so for that I stick with the above mentioned jacketed. Velocities shading heavyweight .223 velocities can be attained. Granted, there are better rounds for deer hunting, but it'll do the job well.

[Bret4207]

Wow, sounds like you've done your homework. I always thought of the HP as more of a walking varmint rifle than a deer gun. Thought it would be a great coyote gun. I doubt I'll be getting one any time soon, but the interest is still there.

[excess650]

"Although the rotor mods necessary would have been a bit daunting, a conversion to .35 Remington did sound rather interesting, but a simple rebore to .35/.303 would be a bit more practical."

The 35 Remington Rimmed based on the 30-40K or 303Br case will be close enough to the 303 Sav that the rotor shouldn't be a problem, or at least not any more than the 35-303 would be.

gnoahhh,
The 30-30 rotor and shell guide WILL require reworking to feed the 38-55. I'll have to check and see if once modified, the 30-30 round will still feed reliably. My rifle is of the solid frame variety, so I had never considered even trying.

[excess650]

Bret4207,
"I'd still love to have one or to build a nice 22 Zipper or another, better 25-35."

If you were a bit closer geographically, you could take a peek at my octagon barreled 1899B in 25-35 and see if it struck your fancy. It just sits in my safe.

[Dan Cash]

I rebarreled a .303 Sav to .30-30 years ago. It was unpredictable and unreliable as far as feeting goes. I would look at the .303 on the wall and spend my money on a better example for shooting. There are lots of .300 and .250s around. I am blessed with one each and though the .300 has a bore that slugs out at .310 it is kind of OK with jacketed. It does well with a .316 cast bullet; better than jacketed.

[gnoahhh]

Excess650,

Thanks for the tip re: .38/55's feeding out of a .30/30 rotor. I was wondering about that and hadn't gotten that far in in the process. Guess that idea is back on the shelf!

Regarding the .25/35, I have a shot out .22HP take down barrel that is earmarked for re-boring/chambering to .25/35 someday as a mate for a .22HP take down rifle I have. I just like the idea of multiple barrel sets. They provide opportunities for more experimentation (playing) with different calibers without the expense of buying complete rifles.

The downside to the Savage take down system is that repeated removal of the barrels can lead to thread wear and gradual loss of accuracy. There are simple precautions to take, to wit: keep the threads squeeky clean and lubed with good quality oil, slow and careful removal/insertion, etc. Usually I just leave the barrels in place and only take them down when I feel they need a thorough cleaning, and definitely leave them in place after final sight-in for hunting because POI can (but not always) shift slightly after removal.

[Bret4207]

Bret4207,
"I'd still love to have one or to build a nice 22 Zipper or another, better 25-35."

If you were a bit closer geographically, you could take a peek at my octagon barreled 1899B in 25-35 and see if it struck your fancy. It just sits in my safe.

I have a 99x25-35 but between the shot out barrel and damage tot he recv'r (don't ask) it's not a real desirable gun.

OT a bit, I have 2 99's and have seen several more that have obvious crushing damage to the magazine area. Pretty pain someone put the gun and a vise and, well, got a little too energetic on the handle. Anyone else seen this or am I just "lucky"?

[excess650]

I have a 99x25-35 but between the shot out barrel and damage tot he recv'r (don't ask) it's not a real desirable gun.

OT a bit, I have 2 99's and have seen several more that have obvious crushing damage to the magazine area. Pretty pain someone put the gun and a vise and, well, got a little too energetic on the handle. Anyone else seen this or am I just "lucky"?

I suspect that you've sniffed them out as I've never seen one like that. My newest was a 1935 H carbine with barrel band and flat topped buttstock. The oldest is the 25-35 with square corner block circa 1906.

[gnoahhh]

I never saw one either, but judging from the thin receiver walls I can see how easily it could happen. Bubba knows no bounds.

Anyone ever play with a .25/35 AI?

[richhodg66]

I love '99s!

As for the worn .303 mentioned, can a barrel like that be sleeved? A guy on another forum had an old Highwall barrel sleeved, but it was for some very low pressure cartridge, can't remember what exactly at the moment. I just don't know at what power level sleeving becomes unsafe, or does it? Seems like I've only ever heard of it being done with .22s or other very low pressure things.

Didn't the make the 99 in .375 Winchester for a while?

[ErikT]

I've talked to my gunsmith about sleeving a barrel for my 99 to go from shot-out .30-30 to .38-55, and my gunsmith told me that most guys wouldn't mind doing such work for the .30-30 class of cartridges, but anything more powerful is Verboten. Now I just have to save up for the liner and the smithing fees, and I will have a Savage 99 in .38-55. I've tried the rotor with .38-55 cartridges, and I've encountered the same problems as others have with the feeding, so I will have to alter the rotor slightly as well as the cartridge stop.

As far as converting the .303 Savage to other cartridges, I'd recommend relining the barrel. Anything in the .30-30 family should work okay, as long as you can get them to feed properly.

[richhodg66]

There was an article in Handloader magazine I read the other day on the .32-40 and the author used a Savage 99 in that caliber. It must have been a custom order at some point. That might be a neat cartridge for one of these old timers.

[JDL]

There was an article in Handloader magazine I read the other day on the .32-40 and the author used a Savage 99 in that caliber. It must have been a custom order at some point. That might be a neat cartridge for one of these old timers.

The .32-40 was in the 1899 line up until about 1916.
JDL

[excess650]

ErikT,
I would suggest a rebore vs reline for 30-30 to 38-55. I had one done about 15 years ago. A liner thick enough for 38-55 would make the remaining barrel and threads thin, and it simply isn't necessary.

Yes, 1899s were chambered in 25-35, 30-30, 32-40, and 38-55. The 38-55 was discontinued around 1918, IIRC. The 30-30 may have been available as early as 1902, with the other calibers following. My 25-35 was made in 1906 or so. The 30-30 was still available in the mid 1930s as evidenced by my 1935 vintage carbine.

[Gently]

WOW...I feel lucky! :holysheep I have a savage 99A in .300 it has had a total of 350 rounds through it, I know that because my grandfather bought it new, my Dad then only used it for deer hunting each year and now I own it...Clear bright barrel no wear and not a scratch on the stock. No scope..not even drilled for one, it has the pearl front shrouded sight and the rear "Garand" style peep sight.

I love the 300 round, it was made to compete with the '06 with less recoil. Mine is a tack driver at 200 yards.

NO! it is not now or ever will it be for sale, unless my son decides to sell it after I go on to the "happy" hunting grounds. This Gun is the one I used to test my cast/copper plated homemade bullet.

I prefer the savage to the .308 that I have and MUCH better than the .223 AR I have!

[starmac]

The 300 was a very popular caliber. I was at a moving auction a couple years ago and the guy had a 300 that was like new with the peep sight. The owner was a handloader and this was while you couldn't hardly buy ammo. He had probably 10,000 rounds of different calibers and not one for the savage. I ask him why no ammo for it as I needed some he told me he had never shot it. His dad had bought it new and promptly shot himself in the foot, so had never shot it again, and years later given it to him. The gun brought a decant price, but was still a bargain for what it was. You always find those deals when you can't afford them.