Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors 99A (early) - David's book and Murray's 3rd - Differences

David's book (p.59) describes the 99A as basically a continuance of the 1899A 26",solid frame version. Murray, p. 3: 50-51 lists a 99-A Featherweight 24" (1926/27-1937). Murray does not talk about a 99A 26" anywhere that I see.

... so I'm confused, are these different models. Trying to figure why Murray would specifically call out a 99A Featherweight 24", but I don't see it addressed anywhere in David's book.

When in doubt,get a letter. [img:center][/img] [img:center][/img]

This is an ongoing point of contention with Murray's.

For some reason he kept the 1899A going until 1926, long after all the other models had switched to being "99's". The 99B started in 1921, but the 1899A continued to 1926?

It makes no sense, though I'm sure he ran across some sources which made it sound correct back in the 80's.

So nowadays, we usually refer to anything from 1921 and onwards as "99".

Back then it wouldn't have been confusing, because the model "1899A" as we know it NEVER EXISTED. The model letter A was coined by Murray based on the telegraph code for the rifle with a crescent buttplate, 26" round barrel, and straight stock.

We talked about this a little a couple weeks ago. For some reason Murray started with the 99B on page 3-33, then skipped to 3-50-51 for the 99A. On 3-32 he has the standard weight 26" barrel in the top picture and the New 99A 24" barrel in the bottom picture. Then jumps ahead to 3-50 with just the one picture of a 99A with 24" barrel. Yep, I'm confused too, Joe.

Whoops, Rory beat me to it. I'm a little less confused. I might not be able to prove it, but at least I think I am, Joe.

Joe I'm a little confused about what you're saying. Or if you're confused, I think I have it straight. If Rory's confused, then we have a real problem.

The model 1899A never existed prior to the 1980's when Murray named them.

So how could it have continued up to 1926 while the 99B started in 1921?

So, I think I understand it now: Call them 99A and 99B, both starting in 1920/21ish, with 26" barrels. Then, in 1926/27 both changed from 26" to 24" barrels (and that 99A 24" barrel that Murrayy talks about would be the same 24" rifle).

If y'all want to know where the confusion originall stems from, I can tell ya.

Since the 1899's never had model names for the most part (250-3000, Monarch, Leader, etc. beside the point) - in the early 1920's the advertising from Savage would refer to the new models with either 1899 OR 99 in front of it. So the 1922 price list shows 1899A, 1899B, 1899C, 1899D, 1899E, 1899F, etc.

It was just advertising, nobody was confused. If you said 1899C in 1924, everybody knew you meant what we call a 99C because there had never been a model 1899C. Just like nobody back in the 20's was confused by Savage stamping "Savage Model 1899" on top of the receiver. Of course it was an 1899 - and it was a 99.

But think how confusing it would be now if we tried to go with "early 1899 models", "transitional 1899 models", and "99 models". Ugh.

So for the new stuff, we just call them all 99's so that we know when somebody says 1899C that he's talking 26" round/octagon barrel, not a 1920-1923'ish 22" round barrel rifle.

Just to confuse y'all again.

Who's on first?

Murray, with #99, Royal, coming to the plate.

Can I be blunt? Murray was wrong to call the 26" round barrel crescent BP an 1899A until the change to the 24" medium weight barrel in 1926. Savage advertising from about 1921 on called the models 99A, 99B, 99C, 99D, 99E, 99F, 99G. They didn't call them 1899A, 99B, 99C, 99D, etc. The 18 was gone from the model designation. All models were 99's! There were two variations of the 99A, a 26" rifle weight barrel made from 1921-26 and a 24" medium weight barrel rifle made from about 1926 to 1936.
In a related topic Murray refers to barrels introduced in 1926 as lightweight or featherweight barrels in some places and in other places as medium weight. The Savage advertising in this era refers to these barrels as lightweight. All the 99 barrels were the same diameter and taper and therefore, medium weight barrels until the 99F was introduced in 1955. They were somewhat heavier than the true lightweight barrels produced from 1904 to 1926 in such models as the 1899H, 1899 250-3000, 99E, 99F and 99G. See Table 5-4 on page 67 and Figure 5-14 on page 68 of my book. Did I hit a home run? David

Technically not absolutely true. From 1920 thru 1923 or so there was a mishmash of 99 and 1899 nomenclature used in ads, and I had a 1922 price list which listed all the models as 1899's (1899A, 1899B, 1899C, 1899D, etc).

It would be simpler if it was true that they stopped using 1899, but it's not true. Nothing about Savage is easy. This is why I quit fretting about whether something was a late 1899 or an early 99 several years ago.


We'll call it a triple.

1922 ad referring to the Savage Model '99 lever action...

https://books.google.com/books?id=X...vage%20arms%22%20lever%2099A&f=false

Mishmash...

The way I see this. And I know it's wrong. Is them rifles came b 4 the book. If Savage arms stamped an 1899 ON THE BARREL B 4 they got sold. Then some book came out 20,30 ,40 ,50 years later calling them mistakenly stamped model 99's. I think they were miss named by the book NOT mistakenly stamped on the barrel.

I don't think anything with Savage is all the clean and easy because I'm certain that keeping historic record straightened out wasn't a high priority when they were designating models. They were selling a product not creating a museum and sometimes just knowing the basic configuration and year of manufacture of a given a rifle is good enough. At least it is for me.

Maybe it didn't matter to Savage whether the 99's were called 1899's or 99's, for example, the receiver rings stamped 1899 until 1926. It's also interesting and confusing that some of the 1921-22 literature used the 1899A, 1899B, etc designations. Maybe Murray extrapolated this designation back to cover all rifles made from 1899 on. I wonder sometimes if no one else wrote another book before I wrote mine on the 99 because of all the confusion surrounding them.
Thanks for awarding me a triple Rory. It's tough to get a home run with all those obstacles out there.
David

Take it with a grain of salt I guess, for rifles of this time period.
I offered up #221xxx as a newbie, crescent butt, 26" rnd, T/D. Some forum banter occured, 1899 vs. 99, etc.
I got schooled by a member that what mattered is what the ledgers say.
So I requested a factory letter and it came back as 1899B and I reported it here.
Next I am informed by another forum member that the factory letter was wrong. Pass the salt please,.....

That's my opinion. Since there had never been a model 1899F catalogued by Savage up to 1921, nobody at Savage was going to be confused if you called it an 1899F or a 99F.


I think this mishmash of 1899 versus 99 and 1899 stamps is why Murray has the 99 models starting at different serial numbers. Remember he researched and wrote his book before the internet, MUCH harder to find information out there back then. He did an outstanding job and made our job so much easier than it would be otherwise, it's just that in 30 years more data has come to light.

Heck, we're still trying to figure out the MP stamps.


Ledger may say 1899B... since Savage used 1899 AND 99 in their literature for the first couple years in the 20's. But the rifle would be what "we" and all the books on 99's call a 99B, and in all aspects would be exactly the same as a rifle in the ledger a year or two later that said 99B. But try to sell it to another collector as an 1899B and it probably wouldn't go well. I'd describe it as "factory letter called it a model 1899B, but it's what all the books call a 99B".


This talk on "transition" rifles dates back a loooooong time. And will continue. I'm probably the only one who's totally made up their mind.