Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 99 vs. BLR

Well, Jeff, I'll have to say that you're the first person I've ever heard of that doesn't like the looks of the Savage 99. Thank GOD I'm not alone! If the 99 is "graceful"...then I must've been born in the wrong era, cause it's looks just about make me barf.

+1

I usually don't get into these kinds of discussions, but I think you had to grow up using a 99 to like the looks.

It does nothing for me looks-wise, and I can't like the mechanical design much either.

I have only owned one of them (for about 2 days).


_

This is kinda like fightin' over two ugly girls at closing time ain't it?

Of the two, the 99 is easily the one I'd take home. The first big game rifle my dad bought me was a 99. A 308 that is a pretty quick handler that fits me well. It has taken a ----load of antelope in both my hands, as well as my great aunt's. For some reason it hasn't been lucky on deer, but my aunt killed a 5 point bull elk with it (at age 82 !!). This 308 makes for a total of 5 model 99's in my extended family-the rest are 300's.

BLR's look like a poor attempt at making a modern rifle look ninteenth century. Where as the Savage Model 1899-99 were a nineteenth century gun that was so far ahead of their time that we loonies are discussing their merits to this day!!!

OH YA !! Merry Christmas to all you guys and best wishes for a happy New Year.

I have the following

Savage 99 A, .308Win, series A, tang safety
Savage 99 358Win., tang safety
Browning, BLR, Belgium, .308Win
Winchester, 88, .308Win

I have used them all on game Deer, Goats, Kangaroo's, Pigs they are all great rifles but the one that handles just right for me is the Savage 99 in .358W , the next is the Browning BLR, then Savage 99 in .308W different stock to the 358, then Winchester 88
I am even thinking of getting a stock made up for the 99 in .308 to replicate the 358 stock, so for me the Savage is the go to gun

smle

Is there anyone out there that owns a long-action BLR? If so, I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm calling your baby ugly, but. . .

About 12 years ago I was thumbing through a distributor catalog and came across the listing for the long action BLR. I was thinking a 30-06 would do me just fine. I went out to the store and asked if they had one. The fellow produced one in 30-06 and handed it to me. Frankly, I've never been so viscerally put off by a sporting rifle. It was heavy, unbalanced, ungainly, and downright weird. My impression was that it was built for a guy much larger than me. However, I was 6'4"/250 at the time. On top of it all, it was quite expensive. I handed it back to the guy who kind of smiled.

"Yep," he said. "They're not everyone's taste."

Well, that dream got dashed. After years of trolling around, I finally settled on a Savage 99 in 308 Win and it quickly became my favorite deer rifle.

Although they kinda look the same in print, there's a tremendous difference in the actual looks and handling of the short vs. long action BLRs.
Shaman, you're right - the long action BLR just doesn't feel right.
As much as I love the .270 as an all-round cartridge, I'm going to have to go with a 7mm-08 in the BLR in order to stick with the short action.

or in 270 wsm ???!!!

Perhaps, ruger. I've heard that the recoil of the .270WSM is even more than the .270 and throat erosion is much worse. I'm not sure yet.

I would say that it is pretty much universally agreed upon that the long action BLRs are not really anyones favourite gun!

Anyone have any likes or dislikes in regards to iron sights that can be found on both guns?

A Savage 99F .358 Win. has been my go-to woods rifle since 1966. I don't take to that Browning rifle.

I see the 99 as a classic.

Here is that old 99 at the range. Its the second one from the bottom.

I have only handled one long action BLR. It was a 300 win mag. It was HORRIBLE. Too big. And I'm almost 6'4" and about 205lbs.

Yup the long action BLRS feel incredibly awkard. The short action on the other hand fits me just right. I like the iron sights on the BLR. Seemed fine for shots on deer sized critters out to 150yds (just my personal limit, someone better at using irons could probably stretch that out a bit)

I've always admired the Savage Model 99 from the time that, 'way back in '62, I noticed an old "sourdough" type hunter had one laying near his campfire deep in the mountains of Colorado. He looked as if he was born in those mountains and his rifle was merely an "extension" of himself.

Then, my kids and my bestest hunting buddy gave me a "like-new" Model 99 (a 1953 EG in .300 Savage caliber out of a deceased man's "rifle collection") as a birthday gift when I mentioned to one of my sons that I was going to "retire" my pre-'64 Model 70 in .338 Win. Magnum because it kicked too hard to shoot more than a dozen or so rounds off the "bench"... and that I enjoyed shooting a centerfire more than a "dozen times" or so before the rifle started beating me to death.

After I got the Model 99, I began to "appreciate" it's handling and looks more than I had previously... although I thought it was a bit heavy and the 3-9x by 40mm scope that came on it looked a little "too big" for the size and slick lines of the rifle. A smaller scope would look better, but I liked the extra power of the 9x setting.

I worked up a fine and very accurate hunting load for the "99", but it's weight (9� pounds including the scope, sling and 5 rounds of ammo) still seems too heavy... but it was still a whole pound lighter than the Model 70 @ 10� lbs that I had carried up moutains and packed through the woods for the previous 35 years or so.

As the years passed, I noticed the BLR in ads... and something about it made it look "ugly" to me... maybe it was that big receiver... but the outside hammer didn't bother me and I never handled one, so I can't comment on the trigger's "pull" weight or the smoothness of the lever.

I'm an older hunter now... and 'most everything I have and "like" is also "older"... so I tend to like "old" things 'cause they seem to be built better (more substantial) and more "solid" as well as of better quality than the new stuff.

I have to admit that I "like" the idea of using the almost 90-year-old .300 Savage cartridge which was introduced in 1920 by Arthur Savage in his Model 99... it was the "short magnum" of it's day which duplicated the ballistics of the then-.30/06 cartridge, but in a much shorter, cut-down .30/06 cartridge case.

And, let's face it... set to hit 2.75 inches high at 100 yards & loaded with a 150 grain bullet, my original hunting load consisting of 41.5 grains of IMR4895 and a 150 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet @ 2685 fps gave the .300 Savage cartridge a point-blank-range (wherein the bullet didn't rise or fall more than 3-inches above or below the line-of-sight) of 300 yards... 50 yards further than my own self-imposed range limit of 250 yards.

And so, for the past many years, I've hunted with the Model 99... and those 9� pounds tugging on the fancy, wide sling didn't really "bother" me all that much... but I would have preferred it a pound or so lighter.

The .300 Savage cartridge, even with maximum loads, was gentle off the "bench"... and yielded 3-shot groups of .75 inches or less at 100 yards. But perhaps the best part was that I could easily shoot more than 50 rounds off the bench in any given afternoon without any real discomfortable... a FAR CRY from the maximum hunting loads out of the .338 Winchester Magnum.

Sooooooooooooo... I guess I'll keep using the Model 99 for deer hunting. Nostalgia? Utility? Definitely !~!~!

It combines a classic rifle with a classic cartridge that yields "modern" ballistics and is all the "rifle & cartridge" I'll ever need since my handloads put out a 150 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip, boat-tailed bullet at a solid 2635 fps with a slightly-less-than-maximum load of H4895 rifle powder... a Hodgdon "EXTREME" powder that reportedly does NOT gain or lose any velocity due to extreme temperatures... hot or cold.

As for the BLR... it seems to get general approval here in this thread, so it is probably a nice rifle, but... to me... it's kinda "ugly".

No "flaming", please... since this is just my 2� worth and not an owner's more valid opinion of the BLR.


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Ron, hunting with a classic rifle and a classic cartridge that you can shoot well says good things about a man........even if that Savage 99 is ugly.

Livingston, the sights on the current BLRs are about as good as it gets as far as open sights are concerned, in my opinion.

Wasnt it a Savage 99 3030 that Albert Johnson carried when he was pursued up here , my grandfather hunted with one in 300 as well back in the 30*s , hard to beat a classic rifle.

Given that the two guns are equal in number of adherents judging from the responses, the case can be made that one should choose one over the other based upon one's own sense of aesthetics. As far as being efficient hunting tools, close your eyes and pick one. Open your eyes though and you'll see that the BLR was designed to capture those customers who are enamored of the old exposed-hammer Winchester/Marlin designs who want something more powerful/modern. IMO they didn't pull it off. Admittedly they do feel/fit good, but to me they just look "off." A 99 looks right at home alongside Winchesters (lever and bolt), Mannlicher-Schoenaur's, classic Mauser and Springfield sporters, classic double barrel shotguns, etc. Just my opinion, probably not yours. If a person is into stainless/plastic bolt guns and camo-flavored autoloading shotguns, then the BLR is the lever gun for him. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. It's all good.

Debates such as this have kept the gun makers in business and the gun rags in print for well over a century. Aint it great!?

I believe you hit the nail on the head there, gnoahhh. That's exactly why I started looking into the BLR.
I DO admit that the BLR looks a bit "off" as you say. But, to me, no more "off" than the 99. They both border on being "fugly" as far as I'm concerned.