Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors 99 ACCURACY QUESTION

In general with all else being equal are the take down models less accurate than the fixed barrel rifles ?

Common sense would tell me yes although I have no proof or expertise in takedown vs solid frame accuracy.

Most gun owners in the old days were very happy if they could consistently hit deer with their rifles. That was accurate enough for them. In general they weren't as anal as modern gun owners are about MOA accuracy.

I remember when I was a kid the men I hunted with would put a mark on a tree with a knife or hatchet. Back up 25 or 30 steps and take an off hand shot at the mark. If it was even close.........the gun was sighted in and it was time to go hunting.

I think it's all pretty circumstantial. I've got a G that shoots just as well as my EGs do. 300 Savage with my handloads and a Lightfoot mount with an old Refield 2-7X.

how can you possible make a real assertion on this with the guns in question be is now over 70 years old... too many contributing factors to be able to say much of anything.

some do, some don't, probably more influence by operator.

Just a very small sample, with factory ammo my 25/35 1899H take down shoots about as good as my 99 EG 300. That's off a bench at 50 yds.

The 'all else being equal' bit is the kicker. One would have to acquire a suitably large sampling of different calibers in similar guns, both solid and takedown frames, from the same year (or better yet, the same week/month) of production-- all of them absolutely new-in-box and unfired, and stored for the last 90 years in the same environment. Then, and only then, would any comparison tests hold even a soup�on of validity.

Any takers?


That said, as some of you know I am mostly interested in pre-war takedowns and find my modest sampling to provide all the accuracy I could want, given the type guns they are and what they were intended for. Do they match my prized bolt guns for accuracy? No, not quite, but they do hold their own with the couple of solid framed 99's that were/are in and out of my hands.

The only comparison I have to offer is (all with individual gun-tuned reloads);
- a 1918 250-3000 take down that I could not get to group under 2" at 100 yds with anything
- a 1932 H (in 250) best groups about 1-1/4" with 70g sierra BK
- a 1948 EG (250) groups under 1" on good days with 75g v-max

but I have a 1958 F in 243 that will do 3/4" groups with factory hornady 75g HP

My experience has been that 99's shoot better with light-for-caliber bullets.

THANK YOU ALL !!! for your input

I just finished working up some loads for my 1923 99g .250

consistently shooting 3 shot groups under an inch once I found the right recipe. If I do my part I can get them all touching. I just picked this gun up a few months ago and needless to say. This was a VERY pleasant surprise.

I don't know how you could tell. Getting a representative sample would be a tough deal. They are not as rigid certainly but it is more about repeatability than rigidity.

My TD sample is an 1899 1917 250-300 that is a 1.5-2.5 in three shot grouper with 100 grain loads and a 3/4 inch grouper with 87 grain Speer Hot Core handloads. You do have to be a little careful where and how you rest the forend to manage those but it is repeatable.

FWIW

I had a 50's era .300 Savage 99R. It was a 1 1/2 or better rifle with 150 grain Hornadys and Ball C2.

I had a 70's era rifle a 99E in .308 that I never got to shoot much under 2" with anything I tried.