Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Model 1909 .22 Rifle. NEW PIC'S

Hi All; I just picked up a Model 1909 .22 Rifle, magazine fed Pump Action. ser # 109,1xx . wondering year made and any other stuff you guys know about them. who collects them? cant find much on the internet about it.
thanks
Jeff

Some time between April and December 1910. Should have an "A" after the serial number. A few here have one or more of these. They are a variation of the Model 1903, same mechanism, 20 round bbl instead of a 24 inch octagon and straight stock plain fore end rather than a PG stock with a grooved fore end.

Don't run into these often, post a picture.

Yes, It does have an "A" in the ser no.

Some more..

Last ones..

Thanks rustywrench. That is a good example of these rifles. Is your rear sight marked? If you shoot this you'll soon discover that the sight design allows raising it but not lowering it. Of course mine shoots high.

BTW, if you shoot the 1909, use only target or standard velocity ammo. Not made to use HV or the hyper stuff.

Thanks for the info Steve. No, the rear sight has no markings on it. I will shoot it, but dont think it will be so great as the bore looks like an old iron pipe inside. possibly thinking about having it lined, but not if there is a collector value. I picked this gun up at Cabela's off their used rack for $119.99 plus tax. I figured as a wall hanger anyway , neat little gun.

Just remember that these old rifles were produced before high velocity ammo. Stick with Standards or CB's. CCI Standard Velocity (1080fps) is a very good round. Also, the new CCI Quiet22 LR(710fps) group much better than any of the others CB's that I've shot and they are cheaper.

It will part out for more than you paid. Good buy!

RW,

You didn't get hurt there moneywise. As Rick said, the parts are worth more than that. Enjoy.

At little info on them for you - the 1909 first shows up on a loose insert page for catalog #24 - page 16B, and is no longer listed in catalog #50, which I think is the first to have the "NEW 22 SAVAGE AUTOMATIC RIFLE" model 1912. This suggests a production run of less than 4 years.

Here is an early brochure -

Going by the SN spreadsheet, there are 29 1909 rifles included with 2 that are lettered, both to 1910. The increment between the two is aprox 7,000. Interesting that the 29 1909's are uninterrupted by any 1903 SN rifles, so far.

Not a large sample but it makes me wonder if the 1909's were produced all in one run.

Sales recordes show Savage would make a large run of a new model to "stock the shelves". Then follow with production based on sales. The info I have does not start till 1912. sales from 1912 through 1915 were about 3000 units. Since the 1909 was serialed with the 1903 we will never know what total production was.

Rick

The dates I used from the sheet are warehouse acceptance dates. I had mine lettered and it was accepted in December 1910 and shipped in August 1911. The other date I have is just the warehouse acceptance date. From old posts here no doubt on someone's rifle.

Wouldn't the A suffix define the 1909's from the 1903's in JTC's books?

Did some arithmetic, subtracted the first recorded 1909 from the last 1903 recorded = about 530 units between the two.

First to last recorded 1909 = 11071 units

Your 3000 +/- from 1912 thru 1915.

So maybe 16,000 give or take.

Steve, Rick; Just looking at the data I see one of the higher numbered 1909's listed as having the 2nd type ejector, if this is correct it suggests a continued production using a group of serial numbers set aside for the 1909s. Is there anyway to confirm that 1909 as having the 2nd type ejector? I can confirm 2 1903�s with the 1st type ejector that have higher numbers � both in the 120,000�s. I really did not expect a 1909 to have the 2nd type.

The style of ejector is one thing I seem to forget to look for, I do not know exactly when it was changed but all 1909's I can confirm have the 1st type, these are all lower in serial number than the one noted as having the 2nd type; all 1912's I have seen have the 2nd type.

I looked through all the pictures of 1909�s I have and none have the 2nd type ejector.

For anyone with a 1909 who doesn�t know what to look for �

Mine is a 1st...1108xxA

16,000 is probably a good guess.

Steve, Rick, Gene; Thanks for all the good information. I looked my rifle over more, serial number on buttplate, stock, inside of action and outside, all match. not sure if its on forearm, didnt take that apart. ser no. 109197A First type.
Do you think I should get it Lettered?

Jeff aka Rustywrench

GeneB,

I see that entry, never noticed it either. I wonder if that maybe isn't a mule. This rifle is the one that's been on GB forever with a bolt thru the wrist. Definately shows the screw though.

The highest number I have is 112500A but no dates for it.

Mine is 110740A, first type. Letter indicates it was returned to the factory and resold in December 1913. Too many of these will skew any count.

Jeff, regarding a factory letter, it's up to you. You just don't know what info you'll get aside from acceptance and ship dates. If you do letter it we'd like to know what you received, if you don't mind.

BTW

I checked back and the other dated 1909 is from a post from Phil in 2002. It's one of his rifles.

Anyone know what happened to Phil?

Steve; I checked that 1909 on GB, 112360A, and it has the 2nd type ejector and since the serial number is on the same half of the receiver, I think that confirms it. I also went back and double checked two 1903's, 1214xx and 121467 (my GH), and they both have the 1st type ejector.

This and the fact that we find no 1903's in with the 1909's suggest to me the possibilty that a block of numbers were set aside just for the 1909's and later production guns will have lower numbers than 1903's of the same production period. If this is the case then the estimated production based on serial numbers would already include the 1912 to 1915 production figures Rick has and they should not be added in again.

The possibility of double counting ocurred to me too, especially if a block were set aside as our sample seems to indicate when considered with Rick's information.

We need more data.