I can't put too much time in right now but I'll give a quick jest of what I'm up to .
I read a long back post on barrel lengths on early rifles and thought it may be of interest that this one has a 22" barrel , uncommon ? I don't know .
Like the seller at the time said , rough condition . There won't be pictures today , it's not raining and in SouthEast Alaska we take advantage of that.

Savage 1895 , Serial number 4852 , 22" barrel , SRC , complete but well worked over .

I speak google just fine but am coming up short on finding a hammer retractor spring .
Thanks and I see some here like to keep record on such matters so I hope this helps.

Tom

What’s it chambered in? 😎

303 Savage

25-35 WCF , I wish .

Any here have an approximate number that were manufactured in 1896 or 1897 . Those are the years I find on the internet that this one was made .

22" is normal 1895 SRC barrel length. They went to 20" with the introduction of the 1899's. And they shortened the leftover (last 3) 1895 SRC's to 20", installed 1899 bolts and sent them out of the US. Mine came from Canada and KIWI has one.

The 1897 catalog shows both 20" and 22" barreled carbines.

I don't think it's safe to say that they shortened leftover carbines to 20" when they were actively marketing them. That may be true for some, doubtful it's true for all.

Probably better to say that early carbines were 22", and later carbines could be 22" or 20".

Well, thank you guys for any information on this old rifle . There seems to be about nil on the internet .
I have a situation , when the lever is activated and the bolt is all to the rear , fine . When trying to close the lever the bolt retractor stays in the down position
and hits the sear screw . I can't find any exploded view or pictures of a 1895 bolt so I have no idea what is missing and preventing the retractor from popping back up .
On a side note Wyoming , do you have a picture of your sights ?
I'll be in and out today , putting taters in the ground while there's no rain .

Be safe

Here is a couple of pics of the hammer retractor spring for the 1899. Very, very hard to find. I resorted to making them from a safety pin. You can email me at [email protected]

That's a good one , I like it . The one I have has almost no clearance on the sides of the retractor .
On top of the retractor is a 90 degree cut that looks to hold a flat spring that pushes on retractor and bolt body .
I'm leaning toward the idea it would look similar ( sort of ) to an ejector spring on a Marlin and held by a 90 bend in the slot . One of these days I'll see a picture ?
Thank you for your time .

Tom

It might be the same as shown in the early patents drawings, a small V spring, it just has to be strong enough to hold the heavier front end of the retractor up, you might have already found out if the gun is operated upside down it will work without the spring.



ADDED - I have to make a spring for an 1895 in the mid 5000 serial range, it takes one like Lightfoot pictured. It has a 'spring', but it's not made from spring steel, so it's no better than not having one. I'll do that today & post pictures.

That's the one I envisioned , thank you for that picture . Gene , you made my morning . I'm going to try to fashion one by folding over an ejector spring .
And yes , it does cycle upside down . Wow , Thanks guys .

Tom

I don't know where I got that info about the barrel being shortened in 1899. It's not in the JTC letter. Newhouse, I'll get pics of the sights and post them.

That's good of all of you . I haven't any books on Savage and never had an 1895 Savage and after a few more posts I'm going to start feeling I'm taking more than giving .
Which that said Wyo18 , take your time . The rear ladder sight on this one has the look of a toy compared to the ladder sight on a Winchester I have here .
And the front sight is sure no Sheard.

Tom

Here's the parts list from the 1897 catalog, part #20.


The hammer retractor in this 1895 is the later type and I think it could be a replacement. That would explain some other issue with this gun. The lever was bent when I got it so it hit the stock before the action was fully closed - if the spring is broken the upper prong on the retractor will catch below center on the sear screw and block the action from closing, if you beat on the lever trying to close it you will bend the lever and possibly break the prong off the retractor, that might be what happend.

Anyway, here is the newer type spring, the old one was made from plain wire and had no spring action at all.



The middle picture shows it without a spring with the hammer not retracted. (I would call the parts a striker and striker retractor, since the gun is a true hammerless, but they call it a hammer)

Thank you Gene! You have solved a puzzle that I've wondered about for years now. I ordered a hammer retractor from Numrich and received that early 1895 style. I still have it since it was a mystery how it was supposed to fit. I have that parts diagram but never looked close enough to see that spring.

Anyone need an 1895 hammer retractor??

Yes indeed , Thank you Gene . The hammer retractor I have is like in the drawings . Slightly different shape to the rear and no hole drilled .
That little V shaped spring I'm missing , I swear I've seen a similar looking shape , close enough to work with and file down .

Lightfoot , I'll buy it . If it's the old style , no hole.

Send an email to [email protected]

Good man .

It was a theory going around when a couple of 20" barreled SRC's came back as lettered fairly late. That they'd been cut down to match the length of 1899 SRC's.

But I don't think we'd seen the 1897 catalog product offerings at that point. So it was a reasonable theory, but I think the 1897 catalog really hurts it.

Has anyone seen an 1895 SRC with a 20 inch barrel that does not have an 1899 bolt serial numbered to match the 1895 frame? These specific variations also have a dovetailed front sight not the post shown in the older prints. Years back I shared measurements with Dick (??) who had a collection of 1895s and the 20 inch carbine barrels on 1895 frames were identical in diameter to the 22 inch barrels at the 20 inch mark. So many questions to which we will probably never really know the answers.

Tom, no need to apologize for taking more than you are giving. You are giving more than you know, both by simply opening the discussion and by raising specific points. Those who are giving to you are at the same time giving to a larger audience. We all benefit.

Thank you.

Well said! That has always been my feeling in participating here. On rare occasions we get a visit from a hammerhead but most are just folks looking for help.

I have gone from knowing nothing to next to nothing from everyone's discussions over the years!

20 plus years here and we never seem to run out of new things to learn.

If we quit ;earning we might as well be dead.

Norm