Can anybody tell me where I can get a brass-rotary-mag for my Savage 99?

I need one in .243.

I saw one on GB for a .250 and am wondering if they are inter-changeable.

Thanks for any input!

I'm not an expert by any means on the 99. There are some here that may chime in. My guess, and it's a guess, would be that the .243 would have the same rotor as a .308 since they share the same case. I know nothing about the case specs. for the .250

I'm not an expert on this, but I wouldn't think it would be likely. The internal dimensions on the receivers were changed for the 243/308/358 cartridges, and I'm not sure the average 250 spool would fit. And even if the spool did fit, not sure the case dimension differences would allow proper loading and feeding.

Keep an eye out and eventually you'll see somebody parting out a 243.

What's the SN range of your gun?

Are you replacing a faulty rotor or doing some conversion?

You could probably sub a .308 rotor for a .243 and it would work fine.

773,xxx is the serial number.

Does not appear to be a malfunction. I think it has the wrong rotor in it.

Is that something anybody has heard of?

Waiting for one of you newbies to pipe up what is wrong here. Pretty simple if you have been paying attention.

Blair

have you annilised the malfuntion

EXPLAIN PLEASE

Win calibers didn't start til 9xxxxx...Best,Newb.

So you know the answer but are waiting for somebody else (a "newbie") to enlighten us? The suspense is killing me......Not.

Are you thinking somebody screwed a different barrel on this gun?

Ok, given all the information above, assuming its true, my gun has the wrong barrel on it.

What are my options?

Replace barrel or can I simply put a .243 rotor in it?

Glad it was given to me and I did not pay for it. . . . . .

What if I had a letter from the factor saying it was legit? What then does that tell us?????

Yep.

silly question but does a 243 round fit in the chamber?????????????????????

Yes it does.

And the barrel looks to be less worn than the receiver, though that is not uncommon.

So then, is there any doubt? Are you all assuming that a different barrel has been spun onto this gun?

If so, can I revert it by putting a .243 rotor in it, or will the internal dimensions prevent this?

Is everybody forgetting the .243 in the 7xx,xxx range that lettered???

Savage apparently put some out there with the 'short' action in .243 and they had feeding problems from what we hear now.

When savage started chambering for the winchester calibers (after 9xx,xxx) they physically made the receiver longer. I have a 40's 300 sav rotor and an 80's 243 on my bench and the flytes of the newer rotor are about 1/4 of an inch longer, meaning the internal area must have been increased by the same amount.

Don't believe they made the receiver longer, I think they rearranged the internals of the receiver.

99FEVER, the 243/308/358 didn't start until the 900,000 series rifles. The 700,000 series were sold concurrently, but only with the 250/300 Savage cartridges. The different series had different internals.

We have seen ONE 700,000 series rifle fitted out as a 243, and it lettered as being correct. But it wouldn't load and feed properly.

I'd say yours is a bubba.. What parts are all there? Action, barrel, but missing rotor? Or missing more than that?

Rory, it is the internal area that I meant. When you look at the two receivers side by side the 900,000 + series are about a 1/8 - 1/4 of an inch longer. My 243 rotor will not fit in a pre 900,000 receiver. You can see in the picture how far the rotor will install in the cartridge counter window.



The brass rotor is a 303 sav the aluminum is a 243.



Blair

I figured that's what you meant, and great pic of the 2 rotors. That kind of says it all, right there.

shafts are the same lenght so its the cart cut off that stops it ??????????????????????????

The later model receiver do not have the wall across the back of the receiver the same as the earlier ones. So it is this wall that actuall stops the rotor from going in all the way. Also the machined area inside the receiver is longer in the newer style. I will try to get some pictures tonight.

I'd be real interested in seeing a factory letter on this one as I was the one who bought the ill-fated .243 with serial number 774,0XX that wouldn't feed. We all thought it had been re-barreled until I got the factory letter that confirmed it was indeed an early .243 with the shorter internal receiver on it. Maybe there's a few early ones that escaped the factory.

Why fix something that is not broke? I don't believe you ever said why you think it has the wrong rotor.
Or did I miss something?

The gun was probably originally either a 250 or a 300. So if somebody replaced the barrel with a 243, it probably still has the 250/300 rotor in it. The problem as I understand it is that a 243 rotor is not going to fit in that receiver. I think that is where we are at on this thing.

No doubt somebody will correct me if I am wrong!

The question really is, does the gun smoothly cycle ammo through the action the way it is? If so....leave it alone. If not....re-rebarrel it with a 250 or 300 or get rid of it.

Problem (if there even is one) solved

Just sayin'

I have seen at least 2 other 99s in teh 7xx,xxx serial range that were 243s... all were Fs. I have no idea if those guns were "right" or if one or both I saw are the ones referred to here... both were on AA as I recall. I might even have links... one had a pad on it as I recall.

Would like to see whatever you can dig up on them.

I don't think we ever found out why 99fever thought he needed another rotor did we??

OK, I just spoke to the guy I got this from.

He has (or had) a "letter" from the Savage historian on this gun.

Gun is proper from factory.

It is a factory mistake.

Receiver is supposed to be for a.250, but barrel is a .243.

So guys, lets assume this is all correct, and can be proven (based on serial numbers, etc), is this gun very collect-able as it is, or should I try and find a .250 barrel to make it right? It has the coarse-flat-top threads and the swelled area around the rear-sight dove-tail.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

Oh, and it is a savage 99F.

I don't understand that statement unless it means it has a .250 rotor instead of a .243. With the exception of the cartridge guide maybe, it would be the same parts.

I still don't know what problem you are trying to solve.

Does it feed and extract OK?

Does it fire when you pull the trigger?

Help us out here.

If it works just leave it alone.

Like Lightfoot said, what exactly is the problem? You're trying too hard.

If it ain't broke...don't fix it.

Just sayin

And the fact that some dope at the factory screwed a 243 barrel on a 250/300 receiver don't make it anymore valuable.

Can't speak for the other guys, but at least not to me.

243 shooter F's are dime a dozen

Post mil 99s used the same carrier for .243, 250-3000, .300 and .308. Don't know about earlier 99s although pre-war most carriers were cartridge specific. A post mil carrier should fit a pre-mil factory long carrier action.

Should have mentioned that if its a proper pre 900,000 receiver for 250-3000 then its too short internally for a .243 carrier.

Yes, George sort of...

The factory did build some .243s on the 7xx,xxx receivers so one would think they put .243 rotors in them, and, they oughta work or they shouldn't have sold them in the first place.

Were they properly done like the 900,000+ receivers with the web machined out and that piece of crap stamped metal piece holding the rear of the carrier spindle? If not then they had too be to short internally to be right. Prototypes that were serialed and let out the door maybe?

I've never owned one because I thought they were counterfeit specimens. When one of them lettered, we all went hmmmmmmmm.

I think they tried to fudge the .243 in as being 'close enuf' since it was a tad smaller than the quarter bore.

I'd bet the innards are just like any other 7xx,xxx gun.

Shoots fine as a single shot.

Will not accept .243 cartridges into the rotary magazine.

So, my question is, given this gun is a documented factory mistake, am I better off:

1) keeping it as is, due to collect-a-bility being a factory mistake?

2) Put a .250 barrel on it.

3) Adjust the "internal" mechanisms and try to make it function as a .243.

I appreciate the input of you all.

Thanks!

Honestly, all of your options do not look good... 3 will be too difficult, 2 will be impossible to find and cost $$$$, 1 does not seem realistic but maybe if the letter really states that the gun was built that way and the factory let it leave like that.... But I doubt that is true

I'd sure like to see that factory letter! I find it hard to believe the Historian declared it a factory mistake based on the details now available.

What about the .243 round doesn't fit the magazine? is it too long or what?

Seems that I need to either get the letter, or if not available from the guy I got it from, go to the historian myself.

Can anyone here give me his contact information?

Is this one guy? Is he "THE" guy, or are there multiple people?

Thanks!

One and only one.

John T. Callahan,
Savage Arms Historian
53 Old Quarry Road
Westfield, MA 01085

New prices as of 12/1/2006:

Savage 1895's, 1899's and 99's are $30.00

Other Savages are $25.00.

Stevens are $20.00.

A.H. Fox Sterlingworths-$30.00.

Graded doubles are $40.00.

Send serial number and details of the item, allow 5-6 weeks for delivery.

Make payable to John T. Callahan

NOTE: If you state that you are a "24" member and list your "24" name you can purchase the Savage 1895's, 1899's and 99's letter for $25.00 each.

NOTE: JC has requested that you not send for more than 3 letters at a time. Big orders put him behind and cause other peoples requests to set so that they do not get answered in a timely manner. Thanks.

As I understand it the barrel that is currently on the gun does not have "Model-99F" stamped on the right hand side of the barrel.

What do you all make off that?

Don't smell right to me.

That's what we've seen on the other one though. Test fired at the factory fine as a single shot, but the 243 is too long to fit into the mag.

Thanks so much for the information.

So guys, if this proves to be a gun that was shipped from the factory, as is, with wrong barrel, is there any enhanced collectability?

Right now? I'd say probably not..

In the future? Very possibly might add some value.

First thing to do is see if Callahan will be nice enough to give you an idea of how many "oopses" Savage made like this. Then tack that information onto the rifle.

Kind of like the Spain 99C's.. everybody hated them because the quality sucked. Now folks are getting a bit more interested in having one in their collection.

i had some confusion on this as I thought the OP was saying that the letter states the gun left knowing it had a 250 rotor and a 243 barrel but a careful re-read says its a 250 receiver.

It would be intersting to compare a standard 250 in the 77xxxx range, this gun, and a 900,xxx 243 in terms of the internal parts.

I just can not fathom the factory engineers would not design a different rotor for the 243 even if in the early sized receiver and not at some point test to ensure it worked. Now maybe it only works with the certain shell/ bullet combination that was used at the factory and many modern loads have OAL that won't work, I could understand that. And I could understand it not working terribly well and being a little "tight" maybe but I really struggle to believe that the Company built multiples of this gun with out ever testing that the rotors would work, it just does not seem plausible.

I'd like to see why shells are not being accepted in the magazine. I have some guns that I routinely have a little trouble loading the magazine if I don't put the bullet in the magazine in a certain manner.

Even if true, I would have no desire to own it but then again I sold off a beautiful example of the Spain gun ... I could see where a big collector would be interested if the gun was in good condition and factory documented to have been built that way.

to me factory mistakes are something liks coin mint mistakes eventually they are worth more when documented,