Anybody know where I can get one?

Needs to fit a 99F, and must have that swelled area just under the dovetail for rear sight. I think they call it a "boss", the swell in the barrel there?

I am going to re-barrel that 243 that has the wrong barrel on a 250 gun. I will first send the info to the research guy to confirm that it is factory mistake.

Unless you guys think it has more value as a documented factory mistake?

Again, anybody know where I can get one of these, from a parts gun or something?

Thanks!

If you think you are going to get documentation that it's a 'factory mistake' I'd like to talk to you about a bridge I have for sale.

Get it lettered before you do anything.

Trying to convert it is just good money after bad. Think about it...

If you were a handloader you could make cartridges that would fit it and that would be that. If you can't make good use of it, sell it and move on. Please...

Is that the one from Ralph?

It seems to me that loose 99F 250-3000 barrels are as common as the mythical needles in haystacks and hens teeth. I've had loose 250-3000 barrels from 99As, 99CDs, 99Gs, and 99Rs, but the only loose 99F barrels that I've ever had have been 243s, 300s, 308s, and 358s.

What do you mean by "that 243 that has the wrong barrel on a 250 gun"? Savage marked the cartridge the rifle was chambered for on the barrel, so a 243 barrel make it a 243 "gun" and a 250-3000 barrel makes it a 250-3000 "gun". Or am I missing something?

JEff

Sqweeler, yes, its the one from Ralph.

I want to use the gun, and it won't feed the .243 cartridges. Ralph can't find the letter that he received from the Historian. But, he says the letter confirmed it was a factory mistake. I don't want to sell the gun, and would not given it is not right. Everybody here seems to doubt that it was a factory mistake, but if Ralph says it is so, I am sure it is as he says.

How do you know Ralph? He is a great guy.

Send it back to Ralph for a refund.

You fell for that BS line??? Oh boy.
My bridge is better than the one listed above.

I guess you don't know Ralph, and you should not shoot your mouth off without knowing him.

First of all, Ralph gave me the gun.

He is a man of integrity. If he got a letter saying so, I would bet it is true. When I get it, I will post it here.

This ought to be good !!!!!!

It's funny how certain gun's and discussion's pop up year's later.There's an old thread or two about that gun buried somewhere.Here's a copy of the letter. http://photobucket.com/sqweeler i5...It's most likely a 243 bbl. on a 300Sav gun if you can get 243 ammo to go in the rotor as 243 probably won't go in a 250.That's why these letter's sometimes can be a crock of chit.It say's they lenghtened the actions for243-308-358 in 1957,but your 243 was shipped May,56.As Sarah Palin said..WTF

Thank you sqweeler!

Jed 1899, how would you like your Crow served? Suggest raw, with feathers to act as fiber!

OK, lets see where this leaves us:
It is a 99F.
Shipped in Spring 1956, but probably actually manufactured in late 1955.
It was made as a .243, in 1955/56.
.243 was introduced in 1957 for the Savage 99, and required the receiver to have more length, inside, to fit the .243, etc.
So this gun was shipped as a .243, serial numbers prove it, but the receiver actually is for a (prob) 300 savage. (Factory mistake)
And, it seems to have done this 2 years before the 99F was released in the .243? (Not sure about this part).

So, unless I read this all wrong, this documents a factory mistake.

Input is appreciated.

Lastly, Jed 1899, that might taste a bit better with some Ketchup on it. . . . . .

I know Jed and I know Ralph. When it comes to Savage 99s, doubting Jed's word is about the worst bet that I can think of. OTOH, if Ralph gave it to you, you're not out anything and if you can get JTC to confirm what you've been told, you've got a documented factory "oops" that might bring big $$ someday. When it comes to Savage, never say never.

JEff

Thanks for the input Jeff.

Given the letter that was posted here, don't you think that we already have it documented?

What more can be said?

I didn't see the letter.

I guess that anytime you get something for nothing you've got yourself a deal.

JEff

Personally, I wouldn't pay anything extra for it. But to each his own. Actually, the fact that the rifle won't feed cartridges correctly seems like something one would pay less for rather than more for. The fact that it was a factory error still doesn't mean the rifle will feed cartridges.

True, but it would be good if it could function beyond a single-shot.

I looked at some old threads here from Aug 2007. Seems that the feeling is that it is collectable, to some, and effort by those with more knowledge on the subject gave up.

There was one comment about loading a small grain bullet, that caused the overall cartridge to be shorter. Any thoughts there?

A 75 grain 243, seated deep? Wonder how accurate it would be given it would seat far short of the rifling?

Thoughts?

I would load up some dummy rounds with a short bullet and deep seat them like you describe. That should tell you quick enough if they will cycle through the action. I agree that trying to find a .250 barrel that would be correct for it would be tough. And I will say that with the documentation you have on the rifle, it might be collectable to some. Best case scenario is you can somehow make it work through handloading. You would have a serviceable rifle and it would stay the way Savage shipped it.

So if my attempt to hand-load short .243's works, I think my options are:

1) Shoot the gun with short .243's.
2) Find the proper .300 barrel and spin it on.
3) Find the proper .250 barrel and spin it on.

At least with these options its a shooter, and the gun is in very good shape.

I think you dwell on things to much!!! get a copy of the letter, put it with the rifle, in a safe, closet or somewhere and use a gun that works !!!!! JMO. Don

I agree with you Don but I would be probably be dwelling on it a similar amount It does occur to me that if he found a .250 or .300 barrel, he could always put the original barrel back on and no harm would be done - depending on how hard he hunted it

I'm not sure but I don't think a 243 or 308 would work in a 250 rotor.If the gun accepts a 243 in the rotor it's most likely a 300Sav [bleep].

So if that is the case, and i do want to re-barrel it, I should be looking for a 300 Sav barrel?

I am not much for wall-hangers or guns that are put in a safe or a closet. My 99's all look primo, and I do shoot them, but gently. I use a 75th Anniv in 308 as my newest hunting gun. Except that it is a bit clunky, and heavy, it is a nice conversation piece.

I am thinking of taking he crescent butt-plate, and the gaudy brass-coated lever, and having Doug Turnbull case-color them, so it does not look like a gun that a pimp would use any more.

I don't care if it makes it not collectable to somebody else. I want to use it and have it look good. Hell, my kids will no doubt split up my friggin collection any way (someday), and if I am lucky, they won't sell it off in pieces so they can buy video games. Ouch!

You are correct, we only have custody of them for a while.

Regarding Squeeler's comments, note that he mentions the .243 does not work correctly in the rotor. The degree to which it does not work is unclear to me.

Can an entire magazine full be loaded?

Not sure but it might be like trying a 284 case in a 308 rotor,probaly a no go.I tried different combinations when this topic came up years ago when I had guns of most of these calibers,but I forgot what worked and what didn't.Have fun.Being it's a 250 or 300 the machined slot in the receiver for the ejector will not accept a 308 or 243 ejector so it's not going to work ,I remember that.

I've read through Callahan's letter a couple times. What we know for sure is the rifle was shipped in May, 1956 and the .243 was introduced in the M99F in 1956. It is pure speculation that it may have been built in 1955.

It is also speculation that it was a factory error. The letter clearly states it was shipped as a .243.

I also think it is a leap to transfer information from a letter for a different SN rifle to the one in question.

Get it lettered and get over it.

Lightfoot, the letter IS for my gun.

It WAS made to be a.243.

At the time I described a 250 & 300 ejector to Ralph as compared to a 308 and he said it was the former.Obviously they screwed a 243 barrel on a receiver from the wrong bin.I guess when they test fire they only use one shell.

I think if it were my rifle I would sell it (and the letter) to someone who considered it collectable. And probably more than one person would consider it so.

I think it would be more accurate to state is was made as a .243; but the whole point here is that was their error vs. their intention.

The SN in the letter is different from your posts. That's a little confusing...

As to what the factory intended - I guess we will never know for sure.

Did I type it in wrong somewhere?
I compared it twice, same number on gun as in letter.

No doubt, the factory intended something other than what happened, or some employee was disgruntled and wanted to put a wrench into the works.

I am not comfortable selling this, as it was a gift from a friend.

I would spin a 300 savage barrel on it in a second, if I could find the right one. Must have that swelled area at sights dovetail.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't an easy solution be to get a custom die set made? Do a 243-300, or a 243-250, and enjoy it.

I'm thinking the rotor is to short for any of the winchester cases,no matter what you necked them to. Don

Nope, the barrel is chambered for the 243 cartridge, but a full length 243 won't load and feed with the rotor. Necking the 300 Savage down to 243 would create something that doesn't fit the chamber in the barrel, and may not seal upon firing, and that's a BAD thing.


I'd leave it as is. Doesn't sound like you're out of money, and it's now one of those legends of the campfire. Buy a 2nd 99F in 300 Savage to go with it, they are pretty cheap since everybody drools over the 243's/250's/308's.

Here's the letter.

Geez, I knew that... Something didn't seem right when I was typing; my 14 month old twins got me up at 4am, 4:20am, 5am, and 5:30am, so it's been a long day... I think I will back away from the keyboard for now.

If it was made to be a .243 then its a .243. Does it letter as a .243? So far you seem to say yes. Shut up and eat your mush. It is what it is. Just for sh1ts and giggles let it be known that post mil carriers are the same for .243, 250-3000, .300 Sav and .308 Win. Since the post mil carriers are the same length as the pre-mil Winchester caliber carriers all you should need is a shorter bolt stop. That will let the bolt come far enough back to make it work with the Winchester calibers if it is in fact a .243.

Can you imagine how many people that gun was owned by thru the year's being that it doesn't work.Hey buddy,know anybody looking for a deer rifle cheap must have been said many times.I wonder why the first couple of idiot's never sent it back to Savage?

Your one of them thinkin fells George, Otta be able to pull the stock and the bolt stop to try it.

99fever, In the previous post about this gun you stated 773,xxx as the SN.

FWIW, Ralph was a hoot to spend a weekend with at the fest in Ohio.

If you shorten or pull the bolt stop on those newer receivers the aluminum cartridge follower and little coil spring will fly out!!!!! ask me how i know !!!!!

Some of the folks here walk and talk with Callahan. Can we find out how many of the 7xx guns might have gone out as .243s??

Was this a 1 time screwup or did they think it was all good??

A little help...

here was one from a long time ago... take it with a grain of salt as I don't recall if I asked the owner to verify the serial and its not actually pictured...

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=9539419&oh=216543

Also, You did state in another post that the serial was 773,xxx, maybe you just fat fingered it.

Also, you letter does not state anything about a factory mistake... the gun was built as a 243 and that is that. Just b/c someone like Murray states that all Winchester caliber 99s were built on frames with serial numbers in the 9xx,xxx does not make it true. Clearly Savage built a few in the 7xx,xxx and to date we have no idea how they were constructed, they very well could have been milled no different than the 9xx,xxx guns. Savage has never been known for making super smooth transitions... maybe they built a few dozen in the 7xx,xxxs with the different milled frames then later decided to differentiate... or maybe they took existing frames and tried to modify them to work with the Win calibers and realized it was more work then to just make them new so they started making them and differentiated the already built frames from the new frames with the serial jump... based on the manufacturing date, it seems more plausible that the gun was an early attempt at a 99 in a Winchester caliber than a "mistake" where someone just accidentally grabbed the wrong receiver and barrel combination... I don't think that would have gone overlooked or let out the door by QA.

In no way shape or form does the letter prove that it was a MISTAKE that savage made by using a 7xx,xxx frame with a 243 barrel.

To date, I have still not seen you clearly state what is wrong with this gun. Does it not load a single shell into the rotor? Does it not load a few magazine? in detail please explain what is wrong with the gun and what you have and have not tried to solve the problem.

I think I stated this in the last post but I would LOVE to see pics of the components of this gun next to those of a standard 7xx,xxx gun as well as a standard 9xx,xxx gun just to see how things are different between the 3.

i personally would not make any modifications to this gun until you do some more analysis. There are plenty of shooter 300Fs and 243Fs and even 250Fs...you have not even tried to find out which shells will fit in the magazine and you are already looking for a 250F barrel? Why limit yourself to an F barrel? You are going to highly modify this gun from a factory offering already, just fill the void in the forearm with acraglass and you will have a "bedded" barrel to boot!!!

I recall one of the problems was it not ejecting a loaded round.Too long.Maybe so with a modern 100 spitzer.Let's not forget early 243 ammo was loaded with short bullets in the mid-fifties,75-85gr. and I think the 100gr was a short roundnose similar to a 250 Sav corelokt.Maybe you have to choose the right bullet for these earlier guns

Bet you found out the same way I did Don! How long did you spend on your hands and knees looking for the spring?

I don't think they mean Ralph Mc... I was curious which one too??

George, It took a while, it also took a while for me to get it back together, i ended up holding the rifle upside down with my left hand holding it together P.I.T.A.!!!! Don

That's where the shorter bolt stop comes in Sqweeler. To accommodate the Winchester calibers the bolt has to come a little further back because of the length of the cartridge. If you've got a rifle with a .243 chamber and a proper .243 carrier then the bolt has to come farther back than it does for a .300 Savage. Not that hard to check and the bolt stop is an easy part to come by. Maybe that's what's been wrong with it since it was made or maybe someone in the past that didn't know the difference substituted an earlier one.

Put a little gun grease in the hole in the cutoff and it holds that spring real nice

Mike, Yup i figured that out after a while !!!! unfortunately that was a long time ago and now just have to keep remembering it !! Don

Your probably right.It most likely has a 300 bolt stop in it,a 2 minute fix.We still havn't heard if it takes a full spool of 243 rounds.