Men: Am I correct to assume that not ALL Savage 99 F models had the barrel ring stamped as such with the "Savage 99 Model F"? I am guessing that during the run of F models, that stamping was added as a new model year was produced and that some model years did not have it...is this correct? If so, when did it appear and ndisappear?

I think they were all marked John. Don't recall any discussion otherwise.

John, which period of "F's" are you refering to? Receiver rings were blank, marked "SAVAGE 99 MODEL" or "1899 MODEL". They never had the model type as part of the marking.

John
Are You Talking About this on the right side of Barrel???
If so Then Yes.

Rick, I thought I read they had Savage 99 Model F....the reason I ask is that I have an F without it.

Steve-O...there it is! Right on! I was confusing my locations. I thought I had read that...went to Doug's book just now and yes, they are marked as referenced on page 3-62. OK! Now we are making some sense!

all the F's Made In the 50's that i have seen Have it.

same

I have a real late '59 F that isn't marked but also suspect a barrel change done at the factory. Same barrel boss and all, just not marked as an F

I was all messed up! Both of my F's have the mark on the rear of barrel on the RIGHT....just where it should be,the RIGHT!

I have a postmil with 'F' wood but the receiver I marked 99M. All numbers match, made in '62. No 99F on barrel.

the DL's and the first clip [c modles ] had barrel boss's would not be marked F

Norm

I just picked up a 243 f/dl not sure. Has the barrel boss and the wraparound checkering on the forearm, built in 1960, gold trigger, safety on the tang. heres the crazy part, it has brass internals. here is the story I got,. Serial # is 1007710 puts it around 1960. My corp. office boarders the Savage Factory in Westfield MA. They told me this is a transition gun, barrel and reciever are from the Westfield factory with internal parts being used up from the old Chickapee factory. Thats why it has a tang safety and drilled for scope, yet internal brass parts. It looks more like a f but does not have the marking. anyone know if this sounds true?

brass rotors were used on lots of gun right after the post-mils started. All 99s after 750,000 were also drilled and tapped so that would be expected. So your gun sounds like a standard early post-mil F...unless it has a monte carlo stock, in which case it is a DL.

The 99E was the transition gun really that used the left over pre-mil internals.

no monte carlo stock, so i guess my conclusion of it being a f is correct. it just messed me up because the f designation on the right side of the barrel was not there.

odd that its not marked but sure sounds like a standard post-mil F to me. Also, as far as I know the only internal part that was brass was the rotor.

Does it have the shell counter window on the left side?

Post a Photo if you would, be interesting to see.
Steve

What length is the barrel? DL's were 24" and F's were 22".
Barrel Address? Probably Chickopee Falls?

I WILL POST A PHOTO TONIGHT.

top gun is a f in 300 i picked up 2 weeks ago. bottom gun is the one in question, cheap camera sorry about the bad pics, westfield mass barrel address. i think it has been cut and there are some crack, although they all (3) look and feel stable, bore is nice and shiny with strong lands and grooves, had 2 small rust spots that are gone thanks to some kroil and steel wool. it will make the son a great 99 243 to start hunting and i will not cringe as bad when he falls on it.

Are you saying the barrel was cut?

no, the stock the length of pull seems short, i did not know if the length of pull was shorter on the 243 than the 300, i am assuming it was the same.

The .243 looks like a 1960-1964 and the other is 1965-1970. Both should have the same length butt stock.