I recall a discussion about the .243 not chambering well or problems in the F model...can somebody refresh this if this is true and what should I avoid?

Thanks in advance.

Sounds like BS to me, probably something though up by the guys who really believe that the 250-3000 is a better choice than the 243 for hunting.

Jeff

There were a few 243f made with 700,000 serial receivers...at least one was lettered and several others have been seen...these have had issues....any in the 900,000 are fine

John
Never recall hearing that at all.
They all Function well, I have Several Premil F's in 243 never a Problem.
Steve

I think what I remembered was what Drew mentioned in that very limited stretch. I had an E that was hideous looking but shot well and an A that was pretty looking and shot well. I may or may not have an F on the horizon. I just was checking as my recall sucks increasingly with age...along with my attitude lately...but I am working on both! Thanks again for the help,
JC

Maybe this is what you recall. I bought this .243 that we figured was not right because it wouldn't feed. Turns out it lettered as a .243, but was serial numbered prior to the 900,000's, when they stretched the receiver to accomodate the .243 and .308 round. It's a long thread, but lots of info.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/1585174/1955_99F_in_243#Post1585174

the subject has been brought up several times but I think that Randy's post is really the one where we learned enough to make a call on this. The general consensus seems to be that savage attempted putting the 243 in the late 7xx,xxx receivers and sold a few that way but more than one has been mentioned to not function well.

I have personally seen or heard of at least 4 or 5.

Ralph in Pa. had it.It left as a 243,but was a single shot. [img:center][/img]

There were issues with the early 700 ones...!!! Later 900 ones kick azz...!!!

I have a 243 900 F series and it shoots the lights out

Baa... Humbug!! The 250-3000 is superior in every conceivable way!!!

It was good to see that letter. I got into a pissing contest about 99 receivers a while back. This so called "Writer" was telling people that the 99 receiver needed 200 changes to strengthen it (The receiver) for the .308 family of cartridges. I, and several others that have done a lot of work on these guns over the years, thought this was nonsense. Now I know where the 200 number came from. We could not even believe there were ever 200 operations on a receiver. Staying away from the early 99's (Square bolt lug/Cocking indicator in bolt/ Take-downs) I would not hesitate to barrel one up for the pressure of a .243 or 22-250. The change was strictly to lengthen the receiver and actually looks as if MORE metal was removed. If anyone here could find out exactly what kind of steel was used, that would really be interesting. I am thinking ChromeMolly.

Didn't lengthen the receiver. Lengthened the internal capacity. Removed steel and replaced it with a piece of sheet metal to gain two tenths of an inch.

Can't argue with that.