...have not taken pics yet, but will post some soon. The boss code is H which I believe was 1956. Is this the first year the 99 was offered in this caliber? Does anybody know the rate of twist for the 99 in .243? Thanks...

Twist rates:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...ist_Rates_per_Cartridge_in_9#Post8711391

And congrats! Nice rifle to find.

You are going to love your 99F. Twist rate is 1:10.

no he won't ---- wanna sell it ?

plab

I was very excited to find this rifle, especially since it seemed to be in mint condition. It had a Weaver 6x scope installed, and I noticed it was touching the forward portion of the rear sight, which appeared to have been bent down in front of the dovetail to accomodate the scope. That was OK I thought, since everything else looked so good, but imagine my disappointment when I removed the scope and saw some idiot had mared the barrel with several dings while bending the sight.

I would appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this rifle. I am a long time gunner and deer hunter, but new to the Savage 99s. I believe the D&T for scope is factory, is that correct for this time frame? It also is D&T for the tang aperture sight. Since the .243 in general dates to about 1955, I am thinking 1956 may of been the first year for it in the 99. Thanks for your help!

Beautiful looking rifle! A bit of wear on the bluing on the bottom of the receiver where it was carried, but I'd rather have that than extra holes and sling studs. Yes, it was factory d&t for the scope, all 1950's 99F's and 99R's were.

According to the Gospel of D.P. Murray, 1957 was the intro of the 99F in 243. Beautiful little gun and it should shoot great.
yooper

Very nice indeed!

What can you say about the incredible moron that mutilated the sight? Ball peen to the knucles? Nutz in a vice? No, still not enough...

Thanks, if I interpret the boss code (H) correctly, the .243 may have come out a year earlier than that. The SN is 9171xx, would that be appropriate for a 1956 rifle?

Nice rifle anyway. Put another scope with a smaller end bell to clear the sight also maybe a slightly higher set of rings also. Hide the damage and enjoy your new gun for what it is. A nice Savage 99.

Steve

917,1xx is definitely 1956.

That was my original thinking also, but it has not been so easy. The Weaver 6x that "caused" the problem is almost 14" long. I have several scopes, but all that are long enough to reach that spot also have the 40mm fronts. I tried switching the #19 front Weaver base for a #25 to get a little extra hight, but that is too tall. I don't have any medium rings, will have to get some and try that.

I do want to cover up that spot so I don't have to be reminded of it everytime I handle the gun. Does anybody know of a base higher than a 19 but shorter than a 25 that would work?

You will have to stay with the #14 and #19 bases and get higher rings. The rear base is very unique to the 99 receiver contour.

Go with a set of low bases and get a Leupold VX3L with the 50 MM bell. I just put one on my R in 300. The bottom of the objective bell has a half moon cut out of it so it will sit down on the barrel. I'll post a pic in a bit, Joe.

Sorry for the lousy cell pics. But, if any thing will cover those dings, this will. I got the base and rings from 300jimmy and it came with medium rings. Leupold web site calls for low rings. There is still A LOT of clearance. Next time I get to Bass Pro I'm getting a set of low and drop the scope down on the barrel, Joe.

Thanks Joe, that would cover it for sure. You have a beautiful rifle!

Get a 250-3000

Joe,Im just "THUNDERSTRUCK" looking at that scope on a Savage !!!!!! that must be your late dusk,moonlight coyote gun !!!!

I was thinking more along the lines of: "Somebody finally found a way to turn a 99F into a 99R!"




Does cover the dings tho.

That is funny.....


Hey, if it works for you, who am I to argue on scope choices. I am pretty sure some of my setups would be, well........

LOL. It is my new pig gun. I couldn't see a big boar estimated at over 300 pounds. I was using my 1950R in 250 with a 2-7 Redfield. This is a 1952R in 300. Trying to get every last flicker of light I can, Joe.

Well i knew it had to be something to do with poor lighting !!