was able to purchase a 1920 in 250 recently, is a grey rat that has been drilled on the top and had the muzzle threaded for not sure what. Picked it up with the the thought of rebarreling it my first thought was 6.5x55 but magazine limitations say it is a no go. 35 rem would be interesting as well and it will fit in the magazine wondering what you guys might chamber for with a rebarrel? Odd is good. Maybe a new 250 barrel with the faster twist will get the nod.
the 225 would be intersting, at first thgought the rim would pose a problem but it seems to feed from the well Okay. If I were to run 22 caliber with it I would probably chamber it in 22-250 with a fast enough twist to stabalize heavier bullets.
What about the 7mm o8? Really the rifle would be a great candidat for the 270 titus.
6.5 Creedmoor, but the magazine box might need to be adjusted.
I have a 1920 that was rebarreled/restocked as a dedicated varmint rifle by J.E. Gebby in .22 Varminter, but I don't load it at near maximum 'cause I'm not convinced that the 1920 action is well designed for handling escaping gas from a ruptured case or blown primer.
Depends on what you intend to shoot with it.
Keep it Savage and put a good 1:10 .250 barrel on it
250AI would fork as well.
Buddy of mine bought one last year that had been nicely redone into a 6mm Remington and restocked. They had to open the mag box and install a bolt stop on the left side of the action further back to accommodate the longer oal.
Kinda like the 35 rem idea myself
Do the "shoulders" in the magazine box cause any feeding problems for cartridges that aren't the 250-3000 or 300 Savage?
I'm with lightfoot--you won't find a better or "more modern" ctg. than the .250-3000 with the right twist. They keep tryin' to come up with more efficient rounds, but for my money, they keep failin' if you're talking a combination varmint and deer gun. And the whole point of the Model 1920 was medium power in a light trim package, so cartridges with much more recoil defeat the concept.
If you just HAVE to kill elk or moose with your '20, rebarrel it to .300 Savage and use modern 180s.
You don't suppose ole Bubba threaded that rifle for a muzzle brake, do you? Talk about "recoil averse"....
I could kick myself a few months back, I model 1920 came up on Gunbroker with a 1-12 inch twist barrel, can't remember the name of the barrel maker but it was one of the well known high quality barrel makers from the past (say around the 50's). Should have grabbed it.
I would be putting a 250 back on it with a 1-10, or 250AI, 22-250 also sounds interesting. Something with a modest recoil, especially if your keeping the original stock.
I've thought about this as there's a shop in the Bay Area that has had a trashed 1920 sitting in it for nearly two years. I'd stick to anything using the basic .30-06/.308 brass. If you can't find what you are looking for in the .22-250/.243 Winchester/.250-3000 Savage/.260 Remington/7-08/.284 Winchester/.300 Savage/.308 Winchester/.358 Winchester range of cartridges then I'd think you must be looking for something to take to Mars - just kidding. Which brings up the dreaded question (considering what happened when this question was asked a couple weeks ago about the 99), how much pressure can a 1920 action take?
I think that the 1920 action is strong enough, the front receiver ring is larger in diameter than the Springfield 1903 series and the SR Mausers, but I'm not convinced that the action is as well designed to handle escaping gas as some others.
I too would keep as a .250. Re-barreling to a heavier cartridge sounds good on paper, but one has to consider the increased recoil generated by such a thing. My M1920 in .300 is a brutal bugger with factory loads- not a pleasure to shoot due to the skinny non-optimal stock design and light weight. To each his own, but I find it to be a painful experience and handload for it to a lower power level.
I'd say the .358 Winchester instead of 35 Remington. Seems like an easier conversion to me given the bolt head and mag. Of course you have to wonder what the recoil would be. On the other end of things I think a .260 Remington or a 7-08 also would be interesting. I just tried a 7.62 x 52/.308 in my 1920/26 and you would have to use a shorter bullet than the standard military round ball. I suspect that would be a problem with all of the .308 based rounds.
Maybe the original 250 is the way to go I have a stailess kimber take off that would finish right about 20 inches and has a 1 in 10 twist. On a side thought I wonder what brought about the 1920 was savage thinking a military contract?
Also I think the 308 based line may be to long to function without work to the magazine, and the 250 ackley will feed mostly and with a little work should be good if you wanted to go that route.
Yeah, I think the 1920 grew out of a military design. There has been an example on sale on Gunbroker for quite some time now. Savage did beat everyone to the draw in introducing a good bolt action sporter that was ahead of its time, though I'm not sure being ahead of your time always makes good business sense as the gun did not sell well.
The 1920 morphed out of a long action military rifle in 30-06 that was intended to supplement the 1903 Springfield. That role went to the 1917 Enfield. At some point, Savage made at least one prototype, or sales sample, long action military rifle in 7x57, probably for the South American market. They also made a bastardized 1920 in 303 British that combined most of the components of a SMLE No.1, MK3 with the 1920 action.
The coolest long action 1920 prototype was a sporter in 256 Newton that was once owned for a time by the late Mark Benenson.
I wonder, did the experimental early contract guns have a magazine cutoff? That was a prime design spec 100 years ago and absent that it could have lead to non-adoption by our gov't as a secondary standard model to the M1903 Springfield.
One thing I find cool on the 1920's is the clip slot in the receiver bridge. Awfully handy for when one needs to re-charge the magazine fast in the face of a raging deer attack!
The 30-06 military and 256 sporter that I have looked at didn't have magazine cut-offs.
Remington 721/722 have clip slots early in their post-WW2 production run.
I am planning to add a piece or steel to that slot as a place fore rear of the scope base to attach. I don't need the slot for anything
Pre-war Model 70s and the Remington 30 (as well as the 1903 NRA Sporter) had clip slots too. It must have been a "cool factor" feature that fell by the way side after WWII.
The clip slot was omitted in the very last 20/26s.
Are you going to weld-up the clip slot?
FWIW, I have seen 1920s scoped with a modified Weaver base that was designed for the Browning .22 Auto. This base was designed to mount on the barrel and cantilever to the rear, over the receiver. On the 1920s, they were mounted on the front receiver ring. Not an optimal solution, but probably easier and just as serviceable if side-mounts aren't your cup of tea.
Looks like a thread setup for a silencer. Not terribly rare on rifles from that era, before silencers were lumped in with full auto weapons restrictions in 1933 (I think it was 1933).
I always said if I ever scoped a M1920 I would spring for a G&H QD side mount, so I would have instant access to the aperture rear sight if I wanted. Or instant access to a scope the other way around. Not everyone's cuppa tea, but I like them (and have them on a couple Mausers).
Another factor in scoping a 1920 is the bolt handle. One either has to modify it or mount the scope way high for it to clear. The latter option isn't so bad IMO, but for the handicap of the really low comb on these rifles, especially the early ones. I guess a lace-on cheekpiece would cure that. My Dad, bless his heart, insisted on mounting a scope on his (long before they started to show any "collectibility"), and did it with a Weaver side mount and then modified the bolt handle to clear it. I actually remember trying to talk him out of it and even went so far as to buy a Lyman 54 for the gun at a gun show, for the princely sum of $25 as I recall. He put the sight on his next one, and used the first one (a .250) to whack a few deer. When you heard the "spiteful crack" of that rifle (credit to Jim Bashline for that) you knew there would be fresh venison liver and onions for supper that night.
My favorite 1920, from a shooting perspective, was reworked by G&H with a different stock, trigger, and side-mount. It was done in the mid-1950s and sports two sets of rings, a 7/8" set with a Lyman Alaskan and a 1" set with a 4x Lyman Perma-Center.
My favorite 1920 is one that once belonged to Larry Koller, who is probably either the most famous, or the 2nd most famous, 1920 shooter, with the other man being Roy Chapman Andrews. The Koller rifle isn't nearly as nice as the G&H rifle. It has a Lyman Alaskan in a Weaver N mount.
"My favorite 1920 is one that once belonged to Larry Koller... The Koller rifle isn't nearly as nice as the G&H rifle. It has a Lyman Alaskan in a Weaver N mount."
Still waiting for pictures...
Given my record of posting pictures, you're likely to have a long wait.
The Swedish M96 mauser is the only thing I can think of that resembles the muzzle on your rifle. Funny how the clip slot and two-stage military trigger pull on the Model 20 fell out of favor by the end of the 1920s.
Hey, how about a 22-250? Then you would have a super high power .22HP.
"...sn 4287 wonder when she was made?"
One with a serial less than ten from yours lettered as a 5/25/1920 production.
"...sn 4287 wonder when she was made?"
One with a serial less than ten from yours lettered as a 5/25/1920 production.
mine is 2932 in 250-3000
norm
