David's book (p.59) describes the 99A as basically a continuance of the 1899A 26",solid frame version. Murray, p. 3: 50-51 lists a 99-A Featherweight 24" (1926/27-1937). Murray does not talk about a 99A 26" anywhere that I see.

... so I'm confused, are these different models. Trying to figure why Murray would specifically call out a 99A Featherweight 24", but I don't see it addressed anywhere in David's book.

When in doubt,get a letter. [img:center][/img] [img:center][/img]

This is an ongoing point of contention with Murray's.

For some reason he kept the 1899A going until 1926, long after all the other models had switched to being "99's". The 99B started in 1921, but the 1899A continued to 1926?

It makes no sense, though I'm sure he ran across some sources which made it sound correct back in the 80's.

So nowadays, we usually refer to anything from 1921 and onwards as "99".

Back then it wouldn't have been confusing, because the model "1899A" as we know it NEVER EXISTED. The model letter A was coined by Murray based on the telegraph code for the rifle with a crescent buttplate, 26" round barrel, and straight stock.

We talked about this a little a couple weeks ago. For some reason Murray started with the 99B on page 3-33, then skipped to 3-50-51 for the 99A. On 3-32 he has the standard weight 26" barrel in the top picture and the New 99A 24" barrel in the bottom picture. Then jumps ahead to 3-50 with just the one picture of a 99A with 24" barrel. Yep, I'm confused too, Joe.

Whoops, Rory beat me to it. I'm a little less confused. I might not be able to prove it, but at least I think I am, Joe.

Joe I'm a little confused about what you're saying. Or if you're confused, I think I have it straight. If Rory's confused, then we have a real problem.

The model 1899A never existed prior to the 1980's when Murray named them.

So how could it have continued up to 1926 while the 99B started in 1921?

So, I think I understand it now: Call them 99A and 99B, both starting in 1920/21ish, with 26" barrels. Then, in 1926/27 both changed from 26" to 24" barrels (and that 99A 24" barrel that Murrayy talks about would be the same 24" rifle).

If y'all want to know where the confusion originall stems from, I can tell ya.

Since the 1899's never had model names for the most part (250-3000, Monarch, Leader, etc. beside the point) - in the early 1920's the advertising from Savage would refer to the new models with either 1899 OR 99 in front of it. So the 1922 price list shows 1899A, 1899B, 1899C, 1899D, 1899E, 1899F, etc.

It was just advertising, nobody was confused. If you said 1899C in 1924, everybody knew you meant what we call a 99C because there had never been a model 1899C. Just like nobody back in the 20's was confused by Savage stamping "Savage Model 1899" on top of the receiver. Of course it was an 1899 - and it was a 99.

But think how confusing it would be now if we tried to go with "early 1899 models", "transitional 1899 models", and "99 models". Ugh.

So for the new stuff, we just call them all 99's so that we know when somebody says 1899C that he's talking 26" round/octagon barrel, not a 1920-1923'ish 22" round barrel rifle.

Just to confuse y'all again.

Who's on first?

Murray, with #99, Royal, coming to the plate.

Can I be blunt? Murray was wrong to call the 26" round barrel crescent BP an 1899A until the change to the 24" medium weight barrel in 1926. Savage advertising from about 1921 on called the models 99A, 99B, 99C, 99D, 99E, 99F, 99G. They didn't call them 1899A, 99B, 99C, 99D, etc. The 18 was gone from the model designation. All models were 99's! There were two variations of the 99A, a 26" rifle weight barrel made from 1921-26 and a 24" medium weight barrel rifle made from about 1926 to 1936.
In a related topic Murray refers to barrels introduced in 1926 as lightweight or featherweight barrels in some places and in other places as medium weight. The Savage advertising in this era refers to these barrels as lightweight. All the 99 barrels were the same diameter and taper and therefore, medium weight barrels until the 99F was introduced in 1955. They were somewhat heavier than the true lightweight barrels produced from 1904 to 1926 in such models as the 1899H, 1899 250-3000, 99E, 99F and 99G. See Table 5-4 on page 67 and Figure 5-14 on page 68 of my book. Did I hit a home run? David

Technically not absolutely true. From 1920 thru 1923 or so there was a mishmash of 99 and 1899 nomenclature used in ads, and I had a 1922 price list which listed all the models as 1899's (1899A, 1899B, 1899C, 1899D, etc).

It would be simpler if it was true that they stopped using 1899, but it's not true. Nothing about Savage is easy. This is why I quit fretting about whether something was a late 1899 or an early 99 several years ago.


We'll call it a triple.

1922 ad referring to the Savage Model '99 lever action...

https://books.google.com/books?id=X...vage%20arms%22%20lever%2099A&f=false

Mishmash...

The way I see this. And I know it's wrong. Is them rifles came b 4 the book. If Savage arms stamped an 1899 ON THE BARREL B 4 they got sold. Then some book came out 20,30 ,40 ,50 years later calling them mistakenly stamped model 99's. I think they were miss named by the book NOT mistakenly stamped on the barrel.

I don't think anything with Savage is all the clean and easy because I'm certain that keeping historic record straightened out wasn't a high priority when they were designating models. They were selling a product not creating a museum and sometimes just knowing the basic configuration and year of manufacture of a given a rifle is good enough. At least it is for me.

Maybe it didn't matter to Savage whether the 99's were called 1899's or 99's, for example, the receiver rings stamped 1899 until 1926. It's also interesting and confusing that some of the 1921-22 literature used the 1899A, 1899B, etc designations. Maybe Murray extrapolated this designation back to cover all rifles made from 1899 on. I wonder sometimes if no one else wrote another book before I wrote mine on the 99 because of all the confusion surrounding them.
Thanks for awarding me a triple Rory. It's tough to get a home run with all those obstacles out there.
David

Take it with a grain of salt I guess, for rifles of this time period.
I offered up #221xxx as a newbie, crescent butt, 26" rnd, T/D. Some forum banter occured, 1899 vs. 99, etc.
I got schooled by a member that what mattered is what the ledgers say.
So I requested a factory letter and it came back as 1899B and I reported it here.
Next I am informed by another forum member that the factory letter was wrong. Pass the salt please,.....

That's my opinion. Since there had never been a model 1899F catalogued by Savage up to 1921, nobody at Savage was going to be confused if you called it an 1899F or a 99F.


I think this mishmash of 1899 versus 99 and 1899 stamps is why Murray has the 99 models starting at different serial numbers. Remember he researched and wrote his book before the internet, MUCH harder to find information out there back then. He did an outstanding job and made our job so much easier than it would be otherwise, it's just that in 30 years more data has come to light.

Heck, we're still trying to figure out the MP stamps.


Ledger may say 1899B... since Savage used 1899 AND 99 in their literature for the first couple years in the 20's. But the rifle would be what "we" and all the books on 99's call a 99B, and in all aspects would be exactly the same as a rifle in the ledger a year or two later that said 99B. But try to sell it to another collector as an 1899B and it probably wouldn't go well. I'd describe it as "factory letter called it a model 1899B, but it's what all the books call a 99B".


This talk on "transition" rifles dates back a loooooong time. And will continue. I'm probably the only one who's totally made up their mind.

I've made up my mind for my purposes. The early 1920's guns could be 1899's or 99's. It doesn't matter. I returned a lot of the literature I used to write the book but it seems to me as though some Savage literature called them 1899's in later literature after calling them 99's in earlier lit. The rifles are what they are. Let's call the transition rifles 1899/99 A, B, C, etc transition models. The designations at this point don't affect value or anything else I can think of. This only applies to the transition rifles. A 1903 vintage octagon barrel rifle is definitely an 1899 and a 1928 vintage 24" medium weight round barrel rifle with a crescent buttplate is definitely a 99 (99A). Just my view of the situation. This is fun. Let's keep it going. David

Thanks to all for the information around this; I learned a lot from this.

I think a 24" 99A in 300 Savage is now on my list.

Is there the slightest benefit to calling a 1920-1923 rifle a transition 1899C in any conversation, rather than just a 99C? It's just going to cause huge confusion when folks are asking what rifle they have, or can we tell them about their 1899C?
Physically every 'transition 1899' from 1920-1923 is exactly identical to every '99' from 1924 to 1926.

I'd see no problem with saying that Savage was transitioning from calling them 1899's to 99's from 1920 to 1923, but for simplicity's sake we always call them 99's since that's what they finally ended up as.

If we're going to get 100% nitpicky on everything, then we need to rename the 1899 models.

An 1899 Able would be a 26" round barrel with crescent buttplate.
And 1899 Abit is a 26" round barrel with shotgun buttplate.
An 1899 Aback is a 22" round barrel with shotgun buttplate.
An 1899 Abed is a 28" round barrel.
An 1899 Abode is a 30" round barrel.
Etc - up to the 15 models present in 1900. More added later, of course.

This time period is very confusing and we have attempted to clarify in the past but with little success. Here is some history:
- 1920 catalog and price sheet still lists what Murray calls the 1899-A as a "Model 1899 Solid Frame 26" Reg."

- 1922 catalog and price sheet list it as a "Model 1899-A" (not to be confused with what Murray lists as 1899-A)

- 1924 Retail Price List lists it as "Model 99-A" (note Murray refers to it still as the "Model 1899-A" which I say was an error)

- Sometime around startup after WWI there was a statement by Savage that the Model 1899 would in the future be referenced as the "Model 99"...but then sometime later Savage added the "...1899..." stamping to the receiver ring.

- Roe would sometimes send copies of the ledger page with a requested letter. I have some of these which allows us to see just what was written in the ledger book. I don't have any of the Leger page copies from the period in question.

- The price sheets starting 1922 and maybe earlier list the "A", "B", "C"...etc. designation and states that they should be used when ordering. The problem is that the 1922 PL call out "Model 1899-A". This is the only time I have seen the Model 1899-A vs 99-A used.

- At some point in the Ledger sheets the letter coding was added and I doubt that the item was listed as "1899-A" or "99-A" but simply "A". (note this is just speculation as I have not found a Ledger page copy from this period).

- Now to add to the confusion of Model 1899-A vs 99-A...etc. there are letters from the Historian:
1) Letter from 2007, "...your model 99...serial
193109...produced April 12,1919..."

2) 2165xx, produced 2/16/1920, lettered as a 99-F

3) 2292xx, produced 6/14/1920, lettered as 1899-Short Rifle, Take Down.

4) 2324xx, produced 8/20/1920, lettered as 99-D.

5) 236461, (late 1920) per JTC as the first "99-G". (ever seen the "G" listed as a"1899-G" other than in the 1922 price list?)

6) Then a 2014 letter on 2201xx, produced 3/22/1920, "...ledger book shows this rifle to be a 1899-B (not to be confused with the earlier 1899-B with octagon barrel)..."

Note that all of the above were produced before 1922 when the Price List first showed "1899-A, 1899-B, 1899-C"...etc.

What's right, what's wrong, I don't really care and am not sure we could all agree. I do prefer to call the post WWI with the Savage letter codes 99's vs 1899's just so we know what we are referring to. The big problem with this is at what serial do we use as a changing point? There is so much confusion and missing info on the subject that there still remains a big 1920 gray area (1920 being a big production period with all types of changes made within the model and across the board).

I don't think the above solved anything but hopefully it clarified what the problem is.

In my previous comment I meant in no way to demean David's or Murray's work. By all means they were monumental tasks to which we all owe a tremendous debt. But for me, I can only take it so far. I work in the field of preservation so I guess the lure of fine detail wore off for me some time back. But this is in no way is a judgement on anyone else's interests and academic pursuits on the subject of Savage and his 99.

"I don't know" is on third.

I went into that thing about calling them 1899/99 transition rifles because I tend to try to clarify and compartmentalize things to the best of my ability. In other words Rory is right, just call them 99's.
I didn't take anyone's comments as being in any way demeaning. Murray's book got me started collecting and he did a great job with what he had to work with. I wrote my book because it was past time for an update. David

Lucky for me that my interest is focused on 1895's! No confusion there.

Doug

haha is it still an 1895 if the barrel and bolt have been changed at the factory,,is an 1899 with large receiver cheek pads really an 1899?????? you need some confusion infusion in your dilusion.

norm

Agreed!

I think we have our share of obsessive-compulsives here!

When all is said and done, I do find these books fascinating and a great assist in understanding the 99. Having said that, has anyone thought of doing something similar for the 19/23 series, or the Super Sporters? I suspect the research for such works would be far less demanding and they would make great companion pieces for the 99 books.

No, he's in left field!

Then who's on first?

Yes

What he said!

Would be a good project. As far as I know the only info is the little bit that we have put together here on the "24". We would need a lot more than what we have.

Four digit serial numbers are my standard! At least there are only 5000 to 8000 to be confused by!

Doug

P.S. I have six grandkids with one on the way. No need to infuse more confusion into my delusion!!!

I heard once that some of the earliest 1899's had serial numbers in the 9000 range. Has anyone seen one?

Or were they really late 1895's?

JTC stated that there were a couple of 1895's in the 9000 range.

I would sure like to know if they had Marlin stamped barrels.

Remember, a high serial does not mean a late production...
9703, 1895-B, .303 SAV, shipped 9/3/1896.

If the question is, "Are there 1895's with Savage made brls?" I guess you would have to go through the Ledger Book and find the latest produced rifles, then find the rifle and check.

Sounds like an interesting search and a good topic for the next book. The Marlin barrels also had the word "Repeating" in the barrel address. Makes it easier to spot the Marlin barrels.
1895 barrel address

early 1899 barrel address

David

That's very cool. One of these days I wouldn't mind finding a half octegon barrel 99/95.