I'm curious as to what the lightest Savage 99 is?

I read John Barsness (Mule Deer) somewhere (maybe rife or handloader magazine?) state that some 99's go under 7 pounds, I do not remember the weight he gave but 6 3/4 maybe?

I've (my wife) has a tang safety 99F, as in featherweight but it's around 7 1/4 pounds, I've got a tang safety Savage 99A, 20 inch barrel that weighs just over 7 also, I had a 20 inch barreled Savage 99 (? wish I had you guys ID it for me) 30-30, 20 inch barrel but the barrel contour was very heavy (I wondered if it had been shortened?) that weighed around 8 pounds.

So (presently) my Savage 99 holy grail is a light (under 7 pounds) & trim, 20 inch barrel that does not have a crescent butt plate... of course not D&T'd or otherwise violated.

Can you steer me to the right model?

Thanks,

Jerry

Jerry,

I have no way to verify this but I expect the 1899H Featherweight is probably the lightest production Savage lever gun made. However, you specified "99" and I believe that honor goes to the 99H. Mine goes a fuzz under 7 pounds. Then there is the 1895 that forum member "Plab" posted about a few years ago. Factory letter calls it "lightest", but I don't think he ever posted the actual weight. Anyhow, they are rare as hens teeth...

Of course, the bigger the hole, the lighter the gun.

Good luck with your quest.

Doug

So a 99H in .38-55 (Is there any such critter?) or a worn out .30-30 or .303 H rebored to .38-55 or.375 Win. would be THE "featherweight" 99?

My gut tells me 1899Hs, early 99Gs, post war 99Fs, and 1899 Deluxes are your choices for light 99s.

Get yourself a 50s era 99F and don’t look back. It was the “featherweight” of the era though I don’t think the factory intended the F to stand for that. It’s factory drilled and tapped and according to one source I have comes in at around 6.5-pounds. They can still be found in great shape and for good prices. Older guns may have a certain panache but I think you’d be splitting hairs trying to come in lighter.

My 1899H in .303 with canvas sling and Lyman 57 weighs 6 3/4. I suspect with the sling, swivels and the 57 removed it would make 6 1/2. In comparison my 1930 99 E (.300) with Williams FP and sling weighs just over 7 . The way the 1899H carries it feels like it weighs about 6 pound or less.

Darryl

The 99H was catalogued at 7lbs in 1924.

The 99E and 99F in 1924 listed at 6 1/4 lbs.

The 1899H was listed at 6lbs.

For some reason my picture posting host isn't working, how ever I just weighed a 50's F in .358 and it was 6 pounds 12 ounces.

I'm guessing that the 1899-H, solid frame, 30-30/303, with a hard rubber plate, will take the prize.

Haven’t actually weighed it, but I have a 1923 vintage takedown featherweight 30/30 with a light contour 20" barrel that feels lighter than my father's '57 99F 300 (neither have scopes).

The 358/375/38/55 might take the prize lotta air in a bigger bore.

I had a pre WW l 1899 H take down in 303. That was the lightest 1899/99 I ever owned.

I don't know if it weighed 6 lbs...

On the other end of the scale you can get a post war 99R, slap on a bohunk scope fit for Mt. Palomar and get two coolies to haul it around.

A solid frame 1899H Featherweight in 38-55 would have me dusting off my checkbook! Of course, it would have been a special order as I don't believe Savage ever listed such a configuration.

Anyone ever seen (or heard of) such ?

Sheit, the hole in the end of the barrel weighs three pounds!

All across the country these last couple days, guys have been digging out their kitchen scales. Not me- I knocked my digital scale on the floor last winter and haven't gotten around to replacing it. I'll vote with my gut and say the M1899H takes the prize for lightest carbine.

I reason that if a M1899 carbine were offered in .38-55 it would probably weigh about the same as a .303/.30-30- I bet they would've used a thicker barrel to accommodate that size bore.

Now you have me wondering what the weight difference is between the hard rubber buttplate and the serrated, steel buttplate. 2 ounces? More?

Can't be much. Funny how a guy will deliberate over a couple ounces on his 99 and not the extra girth on his belt, which I can lay claim to owning a bit myself.

Ouch S99VG, true though. I only wish any of my bolt actions came up and pointed as well as that 99F of mine. Growing up, I always thought that 99's were kind of misshapen, but was I ever wrong. From a purely ergonomic standpoint that Savage is the best handling whitetail rifle that I've ever owned and I don't even know what it weighs.

As you can see, I haven't chimed in on this one. I have a Postal scale less than 10 feet from my 1899H, and a big person scale about 25 feet from me. I don't like scales.

Have a 1899H c. 1911 takedown, in 30-30 with a schnobel forend and tang sight. Hard rubber butt plate. Has a 20" light weight barrel. Put it on the postal scale and it came in at 6.7 pounds. A '94 Winchester carbine, in comparison, feels like a club.

Yes, scales are evil devices!

Good news Jerry!
Let us know what you decide...

Pulled out a few, lightest is my 1914 1899H 303:

1914 1899H solid frame, (hollow stock), 20” 303 Savage with Windgage sight, 6.205lbs

1920 1899H 20” Take down, 303 Savage, not hollowed with metal butt plate with Lyman 57SA, 6.75.bs
Lyman 57SA sight, 0.200lbs

1961 99E .308 20” original, 6.906lb

1999 Marlin 444P, 18.5”, 7.26lbs

1981 99A .308 22” with Redfield Revolutin 2x7, covers and studs, 7.97lb

1946 EG .300, 24", with Stith and 1st Series Weaver K4, 8.2lbs

1938 99T 300 Sav 22”, Scoped with studs and redfield 1 3/4x5, 8.255lbs

1943 EG, 24", .250-3000 with T forearm and Griffin & Howe mount and 6x Unertl scope, 9.145lbs

Keith, is the 1914 and 1920 solid frame or TD?

1914 is solid frame; 1920 is TD. I added that info now to the above.

I dont have a scale, but my 250 Barrel band seems to me to be very light! even with the 1.5X5 Kales small scope! was already D&T when I got it!

Barrel band carbine in 1939 listed at 6 3/4 pounds in the catalog.

My Dad had one he bought right after he got out of the Navy in WW2. He used to make mention that it was under 7 pounds. He got it in Arizona from a gunsmith friend he had down there. 6 pound and something....but I was a kid and I can't remember the numbers.

It had a crescent butt and the slimmest barrel I ever saw on a center-fire rifle in those days. I think it was 20" but I don't know for sure. The stock felt too long for me and I though it kicked hard. Later I thought it was probably because at the time I was using it I was about 5 foot 4" tall and weighed 95 pounds but my dad was 5 foot 10" and weighted 220 and he thought it kicked too. He said it hit him in the face, and I also remember it hitting my cheek bone as well as my shoulder especially when we used 180 grain ammo.

The rifle was in very good shape, but from what I gather by talking to Savage experts, it was likely made in the early 20s. I was very light.

Now own a 99 now in 300 Savage, and it's a 1951 made rifle, with a pistol grip, 24" barrel and a flatter steel butt. The rifle weighs a bit over 8 pounds and doesn't kick bad at all. A real pussycat to fire even with the heavier bullets. The stock on it was butchered when I got it so I made a new one and just used the old plate, but it fits me well because I could make it to my liking. No scope, just a Williams peep. I have come to like it a lot, and that's a bit weird because I really hated to use my dads gun when I was a skinny kid. I loved to hunt, but I remember not wanting to shoot the deer or elk with that rifle. It's the only rifle we had in those days, so I did kill game with it, but was REALLY happy when I got my own M70 Winchester in 270.

There was a crescent buttplate 99A made in the 1920's in 300 Savage, but it would have had a 26" or 24" barrel from the factory. The 24" barrel in 1928 was listed as 7 1/4lb.

I have a takedown “h” with a 410 barrel. I don’t have a scale to weigh it, but it is by far the lightest 99 I’ve fondled.