I really hate to say this but I think the Winchester 94 and 92 make better trapper platforms. Again, I loathe to say that it’s hard to beat a trapper 94 in handiness. The long 99 action just puts way too much out front. If you ever compare a shot barrel 94 or Marlin to a short barrel 99 the other two makes always end up being the more compact package. The 50s era F to was about as balanced as the 99 got for me for post war guns.
S99VG, anyone would be hard pressed to disagree with you on this point. My 92 carbine is about perfect in terms of Handiness, like a Proto wrench in my hands. Problem is the limitations on the cartridges that come with the 92 and 94 for longer distances and they have a Winchester action that have far too many parts for my taste.
I do have a Pre War Savage 99 Carbine in .303 that comes very close in handiness to the 92 although I do not think anything will ever beat the 92/94 for handiness.
Perhaps the root of y'all's theory lies in the Winchester/Marlin magazine tube under their barrels, putting a bit of weight up forward to counterbalance the buttheavy-ness of the trapper configuration. The Savage obviously is devoid of that feature and the more barrel that's removed the more butt heavy it becomes. Steelhead is right. At what point does hollowing the butt stock become a diminishing return strength-wise?
Having spent a lot of hours chasing grouse in some pretty godawful thick bush (laurel/pine/greenbriar choked boulder-strewn hill sides), I never felt handicapped in the least with 28", and sometimes longer, shotgun barrels. Ditto the time spent deer hunting in the same terrain with 36-40" barreled traditional muzzle loaders. Granted, grouse and deer don't present a potentially frightful challenge as do bears, but still when the chips are down I would welcome the advantage of a weight forward long gun for instinctive offhand shooting.
