Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Combination Guns and Drillings Why is the Savage 24 upside down?

Traditional drillings and combination guns (except cape guns) typically put the shotgun barrel or barrels on top and the rifle barrel on the bottom. American-made drillings (Three Barreled Gun Company, L.C. Smith, Lefever, etc.) did too.

So why is the Savage 24 upside down?

Cheaper to build and the sights are closer to the center of the rifle's bore? Can't think of a better woods loafing long gun than a Savage 24 in 22 or 22 Magnum over 410. A little better with a peep sight in stalled.

Remember that all Savage 24s share the same humble beginnings, the Stevens 22/410. The only CF cartridges offered are the 22 Hornet, 222, 223, 30-30, 357 Magnum, and 357 Maximum, no higher pressure options, while many European combination guns were chambered for cartridges with higher operating pressures, like the 8x57JRS.

i buy the cheaper-to-build reason; that's often a guiding design parameter.

Pressure isn't really the answer, I think--you can build 'em either way and deal with pressure--where the barrels sit on the breech face isn't very relevant to that. When the gun was designed for .410 and .22, maybe putting the harder kicking barrel lower made sense, but how hard does a .410 kick?

And with adjustable sights, the relative distance from rifle bore to sights is equally unimportant (that's one reason they're adjustable).

I GUESS European guns put the shotgun sighting plane closer to the eye to make the gun better for instinctive wingshooting. 24s weren't originally really intended as a primarily wingshooting gun, I suspect. The later 20 Mags and 12s were a little better for that than a .410, but not exactly primo for hitting birds on the wing. Mostly used for AIMED shotgun fire--turkey, deer with slugs or buckshot, squirrels, etc. I think.

It's easier to scope a .22 rifle barrel if it's on top, but I don't think the 24 was originally designed with scopes in mind. They just weren't that popular then.

Any other explanations?

Breech pressure on a higher barrel can put more stress on an action than one down closer in line with the pivot & locking mechanism. But they've gotten away with some pretty high pressures in the 24. probably because in a dry chamber, breech pressure isn't a factor.
The original design was for rimfire cartridges though. It was later beefed up for CF. Cheaper is a probable motive too, as it always has been for "Salvage" guns :o).

Ask the Savage historian, all else is likely to be pure speculation.

I've owned a bunch of Savage 24, still have several in 22/410, 22M/410, 22/20, 22M/20, 222/20, 223/20, 30-30/20, and 357M/20. They are good utility firearms, but I've never had one that was a great shooter and the rifles barrels on the center-fires often have a wandering point of impact. AFAIK, the only Savage combination gun with the shotgun barrel on top was the 2400, which I think is a rebadged Valmet 412.

The 2400 was a re-badged 300 (Lion) series gun, not a 412.

Simpson Ltd. still can't figure that out and call the Valmet 300 combo guns 412.

The 412 is a heavier duty gun, designed to shoot HP rifle rounds as an O/U.


This shows the difference in receivers.

I imagine 260remguy is right and only the Savage firm knows (or knew) the true answer to my question.

It may be that some previously existing receiver forging (the most costly part) was adaptable to make the 24 receivers, but only would work with the barrels in the configuration that we know as the 24. But I can't imagine what that receiver would have been--although I can't claim to an exhaustive knowledge of prewar Savage and Stevens break action guns.

I may put this same question to the Savage Collectors forum.

I, too, agree that 260 has probably answered the question.

The Savage is not the only one with the rifle barrel on top. The Brno ZH 300 series, and its predecessors, had the same configuration, and with a high hinge point and top-mounted crossbolt they are certainly strong enough for calibres like 7x57R in the top barrel.

Baikal's little .22/.410 is another example which springs to mind, and the M6 Aircrew Survival weapon.

Other than the consideration of strength, I don't think it makes any practical difference which is on top. In my own experience the Brno isn't disadvantaged for shotgun or rifle use by having the rifle barrel on top. You might get a difference in trajectory due to having a greater distance from sightline to bore-axis with the rifle barrel on the bottom, but in practice that isn't an issue with my drilling either.

I think that it probably comes down in large part to the preference of the designer and, as Mesa said, what they have to work with.

I've read somewhere that the higher pressure barrel on a combination gun is typically on the bottom to get it closer to the locking mechanism.

Savage built in a crazy long jump to the lands on my 30-30 over 20 gauge. It's a full .1" longer than my contender carbine in 30-30. I figured that big of a jump had to be a design feature to reduce the pressure the 30-30 barrel could exert on the lock.

I'm no engineer--understatement of the year--but the proximity of the chamber to the hinge itself is another consideration since the backthrust can exert torque as well as recoil, or so I've read. The further from the hinge, the more it makes.

Lucky thing the designers of most of our traditional guns were strong believers in OVERengineering--the "DC-3/P-47 generation!" Even a Savage 24 probably can't be busted by shooting any amount of factory ammo. Never heard of anybody "shooting one loose." I sure haven't.

Dan oz, thanks for reminding us of the BRNO guns--they aren't common here, but I've seen a few. They looked tough and usable; not meant to be safe queens!

While the Savage works with the cartridge it is chamberred in, I've heard of an attempt to rechamber to 30-40 and having them pop open when firing. They get away with the 223 mainly because of the small diameter of the base.

The BRNO gets away with high power round because the hinge pins are in line with the the rifle barrel and it has massive Kirsten style double locking lugs above the rifle.

I have a BRNO on a list of guns To look at next month on a trip east.

Or beauty queens

Well yeah, but beauty is as beauty does, and they are a pretty sound and, with interchangeable barrels, pretty versatile bit of gear.

Considering the relatively small diameter of the chamber on a Savage 24V, I would be seriously concerned about the safety of any conversion/rechamber to a cartridge with a larger diameter case than whatever cartridge it was originally chambered for.

The following conversions might be possible, but might also create a danger to the shooter due to the higher pressures being contained by thinner chamber walls.

22H/222/223 to 225 or 22-250

30-30 to 307, 30-40, or 7.62x54R

357 to 356

Not just the chamber walls to consider, but as erich suggested, the backthrust. A larger diameter case means a larger internal diameter at the case head, and in turn greater backthrust for a given pressure, especially if the case or chamber is wet or oily. That and the way the Savage 24 locks up, which allows the backthrust of the rifle barrel a fair bit of leverage, could well see the action forced open.

Probably a better plan, if you were minded to rechamber, to go to a longer case - .222 to .222 Mag or 5.6x50, for example. Or better still, just get a stronger action chambered for what you want. Not being a great fan of the Savage 24 I'd step over one for a Baikal, for example, for similar money.

A lot of "backthrust" or breech pressure, can be eliminated by simply wiping the chamber dry on most calibers without radical body tapers. In bolt rifles, the first sign of excess headspace is primers backing out.

That said, you guys are right not to expand the chamber in the 24, to thin the walls over it. Even though there's a huge safety margin in the thickness there. One conversion I did on quite a few, that made a huge performance difference was opening the 30/30 up to the ackley improved version. Many of the customers reported better groups, and performance. One guy was using the Ackley 110 grain load @ 3200 fps.. Said it did a number on coyotes :o). That conversion increased chamber pressures, but reduced breech pressure to near nothing.

P.O. always offered to bet anyone he could shoot a 94 winchester so chambered, with the locking lugs removed. Don't know if anyone ever took him up on that.

Greg

I had a savage 24F in 30-30 that I talked my smith into re-chambering to 30-06--it was an explosively BAD IDEA

Did the gun blow up? I'm surprised he would do that. Today, with lawyers lurking behind every tree, I won't even do trigger work any more.

flowered the rifle barrel and blew the 2 barrels apart--didn't hurt the receiver though
my smith and I go back a long way

The design just couldn't stand the stress I guess.

I doubt it was chamber thickness though. I've seen some thin chamber walls take a lot of pressure.
I recall an experiment Gen Julian Hatcher did on this by turning away metal over a springfield chamber. Kept taking some metal off and shooting the rifle until it was down to @ 1/16" thick IIRC, and it still held with std loads. They put some proof loads in and went up a couple of those before it finally let go. Seems it was 75K PSI or something like that. He wrote about it in "Hatcher's Notebook".

Greg

My uncle brought back #888 from the 2nd WW - plastic stock -. 22/410. I gave it to Tanner Ilkin, son of Tunch Ilkin - offensive tackle for the Pittsburgh Steeler. My second was a .22 mag/20 gauge then a.222/20 gauge then a ,30-30 over 12 gauge. They were, and are, wonderful woods guns. With my solid hand loads and a few Brenneke slugs I would feel safe hunting anywhere in the US - it is always handy - accurate - and cheap to shoot - a BIG bonus today.

Terry

Somebody once suggested rechambering a 24V from 357Mag to 356Win. That wouldn't be a conversion that I'd want anything to do with.

I'd strongly suggest the guy's wife take out a large life insurance policy.. without a suicide clause. Might wind up a Darwin Award candidate

My guess would be that the 24 evolved from an existing single shot shotgun and it was easier and cheaper to add a small diameter rifle barrel on top than completely redesign the gun to put the small barrel on the bottom.

I think that may be the answer. Would like to know which single shot receiver was the basis for this, but probably never will.

So you can hit a Cottonmouth just behind the ear at 12 paces and not make a fool of yourself by not getting the hold over for sight height right.

Maybe not a beauty queen, but my BRNO 7x57R/12ga cost me under $1K with mounts & loading kit and shoots well. I like it.

SC, she looks fine to me. I don't mind a sturdy gal with well rounded curves. Especially if she does good work.

I can't make out what kind of scope it is, can you tell us. I like small scopes.

Thanks for posting the pic

Geno

That is a Leupold 2.5x fixed. Nice little scope. I currently have a Bushnell Scopechief 1.5-4.5 on it as I wanted some more magnification for working up a load.

Thank you sir, the info is much appreciated.

Geno