Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors I have this "opportunity" to

resurrect serial 10.243. It is currently in pieces and would require a replacement buttstock (including fine checkering). Also would have to be reblued plus other work.
The question is, how many earlier Model 1899 rifles are out there? And would it be worth it to preserve this one? What say you guys with the data bases?

There all worth preserving. (Well, except maybe post-mils...)

I say go for it! It will be a labor of love but what the hell. Take your time and get some advice on restoration and refinishing from some of the guys on this and the Gunsmithing forum and you could end up with a real keeper.

PS - there was a thread on restoring 99s back in 09 when I first joined. I haven't been able to find it in searches and would appreciate a link if anyone knows it.

Wow, that's an early one John. If you don't restore it (and there are plenty of reasons not to want to take this on), I hope you can find it a home where someone else will restore it.

For me the deciding factor for paying someone to do such a project would be bore condition. If the bore is lackluster I wouldn't put the money/time/labor into a resurrection, especially if I had to hunt down and buy a better barrel or pay to have it re-lined.

I have data on nine earlier. Some in this range had 95 wood. What's the forearm look like? Probably produced in the first 3 or 4 months of 1899.

Forearm is classic 1899 schnoble shape, the checkering appears fine (24"?) and the wood is "fancy" (english walnut?). I have a letter request in mail to JTC to confirm the 22" half octagon barrel is factory. Should letter as a special order short rifle I'm guessing.

I had owned Ser# 10.225 was 303 "C" Half Oct. Half round barrel, but it was D&T in fair shape. had a Early Alaskan scope on it. I think it was the second Sav. 1899 Iv owned.

I hope the barrel hasn't been cut down.

That sounds like a keeper, definitely worth the work to put the nice wood back on it, maybe worth not touching the metal so as to keep as much original character as possible.

I agree with JeffG but add that there is no "shame" in doing a full restoration if it is done on a beater, or a pile of parts, and is done "top notch."

Good thought Jeff but this gun is well past the "character" level of deterioration. Going to need someone highly skilled to restore the receiver. If I decide to get it done I will try to post some "before" pics.

As bad as this one?



After maybe 20 hours of filing followed by blocking out with abrasives down to 400x it looks factory new.

Do you have the original buttstock? And if so, shotgun buttplate or crescent? And what style of address on the barrel?

I've got 10.7xx which is a SR with shotgun buttplate with a funky barrel band on it for a stud. Kind of an 1895'ish forearm, but 1899 buttstock. Oddly, the barrel is stamped with 10.137. Guessing 10.137 failed QA and they reused the barrel. Iffy bore, but it was cheap and I wanted it since it was so early.






PS: if that letters as a 22" octagon (which is probably all the ledger would say), I'd say it's worth bringing back to some degree, even if it's just putting on a new stock. SR's are uncommon, but octagon SR's are REALLY uncommon.

Rick, my half octagon serial number 10449 has an 1895 forearm numbered to the rifle.
John, I'm sending you a PM.
David

I'd do it.

Thanks guys for the data on all the early rifles.

There is a good chance that some of these rifles went to the trade shows (annual NY Trade Show...) to show off the new model.

John, is the action all there and functional? I'd be glad to help if it needs any parts or reassembly of the receiver and action.

Mike,
Bless you for offering help on the receiver. It does need some "tweaking". Lever will not close completely.
This would be a great reason for you to come to Tulsa in April. You could put on a clinic in Ralph's motel room (again).

Rory,
Missing stock is the smaller almost petite stock with a shotgun butt plate.
The barrel address on my gun is IDENTICAL to the SR picture you posted. Look closely at the address stamping and compare it to Murrays. It is different to any of the first three examples. Am I mistaken or is this possibly yet another barrel address discovered? Rick? BTW my barrel is also numbered with the last three digits of the SN.
John