Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors New York Military Trials misc

Going through some old saved articles... throwing out miscellaneous stuff in no special order.


New York specified a 30 caliber gun, 28" barrel, 1 in 9" twist, metal jacketed bullet of 220gr weight, max 36gr powder.

Tests could be done with other calibers and cartridges, but the final sale would be for "present standard service smokeless powder ammunition of the United States government" - which would have been the 30-40 Krag.

One newspaper article says "United States Government cartridges were used in the test." by the Savage rifle.. so it was chambered in 30-40 Krag according to this.

Wow.. just found this: "Heretofore Its sporting pieces have been manufactured under contract by the Marlin Fire Arms Company of New Haven, Conn., while the military pieoe tested yesterday was made at the works of Pratt & Whitney, in Hartford, Conn."

Wetterau (?) powder from Belgium was used by the Savage.

One test was to fire the rifles with an overcharge of powder, 40gr instead of the normal 36gr. When measured out on the scale at the testing ground, the powder overflowed the case. Arthur Savage thought the charge much more than 40gr, and upon taking it to a druggist found it to be 75gr. If it had fit in the cartridge, Mr. Savage thought it possibly would have burst the gun.

The contract would be for up to $300,000 and 15,000 rifles over 3 years.

No field tests done with issuing weapons to troops, just various tests in front of the committee at the Thirteenth Regiment Armory in Brooklyn. Accuracy, endurance, pierced primer, sand in receiver were some.

Winchester rifle submitted was the 1895 sporting pattern with military forestock.

The Savage rifle performed best in the endurance test whereby they fired 400 continuous rounds. The Savage finished in 26 minutes, 15 seconds (32 minutes, 5 seconds for the Winchester).

The Savage rifle excelled at tests for single loaders, with an expert firing 35 shots in one minute. However, it did break down during the single load test but was easily repaired.

Winchester did better in the accuracy contests overall, but their gun was fired by a military shooter while the Savage was fired by Arthur Savage. Long range tests were 500, 800 and 1000 yards.

The Savage rifle is said to have fired through a 2' oak tree during the trials.

One Savage carbine was presented to the committee for review, it was not used in any tests.

Trials started on or about April 20th, 1896.
Trials ended on June 28th, 1896.

The commission reported the unanimous selection of the Savage rifle as it's choice on or about July 14th, 1896. Muskets for infantry, carbines for cavalry.

October 23rd, 1896 is when Governor Morton turned down the Savage rifle purchase in favor of getting Springfield rifles from the federal gov't.

Based on the information above, I would hazard a guess that it's quite possible that "The Pre-1899 Military Rifle" on page 13 of David's book is the musket that was actually tested for the trials.

Neat stuff; thanks for it!

Never been a fan of the '95. Its magazine especially sucks compared to the Savage 95/99, although it could use stripper clips. Could the Savage military musket use them? (Never seen one up close enough to tell).

The '95 is also a pain (literally) to carry long distances, at least the .30-40 we had when I was a kid was difficult to carry in any of the normal hunter carry positions, even for my dad. The balance point (magazine well) hurts your carrying hand, or your forearm if you carry it over your left arm.

Certainly the Savage could have been modified to use stripper clips, since the "Greek" Mannlicher-Schoenauer '03 used them to feed its rotary magazine.

Twelve rifles from different manufacturers were submitted to the board by April 21, 1896 - but only five models were accepted for testing. These were:
1) Winchester Arms of New Haven, Conn.
2) Savage Repeating Arms of Utica, N.Y.
3) Briggs-Kneeland of New York City
4) J.H. Blake of Batavia, N.Y.
5) Bethel Burton of Brooklyn, N.Y.

I don't think military rifles of the time got any better than the 98 Mauser. And though I like the 03 Springfield, it is an overly complicated interpretation of the Mauser design. Perhaps the 1917 was the best battle rifle we had going until the Garand but we opted to not make it the standard issue. While the thought of a military 99 is intriguing, I still think I'd prefer a good bolt gun for battle at that time. On another note, any 99 chambered for the 30-40 Krag must have had a highly modified receiver. Does anyone have good pictures of these rifles (obviously I'm one of the saps who doesn't have Mr. Royal's book).

I believe it's the right-most rifle in this picture. It's on display at the Savage factory in Westfield.



It has a very long tang, an 1899 style bolt, and a lever that looks like it's off an old Marlin. It was really bizarre to me that there would be a military prototype that was apparently post-1895 design since it has the 1899 bolt. Why do it when you have 1895 muskets? But if a 30-40 Krag was needed for the NY National Guard trials then this gun makes sense.

There were 2 NY trials. The 1st (1892) was the US Ordnance Trials. The rifle was the Colt produced Savage 1892. It was chambered in .30-40 Krag.

The 2nd (1895) was the National Guard Trials which Savage submitted 100 1895's.

The original author of the info posted above took the two tests and mixed it all into one. David found this same info when writing his book but we got it squared away before it was published.

Rick, I am not reading 3rd hand sources. I am reading newspaper articles and such FROM 1896 about the National Guard trials. Dozens of articles, multiple newspapers.

There is no indication that 100 rifles were submitted. Why would the committee take 100 guns when all of their testing was at ranges on only single guns? In fact, when Winchester and Briggs-Kreeland were claiming Savage only won by colluding with the panel, one of the arguments they made was that there was only 1 Savage gun made and so purchasing the Savage was tantamount to buying a wholly experimental firearm. That argument made no sense when I read it because Savage would have sold a thousand 1895's by then at least... But if they only had one designed for 30-40 Krag it makes some sense.

PS: that's not to say that every fact I've stated above is 100% accurate. We all know how badly reporters can screw up.

The 1892 trials were a totally different affair, and nothing I have referenced here had anything to do with the 1892 trials. That information is actually far easier to read through, I've done it a couple of times over the last 10 years.

This article seems to indicate that all the Savage guns were .303 Savage both in the illustration and in the text. (I think this is about the same trials.)



This one about it is from one of the unhappy competitors, the #3 marked paragraph is about the cartridges but does not specify the calibers, but does seem to indicate that the Savage rifles used different cartridges. Statement 2 is interesting because he didn't think Marlin was capable of making these rifles, he seems quite biased so I don't how much of this can be considered accurate.

Thanks much for all the great info. A 99 chambered in .303 makes sense but how Savage may have stuffed a .30-40 into the receiver without major modifications still intrigues me.

I'll get my notes out and post the demensions of this rifle's receiver later today. David

Gene, I do see in that last piece where the competitor is complaining about the Savage gun, that he describes an 1895 bolt and not an 1899 bolt. That definitely argues for an 1895 and not the mystery musket.

At the same time, both articles reference single guns from the manufacturers and not 100.

I got curious about that same thing after thinking about the problems I had fitting a .410 barrel and just getting the action to handle the larger rim of a .410. Comparing specs the 30-40 Krag has an even bigger rim - 0.545" compared to the .410 @ 0.528" and the .303 @ 0.506".

What really surprised me was the length, the 30-40 is shown as 3.089" compared to the .303 Savage at 2.520". The .308 Winchester that required some changes because of it's length is only listed as 2.800" - my thought's are that it would almost certainly take a lengthened receiver just so the 30-40 would fit in the magazine.

Been trying to get back to this all day...

Just throwing out some comments. Still trying to adjust my thinking on the subject.

The transition musket (whatever we are going to call it) now has a 1899 style bolt. During the test it had an 1895 style bolt. Correct? The bolt would have been one of a kind which means that a replacement was made for it at a later time or that the 1899 bolt originated because of changes to this rifle.

There was a comment about the Savage ammo being loaded with just 30 gr. of powder vs. the required 36 gr. The Savage .303 was factory loaded with 30 gr. of powder at that time. Could also just mean that Savage was using lighter load .30-40's.

My earlier comments on the NY Guard Trial rifles originated from a letter from JTC in reference to 1895-D, 3351 which is one of the converted muskets like the one Mad-Dog has. Acceptance was 2/14/1896, no ship date. The letter states: "The remaining (log) entry shows this rifle to be a rare "military" version. Sometime ago a search of the Model 1895 ledger book was made for various serial numbers of the military models recorded. the tally of the various numbers yielded that a total of 100 military versions were made at Marlin. The breakdown shows 96 regular full stock models and 4 were listed as military carbines. These rifles were of course for the New York Militia Trials of 1896".

There are three muskets, that I know of, including Mad Dogs that have been reworked from there original configuration. Mad Dog's, unlike the #3351 musket has a 12/1896 acceptance (later than the NY 1896 Trials) and a 9/1898 ship date.

In copies of a few 1895 log sheets I count 10 other muskets all accepted between 11/30/1896 and 1/9/1897. There are 6 of these with readable ship dates and they are all in the Sep to Nov of 1898. Were they shipped as reworked rifles as Mad Dogs? Were they returned trials muskets (what trial?) that was salvaged like with the Savage .45's. Or just non-sellable inventory?

None of the above answers anything. Just posted to add pieces to the puzzle. I think I might have lead David down the wrong path on this subject and if my thinking was wrong then I'm the one that made the error in David's book.

You all talk about the muskets so what about the one in 32-20????

This is all good stuff. Please keep the conversation going!

The opening in the receiver of the pre-1899 musket is 3 5/8" compared to about 3 1/4" for one of my 1895's. This is about the difference in length between 30-40 Krag and 303 Savage loaded rounds. In other words the bolt would be about 3/8" longer and the receiver proportionally longer.
Maybe the cocking indicator bolt was a prototype for the 1899 bolt.
David

This sound like the artical that JTC statement is linked to...

http://americansocietyofarmscollect...-Arms-Model-1892-Musket-B083_Johnson.pdf

I've had no luck finding the publication, New york militia rifle trials 1896 by Gilbert E Newton. Anyone else locate it?

David's measurements of the Pratt & Whitney, "$20,000, 3 year production time", transition musket sure sounds like a rifle that would have been submitted to the NY Trials. If this is the one then the bolt was changed after the trials to correct one of the problems. This might account for why the bolt was changed when the Model 1899 rifle went into production.

Appears the people at Savage don't/didn't have the history on the transition rifle, either.

Yep, these newspaper articles bring up a lot of possibilities.

It purportedly had an 1895 bolt. The only reference to that is by Bethel Burton (a competitor) in his complaint letter in the paper that Gene referenced. Now, was he referencing the gun that was in the trial, or was he referencing the carbine that was shown to the commission, or was he referencing the sporting arms that were being sold?

So that's 1 strike against it being the pre-1899 transition musket. I'll keep an eye open for that in anything else I run across.

One possibility of the 100 military guns is that they were ordered by Arthur W. Savage just to have on hand to show to potential buyers rather than being actual trial guns. The original Marlin order was supposedly 10,000 guns - so having 1% of the order be military arms isn't too crazy given Arthur's urge to sell to that market.
As to only one gun being submitted: I've been seeing between all of the newspaper articles and Gene's find references to just "gun", as though a singular firearm was the only one at the trial. Sometimes the words "guns" or "rifles" are used, but to the best of my recollection it's always when referring to the rifles of multiple manufacturers.

Published in "The Gun Report" in March, 1968. Just ordered it off of ebay for $8.69, I'll let you know what's in it when it gets here.
I'd run across that pdf while researching the trials, but hadn't thought to go find Gilbert's article for some reason (maybe because it was 2am?). Appreciate the prod.


I'm wondering if Bethel Burton wasn't referring to the entire time that the Savage rifle had been under development and all of the expenses put into the 1892/1893/1895 research and development, rather than just the expense of the trial rifle? I can see Arthur W. Savage talking up how much time and effort and revisions and cost he'd put into developing this gun while including the entire 3+ years.

Or that Bethel Burton picked up some 303 Savage ammo rather than the used in the testing, IF they were different.

Compare the 30gr powder load of the 303 Savage to the Commission's test on overcharging a case with 40gr, I don't think you could fit 33% extra powder into a 303 Savage cartridge. Even compressed... 33% is a LOT. If they were using a light load in a 30-40 Krag, then sure.. but I'm not sure why they would use a light load when they were doing 500yd, 800yd and 1000yd accuracy tests.


Savage's 1895 catalog on page 52 refers to ammo being fired for a penetration test using 36gr of powder with a 220gr bullet (the exact ammo specified by the commission). It does not say it was from a Savage rifle, tho it would be odd to include that point in the catalog if it wasn't a Savage rifle. It obviously isn't a 303 Savage since they go to great pains throughout to say 30gr is the proper load for that cartridge.

The 1895 catalog also contains order codes for military rifles and carbines in "U.S. 30 cal", as well as order codes for ".30 cal U.S. Government Shells".

So.. Arthur W. Savage definitely had sights on a rifle in 30-40 Krag. The question is whether one or more were produced, and if so was it used in the New York Militia Trials.

Breaking news... think I have a definitive answer. Have to talk with somebody tomorrow first, though.

Rick, just as a note, my letter states "return, 9/3/98 "R" special, Chas E. Lisdall.

Not real sure what an R special is and have yet to dig anything up on a Chas E Lisdall.

That's interesting. It shows you can lengthen the basic design for longer cartridges. I guess, conversely, you too could shorten the receiver for smaller cartridges. Thanks for taking the measurements.

The 1892 prototype at the factory has a 33" barrel and felt a good deal heavier than 10 pounds. Unfortunately I didn't have a way to weigh it.
There are a few other errors in the article that I won't go into unless you guys want me too. One of the glaring errors is that he said the sporting rifles were made in nearly 30 different calibers. I only know of 14, or 15 if you include the .410 shotgun. He also said the sporting rifles were made in over a dozen different barrel lengths. I only know of four standard lengths: 20, 22, 24 and 26" or six if you count the early optional lengths of 28 and 30".
He talks about a second 1899 musket which is at the factory. He says it is 303 caliber. If he means the musket we're referring to as a pre-1899 I wonder why it would have the longer receiver if it's a 303. It could be a 303 and Savage was developing a longer receiver to accept the 30-40 Krag caliber. But why go to the expense of custom building a longer receiver and then chambering it in 303?
Unfortunately even with new computer glasses I'm unable to read the articles Gene posted. If someone could email them to me at wyomingsavage1895gmail.com. I'd appreciate it.
David

The 32-20 mentioned by Fug has a shorter receiver, the existing example of that is a very neat looking compact design, I think it predated the long ones, it's the one depicted in the 1893 patent that was filed for in 1892 - patents/US491138

added -

MD, if the musket was retuned in 2 days it must have been fairly close to the plant.

Maybe Savage offered some type of free or cheap modification to help sell these musket?

Just went and measured my musket receiver, 3 1/4".

Here's a gorgeous ad for the 1895 provided by Fug that refers to the New York Guard trials. It immediately then talks about the 303 Savage cartridge and it's variations.

Okay, don't know how definitive this is, but it's very interesting. It has me leaning towards the pre-1899 transition musket.

There exists a picture of an expo with a Savage display from the late 1890's. Hanging above the display is a sign that reads:

"THIS IS THE SAVAGE RIFLE THAT WON THE CONTEST FOR ARMING THE STATE OF NEW YORK MILITIA"

The musket hanging there looks to be the pre-1899 transition musket. It has finger grooves on the sides, unlike both Fug's and the Cody museum muskets, it has no side panels on the buttstock, unlike both Fug's and the Cody, and Fug pointed out that it has a bayonet attached which the pre-1899 musket allows for, but both 1895 muskets don't have an attachment for.

I can't think of a good reason that Savage would drag out a non-standard musket for display if a standard 1895 musket in 303 Savage had won the contest. I'm sure they kept a couple of standard 1895 muskets around until the start of the 1899's so that Arthur could keep trying to get military contracts.

So it sounds like there was only the one rifle that was given for trials and it was chambered in 30-40 Krag I'm guessing. Even though it's stated that it must be 30 cal I think the musket they sent was more than likely modified for 30-40 Krag since thats what they were asking for if the rifle had won.

I'm going by the article Jed sent me but specs on the gun sent by Savage say it was a 9 1/2 lb full stocked rifle with a gov't Krag bbl cut to 28" and that the receiver was lengthened to handle the new 30-40 gov't cartridge. As already said the receiver was really made by Pratt and Whitney.

Come to think of it a bunch of us must have that article. If you look at the top of the first page you can just barely see the words "recv'd from John Callahan 1996".

9.5lb and gov't barrel match with what I saw in the newspaper articles, tho I interpreted the gov't barrel part to only mean the metal for the barrel was gotten from the same source as gov't barrels. I think Savage even mentions that in their catalog? The newspaper articles also mention that Arthur talked about reducing the weight by carving the stock down if they got the contract.

Was going to go thru the stuff I got from Jed, but hadn't got to it yet.

I don't find a letter from Jed about it. Would like to have a copy, if possible.

It was the article that was sent out with that packet Jed was sending out about 10 years ago.

I'll see if I have it on the computer somewhere for you Rick.

Trivia from 1898:

Was it hard copy or computer files Jed sent?

Photo copies.

Got a kick out of the last paragraph:


Quote:

Winchesters well known agent Colonel Addis, picked up the Savage rifle and attempted to jam a round in the action. Arthur Savage, a brawny man with a shock of dark hair and a walrus mustache, retaliated by seizing the Winchester and jamming a round into the breech so firmly that it had to be pried out with a knife. Following these solemn proceedings, the board retired to deliberate it's choice.

The receiver opening on the "1893 Patent" rifle is 2 1/16". The factory people thought it was in 32-20 caliber and we generally accept that this is true. Too bad someone couldn't bring in a batch of various calibers of ammo and try them in the prototypes. The factory doesn't have a lot of info on the prototypes.
The receivers could be lengthened to accept longer cartridges. There is a photo of a 30-06 prototype on page 87 of my book. The factory label said it was the only high powered 99 ever built. Ron Coburn told me it was not possible to build a modified 99 action that would accept cartridges of higher pressure than the 308 class of ammo due to the four degree angle where the bolt mates to the rear of the receiver. There is a photo of a cutaway 99 receiver showing this angle on page 122 of my book.
David

Interesting to see another version of this add

Neat, that one is even signed by the artist.

My plans for a future book include this sort of thing. David

They are both signed
But they are different signatures
The first add is to the left of the powder tin under the Indian
The second bottom left of the page

Good eyes!

The signature on Fug's color ad is "Gibbs & Wagstaff, N.Y.".

Got "The Gun Report" of March, 1968 in with the article "New York Militia Rifle Trials of 1896" by Gilbert E. Newton.

It's very impressive, actually. Joe, those quotes of yours are coming from this article.

He credits Mrs. Arthur J. Savage and Mr. Ralph Merkner for their assistance, and gives several references including Roe S. Clark, Jr. - Asst. Service Manager of Savage Arms. I'm not sure who Ralph Merkner is (son in law?), but the other names are familiar.

The biggest flaw with the article is that he shows pages from the testing requirements of the US Army trials in NY, apparently not knowing they were from the 1892 US trials and not the 1896 NY Guard trials. The testing requirements he quotes in the article appear to match what I've read in the articles though.

But reading through the article fairly quickly, everything seems to agree with the newspaper articles more than one would expect.

As to the provenance of the gun used, he says:

For those who like Savage info, keep an eye open for this magazine on eBay. It's worth picking up. I'll post more info from it soon.

Very interesting! Thanks for posting.

This "carbine" statement keeps popping up. Have we seen anything identifying if this was a .30-40 version or just a standard 1895?

The newspaper articles didn't say, but this article makes it sound like the standard 1895 carbine.

More Savage lore relating to New York Guard Trials. I think.
The trials were not without controversy it seems.

back up to page 635.
https://books.google.com/books?id=D...thur%20w.%20savage%20jamaica&f=false

Oh, the trials led to massive controversy and accusations of collusion. Winchester and a couple other losers didn't take it well at all.

So the Governor cancelled the whole thing.

I think of Carbines as our SRC's, it's to bad none of our SRC's have lettered as a trial rifle........yet.

My trials rifle was restocked and the barrel was shortened, I'm thinking thats what the R special meant in my letter from JC.

Unless it was just restocked and that was what they meant by carbine and mine was an original barrel length at the trials? Always a mystery. Can't see it though being as the other trial rifles lettered had long barrels.

Joe, I'm sure they meant a saddle ring carbine since I remember them referring to the carbines as being for the cavalry.

But since the SRC was never turned over to the commission, but appears to simply have been carried down and displayed, I'm not sure it would letter.

Winchester's reaction to the selection of the Savage rifle reminds me of the way the Democrats are reacting to Trump's election.
Gov. Morton said he thought the U.S. Government would issue repeaters to the National Guard if they got called up for a national emergency. The U.S. Gov. did call up the N. Y. National guard and sent them to Cuba with their single shot black powder Springfields during the Spanish-American War. The New Yorkers suffered greatly at the hands of the Spanish who were armed with smokeless powder Mauser repeaters but the N.Y. state gov. saved $300,000 and Winchester did Savage some damage.
But that wasn't enough. Winchester created a consortium of U.S. ammo makers who refused to produce 303 Savage ammo. This resulted in Savage starting to make their own ammo in the early 1900's. David

Actually, Savage started their ammunition production in 1897 or 1898 - I think 1898. Ran across a reference to them saying that they were creating an ammunition assembly area in their new factory they were building in Utica.

So I'm not sure if that "consortium" to not produce Savage ammo is correct or not. I've heard it mentioned before, but Savage was all set to produce their own as soon as they re-incorporated and built a factory. Would love to see a period source that commented on it.

I thought it was that the "consortium" would not sell them components for the manufacture of Savage ammo.

Rick, I said that off the top of my head. I'll have to look back in to my sources that I used for the book. According to page 22 of my book UMC made Savage ammo until 1900. Savage had to start producing their own ammo then because the Ammunition Manufacturers Association consisting of UMC, Winchester Repeating Arms Co., and the U.S. Cartridge Co.-refused to sell to Savage. This would be a quick rundown on what my reference said. But as we all know there is a lot of misinformation out there. David

We know they were getting their powder the entire time from Europe.. so maybe the consortium wouldn't sell them brass or primers?

In reviewing this post for the changes to my book I think what I described as the "Savage factory pre-1899 military test rifle" (this is what the factory label called it) in Figs. 1-16 and 1-17 on page 13 of my book must definitely be the New York National Guard trials rifle. Considering all the information above in support of this fact is the further question if this is not the trials rifle what is it? Other information like Arthur Savage's letters concerning the Perris Special is that a prototype like this was extremely expensive. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this rifle was produced for anything else as concrete as a trial for a military rifle. I don't think Savage spent thousands of dollars without a substantial goal for producing the rifle. As for the bolt Savage may have already been experimenting with the cocking indicator that was developed for the 1899. David

That is the direction that all the evidence seems to be pointing to, though I don't have your book right now to check the pictures.

Here are the pics.


David

Yep, I think the evidence really, really points to that one rather than a "standard" 1895 or 1899 musket.

The rifle that won the trials was displayed at the 1897 Sportsmen's Exposition at Madison Square Garden according to a couple different article, and this is a description from one of them. All of the articles state that "the" rifle used to win the trial was there, not "one of the" rifles. Also notice how they mention a difference in caliber between the trial rifle and Savage rifles - that could be simply bad reporting except for the other sources that mention it being the same as the US cartridge.

Some more pics of the N.Y. trials rifle.




Did I ever mention that we took thousands of pics and narrowed them down to 260 something for the book. This is some we didn't use. They were taken at the Savage factory by my niece Charlotte Royal. David

I can't see yer link?

The picture? Here.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Z...Mv5NTNbfrjPjvjQoD=s595-w595-h368-no?.JPG

Rory, I can't open either one. Could you email the article to me. wyomingsavage1895gmail.com. Thanks, David

Weren't some of the shooting trials conducting on Governor's Island?

Thanks, Mike.


I don't think so, I think that was the 1892 army trials where Krag-Jorgenson won. Much earlier prototype of the Savage rifle was used there.

One of these.

David

Found a copy of the Board of Examiners Report to Governor Morton. While it doesn't totally resolve the question of what the rifle was chambered in, I think it does resolve the question of how many rifles were submitted.

As to carbine being tested? No. Submitted for inspection and the usage is in regards to a single rifle.


As to multiple rifles being tested? Sure doesn't sound like it. Throughout the report it refers to rifles from manufacturers as single specimens. Notice that Winchester 95 is listed twice, because they submitted two rifles with slight differences.


As to the chambering: about the most definitive thing there is the comment:

Obviously the army was using the Krag-Jorgenson in 30-40 Krag.

Now I'm trying to find a copy of the actual trial results.. only found the "executive summary" that was sent to Governor Morton.

December 7th, 1895 article requesting rifles for the trials.

I think this pretty much puts the rumor that there were 100 Savage muskets submitted to the trials to rest.

definitely only one was requested.

Picture of the Savage trial rifle as printed by the Brooklyn, NY Daily Eagle. This rifle matches the "1899 transition musket" in David's book on page 13, from the lever shape to the finger grooves to the 2 sling swivels on the barrel. Discrepencies are the cleaning rod sticking out on the picture isn't shown on the rifle in David's book, and the forearm in the picture on top of the barrel extends slightly past the first barrel band, whereas in this picture it looks like the wood stops at the first barrel band.

It also appears to me that the rear of the receiver in this pic flares out like the 1899 transition musket - tho the graininess does make that somewhat questionable.

This picture definitely doesn't match the 1893 musket, and it's not a good match to any 1895 musket we've seen.

That squared off lever with the Marlin style bulge on the bottom is pretty convincing... I've only seen it on one Savage rifle. Since Savage already had pictures drawn up of a Savage musket for their catalog, it makes sense this was drawn from the rifle at the trials rather than a pic handed out by Savage. The musket in the 1895 catalog does have finger grooves on the sides, and does have a cleaning rod sticking out beneath the barrel, but it has a Savage lever and not the Marlin style and the catalog pic has no wood on top of the barrel at all, and the catalogued pic has 2 big sling swivels with only one far forward on the barrel and one far back on buttstock.

Newspaper writeup here:

https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/50431271/?terms=close%2Bof%2Bthe%2Barmory%2Btests

Those could be mistakes by the artist. I will try to find my other pics of the rifle and see if it has a hole for the cleaning rod. David

Here is a closeup of the forearm from the side. I don't see a hole for a ramrod. So the mystery deepens. What is the pre-1899 military rifle? David

Marlin had no rifles at the trial. Drawing a picture of a Marlin style lever on a Savage musket is a pretty big coincidence.

Got a line on good data about the trials, just waiting for it to arrive. Hopefully will be able to answer most questions.

Photobucket no longer allows the photos I posted some time ago to be seen. Since this is a permanent thread I'll post them again. David
photos of factory pre-1899 military musket. Possibly the New York trials rifle.






[img]https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/62516.jpg[/img]
[img]https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/62517.jpg[/img]
[img]https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/62519.jpg[/img]
[img]https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/62520.jpg[/img]

I know I entered those correctly. Why aren't they showing? Is there some kind of limit? David

Very intersting rifle

6 photo limit

Per post, you can add the others to that next post and they'll display.

This




I learn something new every day if I pay attention. David

Riding the coattails of success at NY.
Interestingly, the sketch of the rifle looks like a 1895 although there is no mention of model, 1895, 1899,...

The ad is from 1897, I think. Since there was only one Savage lever rifle in production maybe Savage didn't feel they needed a model number? Same for the minimal .303 Sav. caliber marking till the .30-30 chambering was added.

I noticed in the listing (above) of rifles submitted for the trials that the Winchester was listed as the Model `95 while the Savage was listed as the Military Magazine Rifle. At first I thought that might clarify that it was not a Model 1895 but from the above ad it appears that the Model 1895 designation was not always used at that time.

One thing that still has me puzzled are the three modified 1895 muskets that have turned up. They have holes in front of the trigger guard for a sling loop (like a trap door Springfield) that have been plugged. None of the other Savage muskets have that. Also a wedge cut on top of the barrel where a rear sight would have been located. If not Trial muskets then were they for someone else?

Rick,The marlin muskets of that era had a extra boss in front of the lever pivot for the sling swivel,could have been a marlin thing on the 1895's. Don

Yes, it is a raised area on the receiver. I looked at that. Maybe these Savage holes were just an early idea that was later dropped?

Fug's 1895 musket doesn't have a sling swivel on front of lever.
Cody 1895 musket does have the sling swivel on the front of the lever.
Fug's 1899 musket does have the sling swivel on the front of the lever.
The 1895 catalog doesn't show it, shows the sling swivel on buttstock.
The 1897 catalog doesn't show it, shows the sling swivel on buttstock.
The 1900 catalog shows sling swivel on the front of the lever twice.

Given those.. I'd lean towards it being a later idea.