Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Savage 1899 with set trigger

am i wrong or has there been modifications to the safety also? fascinating set up.

side note to Gib, i think you could retire by touring the group here and charging to examine that rifle.

After comparing it to my other 99, the safety doesn't appear to be altered that I can see. I'm not exactly certain if I am operating the set trigger correctly. In all of the set triggers that I have used (2 trigger system) you squeeze the set trigger to "set" it and them use the main trigger to fire it. This one doesn't seem to work that way. On this without the set trigger engaged it operates normally. If I push the set trigger forward to engage it and try to use the main trigger it has the same pull as when the set is not engaged. However when I set it and use/touch the set trigger it works like a hair trigger. I checked this at the range using live ammo and then again using the spent brass as a snapcap only once.
I'm not sure if this rifle may have had a aperture sight at one time or not. I see no evidence that it did. I do know that 38-55 and 32-40 were very popular targets rounds.

Gib

P.S. I would love to bring this rifle to Savage Fest 2018 .

Gene
Wondering what the patent drawing for the 99 set trigger looks like?

Welcome to the Fire.

BillR covered the consecutive serialed rifle that sold and others here are much better at visualizing the mechanics of the trigger than me. I don't remember see another with a set trigger and would be surprised if the rifle left the factory with that trigger.

The checkering on the butt stock looks like the Savage A2 pattern. The photo of the forearm is not good enough to say one way or the other. Have you checked all the numbers on the rifle?

The rear sight is a Winchester. Can't tell what the front is but can tell that it is not the standard Savage Rocky Mnt. used at that time.

Rick99,
The checkering on the forearm looks identical to the buttstock. The front sight is a Lyman with a white bead. All numbers match on the buttplate, stock and forearm. On closer glance the front and rear sight doesn't match the patina on the rest of the rifle.

Gib, your description of how it actually works is exactly the way I thought it should work from looking at your pictures, I also am assuming that with the left trigger set and you use the right trigger to fire as mentioned, the left trigger will stay set, is that correct? It had appeared to me that this operates like a single set trigger and that the exposed part of the right trigger could actually be removed and it would still work either set or not, just using the left.

I only have one gun with a set trigger, it was always my understanding that it was only to be set when ready to shoot and used for longer shots or target work where you had time to use it and wanted to give yourself the best chance of hitting your target. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.

Here's a link to a better picture of the Savage patent than the one I posted, looking at it again it appears to be much more different that I originally thought, but it was filed for in Oct 1913 so it's much later - uspto.gov/01100765

[quote=GeneB]gnoahh, from what I see the left trigger is the one that moves forward to set, the right is the one connected to the sear and that appears to remain in the same position which should not change the sear engagement. I looks like the left trigger pushes up against the added spring and when released the force of that spring coming down with the left trigger is what trips the sear.

Gib, borrowed one of your pictures and put in my interpretation of how it might work, I also am requesting another picture showing the insides with the trigger set. I still am confused what in this set up can move enough to disengage the sear, it looks like the pin under the front of the spring will stop it from hitting the right trigger to trip it, is there enough play in the left trigger for it to do it as it swings back?

[/quote

I'm thinkin' that is a very powerful spring. So much so that it needs a heavy washer under the screw head for support. I think the power of the spring, lifted by the set trigger as little as it is, is enough to set off the sear as little as it must be moved to release the hammer.

The table rivetted to the bottom of the spring just gets pushed up by the roller . Which just rolls back and forth underneath it, lifting it, and when once up,and under good tension, rolls easily off the end with a snap.

The set trigger must have a fair amount of travel before it snaps off the end and in case the gun didn't go off by now you're back to the regular trigger anyhow pulling it as you recoill from the kick.

Malcolm,
I think I have this figured out. The set trigger does not change the sear engagement. If I move the "set" trigger forward it lifts the spring up over the main trigger as you can see in your photo. It is balanced in such a way that when you touch the set trigger it trips back and the spring snaps down on the main trigger and it trips the sear. The little post on the end of the spring limits the travel of the spring once it snaps down. So what it looks like is you're using the spring to trip the trigger to fire the rifle. If I hold onto the set trigger and slowly move it back and forth it just lifts the spring up and down over the main trigger. No change in sear engagement.

so, how much forward pressure does it take to load the set trigger spring?

Thanks for sharing all of this, it's a fascinating study in trigger engineering!

Boy, that's damn little sear engagement for a 99. Have seen enough buggered ones to know that's on or over the edge.

Yeah, this one is scary.

all i can say is someone stayed up all night figuring that system out! would i want that setup on one of mine, no.
but if i had it in my hands i could play with it for hours!

JeffG,
It takes very little forward pressure to load the set trigger spring.

Upon closer examination of the rifle I could see evidence that there was a tang mounted sight there at one time. I'm sure that this left the factory with a completely different set of sights. A guess here, and it is strictly a guess, is that this was used for target shooting at one time.

Gib

Wasn't the 38-55 traditional a target cartridge?

It was a popular black powder cartridge all around in the late 19th/early 20th century, along with the .32-40, for both target and game shooting. The offhand target fellas gravitated to the .38-55 over the .32-40 when it came time for 200 yard shooting. The bigger bullet carried better in the wind. Smokeless powder pretty well put them both in the backseat.

My theory about why both cartridges survived the transition from black powder to smokeless is two-fold: A) Off hand target shooting was immensely popular in the day, both as participant and spectator sport and the people exposed to it naturally had their attention caught by sporting arms chambered for them. B) The .38-55 and .32-40 were/are darn good chamberings for the shooting sports that the vast majority of shooters engage in- they can stand alone in their own wright.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that the original owner of this unique gun was an old target shooter who wanted a repeater that reflected his sensibilities.

Black powder.Which is why it's rarer to find a 38-55 without a sewer pipe bore than the rifle itself.Passed on quite a few that were really nice on the outside. A shame.Best 38-55 bore was this 1893 Marlin made in 1895.Guy's that spent extra buck's on a higher grade gun cleaned their bore's.

GibM,
Old world gunsmithing is the best. I think there may be more to learn from this though. Gene has the 'Improved Patent', from which more may turn up ,and seems to always notice some new detail we didn't.

hey sqweeler, i will trade you my first born for that 1893! and throw in my second born! dang thats nice