Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Well, that's an odd postmil

99F with an early 1965 serial number, but with a clearly stamped 1967 date stamp.

10889xx, 21U.

Interesting. All the serial number/date stamps I have for the 1960's are extremely consistent. This is definitely an oddball. For the 50's it'd be "ho-hum". Buttstock has the last 4 digits of the serial number of the receiver stamped in it as well, only a 2 character assembly code on buttplate/buttstock - no markings on forearm at all.

What do you make of it? All I can add is I've seen a ton of forearms from the 60's w/o any markings.

It is what it is.. Gun that was tardy getting finished up at the plant, apparently. The last 4 digits of the serial on the buttstock surprised me, though it does have some nice figure to it. My latest 99F to date, did they continue to drill holes in the buttstock to lighten the gun for the entire lifespan of the 99F?

I'll try to post a pic or two in the morning. Forgive me for the gold trigger..

I agree. Not everything Savage did was consistent with our expectations for the serial numbers. Savage was not in business of maintaining consistency with their serial numbers but instead to make and sell firearms. And observations on perceived inconsistencies in the serial numbers are actually observations on how they built and kicked their product out the factory door. So my interpretation of Calhoun's situation, and given there was no monkey business with his 99 after it was sold, is that Savage must have had some parts kicking around the factory that were assembled into finished rifles at dates much later than their individual production dates. Seems to me that this is consistent with conclusions made by others on Savage's production habits.

Yep, we see a lot of guns that shipped months to years out of order everywhere from the 1895's up to the 50's.

But the data I have for the 60's is very consistent for date stamps and serial number ranges. There's not a single entry in my data where date stamps and serial numbers crossover - though I don't have THAT huge of a list. And I would expect that things like the 99PE and 99DE would likely be out of order. So this one is the oddball. Could be for any number of reasons.

Standard late 60's 99F as far as I know. Gray, dreary, rainy day here - so dark pics and definitely figure in the grain isn't showing. It's not a lot of figure, but any is always nice.

Missing sights and somebody stuck sling studs in it. But when ya run across a decent affordable 284, ya should grab it.

Heck ya! Any good .284 is a catch. Sights are easy, and if you use it you'll be glad for the sling studs. You plan on shooting it?

Since the 284 action is an oddball maybe they cranked out a bunch of them and then used them as needed.

That makes the most sense. Remember, the .284 has that oddball magazine so it would make sense to set up and mill a bunch at once and then build as needed.

Could very well be... so now we need folks with late 60's 284's to check their guns for serial numbers and date stamps, see if we find a pattern.

Roy? Roy?

This isn't going to be much help but. My .284 Dl is serial number 1090xxx, LBC is T, DE .284 serial #1083xxx, no LBC, .284 PE, serial # 1139xxx, not LBC. Apparently the LBC's on the DE's and PE's got lost when they were engraved. David

Nope, that fits also.

I have 1965 (code S) running from 1085xxx or so up to 1118xxx
I have 1966 (code T) running from 112xxxx to 1132xxx

So your DL should definitely be a code S, earlier 1965 rather than 1966. Another late one, just not as late as mine.

My 99 f in .284 is ser # 10875xx with LBC 18V

Whoof.. even worse than mine.

Seeing a pattern here.

Well, maybe the answer is that inconsistencies happened in the 60s, but that they were far less frequent than they were in the past. Or maybe Savage just changed their policy on how they recorded their production figures. You know what they say about statistics - and serial numbers are just another form of statistics. I'm not saying that Savage lied, but instead that the problem may have more to do with how they recorded their numbers than it does with how guns were actually produced. After all, we are assuming that the serial numbers represent the absolute truth. But then again, maybe I've just had way too much coffee this morning!

knucklehead's 99DL from a 2010 post: is another early 1965 serial number with a 1966 date stamp.

.284 F SN 1,080,4xx Date code R 1964

.284 DL SN 1,124,2xx Date code T 1966

Those two are appropriate for their serial numbers. Thx.

I have 10843XX LBC is S

^^^^^ this ^^^^^

The 284 rotary magazine receivers were unique and since 99s in 284 weren't very popular, it is logical that Savage would set up to run a large number of them to put into inventory and draw from that inventory as needed to meet actual or anticipated demand.

I wonder how many 284s were made in the rotary magazine 99DE, 99DL, 99F, and 99PE?