Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors condemned 99

Anyone know anything about gunbroker item #771546292 labeled "condemned"?

I saw that too. I would assume the word was applied to guns, or more specifically receivers, that went back to the factory and needed to be replaced as they weren't up to spec and I don't know how such an item would have made it back onto the market unless it got slipped out by a factory employee. Regardless, when you see the word "condemned" stamped on a firearm ya kinda have to assume it means the polar opposite of safe. Of course the seller did tag that rifle as "non-firing" and did indicate that it has a plugged barrel in his embellished description. So I guess that makes it a $1K wall hanger.

At some point Savage refused to work on pre-90.000 1899's and marked them condemned. It was still the property of the person who sent it in and they couldn't justify refusing to return it. It is also refinished and has a mismatched forearm. Not collectable. David

The whole thing smacks of a "put together" 99 right down to the jeweled bolt and blue-finish.

CONDEMMED

Two M's. Always, I believe.

I have a pic of one but it's so badly overstamped I can't tell.

Stever has one that he still shoots. I was hoping he would chime in.

I have a friend in Texas that has one stamped this way. It was part of a large collection of 99s he bought. I held it a few times. Forgot the specifics of the gun. It has been awhile.

RAS

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/771546292


3rd or 4th time around for this. EG forend, straight buttstock w/ crescent butt plate, condemned spelled wrong. If YOU think it's right, best buy it before it's gone.. YOU is meant to be you in general nobody in particular. One member thinks this is Savage history. I think not.

Don't think anybody on here was saying the gun was right, just that Savage would stamp CONDEMMED on rifles for reasons stated.

Do you think Savage never stamped CONDEMMED on rifles?

Absolutely I don't think that. People with lots more Savage knowledge than I say Savage would NEVER stamp in that manner and that's what I based my statement on. The FIRST thing this person picked up on was the spelling.

Someone posted this years back. Clear as mud.

The old post:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9226824/all/Condemned_rifles

Trapper 69 posted this I think

Oh... by the way...

CONDEMMED usage as a word wasn't exactly uncommon back in first half of 20th century and earlier. When I search, I find it a lot even in published articles by doctors, etc. up into the 1950's.

Contemporary examples:

Pennsylvania Commission on Constitutional Amendment and Revision in 1921, they use condemned frequently throughout the book, but several times on a single page use condemmed.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...09#v=onepage&q=condemmed&f=false

Or here from 1920, Proceedings of the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Schenectady:

https://books.google.com/books?id=0...68#v=onepage&q=condemmed&f=false


Spelling used to be more of an art than a science.