Some were done by the factory in the latter 30's, maybe early 40's. So there's historical interest. But they don't handle modern or 1" scopes.
PS: no way to know which ones were done at the factory and which ones done after. Savage didn't record this data, as far as we've ever been able to find out.
Last edited by Calhoun; 08/11/22.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
Those naked (but fillable) holes wouldn't stress me out half as much as a ventilated recoil pad would.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, why the automatic rush to install a scope on any Savage lever gun? Put an aperture rear sight on it and retain it's wonderful carry-ability, and if venturing into wide open spaces where iron sights are a (somewhat) disadvantage, choose a different tool with a scope on it.
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
I'd put a Redfield 70 LH on it before I drilled anymore holes in it. There is an outside chance that those holes are original, especially if it isn't currently wearing a Redfield 70 LH
If it's an RS then it will at least be an accurate example. Functional too. I've shot some pretty good 100 yard groups out of 99's with receiver sights...
Last edited by 99guy; 08/11/22.
"You cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" ~Admiral Yamamoto~
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~Thomas Jefferson~
Some were done by the factory in the latter 30's, maybe early 40's. So there's historical interest. But they don't handle modern or 1" scopes.
PS: no way to know which ones were done at the factory and which ones done after. Savage didn't record this data, as far as we've ever been able to find out.
At least they didn't put your side mount right over the engraving. I just use the big round thing on top of the barrel to carry the rifle. I never took a pic of the mount side, who wants to see a couple squigly lines sticking out from under it?
Oh noes... Unless the T7 scratched up all the blueing on the other side, THAT one I'd be tempted to plug the screw holes.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
Those naked (but fillable) holes wouldn't stress me out half as much as a ventilated recoil pad would.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, why the automatic rush to install a scope on any Savage lever gun? Put an aperture rear sight on it and retain it's wonderful carry-ability, and if venturing into wide open spaces where iron sights are a (somewhat) disadvantage, choose a different tool with a scope on it.
Agree 100%. The ease of carry is what makes the 99 special. Not many rifles carry as easy and comfortable.
Guess I'll go with the modified Leupold someone here is said to make.
Need info. Thanks.
The holes are only ugly if you judge them by the aesthetics of today. You bought a period rifle with period features. Nobody set out to destroy its future desirability when they mounted the scope. In fact it could be argued they were forward thinking in mounting glass on a rifle during a tiime when open and peep sights ruled the day. Those holes would not bother me at all and here's an alterntive solution. There is a replica Wever 330 being made for the "sniper" guys who are into milsurp. I suspect the optics in the replicas are far better than what the originals had. You could always put a Weaver side mount back on that 99 and go with a modern replica of the 330. And that would look like the hot setup that 99 was back when the holes were drilled.
Last edited by S99VG; 08/11/22.
"The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle." John Stapp - "Stapp's Law" "Klaatu barada nikto"
Suggest you go back and read the whole thread before proffering advice.
Short answer ---- it's all explained and fixed.
Suggest you re-assess/re-read the advice gentleman the told you. It wasn't specific to your situation, but encompassed it. It was, as I read it, a philosophical rejoinder - nothing more, nothing less.
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
Okay boys I am reformed. I'll never dare to comment on anyone jumping on my thread and tellin me what I should do.
You're reformed?
I thought that you were the same old Larry Root that you've always been on this site, regardiess of what you are calling yourself at the time. How many user names have you had on this site? 50? 100? Anybody who changes their user name as often as you do would seem to be trying to hide your true identity/reputation. I'm kinda surprised that Rick hasn't found your latest user name and converted your UpThePole posts to Oldman1942 posts.
Anybody interacting with Larry, regardless of how reformed he is or what he is currently calling himself, should read jwgibson's thread from 2014 regarding his interaction with Larry and judge for themselves.
Okay boys I am reformed. I'll never dare to comment on anyone jumping on my thread and tellin me what I should do.
If you are going to cop an attitude like that then maybe this really isn't the best place for you. But if you want to participate with a group of guys who are far more knowledgeable on this subject than you or I will ever be and in an evironment interested in the historic perspective (after all this forum is called Savage Collectors for a reason) then by all means do pull up a stump and stick around, you might learn more than you expected. But also learn to practice a little humility, diplomacy and civility in your approach to others. And to be clear, unlike before this time I am taking the liberty to tell you what to do. The world has way to many flamers and I don't think anyone is coming here looking for yet another bad attitude. And if you are Larry, then sadly there's nothing to say. Some broke can't be fixed. Best of luck!
"The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle." John Stapp - "Stapp's Law" "Klaatu barada nikto"
Guess I'll go with the modified Leupold someone here is said to make.
Need info. Thanks.
The holes are only ugly if you judge them by the aesthetics of today. You bought a period rifle with period features. Nobody set out to destroy its future desirability when they mounted the scope. In fact it could be argued they were forward thinking in mounting glass on a rifle during a tiime when open and peep sights ruled the day. Those holes would not bother me at all and here's an alterntive solution. There is a replica Wever 330 being made for the "sniper" guys who are into milsurp. I suspect the optics in the replicas are far better than what the originals had. You could always put a Weaver side mount back on that 99 and go with a modern replica of the 330. And that would look like the hot setup that 99 was back when the holes were drilled.
Originally Posted by S99VG
Originally Posted by UpThePole
Ugh that is one ugly mount.
Guess I'll go with the modified Leupold someone here is said to make.
Need info. Thanks.
The holes are only ugly if you judge them by the aesthetics of today. You bought a period rifle with period features. Nobody set out to destroy its future desirability when they mounted the scope. In fact it could be argued they were forward thinking in mounting glass on a rifle during a tiime when open and peep sights ruled the day. Those holes would not bother me at all and here's an alterntive solution. There is a replica Wever 330 being made for the "sniper" guys who are into milsurp. I suspect the optics in the replicas are far better than what the originals had. You could always put a Weaver side mount back on that 99 and go with a modern replica of the 330. And that would look like the hot setup that 99 was back when the holes were drilled.
Suggest you go back and read the whole thread before proffering advice.
Short answer ---- it's all explained and fixed.
Originally Posted by S99VG
Originally Posted by UpThePole
Ugh that is one ugly mount.
Guess I'll go with the modified Leupold someone here is said to make.
Need info. Thanks.
The holes are only ugly if you judge them by the aesthetics of today. You bought a period rifle with period features. Nobody set out to destroy its future desirability when they mounted the scope. In fact it could be argued they were forward thinking in mounting glass on a rifle during a tiime when open and peep sights ruled the day. Those holes would not bother me at all and here's an alterntive solution. There is a replica Wever 330 being made for the "sniper" guys who are into milsurp. I suspect the optics in the replicas are far better than what the originals had. You could always put a Weaver side mount back on that 99 and go with a modern replica of the 330. And that would look like the hot setup that 99 was back when the holes were drilled.
Originally Posted by S99VG
Originally Posted by UpThePole
Ugh that is one ugly mount.
Guess I'll go with the modified Leupold someone here is said to make.
Need info. Thanks.
The holes are only ugly if you judge them by the aesthetics of today. You bought a period rifle with period features. Nobody set out to destroy its future desirability when they mounted the scope. In fact it could be argued they were forward thinking in mounting glass on a rifle during a tiime when open and peep sights ruled the day. Those holes would not bother me at all and here's an alterntive solution. There is a replica Wever 330 being made for the "sniper" guys who are into milsurp. I suspect the optics in the replicas are far better than what the originals had. You could always put a Weaver side mount back on that 99 and go with a modern replica of the 330. And that would look like the hot setup that 99 was back when the holes were drilled.
Originally Posted by S99VG
Originally Posted by UpThePole
Ugh that is one ugly mount.
Guess I'll go with the modified Leupold someone here is said to make.
Need info. Thanks.
The holes are only ugly if you judge them by the aesthetics of today. You bought a period rifle with period features. Nobody set out to destroy its future desirability when they mounted the scope. In fact it could be argued they were forward thinking in mounting glass on a rifle during a tiime when open and peep sights ruled the day. Those holes would not bother me at all and here's an alterntive solution. There is a replica Wever 330 being made for the "sniper" guys who are into milsurp. I suspect the optics in the replicas are far better than what the originals had. You could always put a Weaver side mount back on that 99 and go with a modern replica of the 330. And that would look like the hot setup that 99 was back when the holes were drilled.
That’s one of the best discriptions of how I feel about the Noske side mount on my 1928 K. People said what A Hole put a side mount on an engraved rifle? Even back then? It came out of big cattle country. I like to think the guy wasn’t an A Hole. I think he was a wealthy rancher that ordered up the finest rifle available at the time, an engraved K, special wood, take down, 300S, then he put one of the top shelf scopes of the day on it. I bet none of the ranch hands second guessed what he did? I bet none of his wealthy friends second guessed him either.
gmail.com
![[Linked Image from savagefest.net]](https://www.savagefest.net/my_99s/1935_99G_300/782.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/sOlsD5Y.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/gk9qOQw.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/SBgeQFj.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/C5y2foh.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/CwLSMCm.jpg)