Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Savage M-99 vs Browning BLR

One of my brother’s BLR’s is a 7mm RM. IMHO, the magnum length BLR’s are ungainly sonsabitches.

The BLR feels ugly in the hand when carrying - the magazine sticks out of the bottom of a squared-off metal receiver, tiring the carry hand. The smooth, rounded bottom of the 99 will carry like a dream. (Knock it off! NO jokes about getting your hands on a smooth, rounded bottom!)

In my opinion, the BLR "scopes" better than the 99's....even the newer models that were drilled and tapped. I would much rather have an older 99 with a period correct tang peep, and the BLR with a 1-4x compact scope.

I think they scope ok

You’ll regret it. Just buy a Browning.

C1022 getting your hands on the smooth rounded bottom of a female is no joke. The joke is in your hand while carrying a blr. My 99 EG in 300 sav was d & t'ed for weaver bases wears weaver rings and an old weaver long tube 6x with fine x-hairs. It comes to the shoulder as nice as any and your looking thru the scope right now. The 99 ain't the problem it's all these damn short scopes with huge objectives on them that are a problem. On a 99 you just need a clear simple set and forget scope period. Mb

Since you're asking what we think about transitioning to a BLR, I'll chime in too. But, without knowing your private reasons for making the switch I (like everybody else) have to base my opinion on my own personal experience.

The ergonomics are way better with the 99. By 1960, when the 99E was intro'ed, Savage had perfected the balance and fit (with the average man in mind). So too with the action: 60 years of subtle fine tuning made them utterly reliable. Triggers suck, but only in terms of comparison with "modern" triggers that we've become spoiled with - they work ok, can be tuned a bit by someone who knows exactly what they're doing, and are simple mechanisms that will never fail you when you're crouched in the snow on a lonely mountain top a hundred miles from nowhere. "Strength" of the action is plenty for the .308 cartridge, extraction is dead-nuts reliable (unless someone has monkeyed with it).

Compare all that side by side with a BLR and get back to me.

Of course, sometimes we make such decisions based on our hearts not our heads. Mayhaps that's part-and-parcel with rifle loonyism, and explains why all of us have regrets.....

Another thought:

If like many, your 99E is fitted with a birch stock and you find it to be aesthetically displeasing (even though it's entirely functional), it can be re-stocked with walnut and made into a "semi-custom" gun. Doing that can make it a "new gun" to you and reignite the love affair you had with it when you first acquired it and all thoughts of replacement banished.

^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^

But, admittedly, you’re unlikely to find a 99 with that cool, gold-plated trigger.

Actually, there are many, many thousands of them out there. Not a fan, but they are there. One in my safe too

Gold triggers on a Savage 99? Are they rare? LOL

Weren't the gold trigger 99's tang safety only after 1960 and never on the older more desirable pre-mil lever mounted safety 99's?

Lol…I didn’t know that. All mine are 1920’s era with the lever-lock safeties.

Yes. (Unless you're rich like Fireball and commission the installation of gold triggers on all your rifles. )

I have both the M99 and the BLR. Both have features I like and features I don't like.
One the BLR, mine is the early version with the magazine that hangs down. Guess I have no choice but to live with it. My biggest gripe is the gun is too muzzle light. The Savage doesn't have that problem but I don'r like the beavertail forearm. Also I find the 99 a bit too heavy for my taste. FWIW, both rifles are more than sufficiently accurate for hunting. Both are chambered to the .358 Win.
PJ

Over the years, tried two 99's, both 250's. Triggers were ok, both walnut stocks but with gunsmithing and handloading and could not do better than 2" groups. Shot a friend's 308. It was a 2" gun also.

Have owned a 308 BLR since 1974 and steel framed 223 and 257 since their intro in the 1980's. Local smith took care of their triggers. 223 is a one inch gun while the others are better. I have many longarms to play with but these are my game guns. I do not care for the balance or roughness of the aluminum frames.

^^^Correct answer^^^

I have owned several 99's and shot several BLR's The 99's worked great but never pointed correctly for me. The BLR's also worked great and pointed better but I never could warm up to the way it carried. This was in the time long ago and far away when 100yds was a long shot for deer and most were under 50. When Ruger brought out the #1 most everything else went away. Keep them both and let the grandkids argue over them later.

My F.I.L. fed his family for years with a '94 win in 30-30. When he went into business for himself he finally got his dreams to come true; a 300 weatherby and an elk hunt out west, and BLR in 358 win and two freezers back home.

I think he thought I was some sort of tweed&cap city-feller when I showed up with a 99.., still, he let me stay and hunt.

A general comment to the several posters who say 99s kick hard:

The reason is most 99s had buttstocks designed for aiming with iron sights. Consequently when scoped your cheekbone is far under the comb of the buttstock--and the rifle rises far more than if it had a "straighter" stock.

Have seen this effect in other rifles as well. The typical Ruger No. 1 was also stocked for irons. I had one for several years, and shot and hunted with it using both iron sights and scopes. With irons it weighed around 8-1/4 pounds, and scoped a pound more. The felt recoil was noticeably harder when scoped than with irons when firing the same loads, despite weighing 10% less.

Another thing with older 99's is they had hard buttplates, whether metal or some sort of synthetic. My first was a lightweight .308 that kicked the snot out of me, both because it was scoped and rose more in recoil, and had an aluminum buttplate. Got it when I was 14 and was around 5'8" and 120 pounds, which resulted in a flinch that took a while to cure.