Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Another Odd Savage 1895 thread

This one I have with me was made in 1896, and sat at the warehouse for many months before being shipped out. Has the JM stamp. Numbers match.

What’s odd about it? It’s in 30-30, and not in 303 Savage.

Fugg told me once years back that he has some squirreled away documentation saying that one or two 1895s snuck out of the factory in 30-30. Does anyone else here read or hear anything about this?

I like to think that I may own the first Savage rifle chambered in a Winchester caliber.

If that no kidding could be 100% proven, I would seriously ask Savage if they would possibly want it back with them.

The letter I got on it states that it remained at the factory for a longer than normal time and it’s the only 1895 they see without a “303 Savage” entry in the record. It’s just blank. Not a whole lot to go on but something.

I also like to think that a few “Marlin” employees were trying out the new 30-30 “Winchester” in the new “Savage” 1895.

Shoots 30-30 rounds just fine.

God bless,
RAS

Here's what I can tell you.

No 1895 ledger entries specify a cartridge, so not sure what anybody could mean by "it's the only 1895 they see without a "303 Savage" entry".
There have been a few copies of pages given out by Roe and Callahan, and were published when the rifles went on sale.
As well, several collectors have shown me pages they got from Roe and Callahan for help in researching my book. I don't have permission to publish them. Paul Allen had a couple pages at a Savage Fest in Wisconsin, also.
None showed a cartridge designation on 1895 entries..

1895 ledgers listed:
* Serial Number
* Notes consisting of special order features or if it's Military or Carbine
* R / O / HO (barrel shape)
* Accepted from factory date
* Ship date
* Person/company shipped to

Here's an 1895 I just lettered. Cody lists everything on the letter that's in the ledger, and don't list anything that's not in the ledger. As you can see, no cartridge designation. And it hung around for 19 months before being shipped.




Even the early 1899 ledgers don't specify 303 Savage cartridge on the listing - because they only catalogued/sold them in one cartridge. For 303 Savage they didn't record the cartridge up thru 1906'ish, they only recorded other cartridges. No cartridge entry means it was 303 Savage. I still get searches/letters back from Cody on early 1899's which don't list a cartridge because it's not listed in the ledger.

The only other cartridge mentioned in the 1895/1897 catalogs is the 30 Cal U.S. Government - in the 1895 catalog only. That would be the 30-40 Krag, not the brand new 30 WCF.

After saying all of that.. obviously I can't prove your rifle wasn't made at the factory in 30 WCF. Does the barrel stamp say 303 CAL, or 30 CAL?

The 303 Savage and 30 WCF 1899's were bored identically, from what all of our sources say. So it would have been trivial to just change the chambering.

When did Marlin first chamber a Marlin rifle in 30 WCF?

Oh.. and a last note:

I wouldn't give any rifle back to Savage. At MOST they'll put it in their lobby for display, where basically nobody will ever see it and they'll likely mislabel it.

Do a chamber cast, then find out what caliber it is . Then examine the barrel for other 30 30 evidence versus. 303 savage. Try a 303 savage in the chamber, I belive they are bigger and the bolt won't close in a 30 30 chamber. Otherwise the 303 savage may have been reamed out to a 30-30.

Bring that rifle, documentation & cast along to Savage Fest 2024 in Wyoming.
We'll have a separate break out session just for this rifle.
That'll be fun.

Calhoun,

To answer your questions.

Barrel says what every other 1895 says. It’s marked 303. No other stamping is on there that I can see. It’s a round barrel, sporting rifle. Not octagon or 26 inches.

I actually got “two” letters on this rifle. The first one was received at a time when Savage first took over the letters. I would say the 2016 timeframe. Between the typos and my own personal questions, they redid the letter. Talking to the lady on the phone who ran or at least assisted in this letter, she conveyed to me what I already explained in my post.

Again, I am just summarizing/repeating what they wrote to me. Maybe there were more notes on the gun or not in the ledger. I don’t know.

As far as the 100% full story, only God knows. So 100% certainty won’t be achieved sans Savage won’t be getting it. Lol.

——-

Malcolm,

When I got the rifle and tried putting in a 303 shell, it obviously didn’t fit. I did a full chamber cast, and that’s how I found out it being a 30-30. Again, it cycles and shoots 30-30 rounds all day long with no problem at all.

Two members of this Savage forum actually shot this rifle as well. Worked great for them as well.

Can’t ream out a 303 to a 30-30 as you stated. This rifle is cool. And in my head, it’s the first Savage in a Winchester round.

The main driver of this post was Fugg mentioning to me that he did have or seen some documentation saying that one or two were made in 30-30. Is this one of those rifles? Maybe he can opine? I don’t know for certainty as the case for a lot of early Savages. But I do know that this rifles cycles and fires 30-30 perfectly. And it’s a Savage 1895, and that is pretty damn cool.

RAS

There was another 1895 discussed sometime back that also was chambered to take '30-30' (same one?). I believe it was still marked as 'CAL .303' on the barrel. I could not find the thread with that.

From the few letters I have seen on 1895's it is not uncommon for them to have sat in the warehouse for a time, the letter Rory posted shows that one was there well over a year. I have information on 6238 - accepted April 21, 1896 and shipped March 24, 1898; another, 4543 - accepted April 22, 1897, Shipped: January 29, 1898.

One more thing.

The 30-30 was designed in 1894, and was in production in 1895 by Winchester. In the Marlin factory, they were producing some Marlins in 30-30 in 1896. Sounds funny, but 30-30 was the new hip round. Maybe Arthur and/or Marlin wanted to see how the new Savage 1895 would work with a 30-30? Not proven as already mentioned but certainly plausible in my mind.

And since we are going there, I could see ole Arthur out in the yard putting a few 30-30 rounds out with this rifle with some Marlin guys standing around watching. And then Arthur saying, “Nah, let’s keep the 303 and screw Winchester and their silly cartridge.”

Gene,

Yes, same one.

I got this rifle in Birch Run, MI from a man from Rose City, MI.

He was a collector/dealer and had zero idea it was chambered in 30-30 for the years he owned it. Never shot it.


Pics from 2017.

303, no worky



30-30 on left, cast from gun in center and 303 Savage on right.

If you talked with a lady who did letters, I'm thinking that was Effie and she was new to the ledgers. If she'd been doing rifles from 1906 and later, she'd have seen '303' entries. She didn't do them long, and is retired now.

with Savage never say never. I like the supposition that Arthur tried the 30-30 and said "NO". He and Winchester were at odds with each other. Like Winchester getting the ammo manufacturers to stop making 303 ammo.

I can see the "Savage powers that be" agreeing to chamber one in .30-30 for a good customer. After all, a sale is a sale especially for a new company struggling to get up and running. I can also see them not wanting to divulge that they did it, and simply ran the barrel through the roll stamper that included ".303 Sav" in the lettering. Also, roll stamp dies are expensive to make, then as now as I know personally, and they would've balked at a separate new stamp just to mark one rifle barrel in a caliber that they hope to God never have to make again.

Don't think about this cartridge choice with a 21st century brain, think about it from the viewpoint of a rifle loony alive and kicking in 1895. Winchester just announced a jim-dandy "high velocity" .30 cartridge with all the fanfare of a circus coming to town. Winchester is King of the Hill in the rifle world and can do no wrong - ergo, the new cartridge has gotta be wonderful. He's intrigued by the new Savage rifle but leery of its claims to contain another new Wonder Cartridge (and how could it be as Wonderful as the new Winchester cartridge), and figures his best bet is to combine the two and beat on Savage to accommodate him.

An analogy would be if today a new upstart rifle maker appears out of nowhere offering it only in their own, equally new, 6.5mm Wonder Cartridge that's similar to but not quite exactly like the 6.5 Creedmoor. Betcha there would be more than one rifle loony who would implore them to build one chambered for the Creedmoor instead.

Yes, I think that was her. I remember talking to her and she was very pleasant and polite. But I also remember thinking, “Is this the best person to be doing this task?”. In her defense, she was very new at that time and was figuring out how to do it.

RAS

Both calibers use .308 bullets. 303 Savage is 0.02 fatter at the base and .30 WCF is about 0.02 longer. So one shouldn’t rechamber a 303 Savage to .30 WCF, but could if you didn’t mind the case splitting. You could install a chamber liner (safety issue?) as the rim diameter is the same so the M1895/1899 extractor should work.
So .30WCF won’t go in an unmodified 303 chamber, but reaming out a 303 chamber would allow it to accept a .30 WCF (it just might not be safe to shoot), good idea to check the case body diameter on that chamber cast very carefully before pulling the trigger,
That said, find it very hard to believe that a major arms manufacturer would allow a barrel stamped 303 Savage that was actually chambered for the .30WCF out of the factory.

What is the serial number?

Wondering if early or late model 1895 production.
~5000 - 8000 = early prod.
~5000 - 3000 = late prod.

maybe the barrel got stamped before they did the chamber. Looking forward to the answer to Rick's question as to early or late production.

And they still let it out of the factory with a 303 barrel stamp?

Unless it was built somewhere else it looks like they did.

Remember, these were not made by Savage, so Marlin would have had to do the chambering if it were factory work. I would think in that case they would have marked it somehow so it wouldn't get mixed in with all the .303's if it were included in a big shipment. I assume Marlin stamped all the barrels.

"
To answer your questions.

Barrel says what every other 1895 says. It’s marked 303. No other stamping is on there that I can see. It’s a round barrel, sporting rifle. Not octagon or 26 inches."

RAS, are you stating that the barrel is shorter than 26 inches?

If shorter it could have been cut back enough to allow for rechambering to .30-30.

Based on your grid, it is early.

Yes, it’s round and it’s 22 inches. There are more than a few 1895s that have round barrels and have barrels that are 22 inches.

Well, to my mind there you have it. Betcha it was cut back and re-chambered. The tale to be told regarding that would be in the location of the barrel stampings as measured from the face of the receiver, and compared to a "standard" 1895 barrel.

Yes, Marlin stamped the barrel with a JM but not with a 30 that I can find.

Actually, three of us looked at this gun, and two of us fired it. Fired cases looked perfectly fine and headspace was good. I completely loaded the rifle and cycled every single round out without any issues. I wish some of my other 99s were as smooth.

Hi Gary. We already thought of that.

And we found three additional 22 inch round barrel 1895s (in 303) out there to compare to. Both the rear sight and barrel stamping on mine are exactly the same as the other three we found. Two are from a member here who may pipe in. Unless the other 3 1895s were cut down as well, which I find highly unlikely.

No notation in the ledger of barrel length? I think the other 22" 1895's were logged as "Light" or similar, weren't they?

Who did yours ship to?

I can’t remember who it was shipped to except I think the address was Jacksonville, FL.

I also think it was marked Light or something like that, but not sure.

I have to dig the letter out sometime.

I just went and measured the distance from the receiver ring to the roll stamp on my 22” light 1895’s the distance is about 7” on my 26” barrel 1895’s its between 7 1/4” and 7 1/2"

Loggah

On my 22 inch barrel, mine is about 7.25. It depends if you go from the lettering or the decorative floral design just outside of it. I measured from the ring to the edge of the floral design and got 7.25.

By my saying on the edge of the roll stamp ,i mean to the floral design.

Here is another with the 22"(?) barrel that needs to be tracked down. It's clear that the museum does know what they have.
[img]https://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-...age-model-1895-lever-action-carbine.aspx[/img]

When working one of these Savage puzzles it is always nice to have as many of the pieces as possible so we don't end up just chasing our tails...

What do we know about RAS's 1895?
1) it is not marked .30-30 but is marked as a .303. There is NO indication in the log sheets to it not being a .303.
2) I think the chamber casting indicates that it is a true .30-30 chambering and not a modified .303.
3) The .303 chamber could be modified by cutting the barrel back and rechambering. Does anyone know the minimum you would have to remove to allow for a clean rechambering?
4) Matching the barrel address location on a 26" to a know correct factory 22" barreled rifle it appears that if the barrel was set back it was very little. At this point I don't see enough info to say it is not a factory chambering but nothing to definitely prove that it is factory.
5) For me, I find it more interesting that it might be a non-cataloged factory 22" barreled rifle. This model stayed hidden from us till turned up by Plab in the last few years. Lettering his 2 rifles did not show the barrel length but did state "light" or "lightest". I believe Loggah realized that he had one as well. (not sure of what his letter states). Good chance that the NRA rifle is one, also. That makes, at the most, 5 short 1895 rifles. More research and verification is needed.
6) We need to verify that the other 22" factory rifles are chambered in.303. For that matter, any 1895 that has not been verified as being a .303 might have a .30-30 chamber.
7) It would be nice to have the serials or at least the first three digits so we could determine if these were made as a batch or just random production. Production and shipping dates would help to determine if ordered or just for stock.

Manufacturers were selling guns in multiple cartridges, and stamping the cartridge on them was almost universal by the 1890's in the case where it wasn't obvious. The Savage's have it in the barrel address (303 CAL).
I, personally, find it hard to believe that a rifle left the factory in 30 WCF without an extra or different marking, unless it was shipped to a special buyer (Winchester, maybe).

But the chamber casting exists. So.. mystery. Yes, need details on what exactly is in the factory letter. Was it marked Light or something else? When accepted, when shipped, WHO shipped to, anything else listed.

3) By measuring the thread pitch on an 1899H barrel to determine what one thread's-worth of setting back equals, and measuring that same distance up on a .303 case and then measuring the diameter of the case at that point, it's a no-go. In fact the .303 case is so much fatter (by.020") and by virtue of it's nearly straight body taper (only .020" taper between the base and where the shoulder starts) that one has to cut 1.30" off the barrel to get to the point where a .30-30 reamer would totally clean up the original .303 chamber (up to the bottom of the shoulder, which equals the head diameter of the .30-30). Ergo, the entire threaded shank of the Savage barrel (.9") plus an additional .4" of the barrel itself has to be removed, minimum, before the whole process of re-threading and re-chambering to .30-30 can begin.

Imagine what that would do to the relationship between the barrel and its fore end also. Not to mention the radically shortened receiver-to-roll stamp distance too. (I assumed earlier that the amount of material removal in order to effect a cartridge conversion would've been much less than what it obviously would actually be. My bad. Sitting here now over a cuppa coffee at 7:30AM on a rainy Saturday with nothing better to do than dig out a barrel and some cartridges as well as a dial caliper.....)

Note: that's all based on the threads and length of the barrel tenon of an 1899H being the same as that of an 1895. I don't have an orphan 1895 barrel laying around to compare! Are they the same? I bet they are, and if not they aren't so different as to materially effect the above scenario.

Given that a chamber cast and fired .30-30 cases confirm that RAS's gun is indeed a .30-30 and couldn't have been merely re-chambered at a later date by setting back the barrel by a thread or two (which wouldn't have materially effected the location of the roll stamp) it had to have been done at the factory.....

.....unless someone, a factory employee or drinking buddy of Artie Savage, got their hands on an unchambered .30 barrel blank and squirreled it away for a rainy day and it subsequently got fitted as a replacement and chambered for .30-30. But now I'm postulating on the "possible but not probable" side.

Will post letter soon. Again, it was done by that lady at Savage and I am not sure it was the best job. I think it was 2017.

Until then, serial # is 7079


Yes, Plab was the gentleman who had two 1895s like mine and Loggah now has one I guess.

Again, Fugg brought up that he might have known something or seen some documentation about an 1895 or two chambered in 30 WCF.

I don’t think at this point we have enough information to definitively say anything. But this is what I do know. I have an 1895 with a 22 inch barrel that I believe is factory based on what I can see from it. And it is definitely 100% chambered in 30-30. There is zero doubt about that.

How it got that way, I have no idea.

Plab's SR's were produced Feb-Mar 1896. Rifles around 7079 were produced July 1896 so at this point they do not appear to have been assembled as a batch.

Nothing better than a good Savage puzzle to work on.

I have owned Pauls(plabs) 22” short 1895 rifles for a few years now. Pretty sure we talked about barrel diameters and letters saying “light” “lightest” a few times before.

Gnoahhh: "Note: that's all based on the threads and length of the barrel tenon of an 1899H being the same as that of an 1895. I don't have an orphan 1895 barrel laying around to compare! Are they the same? I bet they are, and if not they aren't so different as to materially effect the above scenario."

Anyone know what barrel thread Marlin used during that time? I would think they would simply use the same tooling for Savage rifles that they did on their own.

Also, in Mule Deer's chapter on the 30-30 he lists a load he used in a Savage 1895. Since he also listed one for the 99, and knowing some of his work, I would guess he ran across a 30-30 chambered Savage 1895.

Who is Mule Deer?

I know the history of companies not liking to chamber rifles in the competition's ammo. But it makes logical sense, to me anyway, that if you can't even manufacture your own rifles it's probably a good idea to sell as many as possible to get to a place where you can. If that means chambering some in a hot/popular new round, especially if requested to do so, it would be a good idea to go along with it and maybe just not advertise it.

John Barsness

Just looking at a log page that stated “light” or “lightest” there would be no way to determine what it meant. Even receiving a letter that didn't indicate that your 22" barreled rifle was factory (was not cataloged) most would assume it was cut. We were lucky that Plab had two short barreled 1895, lettered them, and made the connection as to what they were. Wonder how many more are out there?

Loggah, do you have 2 or 3 SR's now?

I would guess very, very few otherwise we would have seen more of them. What are we at now? 4-5?

I'd think he might have been mistaken about it being an 1895, when it was actually an early 1899. That happens frequently, even to experienced gun guys who run afoul of misleading info.

The 1895 in 30 WCF had some fun today.

I do not understand this questioning of the 22" 1895's I have 2 or more

95's with 22" barrels 0ne is a saddle gun one is a C model so what is the big deal.

I think some one should check the 1895 and the 1897 catalog for the barrel lengths

In the 95 catalog you could get Sporting Rifles in 26"-28"-30"-32" all came in

A,B,C Models Military Rifles in 26"-28"-30" Carbines came in 15"and 20"

The 1897 catalog shows Sporting Rifles in 26"-28"-30" A,B,C, models

Military Rifles in 28" Carbines 20"-22" Savage built {Or Marlin Built} for

Savage Rifles from 15" to 32" in 1896 so i would think they could build

a 22" gun also as they did in 1897 I know that because someone does not

have a bunch of written letters on this some will say it is no so

I have an 1895 octagon with a 22" barrel, high grade wood and checkering. The muzzle looks like factory work. I'll bring it to Savage Fest

I don't think anybody was suggesting the 22" barreled 1895's don't exist. They obviously do, and Savage/Marlin would cut the barrel to any length.

I thought the issue was more about the 1895 chambered in .30-30 than barrel length??

Me too?

Me three

Usually when you get to page 3 and there isn’t a yelling match, it usually means other points were brought up. One of these points was how many different variations of 1895s are out there. Particularly about barrel length. I am by no means an expert on them.

Why don't you guys read Ricks post where they did not catalog 22" 1895's

Did you ever think you are butting your head against the wall?

I'm not so sure that is exactly what Rick said or meant. Perhaps he can clarify.

Did you ever think you have your nose shoved so far up Fugs azz you can't see daylight?

Asking for a friend....

Check your balls...............I think they have turned into a pussy.

CAT FIGHT!!

I wonder how many of us have 1895s and never chambered a cartridge in the rifle? I am going to pull my 1895A out of the cabinet and take a 303 and 30-30 cartridge next time I go to my bush lot.

Exactly. I have two that I have not shot.

I think we have gone as far as we can with the chambering. It appears to be factory from the info we have.

The length question originated from this statement by Jeff...

"I can’t remember who it was shipped to except I think the address was Jacksonville, FL.
I also think it was marked Light or something like that, but not sure.
I have to dig the letter out sometime."

I think we have only seen this one 1895 in .30-30. I don't think that from this one example that we can assume that Savage was retailing 1895 to the public in .30-30.

On the other hand, we have found several crescent butt rifles with 22" barrels that have statement in the log book of "Light or Lightest" but no barrel length listed. From two of the letters, they were not made in the same time frame and were not immediately shipped out as you would expect with a special order. More data is needed. I don't think there was a listing in any of the catalogs that indicated you could buy a rifle with a 22" barrel off the shelf.

As for Fug's above listing of "cataloged barrel lengths", I guess we should now accept, without question, any 1895 with a 15" to 32" barrel and in any barrel style and caliber as being factory. Really?

The SRC's were catalogued as both 20" and 22" in the 1897 catalog.

I think the context might well be that Savage was a broker of M1895 rifles, not a manufacturer. Marlin did the manufacturing and as such was a job shop for Savage. If Savage had a fish on the line who wanted something a little out of the ordinary (cataloged or not) they would accommodate him because at the end of the day it was all about garnering as many dollars as they could to finance the segue into manufacturing their own guns. Marlin may not have liked it but (I assume) Arthur's checks didn't bounce.

On page 16 of the 1899 catalog they show a picture of a 1895 rifle with a listing of a 22” barrel. It looks just like the 2 i have letters on stating “light” and “lightest” we know savage used 1895 pictures in some of their later catalogs. i ran a 303 in several of the 1895,s i have and they chambered in all of them. Needless to say i had never shot any of them. Don

Same picture of a 22" 1895 is in the 1900 catalog on page 16 - it's the saddle gun, aka 1899A SR. I don't believe it was labelled "Saddle Gun" until the 1905 catalog - where it STILL shows an 1895 rifle. The 1909 catalog finally gets updated with pictures of 1899 rifles.