Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors .243

The later model receiver do not have the wall across the back of the receiver the same as the earlier ones. So it is this wall that actuall stops the rotor from going in all the way. Also the machined area inside the receiver is longer in the newer style. I will try to get some pictures tonight.

I'd be real interested in seeing a factory letter on this one as I was the one who bought the ill-fated .243 with serial number 774,0XX that wouldn't feed. We all thought it had been re-barreled until I got the factory letter that confirmed it was indeed an early .243 with the shorter internal receiver on it. Maybe there's a few early ones that escaped the factory.

Why fix something that is not broke? I don't believe you ever said why you think it has the wrong rotor.
Or did I miss something?

The gun was probably originally either a 250 or a 300. So if somebody replaced the barrel with a 243, it probably still has the 250/300 rotor in it. The problem as I understand it is that a 243 rotor is not going to fit in that receiver. I think that is where we are at on this thing.

No doubt somebody will correct me if I am wrong!

The question really is, does the gun smoothly cycle ammo through the action the way it is? If so....leave it alone. If not....re-rebarrel it with a 250 or 300 or get rid of it.

Problem (if there even is one) solved

Just sayin'

I have seen at least 2 other 99s in teh 7xx,xxx serial range that were 243s... all were Fs. I have no idea if those guns were "right" or if one or both I saw are the ones referred to here... both were on AA as I recall. I might even have links... one had a pad on it as I recall.

Would like to see whatever you can dig up on them.

I don't think we ever found out why 99fever thought he needed another rotor did we??

OK, I just spoke to the guy I got this from.

He has (or had) a "letter" from the Savage historian on this gun.

Gun is proper from factory.

It is a factory mistake.

Receiver is supposed to be for a.250, but barrel is a .243.

So guys, lets assume this is all correct, and can be proven (based on serial numbers, etc), is this gun very collect-able as it is, or should I try and find a .250 barrel to make it right? It has the coarse-flat-top threads and the swelled area around the rear-sight dove-tail.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

Oh, and it is a savage 99F.

I don't understand that statement unless it means it has a .250 rotor instead of a .243. With the exception of the cartridge guide maybe, it would be the same parts.

I still don't know what problem you are trying to solve.

Does it feed and extract OK?

Does it fire when you pull the trigger?

Help us out here.

If it works just leave it alone.

Like Lightfoot said, what exactly is the problem? You're trying too hard.

If it ain't broke...don't fix it.

Just sayin

And the fact that some dope at the factory screwed a 243 barrel on a 250/300 receiver don't make it anymore valuable.

Can't speak for the other guys, but at least not to me.

243 shooter F's are dime a dozen

Post mil 99s used the same carrier for .243, 250-3000, .300 and .308. Don't know about earlier 99s although pre-war most carriers were cartridge specific. A post mil carrier should fit a pre-mil factory long carrier action.

Should have mentioned that if its a proper pre 900,000 receiver for 250-3000 then its too short internally for a .243 carrier.

Yes, George sort of...

The factory did build some .243s on the 7xx,xxx receivers so one would think they put .243 rotors in them, and, they oughta work or they shouldn't have sold them in the first place.

Were they properly done like the 900,000+ receivers with the web machined out and that piece of crap stamped metal piece holding the rear of the carrier spindle? If not then they had too be to short internally to be right. Prototypes that were serialed and let out the door maybe?

I've never owned one because I thought they were counterfeit specimens. When one of them lettered, we all went hmmmmmmmm.

I think they tried to fudge the .243 in as being 'close enuf' since it was a tad smaller than the quarter bore.

I'd bet the innards are just like any other 7xx,xxx gun.

Shoots fine as a single shot.

Will not accept .243 cartridges into the rotary magazine.

So, my question is, given this gun is a documented factory mistake, am I better off:

1) keeping it as is, due to collect-a-bility being a factory mistake?

2) Put a .250 barrel on it.

3) Adjust the "internal" mechanisms and try to make it function as a .243.

I appreciate the input of you all.

Thanks!

Honestly, all of your options do not look good... 3 will be too difficult, 2 will be impossible to find and cost $$$$, 1 does not seem realistic but maybe if the letter really states that the gun was built that way and the factory let it leave like that.... But I doubt that is true

I'd sure like to see that factory letter! I find it hard to believe the Historian declared it a factory mistake based on the details now available.

What about the .243 round doesn't fit the magazine? is it too long or what?

Seems that I need to either get the letter, or if not available from the guy I got it from, go to the historian myself.

Can anyone here give me his contact information?

Is this one guy? Is he "THE" guy, or are there multiple people?

Thanks!