Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors How many idiots does it take?

To design a site that requires this? I mean really, that's the best they could come up with?! No wonder we import most everything we use from China and Bangledesh.



Just in a grumpy mood and venting.

Never seen one crack there, some idiot left it on the roof and drove off with it up there. Had a gouge, took it home thinking "if I cut it square, I can fill it. "

That is sad, amigo. Do you want me to look for a good, clean buttstock or a beater model 99 with a good buttstock at the mega gun show in Spokane this weekend? Three day show, 650 tables, probably over 10,000 attendees. USusally lots of model 99's walking around or on the tables. If so, PM em with which style of buttstock you need and a cell phone number I can reach you at and which I can send photos of prospective stocks or guns to.

Back in the day that wasn't a big deal. The folks that were using those rifles were looking for results, not future collectable status. If you think that's bad try to mount a receiver sight or a side mount (which is the only mount that works) on a Savage 340. Even on the factory D&Ted rifles most of the time you still had to butcher the wood. Do you consider the car you drive today collectable? Some day someone will and will curse you for any modification you made.

I don't know George, I've had lots of compliments on my car.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/06/22/chickencarlolcars_620x414.jpg

There, fixed it for ya.....

True, hacked up butt stocks are almost impossible to replace or too pricey to repair.
Rifle's that were drilled and tapped from the factory (on top), but someone preferred drilling and tapping for a Side Mount, get's me more.

Hate to say it but the Lyman 56 requires such a notch being carved out of the stock. If you compare a 56 with a 57, you see that Lyman milled an extra radius in in the back of sight block to clear the pads on the 99 stock. I bought a new in the box 56 years ago thinking it would go nice on my pre-war 99R until I found this out.

PS - Dig the crazy car!

I've had several Lyman 56 sights on 99s and never had to alter the stock to mount them.


Rod

Maybe I got a factory second, I don't know. But mine certainly won't do it. I didn't mount it because tightening it down would have pressed a divit into the stock. Then again, my 99R was made in 1933. Maybe later stocks have a slightly lower profile.

It has only been recently that cutting a gun stock to accept a sight or scope base became a no-no. Heck, I would still do it, depending.

Around 25 years ago when Winchester dumped a tiny number of M70 Fwt 6.5x55's onto the U.S. market, I was fortunate to grab one. What was the first thing I did? I cut a huge (but neat) notch in the side of the stock to allow a Lyman 48 sight to be screwed in place using the factory holes placed there for that purpose. I figured while I was at it I might as well replace the factory plastic-like stock finish with a nice warm oil finish, and re-cut the checkering to repair some mistakes made at the factory. I'll bet some day a Winchester collector will cry in his beer when he sees that gun. Would I do it again? Yep. (But in a perfect world the smart thing to do would have been to fit a new stock and save the factory job for posterity, but who among us can afford to do that with everything they own?)

It's because so many rifles were bodgered up that the factory original ones that remain are now collectible.

Rifle's that were drilled and tapped from the factory (on top), but someone preferred drilling and tapping for a Side Mount, get's me more. [/quote]

My 250 R was D/T from the factory, and some knucklehead still D/T'ed it for a side mount!!!, Joe.

Oh, I don't know about that. I d/t'ed another M70 (pre-64) once upon a time for a Griffin&Howe QD sidemount. If I wanted to put a period Noske or G&H mount on say a M54 or a M1920 Savage, I would, if I were a died-in-the-wool scope freak (which I'm not, thank goodness). I made ready to d/t a 99 for a G&H side mount once, but the gunsmith talked me out of it saying he didn't think the receiver walls were thick enough (and I tend to agree with him). That was back when I still was a little disdainful of Savage lever guns and looked upon that one as a hunting tool pure and simple.

If I were king, no rifles would be factory d/t'ed for any scope mount, leaving it up to the end-user to decide if and where he wants holes drilled. A classy side mount such as the G&H allows the scope to be an adjunct to the sights, not the dominant partner.

This beautiful special order 1899A T/D and pistol gripped perch bellied ol' girl met the same fate. I do suspect the side drill came first and then the 4 top holes. It all depends how bad you want the rifle what you are willing to tolerate. You can argue about side holes for the Weaver T-7 being factory. Who REALLY knows. But the top holes well, that's another story.

I have a Model 54 Winchester with a huge chunk cut out to fit a Lyman peep. I think it was pretty standard practice back in the day.

They made a tang sight for a muzzleloader that probably is the culprit. The two look very similar and the wood is the easiest to alter.

Remember back in those days all the stocks were hand fitted and not necessarily perfect clones of one another. An aperture sight that fit one 99 stock might not fit another.

I've seen several 99 stocks made to fit an aperture sight. I'm sure they wouldn't have resorted to the saw and file if they wouldn't have had too.

...wouldn't have had to if the sights had been engineered right to begin with. I'm not buying the theory that stocks varied that much so some had to be cut 1/8" deep.

Hey Fireball, No disrespect intended, but yes, the 99 stocks can vary greatly in that area. In fact, all but one that I have had in my hands have the factory wood considerably proud of the metal at the top tang. All were pre-mil guns. One I saw was a "K". The reason I notice this is my desire to add a receiver sight to a 99, but never could figure out how to do it without carving out factory wood....which I would not do. My solution has been to use Marble's or Lyman tang sights. The bases can be carefully "sprung" to rise slightly above the stock wood at the back of the tang.
I am surprised that the sight makers did not relieve that area under the receiver sight bases to allow for "proud" wood. I am guessing if you wanted to ruin a sight for collectors but solve the issue, you could machine away the metal underneath the base where it conflicts with the wood.
My solution to the dilemma in your photo is to clean it up as best as possible, and put a receiver sight on there! Best wishes to all, and happy Saturday. Marc