When do you think they started making 250-3000 barrels with 1-10" twist rates? Not just one-off's or one or two months of that year.. but full time including a full or almost full year?

1) 1955
2) 1959
3) 1960
4) 1961
5) 1965

1961(?).

1965

1960****

61

We'll take more answers for a few more hours.

59 or 60

Since the twist rate was not exact my guess should be close enough!

1961

I follow your logic (joke).

I think we've demonstrated that twist rate measurements and techniques vary from person to person and measurement to measurement.
Therefore, to say twist rates vary is probably a stretch since the twist rate measurements are inaccurate +/- partial turns.

Measuring twist rate of a rifle barrel is a real rabbit hole....
twist rate device

Yeah, but the factory specifications for barrel twist rate isn't a rabbit hole. I'm always interested in hearing what people have measured their rifles at, but this quiz is about when did the factory change the specifications.

1961

1960

1960
I have a 1960 F with a 1in10 twist.


Lee

I thought I always heard 60?

Yep, I think I was just telling Keith a week or two ago that the change happened in 1960.

Now.. The answer is:

I'm not sure.

Before you all lynch me, though.. I can definitely say it is NOT 1960. I was reviewing some pictures of factory information that Fug kindly let me grab a snapshot of, and I ran across bore specifications for Savage 99's. The 250-3000 is listed as 1-10", and I didn't think much of it because there's a couple pages and the first one is 1980. Thought they were all postmil stuff.

I finally spotted up in one corner a line on one page... "DATA ON GUNS MADE AS OF 2-26-59". The 250-3000 is listed as 6 grooves of 0.090" with a right hand 1-10" twist.

So it might be #2.. 1959. Maybe.. 1958?

But both Fug and I think the bigger question is, when did any of these barrels make it onto a 99 to be sold? They didn't seem to sell many 250-3000's in 1959. Might it be they were using in-stock 1-14" twist rate barrels throughout 1959, and the 1-10" twist barrels didn't get used until 1960?

If anybody has 1958-1959 rifles in 250-3000... feel free to check them. My latest is a 1957, and it was 1-14" twist, give or take 1/4".

But the barrel change to 250-3000 was at least at the beginning of 1959. Something new we didn't know before.

I'm rounding up a mob with torches and pitchforks. Anybody got a stout rope?

I still think 1961 is the safest bet. By then all the old slow twist barrels would've been used up and 1-10" barrels solidly in the pipeline.

Another question would be "why bother abandoning the old twist in the first place?" Does anybody here really feel handicapped by using a 1-14" barrel? Think about it.

Had the twist stayed at 1-14" I bet the bullet people would've put more effort into developing technologically advanced short/light bullets, and bingo, performance would've improved while retaining the original premise of the .250-3000 - lightning speed. But alas with few exceptions such wasn't to be.

In other words, in terms of "improving" the performance of the .250-3000, we're saddled with bullet technology of several generations ago, ie: "up the game with the good old cup-n-core by bumping up bullet weight." I often wondered why Nosler never offered an 80-87 grain Partition short enough to stabilize in the 1-14" twist.

1959

Calhoun, I'm pretty sure Eaglemountainman (Tim) has a 1959 99F .250-3000 with a 1:10.

That is a valuable piece of information if verified. I seem to also recall that a 1960 .250 F was reported to allegedly had a 1:14 barrel on it though.

Which, I suppose, heaps more fuel on the fire of - with Savage, never say never...

So the barrel addresses on these anomalies would be interesting and important information to know.

Where there any 1-10 Chicopee marked barrels or were they all Westfield, even though they may have been screwed on pre mil receivers? I have 2 guns with Chicopee barrels screwed on early post mil receivers so why not?

With all this going on, when did they start marking barrels 250 Sav instead of 250-3000?

Found Tim's prior posted about his 1959 99F 250-3000. here is the link: https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/14181196/1

9595XX, very early '59, Chicopee Falls marked barrel. He checked the twist serveral time, each time coming in between 10 and 10 1/2.

I don't remember what year it was but it is 1-10".

I've got quite a few around that time frame but am working ungodly hours at the moment and would rather eat, shower, sleep, and sip cocktails in the late evening than document rifles.

Interesting that a Chicopee barrel is 1-10. Apparently this idea was already off the drawing board and maybe even possibly into production shortly before the move to Westfield?

Anybody got a 1-14 Westfield barrel that they know of?

That's one I've never heard of.

I put the four asterisks **** after 1960 as I cheated some and thought maybe 1961. I looked in David Royal's book and at the start of Chapter 7 (page 91) he writes that after the move to Westfield in 1960 Savage started the 1 in 10" 250 twist. I sorta thought well maybe they didn't really start getting them in the chain until 1961 and thought of putting that year, but couldn't find any reference to it later in the book, nor anything in Murray's book either. I didn't spend alot of time looking in either book as I was in a hurry to get back outside and run our ditches huntin asparagus. 2 1/2 grocery sacks worth was the result of that labor. Besides freezing, cooking, or baking it, wife makes asparagus pickles, dang good.

Did Tim or Fireball ever check the date code on the lever boss for that gun? That should indicate the assembly finish year.

My presumption with that rifle was that it had probably been finished late in 1960 and they'd bored an already stamped Chicopee Falls barrel blank to 250-3000 with 1-10" twist. But while possible, that seems less likely now. Hey, I've got a 99DL in 284 with a Chicopee Falls barrel, so don't tell me it can't happen.

David from that thread made a good guess..:

Possibly the subject of a future trivia quiz...

Not many 250's made in the late `50's. Then Savage moved to Westfield and the 250 had some production 1960 into 1961 then discontinued for several years. It is common to find Chicopee marked brls on rifles produced in those first two years at Westfield. It's possible that if the 1 in 10 started in the 50's all the brls might be marked Chicopee.

I have a 99G in 250-3000 from the end of 1926 with a 24" Westfield barrel on it with 1-10" twist. Stamped "250-3000 SAVAGE", no SP stamp but it does have an RP2 stamp (whatever that means), and it is 1-10" twist rate. Nothing to date the barrel to a fine degree, but it does have the very minimal Westfield barrel address which I think is from the 60's.

I'll have to check the twist on my 24" barrel 250-3000 K.

I measured the 24" 250-3000 99K twist twice. I came up with exactly 1 in 13" both times.

Bet it shoots the 100 grain bullets better than normal.

Lever boss is a K
Address is Chicopee Falls

That seems to confirm that at least some 1 in 10" twist 250-3000 barrels made it onto 99's in 1959.

Rewrite the books...

What number constitutes mass production....10 or 200 or ?

I carefully worded the question to avoid that issue...

"When do you think they started making 250-3000 barrels with 1-10" twist rates?"

Not real careful. 😂

"Not just one-off's or one or two months of that year.. but full time including a full or almost full year?"

All this talk of twists, Chicopee Falls and Westfield is getting me all twisted up. Maybe if I make it to Noxen we can drag a patch through my Westfield 24" 22hp barrel. The September question can be, who made the first 1 in 9 HP barrel?

Stop it Joe........ at least it keeps him busy.😉

Should be 1-12" twist.. sorry. Just like it was in 1912.

My Westfield 250-3000 takedown barrel has a 1 in 10" twist. It's 24".
I may have to put a scope on the 99K 250-3000 and see how it shoots with different weight bullets. Then IF I get an antelope tag this year (that's unlikely, I haven't gotten one in the last 3 years) I'll go antelope hunting with it.

Thanks Rory, I try and start some trouble and you just smack me down. See if I can find another thread to derail?