Has any one here with a good knowledge of stock making ever studied why Model 99 stocks are so prone to wood problems behind the receiver tang?
Joe

I have very little knowledge of how stocks are made but logic tells me the recoil force is not being spread uniformly from the receiver into the stock. Any mismatch between the receiver and stock could cause point loading resulting in a crack. Also, depending on how the two are attached such a screw could cause the same result.

I wonder if later models have the same issue once Savage went to CNC and therfore uniformity could be better controlled?

I am certain you will get answers to this query from the vast knowledge base represented in this forum. The recoil pounding the top of the stock rather than the bottom is the theory I've heard. I would think the lay of the wood grain would either contribute or resist this tendency as well. Some pictures with an explanation would be awesome. If we had the answer definitively, we could all properly fit our guns this winter...

I just don't understand this. The 99 receiver has very firm bearing against the front of the stock on both sides. That should hold the recoil. I've never seen one that looks like the stock was set back where it's abutted by the receiver. Why do they crack, chip, etc behind the tang? No recoil should be pounding the wood back there no matter how the wood grain is layed out.
Joe

My theory is that a lot of cracks occur because of over tightening the draw bolt. Think of the upper and lower tang being two wedges being drawn back into the wrist. Add recoil forces to that and bingo!

If the stock is firmly fitted to the receiver, there are 4 contact points that can get pressure from recoil. The two side panels, the stock bolt connection, and the tang.

I doubt too many folks look at where the stock bolt connects, so not sure how many cracks might show up there.

The two side panels have a lot of bearing surface and it's all flat, so not surprising that it's not the first place to show a failure.

The tang is a small area directly behind the bolt, and it's curved to boot.

I have noticed when taking the stock off, the morticing around the tang was some times not very good, also if you look how the wood was machined, its no wonder that there were a lot of cracks, imo, is that the wood was flat sawn, would have been better 1/4 sawn...

I don't know what flat and quarter sawn are.
I can imagine the recoil of a rifle compresses wood fibers, and if the wood is oil softened it gets worse. If the factory fit it perfectly, wouldn't they still have to account for the correct amount of compression at all the bearing surfaces to end up with a stabilized set of bearing points? I can see the top getting battered if the stock bolt is loose and the rifle pivoted up and back at firing, hammering the top tang into the stock. Maybe the interior fit is very critical??? I'm totally guessing, can you tell?

This brings back to memory, I noticed on my 375 that the wood got shiny and black where the recoil was hitting metal to wood. I relieved the shiny black (compressed) spots and tried to even out the bearing area. That was almost 20 years ago and no cracks yet. I'd forgotten that I'd even done it till now...

some of the guys here advocate that you releive the top tang by 1 or 2 thou or put a 1-3 thou brass shim in the lower tang ,making sure not to widen the tang ,because that would make it spread like a weadge,,yes oil can have a bad effect on the wood,so can over tighting the stock bolt ,
norm

in my post about the sawn wood, by no means do I think that is the only reason,when you see growth rings behind the tang, that is a weakness in the wood. I think there are several causes as mentioned above. as for the oil and tighing the bolt its like the old saying " if a little is good, a whole lot has got to be better"

How do we explain cracks etc behind the top tang when the 99 is all original and buttplate obvioulsy never off to over tighten the draw bolt? Some new work man at the factory who didn't know better ? I think not unless savage was putting all its new men in that job position without any training. If thh wood at the side panels is tight against the receiver, there is no way for extra recoil to to transferred to the wood behind the tang. I have never seen a 99 with bulged out or set back side panel wood due to oil softening. And I have seen plenty of 99s with otherwise nice firm stocks that are cracked or chipped out. There has to be something else at play here.

I doubt that in most cases it is a single cause. Many of the rifles we discuss here are older than 60 years. Many are much older. Wood dries, storage of them probably was butt down most of the time so the stock took the weight, handling, dropping, mis-use and use all take their toll.

Fix the cracks, use carefully, and move on.

How can one state that a 50-100 year old stock has never been off the gun? I guarantee you I can take a butt plate off and put it back on and no one would be the wiser. It's all in carefully selecting/making a screwdriver for an exact fit in the screw slot. Anybody who even thinks of mucking about with gun screws should be prepared to use the perfect screwdriver or leave it the heck alone!

I suspect part of the reason for tang cracks is sideways torque being put on the buttstock. This is common, of course, in take-down models because so many people hold the buttstock when taking the rifle apart and putting back together. But I suspect it also happens while doing all the stuff we normally do with rifles, whether loading them in vehicles and then taking them out again, or simply hunting.

As much as I like 99's, the design of the buttstock connection is a weak point. Otherwise we wouldn't see so many tang cracks and chips, which don't occur nearly as often in other 2-piece designs, even the Ruger No. 1 which is fairly similar.

Good point John, I never thought of it that way. Those side panels would indeed act as levers to put force on the pivot point, ie: the wood behind the tang.

You also get a sideways torque (twisting action)on the gun whenever a bullet goes down a rifled bore.


Mike

I beleive some of the tang cracks are caused by a bad fit of the stocks. if you releive the tang area to the rear and the side panels are snug, then when you draw down the stock bolt you cause the side panels to bulge out, the the shock from firing cracks the rear of the stock. I beleive the rear of the tang and the side panels where they meet the receive have to be near perfect to share the pressure. I releive the rear of the stock behind the tang where t can't be seen and glass bed that small area and have not had any trouble..JMO

When did CNC manufacturing of the stock and receiver for the 99 start? I'd be curious to hear if those that have CNC era guns have the same issue.

What about from those with birch stocks?

The wood behind the top tang is but a very thin shell. It would not have been designed that way to absorb any recoil, regardless of wood grain density and/or orientation. The wood behind the bottom tang should be where most, if not all, the recoil is transfered to the buttstock. As the wood behind the bottom tang shrinks and is battered over time, the clearance between the top tang and the buttstock is reduced to minus zero and that is when a crack can start. The other explanations already mentioned above are also very plausible.

Birch is not immune to what is essentially a very dull axe blade pummeling end grain wood. I've seen as many cracked birch stocks as walnut, percentage wise.

i.ve seen lots of side pannels split off inside ,and do believe there are many issues to effect them ,
,carry and fall,
saddle scabbard ,and horse rubs,
to much gear stacked on them in back of truck
slips out of hand breaks toe of butt,never goes straight down so tourks side pannels,
probably others