No real way to tell, obviously. Unless some other folks have 1938-1941 99's with T7's and Weaver 330's? I think I saw a post where David has a 99T with them. If anybody does have pics, please post them up.

Heck, if you have a 30's 99 with T7 and 29S post up pics. We can use this thread as a reference in the future.

In 300:













[img]http://www.savagefest.net/my_99s/1941_99EG_300/IMG_20150205_081210.jpg[/img]

That rifle is in beautiful shape Rory. I did not know that Savage would do this to their rifles at the factory.

How to determine if a T7 or S7 mount is factory is a question that has been asked many times over the years. I don't think we have seen one that lettered. Plus, the log books stopped Nov. 1937.

You would think that a factory jig would have been used to position the mount in a predetermined location. I've seen the mount set high, low, forward covering the carrier spindle head screw and back covering the sear screw. I wouldn't think the factory would have covered a screw head as the scope had plenty of room to move in the mount. So far I have not seen enough examples to draw a clear opinion of what a factory mount position should be. Given that Weaver sold the scope w/mount and bits for non-factory installation I suspect that a majority of these mounts were gun store/smith installed vs. trying to special order. Just my opinion.

The scope book lists that Weaver added the S mount in 1934 and the T mount in 1939.

Thanks, Rick. That's what I was hoping we could work towards if we can find enough pictures of rifles in this timeframe.

On mine, the position of the T7 being low and back over the screw seemed odd to me if it was factory, but it seems odd to me if it was done by a competent gunsmith as well. But of course the T7 comes off very easily, so maybe their goal was to get it as low as possible to the barrel and at the proper eye relief distance rather than evenly spaced between the screws on the side?

Given that the sear bolt head sticks up above the receiver I wouldn't expect to see a T-7 mounted in that position.

I have a couple of photos I've saved. I'll try to e-mail them to you. One important thing is to know the serial of the rifle. I've seen many that were mounted on rifles that were made at the wrong time to have the type of mount and scope on them.

198xxx, 1899H, 22HP.
1919 rifle, T7 wasn't even available then was it?
Haven't tried to letter 'cause I don't think it would.

Nope, that one Is too early. Probably looking for 99's in the range of 350,000 to 430,000.

That's how I really expect to see the base mounted though, but until we see more it's hard to get a feel for them. Also interesting to see a change in attachment, that one would be later, I would guess?

I would think if it was factory work that the drilled holes would be perfectly smooth and clean and the threads would possibly be blued rather than in the white....

This rifle is too early as well, but the location of the mount on my rifle is VERY close to yours.

I would expect the holes to be white. The mount would have been added after the rifle was built. As far as the mounting holes. You could either champher the hole before tapping OR more correctly drill with the correct tap drill for the given thread diameter and THEN drill in to the depth of one or two threads with a drill equal to the major diameter of the screw. Either technique prevents the metal from the screw hole from lifting and eventually fracturing.

Drew has the closest thing I have ever seen to a factory mounted T-7, if there even ever was such a thing...

IIRC it is a pre war R. Maybe he can post a pic.

Doubt it would given that it's got the wrong screws. The screws in the pic LBK posted are the correct ones.

here's a photo of my 99T w. T7 and 330 scope, serial #391xxx. It doesn't letter as having a scope and the screws are incorrect. I bought it this way. I shot it a few years ago and it seems like I ran out of elevation adjustment before I got it zeroed at 100 yds. It probably wasn't done at the factory.

That's a nice looking T! Serial number is too high to letter, but is in the range for a T7/330. Thx for the pic, David.

Easy to identify the Weaver screws with the "F" and "R" stamps.

I don't remember the screws being made different other than the markings. Comments?

I seem to remember a later version of screw that had more of an oversized wood screw head but still marked "F" and "R"... maybe just a bad dream?

I have some of the originals and I don't see any difference except for the letters.

Yes, there is a different style also stamped.

I have a G, 358,9xx with the T7 & 330. Looks good enough to have been factory installed.

Here is another with side mounted 330 scope that was sold recently on GB at this url.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=464776082

I would say a 40 or 41; checkering was added in 40, no guns from 42-46; its barrel marking was used 40-46

Very familiar somehow...

I wouldn't say that's another gun

Another picture? Maybe...

In 1937 scopes were pretty new and not widely used on centerfires. Savage was selling through their Jobbers and less direct orders. Gunsmiths were plentiful, unlike today.

My guess is that there were not a lot of factory scoped 99's sold. Most being added to an off-the-shelf purchased 99 by the local gunsmith. Or, added to one that you already owned.

Has anyone with a side mounted scope used it enough to comment on how robust they are? Way back in the Dark Ages I had a whim to install a side mount (not Weaver, rather an Echo) on a pristine 99A. After analyzing the wall thickness of the LH side of the receiver, we decided that it was just too thin to give decent support for the screws. Were we all wet? My then gunsmith suggested we screw and solder on a Griffin&Howe flat side plated QD mount that I had instead. About then I discovered this forum and I changed my mind pretty quickly about the whole thing.

Those old sheet metal T7 mounts always struck me as kind of flimsy. Am I all wet about that too?

Yeah.. we've already discussed that gun in this thread.

Side notes for Keith: Checkering was added in 1938 on the EG, probably close to the beginning of '38. And there were 99's made from 42-46, seems to be low production numbers in 42/43, somewhat more in 44 and then it started going gangbusters again in '45. No work allowed on civilian guns until quota's were met on gov't military contracts, but Savage was very good at meeting gov't contracts.

Bought a 1952 99EG in 250 via Jed with an Echo side mount and Weaver, it was sturdy as heck and shot just fine. I'd say they're as sturdy as any 2 piece scope bases. Hated that Echo side mount though... clunky and ugly. This T7 seems plenty sturdy enough with the screws tightened down, wouldn't expect any problems considering it's a 70+ year old scope.

Hope Wyo1895 pics up this kind of updated info in his book, as it differs from Murray. Seems a lot of this kind of updated info is coming in with the advent of the internet. I've collected military 1911A1s for about 10 years and many details have been identified that differed from Clawson's book (the Murray of 1911s and 1911As).

David should have most of it in the book. Doug Murray did an awesome job back before the internet was even invented, digging information out of catalogs and Roe Clark and various collectors as well as looking at a lot of 99's himself. He defined Savages 99's in quite a few ways including providing model names for the 1899's.

Most of what we do is refined the information he dug up.

The book is mostly written on info from forum members and my own observations. I haven't found much good info from the other printed sources out there. I've updated info as it shows up. At some point we'll have to print what we have. Hopefully there will be a second edition with info that surfaces later.
Just got back from the movie "American Sniper". It was intense and thought-provoking. David

Hi All
Don't know if this is any help
1899F S/n 2797xx
A bit early for the mount
The threads don't appear to have been blued
I could only find a Mossberg M4(b)scope for my T-7 mount I got off fleabay
When I brought the rifle off an old gentleman he stated he had brought it of another person in the early 50's and it was drilled and taped and had the screws as in the photos.
He made his own mount out of a section of ali angle



One thing that I have often wondered do the climbing Lyman sights 21 & 38 fit these hole spacing's
I have one for a Winchester 95 but don't collect those
Cheers Graham

Sorry I forgot to add
This is a 250-3000
Well used and still use it with the T-7 mount usually only takes 1 shot and I cart it around every where in it's box
I assemble it, screw the mount on and go hunting
I have never had to re-sight the rifle as it seems to keep it's centre well
cheers

So as far as this thread goes at least, I'm seeing 3 rifles, at least to the eyeball, identical with the location of the T-7 mount.

I have an unproven theory on the screws, I think they are exactly the same and in almost every application of these mounts they can stay the same, but in some applications one or the other may need to be shortened to clear internal parts, and shortening both to the same length would weaken the mount, hence the markings would only be of use on certain makes & models. I have looked for vintage instructions for these mounts to see if I can find anything to back this.

... but then again it could just be that some engineer figured there will always be some slight variances in any two screws so the same screw should always go in the same hole to eliminate any chance of moving the scope mount.

Steve, I think the three that are close to the same location are all on rifles that were made before the T-7 was in production. The two that were produced in the correct time period do not match in their location.

I find it interesting That there are some mounts around the world with similar screws with F & R on them
where these supplied with the mount?
Do any other rifle makes that mounted the S-7 T-7 have the same screws?
Could these have been Factory holes for another type of mount?
Hence my "Q" on the climbing Lyman sight
Just "Q's"
Cheers Graham

It is common practice for almost any engineer,toolmaler/machinist, or mechanic, for that matter that when disassembling anything to lay the screws out in such a fashion that they be returned to the same location they originated. The only two original screws I have are within .002" of one another in length. I believe Gene's theory to be correct.

It makes total sense to me that screws would be given distinct markings given that the internals of rifles are different at attaching points dictating a need for different lengths. It also makes sense to me that Weaver would do this to all screws as a manufacturing expediency as the screws themselves would have been made for mounts used on all kinds of rifles (lever, bolt, semi-automatic actions, etc...).

I'm sure everyone knows this, but Murray's book has an pre-WWII excerpt from Savage advertising indicating they would drill and tap rifles for no extra charge whenever a scope was ordered with a rifle.

Given that scopes before WWII were not common place items, I would expect inconsistencies in the hole locations, certainly in those that were done by independent gunsmiths but also those did at the factory. I guess the only thing that really counts is if they were done cleanly. Does anybody know if the factory made note of this service in their records - something that should show up in the research done for a factory letter?

Graham,

Yes, the screws were supplied with the mount.

I think the S-7 & T-7 were Savage 99 specific mounts.

I don't have a "Climb'n Lyman at hand but looking at photos it appears that the hole spacing is farther apart on the Lyman.

Were there other side mount sights that used the same hole spacing as the S-7/T-7? Not that I know of. If there are I would expect it to be later production vs. earlier production mounts.

I'll post some other pictures later but here is one. It had a 330 on it when I got it but the cross hair was damaged as I recall so I out a J2.5 on it as it was the only 3/4" scope I had handy.

what makes this gun compelling is that its from the correct time frame, has impeccable overall condition, and even the screws on he mount show their case color beautifully.





Even the bottom of the lever and the bottom and inside show solid case color implying exceptionally little use.

That's the one....

It's a shame that we can't find the original Savage fixture used for D&Ting for the S7/T7 mounts. Steve down in FL had the original for the later top mounts but it has since been passed on to parts unknown. Question is did Savage use a fixture to drill for the side mounts or did they just drill them on the fly as the orders came in like another gunsmith would do?

Yah George, I was wondering the same thing on the T7 jig.

As I recall, 260remguy outbid me on the factory top mount jig many years ago on good old fleabay.

I remember the top jig Steve had, he offered it to me in an email one day and I passed, I think it went for triple what he priced it for me at.

Sometimes you just look back and kick yourself in the arse.

I don't recall exact selling price but I kicked myself a long while after. It was under 200 bucks I believe - maybe even 150.

I guess the $24,000.00 question is did Savage actually have a jig for Weaver side mounts? Weaver wasn't the only game in town, so did they have jigs for other systems too? Maybe they just didn't get enough requests with rifle orders to make it all that worthwhile. I'm sure the percentage of scope mounted 99s before WWII was insignificant compared to the 50s and 60s.

what era were the weaver mini m3-29 and B6 scopes??



thanks norm

I would think that if you announced that you would D&T for the side mount that you would have to decide where it was to be located and make a fixture so you wouldn't have to figure it out again the next time. In the beginning you would have no idea as to how many you would sell/have to mount. But who knows...

They must of had a jig for the B&M (?) mount and it was not even cataloged as being available.

As for the question of other mounts, Weaver was the first to produce a reliable low cost scope and mount that the average person could afford.

Norm, the Model 3-29 came out in 1935 and was replaced with the 29S in 1937. Weave designed 2 or 3 other center fire scopes early on but the eye relief was only about 2"! They weren't around long.

The B4 and B6 were rimfire scopes added in 1954. They replaced the G model.

The S mount came out in 1934. With the scope being held by only one screw on each side I would think it (S-7) didn't grip very well on large centerfires. The T mount, with double the screws, replaced the S around 1939.

The 329 has a 3" eye relief.

I made sure of that before I bought one for a Stith set.

the 3-29 is on a T2 mount on a savage 22 pump
the B6 is an orphan I somehow acquired.

norm

Saw a guy put a Stith set on Ebay not long ago with a B4 on it, I sent him a message saying that he could potentially blind someone like that.

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"

I have a 99H in 250-3000 with a T-7 mount and 29s scope, i think its a 1938 rifle. I'll look and see if i can find a picture,if not maybe Cheryl will take a few pictures.Well i found it.

that's a nice one Don side mount or not.

norm

Norm, Yes it is! some day i'll have to shoot it ! The little 29S scope looks pretty delicate on a hunting rifle.

Ya know what you mean .
The mini 3-29 3/4 tube on the 22 pump is the same diameter as the barrel.
do you know when larger dim tubes 7/8n and 1" came on the market?

norm

Don, your T7 is mounted low and back to the sear screw like mine is, and with a rear sight blank installed as well. Different style of sight blank, looks like, but first one that's mounted like mine.


Drew, the condition of my rifle is what led me to wonder whether it was factory as well. Mine wasn't stored as nicely as yours so the blue isn't perfect, but the case color on the lever on mine is almost immaculate both outside and inside showing the gun hadn't been worked much.

Another prewar 99R in 250 that's d&t'd for a T7, though it's 1936 and would be for a 29S rather than 330. Offhand, holes look similar to David's 99T, but not exactly like it.

"...do you know when larger dim tubes 7/8n and 1" came on the market?

norm"

The 1" Weaver (K) was 1947. The 7/8" Lyman Alaskan was 1937. Those are the most common. Zeiss had a 7/8" about 1935. Probably others with a year or so earlier date, also.

Here's my G. Looks very close to the other one. Mine came with the 330.

What serial number range is your 99G, Mike? Pretty sure my 99R in 250 is 367,xxx.

358,9xx

Same gun with a Weaver T-7 and 330 mounted up.

Sorry Rory. That hurts.

Just to keep adding to thread, here's 5savage's 99R in 303. Very similar hole placements.

This is a great learning experience for me, and so fun to watch. The case coloring on the lever of my 99 is very apparent also.

I am sending off the info on the 99 I have to Savage historical department, to have it lettered and find out whatever they know about it. All correspondence to the historical department are done by US mail, so it'll be awhile before I here anything, but ill keep you posted.

SMA...FYI, before you send for a letter:

Savage stopped logging info at 371200. Nothing available till into the war years.

The side mounted Weaver 29-S scope with factory D&T was not offered till the 1937 catalog. Backing that up a little maybe to around the 358xxx serial range.

Letters from the late 20's to the 371200 cutoff only log a ship date not a production date, which can vary by several months.

Rick, his is 356,0xx. Best data I have is that would be fall or thereabouts for 1936. Depending on what month they put out the 1937 catalog (Nov 1936? Jan 1937?) that might not be unreasonable for factory. Or might be too early. Even if it is factory, quite likely the ledgers won't show a notation for it. But it's possible.

Do the mid-1930's ledgers show who it was shipped to? That alone could be very helpful.

The letter on my .250-3000 1935 T shows date shipped May 8, 1935 to the original cosignee, California Hardware Co. of Los Angeles, CA.

Yes, the assignee is listed.

Might list a work order number.

Look back on page 4 of this thread at Drew's gun with the T-7 mount.

This is the one that I refer to from time to time.

If there is such a thing as a factory mounted T-7, that is the one. Looks like it just left the factory yesterday.

Mounting screws even case colored

I have sent off the info and check, it may not be worth it, but I am just to curious to not do it. I will keep you posted.

Fingers crossed.


Update: I remembered I had an early Weaver scope box (cardboard with black and silver printing). On the end is a place to mark the scope model and mount info. This box is marked "329" and "T-1". Inside I found the mounting instructions for all the T mounts.

The big question have had running through my head is if there was a templet provided with the T-7 mount. If there was then anyone should be able to spot the mount in the same location making the factory/gun smith/individuals install look the same. There was no templet just instructions to drill a hole for the front screw, attach, then raise and lowering the rear of the scope to put it on target and drill the rear hole.

From the photos of T-7 mounts I've seen I would say that KIWI's might be about right for a factory location even though his rifle is to early to have come originally from the factory with the mount. (also note that his rifle has a proof on the brl and the receiver which is not standard or common).

Just a note on screws: I have a Model 7 with a T1. It's mounting screws have the knurled edges and the F and R markings. The rifle is walnut with checkering, so I believe it dates to 1939. The scope on it is a Weaver 344.

Sorry about resurrecting this zombie thread, but I recently bought my first 99. It is in 300 Savage, from 1927. It is a takedown model and came with a T7 mount/330 scope combination. I think it is a 99-B. But it has a ramped front sight. I thought that the B had a post in a cut directly on the barrel.
I have included a "few" pictures.

And some more pictures.
The holes on the side of the receiver, for the T7, were poorly done. I am having a gunsmith fill them in and will just use the irons. There were three 6-48 tapped holes on top of the receiver. Two, went right thru the "S" and "E" in Savage. Those will get filler screws. I may get the Marbles tang sight...maybe. I paid $500 and the smith work is another $150.

Yeah, that T7 seems to be mounted pretty high on the side. But I'm sure it'll work fine. Those top d&t holes are for an oddball Redfield base, rather hard to find but they do pop up on eBay.

Rifle is a 99A Version 1, Style 2 (ramp front sight). I think you'll enjoy that gun.

PS: That Weaver 330 is worth a few $$ by itself.

I'd happily pay $500 for that setup. I want one with a side mount pretty badly. Nice rifle, although I'd keep the 330

In my experience, the new marbles kind of suck, the old ones are okay. But an old Lyman is the way to go.

Yep, I'm stoked! I bought 120 rd of the ammo...$360...Yikes!! EDIT:$287, not $360. That was something completely different...
And a buddy of mine gave my 50 cases he's had since the 70s.
Once I get the rifle back from the smith, I'll run my Teslong bore scope through the barrel. Even though pictures like these don't necessarily mean much, here are a few of the bore. One from the breach, the other from the muzzle.

I was looking at the Marbles because it offers both elevation and windage adjustments, whereas the Lyman only has elevation, IIRC.
I've got a few of the new style Marbles (albeit, a different model) on a couple of my 45 Colt lever guns. I like them quite a bit.

Thanks for that info, on the model. I wasn't sure.

Apparently I wasn't either. It's a model 99B, not 99A. The 99A wasn't a takedown, the 99B was. And nobody caught my error.. tsk tsk.

Here is a photo of my 1939 EG in 300. I wondered what the extra screws were for. If I remember correctly 383,000 range. Came with the "R" forend. I have since replaced it with a wood plus forend and added the new style marbles sight which works well. Hopefully one day find an originally forend but for now this works.

Looks like holes for a Pachmayer side mount. Like on this.

Yeah, I read that the "A" was not take down. I'm too new to the model to second guess what I don't know. Either way, thanks again for the info!

"But it has a ramped front sight. I thought that the B had a post in a cut directly on the barrel."

The ramp front sight was added at around 299000 serial.

Wow, so at 299566, mine is one of the first...thousand, with the ramp!

I have a 99K, serial # 2986xx. Still has the pinched front sight. Your rifle is a very early ramp front sight.

Another thing I am seeing is, that on the later take-down models, only a 1/4 turn is needed to remove the barrel. Mine needs more than four full turns to come off...

The early takedowns came off with a quarter turn. Any made after fall of 1919 are the full turn takedown threads.

Ah, okay. I had it backwards. Thanks again.

Does anyone know the part number for the front sight ramp hood? Numrich has a bunch for the 99, but many different alpha characters for the same (I assume their) part number.
An example...
https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/990630A

Another thing, I am considering replacing the crescent butt stock with a shotgun style. Numrich also has some of those, which look to be period correct/authentic (old and used), for a reasonable cost. Brownell's has new production stocks that they say will fit. But it will not look right. Too new!
Anyway, I have an 1873 with the crescent butt and I don't like it at all. It is not as pronounced as the old Savage curvature/plate is. So, can a non-crescent butt stock be fitted to my rifle? I have read where people just cut off the crescent part and put a new plate on. I can't even imagine doing that. I'd just use any limb-saver pad that would fit, before doing that!

Thanks!

Craig

Well.. the 1920's/1930's Savage 99's were never fitted with a sight hood. So if you were to try to fit one, it'd be a custom fitting. If your sight is set up for a sight hood, it's likely a replaced sight and you'll want to figure out the brand to find a hood.

And no other buttplate will fit the buttstock of your rifle except for the crescent buttplate. The easiest solution is probably a slip on recoil pad, would make the buttstock a bit longer but no changes needed to the rifle. Don't leave the slip on pad on the rifle, most will cause the wood that's covered to age differently.

Take a look at the front sight pic from my pic on the 27th (pg 4, near bottom.) I will pick up the rifle from the gunsmith tomorrow, so I can't look at it right now. But you will see what the top of the ramp/sight post looks like.

As far as the butt plate, I actually want to replace the entire rear stock, with a conventional (shotgun?) style. Of course, I'd keep the original for collector purposes. Not that this one will be especially collectable. I have considered using a conventional slip on pad. And, yes, remove it after use...of course.
Thanks,
Craig

I've got another question. I just picked up the rifle from the gunsmith and I forgot to ask him to look at another hopefully, small issue. When the chamber is empty, not cocked, the lever can (and does often) fall open about a 1/4". Then, if any pressure at all is applied to the top of the slide, the lever drops even more and the action opens. Is this an easy fix? Or do I need to have my smith look at it? Actually, I'm surprised that he didn't catch that himself.

There is a sticky about this at the top of the forum, I think it's referred to as "lever droop" or something similar.

Thanks a bunch!!

I got to shoot my "new" 99 the other day. I bore sighted it at home the day before. And that paid off, as the sights setting was off by quite a bit. The gun shoots great! Had it zeroed in after 8-10 shots. With the irons, and my bad eyes, I was able to get 2", 3 shot groups at 65 yd. Not the best, but hey, my eyes can only do so much. That, and my intended purpose for this rifle is 6"-10" steel plates from 30 to 70 yd. Perfect. Now, I just gotta develop a nice, slightly reduced, lead bullet load.
One other thing that did come up, when shooting from the bench, off bags, the fore stock (takedown model) came off a few times. Not thinking too much about it, I took a few off hand shots to see what I could do with it. Forgetting about the fore stock falling off, on the first shot (I hold all my rifles with my support hand on the bottom of the receiver and my elbow tucked into my hip, a' la CMP high power shooting hold) and the stock fell right off...onto the gravel bedding I was standing on! Dang it!! A few new scratches and dents on the old girl. Anyway, is this common? When I got home, I took apart the take down button and wove into the spring, a second spring. I had to trim that second spring a few times, but now it is much more difficult to take the fore stock off, but it does still do so. Hopefully, that will take care of that problem. Any other ideas? What else should I be looking for?
Thanks.

Those 330 Weavers look a LOT like my 29s. Mine has the screw adjustments instead of the knurled knobs with the spring in between. It is clearly marked 29s. Currently, it's on my Savage 6A. Will be sending it to Vintage Gun Scopes for a clean and service. It's a SWEET scope! Especially for a 3/4 inch tube!
It would be exceptionally cool on my '48 99EG...
Maybe when my eyes are too shot for aperture sights.
God forbid!!!

I don't know the cost of cleaning but might be about the same to just buy another that does not need cleaning...then you would have two.

I think Iron Sights charged me $125 to completely rebuild my Malcolm, including taking a dent out of the tube.

Vintage Gun Scopes asks $150 for their "Optical Refurbishment" for my Weaver K2.5
https://www.vintagegunscopes.com


90 day time frame for the service.