Hi guys, Im a brand new member here (thanks for allowing me to join!) I just purchased a Savage 99 250-3000 takedown yesterday serial number 1887xx (1917 I believe). Its a little rough. It has been drilled and tapped on the left hand side of the receiver. The butt plate and forend share a different serial number than the receiver but I picked it up for what I thought was a reasonable price. The thing that has me intrigued is that there are 5 proof marks right below the 250-3000 caliber markings on the LH side of the barrel. Ive included a pic. Any info would be GREATLY appreciated! Thanks again!
Jason

THOSE LOOK LIKE IMPORT PROOF MARKS

On the NRA museum website I found a list of proof-markings. A couple that appear on the gun look like they could be Belgian and or British but that is all I have found.

Wonder if it was a lend-lease gun from WWII??

Yep, same thing as one of my Stevens 425's, lend lease.

That makes it a Great Score in my book!!

..likely may be lend/lease.

Looks like mostly British proofs to me. I have seen a bunch on military rifles from US and Great Britian.


I recently helped a buddy of mine research and confirm an M1-Garand lend-lease that he bought, that was loaned out to the Brits, and then actually made it back the US.

It was all complete, original, and had been left alone. That rifle fetched about 3K at the first gunshow he took it too.


Dave

Too bad this one is in the shape its in, being drilled and tapped I almost didn't even buy it. The forend and butt plate have matching serial numbers different from the receiver and buttstock.

From what I can find, The walking Lion with the PV is a Belgian proof meaning Nitro proof.

I believe that means smokeless powder.

And the top one could be an E, or H or more likely an R, which is a proof stamp for rifles, I believe.

So pretty sure they are all Belgian proofs. The last two are final proofs.

How about a pic of the receiver showing scope mount holes?

^Yes it is an "R"

I have a Winchester model 69 factory scoped model .22 that was a lend lease gun, it has a "crown" and "arrow" that appear to be the same as yours. Since I am not near the gun or my scribblings on the matter (I researched it a number of years ago) IIRC the crown was the Manchester Armory marking. The others are unfamiliar and could even be from being shipped off to a British colony of sorts (South Africa, India?) at some time. It appears whatever happened to it, that it has had a remarkable history. I hope someone else can narrow it down for you.

that proof closest to the receiver might well be Belgian final proof mark..cant tell for sure without seeing better or magnified pics.

very interesting find.

dave

Lend-Lease involved U.S. military stores we shipped to England, not privately owned commercial sporting arms. Oft times people confuse that with the program by which private parties donated small arms to the British cause, primarily for use by their Home Guard after the Dunkirk evacuation when the British Army had to abandon most of their stuff and it looked for all the world like Hitler would soon invade, with the vague promise that they would be returned after the cessation of hostilities. Not very many made it back over here. I understand a lot of them got dumped in the Atlantic after the war for reasons best known to them at the time. Still in all, a 99 with the provenance of Home Guard issue would be a sweet addition to anyone's collection. (Were I a middle aged shop keeper in a London Home Guard battalion, I would have wept for joy if they put a Savage in my hands instead of a pitchfork.)

The mark closest to the receiver looks like this only im not 100% sure the star is present I cannot quite make it out.

yep, that is a Belgian final proof.

dave

So what exactly would that mean?

WELL THE GUN WAS IMPORTED TO BELGUM, And Certain Country's Put there Import Proof Marks on Guns as Accepted and Logged.

Just because it has these proof marks doesn't necessarily mean it was a lend lease gun, correct? Wouldn't it be very strange for a Savage 99 to be sent over there for war?

Correct.. But any "official" transfer of arms to a country participating in the lend-lease program, would (should) have applied proofs and also there would have been paperwork documenting the lending.

If I recall, the WWII era lend-lease act was enacted in March of 1941 and several countries participated. Arms were not the only item lent..it was a wide variety of goods, food, transportation related items, tanks, guns, etc... Not a lot of what was lent over towards the war effort made it back to the states.

The M1-Garand that I mentioned earlier was a real rare find, and to have it make it back home after the war was amazing. I was able to verify it's seriel number against a run that President Roosevelt had approved for lending to the the Brits that numbered around 40,000 rifles.

Verifying a lend-lease rifle is a real chore. For the Garands, it starts with seriel numbers, and other British proofs that need to be present, some other stampings, the all important red band painted around the forearm and rifle to denote to the Brits the 7.62 caliber, and so on... It takes quite a bit of time to piece one together to rule out if it is or isnt a true/correct lend-lease. The one I was fortunate enough to see and handle, had been left totally unabashed and wore just the honest bruises of conflict, packing, time, etc..

Didnt mean to get off on that so deep.... Your rifle just really intrigues me.

dave

Correct.. But any "official" transfer of arms to a country participating in the lend-lease program, would (should) have applied proofs and also there would have been paperwork documenting the lending.

If I recall, the WWII era lend-lease act was enacted in March of 1941 and several countries participated. Arms were not the only item lent..it was a wide variety of goods, food, transportation related items, tanks, guns, etc... Not a lot of what was lent over towards the war effort made it back to the states.

The M1-Garand that I mentioned earlier was a real rare find, and to have it make it back home after the war was amazing. I was able to verify it's seriel number against a run that President Roosevelt had approved for lending to the the Brits that numbered around 40,000 rifles.

Verifying a lend-lease rifle is a real chore. For the Garands, it starts with seriel numbers, and other British proofs that need to be present, some other stampings, the all important red band painted around the forearm and rifle to denote to the Brits the 7.62 caliber, and so on... It takes quite a bit of time to piece one together to rule out if it is or isnt a true/correct lend-lease. The one I was fortunate enough to see and handle, had been left totally unabashed and wore just the honest bruises of conflict, packing, time, etc..

Didnt mean to get off on that so deep.... Your rifle just really intrigues me.

dave

I love hearing stories like yours... As far as my gun goes im just not really sure where to start. I wasn't even sure what a lend lease gun was/is exactly. Wouldn't this Savage have a "U.S. Property" Stamping of some sort on it if in fact it was a LL? If I understand things correctly American civilians could send their own personal firearms over there to "defend a British home" but those were all but lost, right? Quite possible ill never know where this thing was or came from.

You really need to ignore some of the above comments and get this straight. You do NOT have a Lend Lease firearm. The only Lend Lease Savage firearms shipped to GB were Enfields. gnoahhh got it right the first time. There was a private party program to supply privately donated firearms to GB that had nothing to do with Lend Lease. The M99 that you have may well have been one donated to that program. Kindly go back up and read gnoahhh's previous post. Thousands of sporting rifles were donated through this program and very few made it back home. As gnoahhh stated above, most of them were dumped in the Atlantic after the war. That may well make your rifle one of the precious few that made it home.

I'm new here. By that I mean I have been reading threads here for years, but just registered. Probably should have earlier, interesting stuff. With that said, I realize you have no reason to trust my opinion on this, and I may be ticking some off with an "out of the box" contrary opinion. However, I'm a gunsmith who more or less specializes in working on British/ Euro doubles, I learned most of what I know from a Brit ex patriot that was actually in London as it was bombed, and proof marks pretty much drive gaining insight into these double guns.
Those are absolutely Belgian proofs. I have info stashed somewhere that should tell the proof date, but the serial will date this one much more precisely. [Proof date could be interesting, as we would then know approximately when it went over the pond. I'll see what I can do soon.]
At any rate, I see no connection to lend-lease or Home Guard guns. There are no London or Birmingham proofs present. If this rifle were sent for either program, it would need at least British Military Acceptance marks. If it were even intended for use by civilians, it would also have commercial proofs. Belgian marks would not have sufficed in the U.K., and I'm unaware of any similar program for sending guns to Belgium. They were occupied pretty quickly. Also, keep in mind that although we sent what would be considered odd calibers to the Home Guard, the military had no use for anything that would not fire common military rounds. I've seen Home Guard guns that were Winchester lever actions in 44-40. I'm sure it was easy enough to hand some old guy something like that and a few boxes of shells, but the preference really was something they could find ammo for more easily. Anything in 45 Colt worked pretty well, in the form of revolvers. The 450 ammo used by the British armed forces would fire well enough through those. The bullet diameter was a couple thousandths over the bore of the Colts, but lead went through well enough.
I could go on concerning the subject ad-nauseum. The point on this however, is that no guns would have been sent in to help the Brits through Belgium. We would either have been sending them directly to Hitler's soldiers, or more into harm's way, depending on the time. The most direct and safe route was the first shore reached when they crossed the Atlantic.. Not to mention those proof marks.
Jim

No, I don't see the date code. The * over E is the inspector. I've got a list on those somewhere, and it gives timeframes on each inspector.[I really need to get better organized]. That inspector could have served for quite some time however.

As skidrow points out, the only Savage lend lease rifles that are documented were the No4MKI's, and MKII's as far as I know all were savage marked, as well as US PROPERTY marked.

Cant recall the QTY that were produced, but they made quite a few from 1942 thru 1944'ish..

True, as stated above, any lend-lease to Brit's should have military acceptance proofs.

It'd be interesting to know why yours has any proofs at all on it??

dave

Thank you all for taking the time and trying to shed some light on this. I appreciate any and all info/opinions/thero. got in touch with the Webmaster at freeexistence.org. He provided with some info about Belgium Proofs. This is the website http://damascus-barrels.com/Belgian_All_Proofmarks.html
I couldn't find a date code on the rifle but the controller of proofs looks Jamart Auguste 1924-59.

Thank you Jim! I found that Jamart Auguste was the "controller" of the E with * over it. 1924-59. That narrows it down a little could've very well been over there during WW2. Im sure you (and most people here) have forgotten more about lend lease guns, proof marks etc... than I'll probably ever know so you input is awesome!